Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 14:47:18 GMT -5
At $45 for standard def., if WWE could just get 200,000 buys in the United States for each of the 12 non-WrestleMania PPVs, their 40% cut of the revenue (the other 60% goes to the PPV companies) would be $43.2 million a year. That's not including WrestleMania or HD buys, which are $55 instead of $45. That is for the 11 non-mania shows, not 2 that you mentioned. Also, while WWE does get 40% of the PPV fee, that is not their take, they still have to take expenses out of that money while USA's pay is all profit as they foot the bill for sat. fees and things like that. WWEs take from PPVs is more in the 16-18% range. USA doesn't pay for that stuff. WWE does. In September 1997, they moved Raw from live every week to live every other week because live every week was expensive. They moved back to live every week in August 1999 because the company was now much better off finanically and now had money coming in from Smackdown and increased PPV buyrates. PPVs are a currently untapped revenue source. The amount of domestic PPV purchases has dropped so much that the shows are bringing in less revenue for WWE and the PPV companies then PPVs did in 2000 even though PPVs were $15-25 cheaper back then. |
|
|
|
Post by AnActualBear on May 17, 2012 15:42:43 GMT -5
Just came to say that once again I find myself agreeing 100% with what Sean Carless was saying, and that this PPV will do horrible buys on Sunday.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on May 17, 2012 21:39:12 GMT -5
How is 4 1/2 million viewers bad again?
|
|
elryc
Samurai Cop
Team ANYONE But Johnny
Posts: 2,478
|
Post by elryc on May 17, 2012 23:11:48 GMT -5
How is 4 1/2 million viewers bad again? Its not "bad" so much as "mediocre", but slightly worrisome for two reasons: 1) Its a much smaller proportion of viewers compared to what wrestling used to draw in and 2) Bringing in The Rock for Mania popped a huge buyrate, but no carryover afterwards. Everyone who tuned in for that has tuned back out. |
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,483 
|
Post by dpg on May 18, 2012 3:14:45 GMT -5
How is 4 1/2 million viewers bad again? Its not "bad" so much as "mediocre", but slightly worrisome for two reasons: 1) Its a much smaller proportion of viewers compared to what wrestling used to draw in and 2) Bringing in The Rock for Mania popped a huge buyrate, but no carryover afterwards. Everyone who tuned in for that has tuned back out. I agree hugely with the rock part. They spent a year building him and Cena up, got a buyrate pop and now everyone who tuned in has tuned out again. They failed to make anyone care about the rest of the card. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 3:22:38 GMT -5
Its not "bad" so much as "mediocre", but slightly worrisome for two reasons: 1) Its a much smaller proportion of viewers compared to what wrestling used to draw in and 2) Bringing in The Rock for Mania popped a huge buyrate, but no carryover afterwards. Everyone who tuned in for that has tuned back out. I agree hugely with the rock part. They spent a year building him and Cena up, got a buyrate pop and now everyone who tuned in has tuned out again. They failed to make anyone care about the rest of the card. Granted, it'd help if they even attempted to make people care about the rest of the roster. From like February through July ever year WWE just completely ceases putting the slightest effort into anything but the main event scene, and it baffles me as to why. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on May 18, 2012 8:51:13 GMT -5
How would you know this? Unless you somehow polled every person that bought the PPV. If the numbers that Meltzer gets from PPV providers are true, TNA gets around 15,000 PPV purchases each month, and sometimes it drops closer to 10,000. Around 1,500,000 people watch Impact each week. 1,500,000 saw the hype; 15,000 buys for the PPV. 15,000 is 1% of 1,500,000. By comparison, there have been UFC PPV hype shows on Spike that got around 700,000 viewers, then the PPV got around 1,000,000 purchases. 700,000 saw the hype; 1,000,000 buys for the PPV. 1,000,000 is nearly 143% of 700,000. You realise that means nobody is buying TNA PPVs to see the guys either? That kinda puts a dent in your argument. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on May 18, 2012 8:53:02 GMT -5
I agree hugely with the rock part. They spent a year building him and Cena up, got a buyrate pop and now everyone who tuned in has tuned out again. They failed to make anyone care about the rest of the card. Granted, it'd help if they even attempted to make people care about the rest of the roster. From like February through July ever year WWE just completely ceases putting the slightest effort into anything but the main event scene, and it baffles me as to why. February through July? They do that all year round. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 10:22:02 GMT -5
If the numbers that Meltzer gets from PPV providers are true, TNA gets around 15,000 PPV purchases each month, and sometimes it drops closer to 10,000. Around 1,500,000 people watch Impact each week. 1,500,000 saw the hype; 15,000 buys for the PPV. 15,000 is 1% of 1,500,000. By comparison, there have been UFC PPV hype shows on Spike that got around 700,000 viewers, then the PPV got around 1,000,000 purchases. 700,000 saw the hype; 1,000,000 buys for the PPV. 1,000,000 is nearly 143% of 700,000. You realise that means nobody is buying TNA PPVs to see the guys either? That kinda puts a dent in your argument. If there are people claiming TNA's male wrestlers are drawing for the company, I haven't heard it. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 10:32:43 GMT -5
