TNA should cut down the number of PPVs they have

[Tastycles]

Last night, TNA delivered a Pay Per View that was by all accounts (though not my own, as it hasn't aired here yet) lacklustre. This is not the first time TNA has delivered a poor quality PPV, and I'm sure it won't be the last. The buyrates for TNA payperviews are dismal.

Admittedly the data I have is from 2007, but it clearly shows that they are pulling in a maximum of 36,000 buys for their top level PPVs and 15,000 for their lowest. When you compare that to the 186,000 buys that One Night Stand, WWE's worst selling show, managed and you can see that TNA have a severe problem.

Raw, Smackdown and ECW's combined ratings (assuming each viewer is only watches one, which is evidently not true) are not ten times that of Impact's, so why should the buyrate be ten times the size, especially when you consider that TNA's fans are generally more hardcore fans, and therefore likely to shell out for a PPV.

I think that the problem could be addressed if TNA only had 4 pay per views a year. After all, this is what the WWE and WCW started out by doing, and their successes compared to TNA are astronomical.

As I see it these are the problems:

TNA doesn't have the star power of WWE

So, as a result there are fewer possible combinations of ideal match ups. Now that the Main Event Mafia exist, this has made the problem all the more apparent. Sting defended his title first against Rhino, then against 3D and a member of his own stable. If there were only 4 pay per views, then it would guarantee that there could be 2-3 excellent and inviting matches on the card.

TNA's pay per views lack identity

Every single set up of TNA's arena is exactly the same. Transmitting PPVs from the impact zone just makes the viewer feel like they are paying to watch an episode of Impact. If they had fewer PPVs, they could divert what little set design money they had into making 4 distinctive PPVs that eminated from 4 different cities and where the crowd paid to get in, thus meaning that they are more likely to make an effort to get behind the match.

Not enough people want to spend money on PPVs

This problem is two fold. Firstly, even the most die hard fan of anything will struggle to find the motivation to shell out on a PPV every month. Secondly, a significant proportion of the people who watch TNA, also watch WWE and given the choice of Destination X or Wrestlemania, I know which one I'd pay for. If there were only four, and they put them against WWE's traditionally poor PPVs like Backlash and No Mercy, then they would garner more attention. Also, if they were seen as being a bit special, more people would shell out. Remember, to make more money than they make now from 12 PPVs, they would need 4 that sold around 85,000. That is perfectly acheivable, and would make a better product for the consumer, and more money for TNA.

 

[klunderbunker]

Amen. This is a problem I've long thought needed to be adressed not only in TNA but in WWE as well. This PPV had no build and an excuse for a main event. Nothing at all of note happeened here, and it was a $30 Imapact. Why would I want to watch that? Simply put, I wouldn't. I streamed the show and still wanted a refund. These PPVs are cheap bucks to TNA when they're in Orlando, so why not? The name made no sense at all. With WWE shows, the titles make sense. NWO-Cages. Rumble-the Rumble. Backlash-the Backlash from Mania. Against All Odds? Sacrifice? What are you talking about? Cut it down to about 9 and it would work much better. More spaced out, better build ups, less money.

 

[kaihorro]

i agree with klunderbunker

tna tried to make bound for glory seem like there wrestlemania and i will say it wernt too bad an event but tna's ppvs have no meaning except for 3

lockdown has every match in a cage in the final match is always a lethal lockdown destination x always has either an ultimate x or an elevation x match on the card
slammiversary always has the king of the mountain match and is an anniversary show for tna, im my opinion i think there tryna to make bound for glory there wrestlemania when they should be makin slammiversary there wrestlemania

 

[CKO]

Yeah, TNA's ppvs have really gone down the crapper as of late. good thing for free streams and all.

really, this last ppv was really one of the worst i've seen. there is never time to actually build up a decent fued or anything. everything seems so rushed and jumbled up.

i agree with what everyone else is saying. maybe 5 ppvs a year would do good, it gives time for storylines to progress and for people to actually get excited about seeing the matches and be willing to pay for them

 

[Starchild]

I have the same thoughts about both companies, but much moreso in TNA. There wasn't even a point in having a ppv, they could have just done all that on Impact and it would have been the same. I don't know about decresing to 4 ppv's, as this is not 1985 and you need to make more money, but I definitely think they should cut it down to around 6-9. That would give 1 1/2 to 2 months of build and make the matches actually mean something.
Also, having different sets like someone suggested would be a great idea in order to differentiate the ppv's a bit. Not sure exactly which ones to keep, but at least one in every season would be good...1 at most 2 for the whole summer would work well I think. And yes Slammiversary should be their version of Wrestlemania. It actually sounds like it's an important ppv unlike BFG which just sounds like another filler one.
Maybe one day TNA will be able to pull off 10-12 ppvs a year like WWE and be at least somewhat successful (I don't think it'll ever happen), but for now 6-9 would be the perfect amount.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

TNA has PPV's where they hype the PPV the month after. They'll have a show where they've got a poor main event, but they will have made the next months PPV main event already, with a bigger and better looking match. So if TNA don't care about the show they're doing then why should anyone else?

They also hype iMPACT on their PPV's more than they hype PPV's on iMPACT. Maybe having one every two months would help them out. The only problem is they'll spend all that time telling people to buy the huge match between Rhino & Kevin Nash by the time the show arrives Nash has injured himself through all the excitement. You've then got a main event with no hype, and Eric Young.

 

[PG era is the best]

See TNA is doing what WCW did they bill Impact as the PPV and the PPV as impact that their problem you know if TNA just did a PPV in the four major months they would be find

 

[GameOver]

every PPV is lacklustre. They should work on that.
and some storylines that last more than one PPV would be good too.

and build around the stars not the "legends" they are hasbeens for the most part guys WWE never wanted or never wanted back cause they were used up.

I don't really know what they can do, the whole product is lacklustre from production to creative, to in ring action that doesn't include X-Division. but even those guys are just all big moves and no actuall thought put into how to work a match. that whole OMG moment loses it's edge when you see it every move.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

The problem is that TNA doesn't tour at anywhere near the frequency that WWE tours. Their TV shows are free to Universal Studios. So, where are they going to get the money from if they cut back on PPV's? That is their primary, and pretty much their only real source of income at the moment.