|
Post by Parker Stiles on Jun 14, 2010 23:00:27 GMT -5
would make alot of sense for why she was asking the spike tv exec and she said he was all in
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jun 14, 2010 23:11:53 GMT -5
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? Thing is though, they are only thought to be getting around 20 to 30 thousand buys a show and if that is true, they are lucky to break even after all costs are factored in (WWE got either 90 thousand buys for D2D and lost money on it. Granted TNA has a smaller/less expensive set up but, I doubt that is enough to offset loss). Even if Spike only pays them a few grand a special, if they cover taping expenses like they do for iMPACT!, they will turn a better profit with this model. Hell, throw in them having the rights to shop these internationally and they can make even more.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jun 14, 2010 23:13:11 GMT -5
TNA is actually going to kill all humans
|
|
|
Post by Clarence "Showstealer" Mason on Jun 14, 2010 23:17:10 GMT -5
I actually like the decision in part. I still believe they should use them like WCW did the Clashes, build to one pay per view a quarter. Lockdown in March-April, Slammiversary in June, Bound for Glory in September-October and Final Resolution in December. And move the damn pay per views out of the Impact Zone.
|
|
|
Post by lildude8218 on Jun 14, 2010 23:26:18 GMT -5
i also suggest changing the "Impact Zone" to the "Snow Cone Zone"
|
|
|
Post by Clarence "Showstealer" Mason on Jun 14, 2010 23:28:48 GMT -5
i also suggest changing the "Impact Zone" to the "Snow Cone Zone" SUPER HAPPY FUN LAND SONIC ZONE!
|
|
|
Post by The Genesis of KoOS on Jun 15, 2010 0:30:50 GMT -5
It's a good idea especially considering they still haven't even gotten higher than a low to mid 1 for the Impact ratings. Just think of how poorly they do when they expect people to pay to watch their shows.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 15, 2010 0:35:01 GMT -5
i also suggest changing the "Impact Zone" to the "Snow Cone Zone" SUPER HAPPY FUN LAND SONIC ZONE!
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Jun 15, 2010 1:02:07 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. As I have been suggesting (And others) I still think they can give Spike TV 4-6 3 hour PPV like specials and build to 2-4 PPV's a year (Either have 6 specials and 2 PPV's or 4 and 4). I have recommended TNA move to a 6 PPV a year model for a long time (My idea was they do 6 PPV's a year and throw in 2 specials to Spike) BUT any significant reduction in the amount of PPV's is a good thing for TNA. The money Spike would be paying them is bound to be more then the buys they get for PPV's. Also it helps for them to make Spike happy seeing as their TV deal is the most valuable thing they have and sinking more resources into it is better.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jun 15, 2010 2:08:04 GMT -5
This would have been the way to seque into Mondays. If they hyped a once a month a Monday night Supershow and saved big matches for it and had real pay offs they might be able to pull some raw viewers who wouldn't mind missing one week and that in turn would hurt WWE overall average viewership. Plus they can save surprises for it. As it is they are town between putting surprises out on PPV where noone will see it and the hype is dilluted faster through second and third hand sources or blow a surprise on free Impact and make no money off of it.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jun 15, 2010 14:22:26 GMT -5
Whichever option makes the most business sense, TNA will CROSS THE LINE! and take the other one.
|
|
BearDogg-X
Vegeta
Still lurking in the shadows....
Posts: 9,382
|
Post by BearDogg-X on Jun 15, 2010 16:45:14 GMT -5
I actually like the decision in part. I still believe they should use them like WCW did the Clashes, build to one pay per view a quarter. Lockdown in March-April, Slammiversary in June, Bound for Glory in September-October and Final Resolution in December. And move the damn pay per views out of the Impact Zone. I 100% agree with Mr. Mason, and I want to add that TNA move Impact out of the damn Impact Zone as well.
|
|
|
Post by s l i k on Jun 16, 2010 9:05:56 GMT -5
Great Idea.
Keep Bound For Glory as the one ppv show, and due the rest as monthly live events, held at arenas not known as the "Impact Zone".
|
|
|
Post by Snake "The Jake" Roberts on Jun 16, 2010 19:43:34 GMT -5
Again, not all PPVs are outside the Impact Zone. Yeah but theres still the paying fans who order them. Which is 35 a pop. Which I don't know how many order as in numbers. But when they did have those PPVs outside the impact zone. That where it could hurt the most. Unless until we know more about it. They do a few outside of it. Seriously, who here orders the ppvs. Raise your hands.
|
|