Granted, it'd help if they even attempted to make people care about the rest of the roster. From like February through July ever year WWE just completely ceases putting the slightest effort into anything but the main event scene, and it baffles me as to why. February through July? They do that all year round. Well, there is at least a bit of focus that way, even if still not exactly much. Ziggler's a good embodiment of that - every year during this period he's a complete and utter jobber, they start building him up again in the summer, he hits the main event scene for the end of the year, then he goes back to losing every week again. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on May 18, 2012 10:51:58 GMT -5
You realise that means nobody is buying TNA PPVs to see the guys either? That kinda puts a dent in your argument. If there are people claiming TNA's male wrestlers are drawing for the company, I haven't heard it. Because they're not? Because no matter who TNA bring in, be it Jeff Hardy or Hulk Hogan, the ratings stay roughly constant? I'd like to bring up that you're arguing against a point that nobody has made in like a year and half for...well absolutely no reason whatsoever. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 12:05:12 GMT -5
If there are people claiming TNA's male wrestlers are drawing for the company, I haven't heard it. Because they're not? Because no matter who TNA bring in, be it Jeff Hardy or Hulk Hogan, the ratings stay roughly constant? I'd like to bring up that you're arguing against a point that nobody has made in like a year and half for...well absolutely no reason whatsoever. Nobody has claimed in a year-and-a-half that TNA should be treating the Knockouts better because the KO's are "draws" based on how they often get the highest QH ratings during Impact? News to me. I mentioned it because it fit with what Sean Carless had mentioned about Raw viewers vs. WWE PPV buyers. X amount of people in the U.S. will watch Raw, then well under 10% of that amount buy WWE PPVs. Same thing happens with Impact and TNA PPVs, only it's under 5%. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on May 18, 2012 12:34:33 GMT -5
Because they're not? Because no matter who TNA bring in, be it Jeff Hardy or Hulk Hogan, the ratings stay roughly constant? I'd like to bring up that you're arguing against a point that nobody has made in like a year and half for...well absolutely no reason whatsoever. Nobody has claimed in a year-and-a-half that TNA should be treating the Knockouts better because the KO's often get the highest QH ratings during Impact? News to me. Not that I've seen. Any such argument is usually prefaced by " there was a time when Knockouts got the highest rated segments". I don't know if they do anymore since people have stopped posting ratings breakdowns. That not what you're arguing anyway. You're arguing that they aren't draws because TNA does horrible PPV numbers. But nothing TNA does affects PPV buyrates or even the overall Impact rating. So you're arguing that since they don't get PPV numbers, when nobody else does either, that they aren't draws even though you just admit their segments often get the highest ratings? I know, you're still basing your entire argument on this. But there's two things you fail to take into account. 1, TNA don't really care about PPV, they themselves would scrap them if they could and 2, TV is more important to them since it's their main source of revenue as most of their money comes from Spike. As opposed to WWE where PPV is one of their main sources of revenue so they actual care more about buyrates than ratings. Whereas TNA would be the exact opposite. So you see why there's a legit argument for the Knockouts being draws? And yeah, I know you're gonna argue that there's reasons why their segments draw that has nothing to do with them but that whole bigger argument I don't care to get into. So are we...all good here? |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 12:53:10 GMT -5
Nobody has claimed in a year-and-a-half that TNA should be treating the Knockouts better because the KO's often get the highest QH ratings during Impact? News to me. Not that I've seen. Any such argument is usually prefaced by " there was a time when Knockouts got the highest rated segments". I don't know if they do anymore since people have stopped posting ratings breakdowns. That not what you're arguing anyway. You're arguing that they aren't draws because TNA does horrible PPV numbers. But nothing TNA does affects PPV buyrates or even the overall Impact rating. So you're arguing that since they don't get PPV numbers, when nobody else does either, that they aren't draws even though you just admit their segments often get the highest ratings? I know, you're still basing your entire argument on this. But there's two things you fail to take into account. 1, TNA don't really care about PPV, they themselves would scrap them if they could and 2, TV is more important to them since it's their main source of revenue as most of their money comes from Spike. As opposed to WWE where PPV is one of their main sources of revenue so they actual care more about buyrates than ratings. Whereas TNA would be the exact opposite. So you see why there's a legit argument for the Knockouts being draws? Nobody in TNA draws. Nobody claims the TNA males draw. There are people that claim the KOs are draws, and they base that claim on the KO's TV ratings. That's a dubious claim, though, because viewers are only watching the KOs when they aren't being asked to pay for it. When they are asked to pay, almost no one does. Millions of dollars could potentially be made off a single PPV. If TNA doesn't care about PPVs, it's just lazy and bad business. |
