Skip to main content

TNA cutting back on PPVs

Scott,

What do you think about TNA cutting back on PPVs? 

Are they just trying to be smart with their money and give the product breathing room, or is this a sign that they're running out of money?

They don't HAVE any money, they're being kept alive at the whims of Panda Energy and Spike TV in that order.  Running 12 PPVs a year at this point is just something they'r doing because it's something they've always done.  There's no way the paltry amount of buys they get possibly justifies the cost of doing the shows, so the more they can cut back, the better.  Honestly they'd be 1000% better off cutting down to Lockdown, Slammiversary, Destination X and Bound For Glory and then just doing everything else as Clash-style (as opposed to Styles Clash) TV specials on Spike or maybe even a different Viacom property like MTV2 as something different.  

Comments

  1. Seems like a good move. Just go with what we've all been saying and have a Clash-style special.

    ReplyDelete
  2. What if they were to run a handful of iPPVs a year? I wonder if they could sell enough at 7-8 bucks to make up for the minuscule number of buys they get at $50 for the regular ppv.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Do they offer their current PPVs online at a different rate? I agree, it'd be a decent idea.

    ReplyDelete
  4. iPPVs seem to be the way to go.

    ReplyDelete
  5. They are available online, but I believe it's the same rate as they are on tv. Or at least not cheap enough to make people buy them that normally wouldn't.

    ReplyDelete
  6. For indy low quality crap only

    ReplyDelete
  7. The clash idea is great but I doubt anyone at tna is thinking about redoing a program that hasn't been done in over 15 years and hasn't been a big deal in nearly 20

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's sure as hell not doing ROH any favors.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Exactly i don't see how it's the way to go

    ReplyDelete
  10. I'll take "indy crap" over three hour wastes of fifty dollars.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has anyone other than ROH had massive technical issues? I'm sure there have been, but the iPPVs i've ordered from DGUSA have been fine.

    ReplyDelete
  12. No surprise, particularly with Bischoff around the company. I've been re-reading his book and remember he wanted to cut out house shows because they were losing money (he lost that battle because he wasn't in complete control of WCW yet) and he went to the Disney tapings. I think it makes sense. 10k buys or less simply doesn't justify the cost of going out of the impact zone, producing and advertising a big show and having to ramp up storylines for matches each month.



    You don't have to call it Clash (in fact they probably can't) but something similar would be a nice idea and you might see more buys for 4-6 ppvs each year. Can't hurt to try. The current method of running the company certainly isn't building the fanbase.

    ReplyDelete
  13. It's low rent. A company like TNA shouldn't be doing following suit that even Prime Wrestling does

    ReplyDelete
  14. TNA needs to do what it takes to make Spike happy. They have a golden opportunity now that UFC is gone. Kill all but 4 PPV's and throw out a 3 Hour Supershow on Spike every six weeks. With less PPV, all the shows would be better which would hopefully increase ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I'm not talking about the technical issues, I just think it's a bad idea to begin with. Lots of people don't have high-speed internet, pretty much everyone can get regular PPV. And if I'm paying for a show I want to watch it on my big TV, not on my 15" laptop. iPPV is fine for some companies, but a corporate owned (and owned by a friggin broadcast corporation, no less) company like ROH should be doing real PPVs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Fair enough. Internet connection is an issue, probably the main one, so I'll agree on that. I just like seeing SOME attempt at new ideas. Fifty dollar events have to go.

    ReplyDelete
  17. iPPV isn't a new idea, WCW was doing it.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Huh, didn't know that. Neat.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Sorta side note but is this the best year in tna's history. I didn't start watching til the MEM and this is the best I've seen it.

    ReplyDelete
  20. 2005 was a pretty great year for them, in-ring wise, from what I remember. That's when Joe, Styles, and Daniels were tearing things up and had that great ppv main event together.

    ReplyDelete
  21. They did something similar the Impact after that ECW tribute show they ran in 2010. It had some PPV quality matches, including the blow off of the Motor City Machine Guns vs. Beer Money, so I could see them doing that again pretty easily.

    ReplyDelete
  22. TNA offers their full monthly PPV archive (and some Asylum shows and all their DVD releases) for a $5 monthly subscription, but the shows are released on a 3 month delay. I think they also sell single shows for $1 on Youtube.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm not surprised by this move at all and I expected it eventually. TNA was only doing so many PPVs a year because they were contractually mandated to do them. If you believe Dixie, they started breaking even on PPVs a few years ago.

    WWE needs to do the same thing. WWE is probably making a slight profit on their minor PPVs, but if both WWE and TNA made PPVs special again they'd probably get better buyrates.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I agree. It would be nice if they did four and got another network to pick up 2 - 4.

    ReplyDelete
  25. run them shits on sunday opposite a ppv or run them on monday opposite raw.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Ironically enough (based on the iPPV talk, at least), 2005 was when they spent a few months as an online-only company in the US since they didn't have a TV deal.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Go check out everything up to 2006.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Simple solution, take the 2-4 PPVs they want to kill and have them on Spike.


    I'd love to know who proposed that idea, because I really don't think Dixie has the brains to propose an idea like that.

    ReplyDelete
  29. As much as I agree with you that it would make them look second rate, you can't deny the fact they'd probably turn a much higher profit on iPPV than on PPV.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Probably Jeff Jarrett.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Sure I can. With real PPVs they would likely get more buys, could charge more money, and wouldn't have to give refunds when they have problems with their servers or whatever was causing the iPPV issues.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 3 month delay - just like their regular physical DVD releases! Wish that was a little better.

    ReplyDelete
  33. I like the fewer PPVs, especially because the Bruce Prichard style of booking is a much slower pace, so angles can come to fruition more organically. I'd like them to just have a second weekly show. I'll bet Spike would be fine with that.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment