sjones
Trap-Jaw
The Gift And The Curse
Posts: 301
|
Post by sjones on Jun 14, 2010 15:02:18 GMT -5
When you're not seeing profit on PPVs, which is where most major companies have made the brunt of their money, you know you have issues. I don’t think TNA will make it through the year if this is truly the case. You realize PPV buys are down all across the board, right? The only organization I've seen with legit PPV growth is UFC, and even that has its ups and downs depending on the fights. I can't really say if dropping the PPV's altogether is a bad look or not. I'm all for the Old Style "Clash Of The Champions-type" specials, but you still have to have at least 4 major PPVs to pull it off completely.
|
|
Chainsaw
T
A very BAD man.
It is what it is
Posts: 90,480
|
Post by Chainsaw on Jun 14, 2010 15:13:17 GMT -5
It's good for us, but I don't know if it's going to save TNA that much money, and it'll certainly be harder on the wrestlers, who won't have a PPV payday to look forward to (if they even get paid more for PPV's).
I'd be all for 4 major PPV's a year, and the rest specials.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jun 14, 2010 15:55:28 GMT -5
Getting rid of all of them might not be a good idea.Some,yes.All,no.It just seems a tad too much of a decrease in money coming in no matter how low the buy rates are.Seems like it might lead to more house shows to compensate. The reports I've read say that they average a t-shirt sold to each person attending a TNA event. That reminds me I just read a live report from the PPV and apparently they did not have any merchandise for sale.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 14, 2010 15:56:57 GMT -5
More house shows (and a bigger touring schedule) would be better for building TNA's audience than PPVs. The PPV model for wrestling is going extinct. Live shows and cable is the way to go.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 16:03:17 GMT -5
Before I say what I've got to say, let me state for the record that I am one of TNA's harshest critics. I question everything they do, and I often wonder if their corporate office consists of Dixie Carter, Eric Bischoff, Hulk Hogan, Vince Russo, and a bunch of monkeys with typewriters wearing suits.
That being said, if this is the big news, I think it's great. Two big things need to happen for wrestling to get interesting again. One, it's time to break away from the traditional format that we've been used to for well over a decade, and two, TNA needs to be as different from WWE as possible. WWE is great at what they do, and TNA's only chance is to be their polar opposite in every way possible.
This decision would accomplish both of those things. Without PPVs, they could provide us with a hot show every week. Look at how ROH and ECW were in their early years. No PPVs, but every show had good matches and a PPV caliber main event. With no PPVs, TNA could easily pull off this format. After all, I'd personally rather follow the wrestling organization that DOESN'T require me to shell out 30 bucks of my hard earned money every month to see their best stuff.
As for people who say that this is "bush league because it puts them no where near WWE's level", it's outmoded thinking like that which has kept wrestling following the dead formula of the 1990's well into the new millenium. Change is good.
As for people who are so concerned about their profit margin, why? I'm sure that their financial department has it all worked out. First and foremost, they are a business, and they aren't stupid enough to simply swith to a non-profitable format for no reason without thinking it through. They make idiotic decisions a lot, but they aren't THAT stupid.Personally I'm looking at it from the perspective that I'll get good free wrestling. I'll let THEM worry about the money side of things.
However, this being TNA, if something sounds too good to be true it probably is, so I'd guess this isn't happening. (Hey, I said I was one of their harshest critics.)
On the other hand, Dixie stated that the big news was BEYOND just creative changes. That doesn't mean creative changes won't be PART of the big news. According to "newz" sites, Dixie recently had a long phone conversation with Paul Heyman where he basically bluntly told her everything about TNA that needed to change for them to succeed. Maybe they've brought him on board and a huge change is coming. A new company name, Heyman booking, no more PPVs, etc.
This is only speculation of course, but I'm just trying to connect the dots with everything I've read. Also take into account that Tommy Dreamer, Heyman's right hand man just debuted. Although, as I said before, with TNA, if it sounds too good to be true...
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 14, 2010 16:08:34 GMT -5
Unfortunately, TNA making a smart decision is rather optimistic. I think they'll ride the outmoded 90s business model to their demise.
The fact that Bischoff came up with the 12-PPV model that many consider a poor match for today's market doesn't help.
|
|
|
Post by boomhauer20055 on Jun 14, 2010 16:20:47 GMT -5
I'd like to see them run the free shows against WWE ppv's
|
|
|
Post by Crusty Ruffles on Jun 14, 2010 16:45:46 GMT -5
I'm really concerned about moving from PPVs to specials on Spike. They're really putting all their eggs in one basket if Spike has to pick up contracts of guys, pay them for TV, and pay them for specials. With Bischoff wanting to scale back house shows, I'm curious if they'd start taking more shows on the road for weekly TV/specials.
We shall see in time....
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 14, 2010 17:11:29 GMT -5
I thought that TNA should cut down the number of PPV's to 6 or 4 just to rebuild their PPV brand. Make each and every PPV count and worth a but.
