Cutting back?

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

Well, word on the IWC street is that since TNA is moving Lockdown to March that means they might actually be dropping down the number of PPVs. Will this help or hurt them? How could dropping the income help secure them in the long term? Can they afford to take the hit in revenue?

Those are all questions most normal people would ask, but DAMMIT! I'm not normal!

I want to know, if you could change the PPV line up for TNA, what would your final draft be?

For me...


Genesis - January
Lockdown - Moved to March
Victory Road - Moved to April
Slammiversary - June
Destination X - Moved to August
Bound for Glory - October
Clash Style event - December

This would allow more time for angles to build up to their payoffs. I would also use the "Clash Style" event as a Free, 3hr PPV on live TV (Clash of the Champions) and would be the only event on my list in the Impact Zone.

[Automatic]

They should only have 3 PPV's.

[Cabers]

They should only have 3 PPV's.

Lets not get to hasty now i think cutting back to 8 would be the way to go.

[Automatic]

Lets not get to hasty now i think cutting back to 8 would be the way to go.

Let's look at this seriously.

They have only 3 PPV's that are over.

- BFG
- Lockdown
- Slammiversary

Oh maybe 4, you could put Destination X in there, now that they have the X-division title shot deal.

Why not work on upping the buyrates with those PPV's and if they are at a steady level, you can look at adding new PPV's.

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

Let's look at this seriously.

They have only 3 PPV's that are over.

- BFG
- Lockdown
- Slammiversary

Oh maybe 4, you could put Destination X in there, now that they have the X-division title shot deal.

Why not work on upping the buyrates with those PPV's and if they are at a steady level, you can look at adding new PPV's.

I see the point of where you are going and the idea of 1 per quarter "should" (in theory) bump the buy rates up substantially so long as they avoid any kind of "payoff" moments on the shows.

With that said, what do you do if your theory implodes? Now you have a year in which you didn't drop your PPV income by half, but three-quarters of what it would have made the year before. That's a pretty substantial loss for TNA whereas dropping to 8 would only drop your PPV revenue by a third.

[Automatic]

I see the point of where you are going and the idea of 1 per quarter "should" (in theory) bump the buy rates up substantially so long as they avoid any kind of "payoff" moments on the shows.

With that said, what do you do if your theory implodes? Now you have a year in which you didn't drop your PPV income by half, but three-quarters of what it would have made the year before. That's a pretty substantial loss for TNA whereas dropping to 8 would only drop your PPV revenue by a third.

They aren't making money anyway on PPV, so cutting back on PPV saves them money.
Unless they magically can break-even with 9.000 buys per month.

And since TNA is more geared towards longer angles, a PPV per quarter would, in theory, help their angles. With all the big pay offs and such.

[Playboy Stevie V]

Maybe they are hoping that cutting ppvs that they could get more buys to make up for the lost ppvs with build up and storylines, which IMO should be, instead of being drowned in new storylines month to month to set up different matches. But then again in this day and age, most fans are so inpatient, so it could hurt to. But more build up, makes for bigger pops, interests (I could point out dozens of long build up equaling even casual fans to purchase ppvs), more interest.

And if TNA was smart they would put some Clash of the Champions type free events on TV, especially during a WWE ppv, to gather some possible new fans.

[DK Wrestling Savior]

I love the move. I think perhaps the money they save on holding the nonsense PPV's, they can use to take Impact on the road more. Not sure how the cost comparison's work in that situation, but I can only imagine that if they take Impact on the road, even just locally throughout FL and some southern states, they can get revenue from ticket sales, instead of the freebie Impact Zone. They would get better exposure as well which could lead to drawing in more people to watch, hence, promoting the bi-monthly PPV's which could bring higher buyrates, and then they could swing a deal like maybe like twice or three times a year, hold a special on a Tuesday Night in the off seasons of prime time television shows.

The move is good, but let's see what they do with it.

[Automatic]

But then again in this day and age, most fans are so inpatient, so it could hurt to.

You shouldn't believe Hogan's bullshit.
This is a load of bullocks.
A match build over a period of time will always draw better than a hastily thrown together match between the same 2 guys.
If you keep building up a match and keep pushing it, eventually people will talk about it and will talk more people into watching it at their place, which means friends might join together every time to watch the PPV together, or paying for it themselves on PPV.

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

They aren't making money anyway on PPV, so cutting back on PPV saves them money.
Unless they magically can break-even with 9.000 buys per month.

And since TNA is more geared towards longer angles, a PPV per quarter would, in theory, help their angles. With all the big pay offs and such.

Let's look at this. Let's say they average 10k buys a PPV (120,000 per year currently). At $35.99 they bring in $359,900 per PPV ($4,318,800 per year). That's not a fraction of what WWE makes per PPV, but it's much better than any other current company that hosts monthly PPVs after 10 years of existence. If they were to cut that in half, they would still get over $2.1 million per year on PPVs (if the numbers remain the same) whereas you're idea for 3 per year take them to $1.07 million per year. Now, I know those just seem like numbers, but a $2.2 million drop is a LOT less than a $3.24 million drop. Yes, they might "save money" by reducing the cost of PPV per month, but by dropping it as low as you say, they also stand to "not make as much money" which would counter act the whole point of cutting back to save in the first place.

Of course, this is working under the assumption that they stay at the same number of buys. They would literally have to triple the number of their average (30,000 buys) in order to get the same amount of revenue the currently get from running 12 PPVs a year. If they drop to 6 PPVs, they need 20,000 buy per PPVs. They will only need to increase PPV buys by 5,000 per PPV if they drop to 8 in order to achieve the same income from these PPVs and "save" money by not running as many PPVs yearly.