- Joined
- Mar 30, 2020
- Messages
- 83,924
- Reaction score
- 24,138
- Points
- 118
- Favorite Wrestler
- Favorite Wrestler
- Favorite Wrestler
- Favorite Sports Team
- Favorite Sports Team
- Favorite Sports Team
- Favorite Sports Team
As for the amount of PPV events. I’m always in the minority in this, but I wouldn’t cut them.
For branding purposes alone I think pro wrestling works best when you have a weekly tv show and a PPV at the end of 4-5 weeks of build on said tv show.
More importantly though if your company isn’t doing well financially, and aren’t selling out venues as you tour, your PPV events are gonna be your primary source of revenue. It basically killed TNA in 2013 when they cut them down.
6 is the bare minimum I’d do with a clash every month without a PPV and slowly build back up to a monthly PPV.
Before 2000 they made on average 150K buys a PPV. As you build back brand trust you can get that revue back.
You never make up the difference by doing less, imo.Counter point: Doing more at the price cost it is in the US, make it more likely people will purchase less PPV's each time and overall lead to the company making less money? Though back in 2001 when PPV's were bigger this might actually not be the case
I’m just giving my opinion, lol.Well sadly, this isn't reality, so people can cut their shows down if they want.
True, but not necessarily. Depends on the bottom line.I think the other thing to focus on is who will be carrying those pay-per-views anyways? Turner isn't gonna since they don't own them anymore.
I would guess that if WCW irl wanted to cut costs they would lower production costs of the PPV rather than drop PPVs. I know this was partly Vince's strategy when he felt forced to come up with the In Your House concept (he felt if he didn't have a PPV every month but WCW did it made the WWF look bush league). But set design, only 2 hour PPV, etc. kept costs in line. Also, to further prove your point PPV basically kept ECW alive, and in 2000 because they ran as many as they did revenue hit all time highs. Had they not been screwed over by DirectTV and Acclaim l they might have survived.As for the amount of PPV events. I’m always in the minority in this, but I wouldn’t cut them.
For branding purposes alone I think pro wrestling works best when you have a weekly tv show and a PPV at the end of 4-5 weeks of build on said tv show.
More importantly though if your company isn’t doing well financially, and aren’t selling out venues as you tour, your PPV events are gonna be your primary source of revenue. It basically killed TNA in 2013 when they cut them down.
6 is the bare minimum I’d do with a clash every month without a PPV and slowly build back up to a monthly PPV.
Before 2000 they made on average 150K buys a PPV. As you build back brand trust you can get that revue back.
100%. This.I would guess that if WCW irl wanted to cut costs they would lower production costs of the PPV rather than drop PPVs. I know this was partly Vince's strategy when he felt forced to come up with the In Your House concept (he felt if he didn't have a PPV every month but WCW did it made the WWF look bush league). But set design, only 2 hour PPV, etc. kept costs in line. Also, to further prove your point PPV basically kept ECW alive, and in 2000 because they ran as many as they did revenue hit all time highs. Had they not been screwed over by DirectTV and Acclaim l they might have survived.