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on May 18, 2012 13:53:00 GMT -5
Not that I've seen. Any such argument is usually prefaced by " there was a time when Knockouts got the highest rated segments". I don't know if they do anymore since people have stopped posting ratings breakdowns. That not what you're arguing anyway. You're arguing that they aren't draws because TNA does horrible PPV numbers. But nothing TNA does affects PPV buyrates or even the overall Impact rating. So you're arguing that since they don't get PPV numbers, when nobody else does either, that they aren't draws even though you just admit their segments often get the highest ratings? I know, you're still basing your entire argument on this. But there's two things you fail to take into account. 1, TNA don't really care about PPV, they themselves would scrap them if they could and 2, TV is more important to them since it's their main source of revenue as most of their money comes from Spike. As opposed to WWE where PPV is one of their main sources of revenue so they actual care more about buyrates than ratings. Whereas TNA would be the exact opposite. So you see why there's a legit argument for the Knockouts being draws? Nobody in TNA draws. Nobody claims the TNA males draw. There are people that claim the KOs are draws, and they base that claim on the KO's TV ratings. That's a dubious claim, though, because viewers are only watching the KOs when they aren't being asked to pay for it. When they are asked to pay, almost no one does. Millions of dollars could potentially be made off a single PPV. If TNA doesn't care about PPVs, it's just lazy and bad business. Seriously, do I need to explain what a draw is? Or how TV is different from PPV since it's easier choose what to watch? I'd think these things would be self evident but apparently not. I mean I know you hate women's wrestling but claiming they don't draw because they aren't carrying entire PPVs on their backs is just ridiculous. I mean would you plunk down PPV money for a less than ten minute match that will probably take place again on Impact next week anyway? And if nobody buys PPVs what do we have to judge what's popular with the audience? Oh yeah, TV ratings. Oh and why doesn't TNA care about PPV? Well you said it yourself. If WWE are struggling how the hell do you expect TNA to make millions off PPV? What's the point? Not when they have Spike TV and Panda Energy as a much more reliable source of income. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 18, 2012 16:18:48 GMT -5
Nobody in TNA draws. Nobody claims the TNA males draw. There are people that claim the KOs are draws, and they base that claim on the KO's TV ratings. That's a dubious claim, though, because viewers are only watching the KOs when they aren't being asked to pay for it. When they are asked to pay, almost no one does. Millions of dollars could potentially be made off a single PPV. If TNA doesn't care about PPVs, it's just lazy and bad business. Seriously, do I need to explain what a draw is? Or how TV is different from PPV since it's easier choose what to watch? I'd think these things would be self evident but apparently not. I mean I know you hate women's wrestling but claiming they don't draw because they aren't carrying entire PPVs on their backs is just ridiculous. I mean would you plunk down PPV money for a less than ten minute match that will probably take place again on Impact next week anyway? And if nobody buys PPVs what do we have to judge what's popular with the audience? Oh yeah, TV ratings. Oh and why doesn't TNA care about PPV? Well you said it yourself. If WWE are struggling how the hell do you expect TNA to make millions off PPV? What's the point? Not when they have Spike TV and Panda Energy as a much more reliable source of income. It's got nothing to do with women's wrestling. The guys in TNA aren't draws just like the KOs aren't, but nobody claims the men are draws. There's no reason for me to argue about the men not being draws because everyone seems to be in agreement about it. What's the point of PPV? To make more money. They have to put on PPVs right now, so exploit that. If they could just get 10-20% of Impact's audience to buy a PPV instead of the current 1-2%, that would be extra money in the 5-6 figure range from a show they're already producing. TNA can claim PPVs aren't important, but they'd change their tune in a hurry if some more effort into PPV hype resulted in 25,000 extra people buying the next PPV. They can say they gave up on PPVs because they don't draw, but in reality, the PPVs don't draw because they gave up on them. |
|
|
|
Post by Todd's crazy , Man. on May 18, 2012 16:25:00 GMT -5
Could I just ask if Women's wrestling doesn't draw how shimmer has stayed in business for like six or seven years? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
Post by Lance Uppercut on May 18, 2012 16:26:31 GMT -5
Could I just ask if Women's wrestling doesn't draw how shimmer has stayed in business for like six or seven years? Just curious. like Roh up until recently, they didn't stray from their comfort zone. Stayed in hot towns, catered to their loyal niche audience, performed in small venues, and sold dvds. |
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on May 18, 2012 16:27:36 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Throwback on May 18, 2012 16:36:59 GMT -5
I will be shocked if that Big Show segment didn't lose droves of viewers, as it deserved. My girlfriend is a huge fan of wrestling. She likes to pretend it real and gets pissed off if you tell her any non kayfabe stuff. And if she changed the channel because she didn't want to watch Big Show cry. |
|
