Is it time to admit less PPV's was a mistake too?

[JTG Fan]

We all clamored for it from either of the two companies for years and then TNA did it and the PPVs didn't seem any more important, the TV product felt more directionless, and presumably TNA lost out on a several thousand dollars worth of revenue a month. I have no idea if or when they can get back to monthly PPVs but I think it's something they seriously need to consider.

[Deleted]

Never we are always right i mean just look at how good our idea of them going on the road went

[Magic knows Black Lives Matter]

Did the PPV's constantly lose money? If so, no, less PPV's was still the right decision.

[Celgress]

Oct 25, 2013 16:56:23 GMT -5 Magic knows Black Lives Matter said:

Did the PPV's constantly lose money? If so, no, less PPV's was still the right decision.

this

[Deleted]

I can't imagine that TNA is making much money from PPV's , they'd probably almost be better off not doing any and just getting some 3 hour Spike specials and doing their current PPV's there. I'm not sure that there is a legitimate solution though.

[Seth Drakin of Monster Crap]

Less PPVs is the right move, but it seems that TNA might either want to get rid of all PPVs or make those PPVs meaningful because they have not.

[JoDaNa1281]

Less ppvs wasn't a mistake. I don't think(and I said this when it first came out that they cut down the no. of ppvs)that cutting down to 4 was the right idea, I thought they should've cut it down to 6 at the least(I wouldn't mind WWE cutting down to that no. either), eliminating 8 was maybe a little much, but no, the overall idea of cutting down on ppvs wasn't a mistake.

[Deleted]

From what I remember reading, PPV's were not profitable for TNA, so I don't think they are missing anything from a financial standpoint. Plus, now they appear to be doing Clash of the Champions type shows (Destination X, Hardcore Justice, etc) every non-PPV month where it is billed as a free two hour PPV.

But I agree they should do something to make PPV's look more appealing. The one advantage of the Impact Zone every week was once TNA went on the road for a PPV, it looked and felt different. Now the road set-up is exactly the same in every arena and it visually makes the PPV look like a regular Impact. Maybe going back to the Impact Zone every week will make their PPV road appearances stand out more.

[Deleted]

I don't remember anyone ever saying, "Do less PPV's, but make sure they make them worse than the ones they put on when TNA did 12."

It reminds me of the old "TNA needs to push new guys." And we got Gunner and Crimson and there were people who went "See, new guys, and you're still not happy with TNA." It shouldn't have to be explictly stated that people want less PPV's that are higher quality. No one thought "Gee, let's do 4 terrible PPVs instead of 12 terrible PPVs - that'll be good for business." That's just ridiculous.

Always baffled me that people could create these false dilemmas as a way to aruge their point.

"See TNA went on the road and things didn't get better!" Meanwhile there were a myriad of OTHER things that TNA needed to do in conjunction with going on the road to improve the show, which they failed to do.

Its funny how some people (not the OP) are quick to point out this board is full of people bashing every aspect of TNA, but somehow forget all about it when it doesn't serve the point they're trying to prove.

[Deleted]

Less PPVS wasn't a mistake.

Failing to use the longer downtime between PPVs to build appropriately higher quality PPVS, that's the mistake.

[rnrk supports BLM]

Oct 25, 2013 16:21:51 GMT -5 JTG Fan said:

presumably TNA lost out on a several thousand dollars worth of revenue a month.

If reports are to be believed, even TNA's top PPVs were pulling in sub-December 2 Dismember buyrates, so no, they were probably losing money from them.

Just like their house shows.

And TV tapings.

[Kevin Hamilton]

Nah, I'd imagine the costs of putting on the ppv were pretty tough to recoup when they were airing so many.

[Doctor Of Style]

Dropping to 4 supposedly meaningful PPV's out of no where, while still trying to sell 8 pretaped afterthought shows didn't help. Dropping to 6 shows once they fulfilled their commitments, and making them seem important would've worked better.

[Shark]

Oct 25, 2013 18:05:20 GMT -5 @bootytime said:

Less PPVS wasn't a mistake.

Failing to use the longer downtime between PPVs to build appropriately higher quality PPVS, that's the mistake.

This. TNA had about 4 months to build to BFG and they put forward practically no effort into building it until 2-3 weeks out. I think their attitude is "No one pays for our PPVs so we shouldn't put forth any real effort" not realizing that it's that very attitude that leads to no one buying their shows.

[Red Impact]

Oct 25, 2013 16:21:51 GMT -5 JTG Fan said:

We all clamored for it from either of the two companies for years and then TNA did it and the PPVs didn't seem any more important, the TV product felt more directionless, and presumably TNA lost out on a several thousand dollars worth of revenue a month. I have no idea if or when they can get back to monthly PPVs but I think it's something they seriously need to consider.

If TNA were making a significant amount of money on PPV's, they wouldn't have cut them down in the first place. They wouldn't have done it because of internet fan suggestions, they would have done it for cost concerns.

[JTG Fan]

The whole PPVs = money loss thing was never confirmed though, it was kind of something we all just assume is true. Considering the bulk of them took place in the Impact Zone, they probably weren't anymore expensive to produce than an episode of Impact, and they lost any revenue from the PPV providers and revenue from PPV buyrates that they were making. And apparently the One Night Only PPVs were a huge flop.

www.cagesideseats.com/tna-impact/2013/7/23/4551110/report-dixie-carter-blames-recent-tna-money-woes-on-one-night-only-ppvs-more-cuts-likely


Ultimately I understand what most of you are saying, and I agree that less PPVs was the right move to try and TNA has done a bad job building up hype for the ones they do have left. But with TNA admitting defeat in going back to the soundstage in Florida, I think they should see about getting back to the monthly PPVs as well because the promotion totally lacks focus without that model.

[Oh Cry Me a Screwball]

Less PPVs was a good thing, but doing nothing with the remaining PPVs cancelled out the good with more bad.

[Deleted]

It wasn't a mistake but it sure hasn't helped things at all. I think it's a wash, the smaller number of PPVs is unrelated to the crappy creative direction. Hardcore Justice and Destination X would've just been PPVs instead of on Spike, other than that there wouldn't be any difference.

[Toates Madhackrviper]

TNA being creatively inept and not figuring out how to adapt to the fewer PPVs schedule combined with their astonishing inability to sell a PPV or make it feel special doesn't mean that less PPVs was a bad idea.

Were they competent this model would work wonders, maybe a couple more PPVs than they have but no more than that.

Edit: I will admit though I was behind them getting on the road and that was clearly a mistake so I'm not above admitting when I was wrong but this one is on TNA's inability to adapt, inability to sell pay per veiws, and creative ineptitude, not the idea itself.

And its still better than the amount of PPVs they had

[comahan]

The idea was/is fine, it just seems that the writers have no idea how to handle not having a PPV to build to every month. The pace and flow of the storylines has been so weird since the change. Everything just feels off.