RUMOR: TNA to end PPV's?

[Widow's Peak]

The latest rumor of the "Big Surprise that will change wrestling forever" comes from PwInsider:

The word going around at the PPV last night was that Dixie Carter has not told anyone what the surprise that will change the company is. She is playing it very close to the vest.

I got an anonymous email today (which I obviously can't confirm but found interesting enough to comment on) that said that the change would be that TNA would be dropping their PPVs and instead doing live specials on SpikeTV instead. I want to make it clear that I can not confirm that but do think that it would be an interesting and good move for the company to make, as long as Spike paid them appropriately for the shows. If TNA aired monthly three hour pure wrestling shows, it could be the thing they need to appeal to new viewers and could help them sell more house show tickets and merchandise.

pwinsider.com/article/48308/tna-surprise-update-potential-spoiler.html?p=1


Its not like anyone buys the PPVs anyway. This would certainly qualify as a major change, but would it ultimately be a good idea for the company's bottom line. Discuss.

[vivix]

It's a good idea HOWEVER DIsh Network has a PPV package for sale with Slammiversary, Victory Road and Hard Justice in it so TNA will at least be having ppvs throughout the summer.

[AriadosMan]

For once, a good strategic decision IF true.

[Big L]

Very good idea!!

[angryfan]

So...they're going to do Clash of the Champions? Great, except, unless they leave the Impact Zone, how will they make any money? There may not be muh revenue from PPV's for them, but it's got to be more than the zero gate they get from the Impact Zone.

[Mesousa]

Good idea, yet ridiculously questionable.

Why not just make only 4 PPVs a year?

Are they really expecting Spike TV would give them THAT much profit?

[AriadosMan]

Jun 14, 2010 10:30:09 GMT -5 angryfan said:

So...they're going to do Clash of the Champions? Great, except, unless they leave the Impact Zone, how will they make any money? There may not be muh revenue from PPV's for them, but it's got to be more than the zero gate they get from the Impact Zone.

It said Spike would supposedly pay them for the specials.

Also, aren't the majority of their PPVs shot in the Impact Zone anyway?

[Finish Uncle Muffin’s Story]

If this is the case, I suggest that they do 3 hour live specials once a quarter.

January to March could build up to a Lockdown live special on Spike TV on the last Sunday (or if they're brave - Monday) in Feb or March.

April to June could lead to Destination X at some point in May.

July to September could lead to Slammiversary in mid July

October to December could lead to BFG somewhere in December.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think it'd work. If they don't like the 4 specials format they could do 6.

[comahan]

Honestly, I love this idea, and hope that it comes to fruition. Dixie's stated several times that she's in favor of fewer PPVs, but that their hand was forced due to PPV contracts. Assuming theyre paid well by SpikeTV for the specials, coupled with the reportedly low buyrates for typical TNA PPV's, it could not only be a treat for fans to not ever have to pay for top flight matches, but a smart business move by TNA as well.

[Kris Kobain]

Jun 14, 2010 10:31:36 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Jun 14, 2010 10:30:09 GMT -5 angryfan said:

So...they're going to do Clash of the Champions? Great, except, unless they leave the Impact Zone, how will they make any money? There may not be muh revenue from PPV's for them, but it's got to be more than the zero gate they get from the Impact Zone.

It said Spike would supposedly pay them for the specials.

Also, aren't the majority of their PPVs shot in the Impact Zone anyway?

"do think that it would be an interesting and good move for the company to make, as long as Spike paid them appropriately for the shows"

No it did not.
It said it would be a good idea IF Spike paid them.

[angryfan]

Jun 14, 2010 10:31:36 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Jun 14, 2010 10:30:09 GMT -5 angryfan said:

So...they're going to do Clash of the Champions? Great, except, unless they leave the Impact Zone, how will they make any money? There may not be muh revenue from PPV's for them, but it's got to be more than the zero gate they get from the Impact Zone.

It said Spike would supposedly pay them for the specials.

Also, aren't the majority of their PPVs shot in the Impact Zone anyway?

Not sure on the breakdown, but the majority are in the Impact Zone, yes. If Spike is going to give them money, then that's fine for them as long is it off-sets the cost of bringing the workers in.

The reports I've read say that they average a t-shirt sold to each person attending a TNA event. Awesome, but if Spike is going to pay them to do the specials, then the merch is really there only soure of income. When you add in that a percentage of that t-shirt sold goes to the worker, it cuts profit even more.

It's not a bad idea in theory, as free is always appealing, but at some point the question becomes, is this just another network and corporation saying "we want to do what Vince does" with no real thought given towards ways to make the show more profitable?

All reports were that they struggled in the PPV market, but if you can get people to shell out 35 buks for it, even if it's only a few thousand, that's far better than free admission for the live crowd who will then give you twenty bucks for a shirt, no money from PPV companies, and some kind of payment from Spike.

Let's break it down this way. One event, say 5,000 in attendance outside the Impact Zone, put it on PPV.

Tickets range in price, so let's say the median is something like 35 a head to get in, plus each person spends twenty bucks at the merch stand. Then add in, let's say, 10,000 buys on PPV for the same $35, with TNA getting 40% of the money.

That, at the very least, covers the cost of the event with a small profit on top of it. Going to a free audience (Impact Zone), no PPV buys, and just merch sales means that the majority of the money coming in will be from Spike itself.

