|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jun 14, 2010 11:08:47 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.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Jun 14, 2010 11:13:29 GMT -5
I like the idea. Clash of the Champions was one of the programs that first got me to start watching WCW.
|
|
|
Post by Raja Lion on Jun 14, 2010 11:14:26 GMT -5
Smart business move. They know they can't win head to head with the WWE. Regardless if they say they are not in competition, they're both wrestling and thats what people identify them with. They need to maximize their visibility and the notion of "Free PPVs" will appeal to many to check it out for the hell of it and possibly snag new viewers. Eventually they will have to go back to PPV and I imagine it'll be a slow implementation, but its a great move for the long term prospects for the company. Spike is showing them commitment as well.
I personally hope the surprise is more creative related, or there is at least something relative to that getting better, but from a business sense if this is the new business model for the company, it could make them stronger.
|
|
|
Post by MGH on Jun 14, 2010 11:19:26 GMT -5
The move to Mondays was completely idiotic. This however, is about the smartest thing TNA has done in a long time.
|
|
sjones
Trap-Jaw
The Gift And The Curse
Posts: 301
|
Post by sjones on Jun 14, 2010 11:20:44 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? This.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jun 14, 2010 11:22:28 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? If this is indeed the announcement, and is ready to be told to the world, then that type of stuff would have been finalized by now and they would KNOW if Spike TV would give them that much of a profit.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Jun 14, 2010 11:24:11 GMT -5
Who knows if this is true, but this can't have to do with Dixie's thing that would "change TNA forever".
On her Twitter, she said she called up the head of Spike TV on Friday, told him about the exciting "change" that was gonna happen, and he agreed with her. That doesn't sound like the free PPVs thing.
Unless she just called him on the phone, told him TNA was going to do free PPVs on their network, and they were like "yeah, okay". That would be the kind of thing you'd have to go to NYC and meet with them in person about, and pitch to them.
It's probably Heyman, or a stylistic change in the presentation of the show.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Jun 14, 2010 11:24:58 GMT -5
I think what they need to do is a mix of both PPVs and live specials. Some of their PPVs like Lockdown, Slammiversary, and Bound For Glory have been established enough to remain PPVs. But does the world really need Victory Road or Genesis to be on PPV? What they should do is clearly establish 1 other show as a major PPV and do quarterly PPVs, with these 3 hour live Spike specials mixed in.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jun 14, 2010 11:26:01 GMT -5
Who knows if this is true, but this can't have to do with Dixie's thing that would "change TNA forever". On her Twitter, she said she called up the head of Spike TV on Friday, told him about the exciting "change" that was gonna happen, and he agreed with her. That doesn't sound like the free PPVs thing. Unless she just called him on the phone, told him TNA was going to do free PPVs on their network, and they were like "yeah, okay". That would be the kind of thing you'd have to go to NYC and meet with them in person about, and pitch to them. It's probably Heyman, or a stylistic change in the presentation of the show. Its been reported though, that whatever this announcement is, its "much bigger than a creative change"
|
|
|
Post by Vice honcho room temperature on Jun 14, 2010 11:26:02 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? If this is indeed the announcement, and is ready to be told to the world, then that type of stuff would have been finalized by now and they would KNOW if Spike TV would give them that much of a profit. also they could easy back into a lesser PPV schedule making them feel special for a short time. Like 4 a year.. Then when they build those up they can go back to 12
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Jun 14, 2010 11:33:11 GMT -5
Its been reported though, that whatever this announcement is, its "much bigger than a creative change" True, but if whatever her Twitter said makes any sense, it seemingly has nothing to do with SpikeTV or TV shows. She gave them a heads-up to look out for it, since a wrestling company with a TV show on their network was going to "change forever".
|
|
sjones
Trap-Jaw
The Gift And The Curse
Posts: 301
|
Post by sjones on Jun 14, 2010 11:37:02 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.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2010 11:52:31 GMT -5
Okay so it's:
1) bigger than a creative change. 2) Not having to do with TV or SpikeTV(seemingly) 3) Going to change TNA forever
Who know's? Knowing TNA they've probably booked a Shaq vs. Raja Lion match or something.
|
|
|
Post by Hassan bin Sober on Jun 14, 2010 13:12:21 GMT -5
I like this but they should have at least one PPV a year.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jun 14, 2010 13:16:21 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.
|
|
|
Post by thatguybayne on Jun 14, 2010 13:19:10 GMT -5
If this is true then great. Wrestling on PPV is pretty much dying out anyway. TNA have showed they can attract a bigger audience for special events (January 4th) and have never made much headway on PPV so this seems like a logical step.
|
|
|
Post by Shameful_Lobsterhead on Jun 14, 2010 14:10:18 GMT -5
Like stated, a very questionable call but may be smart in the long run. Only way it works is if they move Impact on the road.
But if they keep their big 4 ppv's, Lockdown, Destination X (Remember how this ppv was always about the xdivision) Slammiversary and BFG; everything for the most part would be straight.
|
|
|
Post by truwrestlingfan on Jun 14, 2010 14:19:10 GMT -5
Great Idea- I would watch monthly and to this point I have barely watched anything tna related
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Jun 14, 2010 14:37:34 GMT -5
I don't see it happening, but it WOULD be a smart move for TNA. I know their buyrate figures are private, but they've usually been reported to be pretty lousy. If they're more trouble than they're worth, it could do them a lot of good to drop the PPV format and instead air them on Spike.
|
|
kingoftheiwc
El Dandy
Coles whipping boy is better then you.
Posts: 7,923
|
Post by kingoftheiwc on Jun 14, 2010 14:40:22 GMT -5
To me this move is a 64000 dollar question move we dont know what will happen if ratings are decent for this then good but if cash is lost then they made a questionable decision.
|
|