February- Destination X (All X-Division PPV) April- Lockdown (2nd biggest PPV of the year only plus cage match gimmick) June- Slammaversary (History of TNA) August- Victory Road (Summerslam like PPV) October- Bound for Glory (The Grand Daddy of them all) December- Final Resoultion (Finish off stories from BFG)
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 14, 2010 17:16:15 GMT -5
TNA needs to use PPV titles that don't sound like gay porn i.e. no "Hard Justice".
|
|
sjones
Trap-Jaw
The Gift And The Curse
Posts: 301
|
Post by sjones on Jun 14, 2010 17:18:34 GMT -5
Unfortunately, TNA making a smart decision is rather optimistic. I think they'll ride the outmoded 90s business model to their demise. The fact that Bischoff came up with the 12-PPV model that many consider a poor match for today's market doesn't help. That's right. The days of having 12 PPVs per year are slowly coming to an end. And anyone who's in a wrestling company today KNOWS that. Now if they know that, then what choices do they have? Either A) sit back and think they don't have to promote the PPV, then complain about it when it flops... or B) get out there and do what they gotta do to get business going again. It's not 1996 anymore- a hot storyline means nothing. House show attendance is decreasing. Companies are folding and being absorbed into bigger companies. Nobody cares nowadays and the TNA brass knows it. So the Clash Of The Champions concept has to be done at this point to make things happen for TNA.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 14, 2010 17:23:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately, TNA making a smart decision is rather optimistic. I think they'll ride the outmoded 90s business model to their demise. The fact that Bischoff came up with the 12-PPV model that many consider a poor match for today's market doesn't help. That's right. The days of having 12 PPVs per year are slowly coming to an end. And anyone who's in a wrestling company today KNOWS that. Now if they know that, then what choices do they have? Either A) sit back and think they don't have to promote the PPV, then complain about it when it flops... or B) get out there and do what they gotta do to get business going again. It's not 1996 anymore- a hot storyline means nothing. House show attendance is decreasing. Companies are folding and being absorbed into bigger companies. Nobody cares nowadays and the TNA brass knows it. So the Clash Of The Champions concept has to be done at this point to make things happen for TNA. I actually think that TNA should still keep 2 PPV's a year on top of 6 Clash of the Champions like free specials. Lockdown and BFG should still be pay only PPV's. Free TV PPV's is a good idea for TNA seeing as their television deal is their most profitable part of their company. Yet they should still look to try and get 2 super PPV's going so that they can pump some buys into the company.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 14, 2010 17:25:18 GMT -5
I actually think that TNA should still keep 2 PPV's a year on top of 6 Clash of the Champions like free specials. Lockdown and BFG should still be pay only PPV's. Free TV PPV's is a good idea for TNA seeing as their television deal is their most profitable part of their company. Yet they should still look to try and get 2 super PPV's going so that they can pump some buys into the company. There's a difference between having a reasonable amount of PPVs like you have proposed and trying to spam 12 a year when the market doesn't exist.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,586
|
Post by Bo Rida on Jun 14, 2010 17:30:26 GMT -5
Honestly the only reason I ever got into TNA was because of the free PPVs in England, I rarely watch impact.
If they do the shows live I wonder how ad-breaks will effect the feel of them.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 14, 2010 17:39:10 GMT -5
I actually think that TNA should still keep 2 PPV's a year on top of 6 Clash of the Champions like free specials. Lockdown and BFG should still be pay only PPV's. Free TV PPV's is a good idea for TNA seeing as their television deal is their most profitable part of their company. Yet they should still look to try and get 2 super PPV's going so that they can pump some buys into the company. There's a difference between having a reasonable amount of PPVs like you have proposed and trying to spam 12 a year when the market doesn't exist. I am just saying if you are going to give away 6-8 PPV's a year they should explore the possibility of having BFG still be a non-free PPV. Build up just one or two (If you want to include Lockdown in that) as mega shows you have to pay for while the rest are specials on Spike. My point is you could still try to have one or two you have to pay for.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Jun 14, 2010 17:55:02 GMT -5
That's actually a potentially good move.
However, I wonder how it would work for the international markets. They had to cut up the three-hour Impact in most - a special that runs for a few hours will be even more problematic, I'd think.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 14, 2010 17:56:33 GMT -5
I am just saying if you are going to give away 6-8 PPV's a year they should explore the possibility of having BFG still be a non-free PPV. Build up just one or two (If you want to include Lockdown in that) as mega shows you have to pay for while the rest are specials on Spike. My point is you could still try to have one or two you have to pay for. Sure. 4 PPVs is about what TNA should be putting on given the current wrestling PPV market. But 12 is far too many.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 14, 2010 19:55:33 GMT -5
I am just saying if you are going to give away 6-8 PPV's a year they should explore the possibility of having BFG still be a non-free PPV. Build up just one or two (If you want to include Lockdown in that) as mega shows you have to pay for while the rest are specials on Spike. My point is you could still try to have one or two you have to pay for. Sure. 4 PPVs is about what TNA should be putting on given the current wrestling PPV market. But 12 is far too many. I never said 12 at all. I think that bare minimum they should cut it to 8 and even then 8 should be too much. 5 Specials for Spike TV and 1 Super PPV's that you have to pay for. More then likely its going to be 8 or so specials for Spike TV.
|
|
|
Post by smokey1980 on Jun 14, 2010 21:28:21 GMT -5
It's hard to say if this would be a good decision, given that we don't know how much, if any, revenue they get from ppv's. It could be good, though. Scrap the ppv's and just have 4 big three hour Spike TV specials per year, maybe even have them scheduled opposite the crappier WWE ppv's and hype the fact that they're free.
The TV and ppv market is changing. Nothing other than UFC, Wrestlemania, and maybe a Mayweather-Paquiao if it happens, does big buyrates. Maybe they might actually be ahead of the curve for once. Then again, it could hurt their bottom line even more. Really dunno without seeing the numbers.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jun 14, 2010 22:23:46 GMT -5
I doubt this happens but who knows we'll see
|
|