TNA should cut down the number of PPVs they have

golfguy

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.

callaway92

golfguy wrote: »

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.

They are usually both good..One Night Stand and Judgment Day are the worst

Kid Nothing

I'm not sure but i think they were already talking about cutting the PPV's down to 4 a year with maybe 2/3 others if they feel they need them, could be wrong though.

MikeHoncho

Great post. Pretty much agree 100% with what your saying.

Bubs101

MikeHoncho wrote: »

Great post. Pretty much agree 100% with what your saying.

It is the Dave Meltzer theory but it makes alot of sense. There's absolutely no point in trying to match WWE for the sake of it though in fairness to TNA they are trying a new model. They plan to have 4 A class PPV's a year and 8 B ones so the big ones will have massive angles whereas the others are throwaway ones. The last one was meant to be an A one but clearly they're going to be building big to Destination X. If not they need their heads examined

the flananator

Don't have the time to read your (lenghtly) post but I think your general sentiment is quite and excellent suggestion.

Machismo Fan

golfguy wrote: »

Sting defended his title first against Rhino, then against 3D and a member of his own stable.

Just a mild correction, he first defended it against AJ, then against the Front Line in an 8 Man tag before the two you mentioned.

I think TNA should go with the idea of 4 PPV's a year with perhaps a couple of Saturday Nights Main Event/Clash of the Champions type specials on Spike.

flahavaj

Early estimate suggest that the last TNA PPV got something like 12,000 buys, which, if true is a pretty strong indication that running these "B" PPV's is more hassle and expense than its actually worth. Of course when you use PPv's to promote your TV show and not vice-versa, then this is whats going to happen. Not many people have $30 dollars to drop on a ****ty product in the current economic climate.

a-hole

i think 6-8 ppv's a year would be better as the long builds needed for 4 a year coud see tna blowing the mane event on tv. when wwe first did the brand split they had sd and raw ppvs and that ment a ppv every 2nd month per brand and as i remember it the bild for hudes never worked right 3 months woukd be inpossable to hold american atension for

Machismo Fan

*bump*: http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/TNA_News_1/article_34900.shtml

TNA president Dixie Carter says she is not a fan of the current once-a-month PPV format and she would like to see the formula shaken up.

"I'm not a big fan of monthly PPVs, quite honestly, but you have contracts that keep you held in and bound at times," Carter told John Pollock of Live Audio Wrestling on Sunday night. "We're definitely talking about trying to shake things up and do things differently in the future."

Carter's statement was in response to Pollock's question about whether TNA will focus on six big PPV events in the future rather than 12 per year that tends to water down the product.

Carter stressed the company will be addressing many of the elements of the product that have become stagnant or too formula.

"I work very, very closely (creatively). I'm not going to profess to be a wrestling writer. I am good at challenging people. It's not just ratings, but other things as well," Carter said. "We've made a lot of changes internally to present the product more real and focusing on these young guys."

Carter was also asked what area of their business TNA needs to address the most. She said top on the list is adding more TNA programming to compete against WWE in the U.S. market.

D2D

Machismo Fan wrote: »

*bump*: http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/TNA_News_1/article_34900.shtml

I can see where Dixie is coming from as 6 PPVs would work better for TNA. Fueds will be properly built up over the course of around 6 weeks and PPV's should get a higher buy rate.

- PPV's shouldn't be broadcast from the Impact! zone, as golfguy has mentioned ,that would be like WWE transmitting a PPV like No Mercy using the old RAW/SmackDown set, no creativity. They should be moved from city to city to add uniqueness.

- Another problem with TNA is that they'd show a match scheduled for PPV on Impact!, thus leaving potential buyers of the PPV watching the match for free.

- In my opinion, TNA shouldn't have 12 PPV's as they attract poor buy-rates, especially in this recession. I like TNA but I had to buy the PPV's instead of watching it on Bravo2, I'd buy 3, maybe 4 tops.

- I'm skeptical on TNA bringing in new shows as TNA tried to bring in Epics i.e. classic TNA matches on Bravo to go up against SmackDown. It got cancelled after 5 or 6 weeks. I believe (and I could be wrong) that Impact! is rating higher in America than WWE Superstars, week after week. Impact! also beat ECW in ratings some week ago. If I was Dixie, I'd hold up on the idea of extra TNA shows for the moment.