Cutting back?

[Playboy Stevie V]

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.

Seems like that is what I said in my full statement. Glad we agree. And Hogan? I haven't talk to him or read anything like this that he has said in like.............NEVER.

Now if this means you disagree about fans being inpatient nowadays, IDK what to say besides read other threads. May I recommend the Shield thread where people are ALREADY bitching about the Shield as exhibit-A? Or the Damien Sandow thread where people are complaining about him not being pushed fast enough, already exhibit-B?

Or the perfect thread for impatience. The Aces and 8's thread where people complaining that the storyline is going on FOR TOO LONG, as exhibit-C?

Some other thread about CM Punk and fans actually saying his reign is too LONG? I remember when long reigns equaled being in the newspaper when the champ finally lost his belt. It was a big deal. exhibit-D

*Shrugs Shoulders*

[Automatic]

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.

Ok, but let´s factor one major aspect you forgot: the PPV cut, the cable companies get. On average about 50% of the PPV price goes to the cable companies, so that cuts your income in half already.
That would mean with a 10k average, you'd earn 2.159.400.

Then you have to subtract flying all the wrestlers in 12 times per year. I'm not sure, but I'd guess the Impact Zone cost some money? You'll have to rent that place 9 maybe 10 times per year. Then factor in all the expenses made for the actual production of the PPV itself. The pay for the people working backstage who have to come a extra 12 times per year and the food and drinks they need to get for all of the staff, wrestlers included. And probably some stuff I forget.

Those are all expenses you will have for every PPV, so that's probably a fixed price per PPV. And they only have a 2 million budget for that and that doesn't even include the wrestler's pay, which probably is the most.

With 3 per year, with the current 10k average, you'd earn 539.850 per year. All those fixed expenses will linear lower per PVV, so that doesn't make a real difference. It's still 1.5 million less per year, but that's because you're just cutting PPV's. But you have to pay less, overall, to the wrestlers and you can make more profit if you have a very successful PPV.

I'm just throwing out a number here, but let's say with 12 PPV's you have to average 30k per month to break-even. But with 3 PPV's you maybe still need 30k, but because you only have to fly the expensive guys in for just 3 times per year, you save a lot of extra money.

But all in all, it's just minimizing losses.

[Automatic]

Seems like that is what I said in my full statement. Glad we agree. And Hogan? I haven't talk to him or read anything like this that he has said in like.............NEVER.

Now if this means you disagree about fans being inpatient nowadays, IDK what to say besides read other threads. May I recommend the Shield thread where people are ALREADY bitching about the Shield as exhibit-A? Or the Damien Sandow complaint thread as exhibit-B?

Or the perfect thread for impatience. The Aces and 8's thread were people complaining that the storyline is going on FOR TOO LONG, as exhibit-C?

*Shrugs Shoulders*

I don't get how people can complain about The Shield. They have been on TV for, what 2 weeks?
I honestly think Sandow is progressing well in WWE. He is in the upper midcard and fairly protected, so it's not really bad. You can't really push every guy like Ryback.
I totally understand the Aces and 8s complaining though. It's a shit angle and for too long nothing substantial happened. They were just beating up guys for no reason. Now they seem to advance the story slowly, but gradually, but I think most people already rejected the angle, once they really started advancing. And it's a shit angle and nobody likes to watch shit develop slowly. So it's pretty logical that people are complaining about it.

But I was referring to this Hogan video, I think. He says something about having a angle beginning at the start of the program end ending during the main event segment, otherwise people change the channel and might not come back, or something like that.

[Darkside Ron Garvin]

I'm just throwing out a number here, but let's say with 12 PPV's you have to average 30k per month to break-even. But with 3 PPV's you maybe still need 30k, but because you only have to fly the expensive guys in for just 3 times per year, you save a lot of extra money.

But all in all, it's just minimizing losses.

I understand that the cost of the PPV would have to be figured in and what you are saying in that you are dramatically decreasing the "expenses" of producing the PPV, but if you cut as deep as you are saying to cut, I don't see how they can make up the difference in buy rate. With a 75% decrease in events, you also have to increase buy rates to achieve the goal of being able to make money off of the PPV. Gashing that deep just doesn't have a big enough "potential payoff" from a company that is consistently averaging 10k buys per PPV; you would have too steep of a gap to climb via buy rate increase, regardless of saving the money that was budgeted in for the PPVs already. It also opens up the talks as to where that "PPV money" goes. If it is what is used to sign these younger guys, we might not see a Kenny King in TNA for some time. If the money goes to say, "help bolster talents contracts" would the decreased income affect the decision of a Jeff Hardy, Kurt Angle, or Bully Ray to stay with TNA?