Fine, except what happens if these "big events" don't draw much more than the usual 1.0 range? Will Spike keep shelling out money for essentially what they're getting now?

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

Jun 14, 2010 10:31:36 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

Jun 14, 2010 10:30:09 GMT -5 angryfan said:

So...they're going to do Clash of the Champions? Great, except, unless they leave the Impact Zone, how will they make any money? There may not be muh revenue from PPV's for them, but it's got to be more than the zero gate they get from the Impact Zone.

It said Spike would supposedly pay them for the specials.

Also, aren't the majority of their PPVs shot in the Impact Zone anyway?

But you got to figure in the buyrates. Is Spike TV willing give TNA that much money to cover the expenses of going live and give TNA more money then they normally get from PPV orders? As great as having a Clash of a champions like special are. Having No PPVs will make them look not even close to WWE level which it seemed like what TNA tried to be. Hell going this way would make them look almost indy. ROH would be not far behind TNA as the number two at that rate.

They only way it work better if they do those specials outside the Impact Zone. Because I just don't see a networking giving them that much money to cover the live TV expense and the normal PPV buys they get.

[comahan]

Jun 14, 2010 10:31:34 GMT -5 Mesousa said:

Good idea, yet ridiculously questionable.

Why not just make only 4 PPVs a year?

Are they really expecting Spike TV would give them THAT much profit?

Well they get something like $8M a year from Spike for iMPACT, and if these supershows draw at or above what iMPACT does, and they do indeed show them once a month, then I could see Spike putting out a big amount for this to work.

Keep in mind that iMPACT is one of Spike's best rated shows, so for Spike, it would be adding an extra monthly ratings pop that deals in the demographic they strive to cater for (in the place of, probably, a few CSI reruns or ANOTHER repeat of Star Wars). So it would definitely be a good deal for them as well.

All of that said, I believe Dixie alluded to the fact that the announcement wasnt a new TV deal. This would fall under a new tv deal, no?

[Kris Kobain]

I don't see how this will be any different than a 3 hour Raw?
Because they tell us it's a bigger show and maybe give it a different name it's going to get more viewers?
I don't buy it.

Does anyone know how much money TNA spends to produce a PPV?
After PPV buys and money from contracts are they coming out that far ahead?

Isn't it cheaper to produce a regular show?
So wouldn't these specials actually cost less to produce than a ppv?

I'd be interested to see their ppv profit margin after all costs.

[josh]

I'm so sick of hearing everything done differently than modern day WWE referred to as "indy".

[Can you afford to pay me, Gah]

Jun 14, 2010 10:43:05 GMT -5 angryfan said:

Jun 14, 2010 10:31:36 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

It said Spike would supposedly pay them for the specials.

Also, aren't the majority of their PPVs shot in the Impact Zone anyway?

Not sure on the breakdown, but the majority are in the Impact Zone, yes. If Spike is going to give them money, then that's fine for them as long is it off-sets the cost of bringing the workers in.

The reports I've read say that they average a t-shirt sold to each person attending a TNA event. Awesome, but if Spike is going to pay them to do the specials, then the merch is really there only soure of income. When you add in that a percentage of that t-shirt sold goes to the worker, it cuts profit even more.

It's not a bad idea in theory, as free is always appealing, but at some point the question becomes, is this just another network and corporation saying "we want to do what Vince does" with no real thought given towards ways to make the show more profitable?

All reports were that they struggled in the PPV market, but if you can get people to shell out 35 buks for it, even if it's only a few thousand, that's far better than free admission for the live crowd who will then give you twenty bucks for a shirt, no money from PPV companies, and some kind of payment from Spike.

Let's break it down this way. One event, say 5,000 in attendance outside the Impact Zone, put it on PPV.

Tickets range in price, so let's say the median is something like 35 a head to get in, plus each person spends twenty bucks at the merch stand. Then add in, let's say, 10,000 buys on PPV for the same $35, with TNA getting 40% of the money.

That, at the very least, covers the cost of the event with a small profit on top of it. Going to a free audience (Impact Zone), no PPV buys, and just merch sales means that the majority of the money coming in will be from Spike itself.

Fine, except what happens if these "big events" don't draw much more than the usual 1.0 range? Will Spike keep shelling out money for essentially what they're getting now?

It's more then that. If you factor in the fans who brought the front row ticket which are 100+ a pop. When I went to Lockdown my sits where like 40 bucks and that was mid level area. So those who got front row or close to the ramp or floor. All paid at less 50 to a 100. There ticket prices are high. So you factor those in. But the basics are what your covering I know.

[AriadosMan]

Again, not all PPVs are outside the Impact Zone.

[josh]

I think the belief is that this would benefit more in the long run. This is one of the few TNA "decisions"(I put it in quotations because we don't know yet) that seems to be looking more for the future than the immediate payoff. If they can have a few great shows in the iMAPCT Zone and grow the fanbase some then later on they CAN branch off.

[Kris Kobain]

I'm so torn on if this would be good or bad without knowing all the facts. I can't even vote in the poll right now.

I for one for the very first time ordered a TNA ppv last night and enjoyed it. I felt like I got my money's worth even if parts of it dragged.
I'd order another based on what I saw last night and I actually have regained interest in wanting to watch TNA based off what I saw last night,

[Celgress]

Jun 14, 2010 10:23:26 GMT -5 AriadosMan said:

For once, a good strategic decision IF true.

This