|
Post by AnActualBear on Oct 26, 2013 8:03:54 GMT -5
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 Not necessarily. There's a big difference between a 2 hour taped show, and a 3 hour live one. For one thing, the TV has ad revenue. I'm not sure what the arrangement is for this, perhaps Spike keep it all, but if TNA get any of it they lose that. Airing a show live is much more expensive than merely taping one and sending it to the network. You are taping an extra hour which adds slightly to the cost. The PPV carrier takes a huge chunk of your earnings. You don't receive any money from Spike like they do for Impact. Add all of this together and there's a significant chance you are losing money on each show. It's probably only a small loss, but it's still a loss.
|
|
|
Post by bobversion1 on Oct 26, 2013 8:14:02 GMT -5
I don't follow tna but a general question/thought.. Do you think they would be at all smart to switch from ppv to ippv? I have no idea costs wise from regular ppv to Internet, but it seems like ippv is becoming more and more prominent..
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Oct 26, 2013 9:52:30 GMT -5
Like others have said, when TNA dropped 8 ppvs; the expectations were that the remaining ppvs would mean more and quality would be higher. Not let's treat them with apathy because Impact is more important. If you stick to that mentality, don't be surprised the chickens come home to roost. I don't follow tna but a general question/thought.. Do you think they would be at all smart to switch from ppv to ippv? I have no idea costs wise from regular ppv to Internet, but it seems like ippv is becoming more and more prominent.. Ippv technology is a good 10 years before they can handle the number of fans who watch online without their systems crashing.
|
|
AdamAFL was sooooo wrong
Hank Scorpio
note to all: he's a pants-less heathen
I Survived The Impact Spoilers 7/22/15-7/30/15
Posts: 7,164
|
Post by AdamAFL was sooooo wrong on Oct 26, 2013 10:06:24 GMT -5
Less PPV's was probably a good call from a financial standpoint (I don't have any insight to the TNA finances so I can't be sure) but less PPV's has sucked from my point of view. I like as many wrestling PPV's as I can get my hand on and the four PPV's this year haven't felt awesome enough to make up for the eight PPV's I lost. So I, as a fan, have not enjoyed the reduction.
|
|
Crappler El 0 M
Dalek
Never Forgets an Octagon
I'm a good R-Truth.
Posts: 58,479
|
Post by Crappler El 0 M on Oct 26, 2013 10:09:01 GMT -5
Not necessarily. It could be a money saver overall. To me, the creative didn't build toward the PPVs very well. Ideally, the fewer PPVs could be great for TNA, but TNA did a poor job building to their PPVs this year.
|
|
Sephiroth
Wade Wilson
Surviving
Posts: 29,325
|
Post by Sephiroth on Oct 26, 2013 10:50:21 GMT -5
Realistically it doesn't matter how many PPV's they put on. What matters is crap booking that prevents people from wanting to actually purchase the PPV.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 26, 2013 12:42:49 GMT -5
To be fair, it seemed like they were building Styles/Bully, a MEM/A&8's conclusion, an Aries/EGO program, etc, months prior to BFG. It was when the roster started to get shredded into pieces where they had to shuffle the lineup around and it lead to a half-assed build-up. Slammiversary was built up pretty well, IMO. Whether you liked the matches or not, it had Sabin's story of redemption, Joe and Hardy returning from lay-offs to fight off Aces and Eights, Taryn and Gail finally wrestling after months of build-up when Taryn was a ref, a conflicted Styles going against Angle, and of course Bully and Sting. Then again, there was a creative change prior to BFG too, so maybe Bischoff wasn't the right guy to handle things.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Oct 26, 2013 14:15:15 GMT -5
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-likelyUltimately 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. I may be wrong, but I think it's an entirely different revenue models for PPV, due to the fact that television uses advertising and PPV does not. SO the cost to put on the shows may be quite different, even if they don't use unique sets and a lot of extra talent. I don't know how true ti was, but I remember hearing that one reason WWE PPV's ended early was to make sure that, if anyhing happened, they could still end the show on time to avoid paying the overrun time for the satellite. It maybe have been wrong, but I don't think they'd be dealing with the same thing.
|
|