Like I said, I understand your theory on it, I just don't happen to see the payoff from it that you potentially see. I think they would do better from dropping to 6-8 PPVs and only have to gain a 50-100% increase in buys, rather than 200% as I see it at the moment.

[Playboy Stevie V]

I don't get how people can complain about The Shield. They have been on TV for, what 2 weeks?
I honestly think Sandow is progressing well in WWE. He is in the upper midcard and fairly protected, so it's not really bad. You can't really push every guy like Ryback.
I totally understand the Aces and 8s complaining though. It's a shit angle and for too long nothing substantial happened. They were just beating up guys for no reason. Now they seem to advance the story slowly, but gradually, but I think most people already rejected the angle, once they really started advancing. And it's a shit angle and nobody likes to watch shit develop slowly. So it's pretty logical that people are complaining about it.

But I was referring to this Hogan video, I think. He says something about having a angle beginning at the start of the program end ending during the main event segment, otherwise people change the channel and might not come back, or something like that.

Yeah never seen that. Thanks.

Yeah it drives me a little nuts when fans complain prematurely when there needs to be a build up and character developmental, basically. But also when fans compare the quality and legacy of a wrestler solely based on this day and age diminished "hot potato" title reigns amount.

[Automatic]

I understand that the cost of the PPV would have to be figured in and what you are saying in that you are dramatically decreasing the "expenses" of producing the PPV, but if you cut as deep as you are saying to cut, I don't see how they can make up the difference in buy rate. With a 75% decrease in events, you also have to increase buy rates to achieve the goal of being able to make money off of the PPV. Gashing that deep just doesn't have a big enough "potential payoff" from a company that is consistently averaging 10k buys per PPV; you would have too steep of a gap to climb via buy rate increase, regardless of saving the money that was budgeted in for the PPVs already. It also opens up the talks as to where that "PPV money" goes. If it is what is used to sign these younger guys, we might not see a Kenny King in TNA for some time. If the money goes to say, "help bolster talents contracts" would the decreased income affect the decision of a Jeff Hardy, Kurt Angle, or Bully Ray to stay with TNA?

Like I said, I understand your theory on it, I just don't happen to see the payoff from it that you potentially see. I think they would do better from dropping to 6-8 PPVs and only have to gain a 50-100% increase in buys, rather than 200% as I see it at the moment.

Ok, but what we forgot to factor in, is that BFG, Lockdown, Slammiversary and even Destination X average at least 15k. So you already increase the average PPV number by 50% and one would think the long lay offs between PPV's would contribute with more people buying the PPV's, but that's just in theory. It would also mean that they only have to increase the average with 100%.

You pose an interesting question in regards to where the PPV money actually ends up. I recently read, they are trying to get most talent to a pay-per-appearance deal, but if they also can do that with the bigger talents remains a question mark. So let's say it goes to talent pay. You'd assume the big shots will be on the PPV no matter what, so it would affect the lower card guys, but they also have a lower pay and less starpower.

[Automatic]

So this is the current situation as it is. Who knows if they'll cut another PPV.

Regarding Lockdown, TNA will not be setting up the AlamoDome for 70,000 fans obviously. The building will scale it down for an event the size of TNA's PPV. There is talk that since the show has been moved to March from April that TNA will, in fact, be cutting down the number of PPVs they run every year starting in 2013. Although this could change, as of this moment the only PPVs that are being axed in 2013 are the February and September shows. This means they'll get one month of extra build for both Lockdown and Bound for Glory, which should help both shows a lot.

[body slam]

I think it would be great if there was away to space the ppv's out every 6 weeks +/- .

As far as the Impact Zone goes I always thought TNA was paid by Universal to be a attraction.

[HCollins-TNA1]

8 or 9 to 10 PPVs is enough for TNA IMHO..... Glad they looking for a way to save some money as well....

Next step is to take most if not all the PPVs on the road.....

Here what months TNA should do and take off...

January- Genesis
Feburary- off month Live 3 hour event on free TV at the Impact Zone
March- Lockdown
April- Victory Road
May- off month live 3 hour event on free TV...
June-Slammiversary
July- Destination X
August- Hardcore Justice
September- Sacrifice or No Surrender
October - Bound For Glory
November- Turning Point/ Final Resolution
December- Off month Live 3 hour Impact or such??
..

[HCollins-TNA1]

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 don't think reducing the numbers of PPVs would matter in getting buy-rates....