Should TNA reduce the number of PPVs they run each year?

[Troy]

In the Random TNA Discussion thread I posted a piece of news regarding TNA's most recent PPV, Against All Odds. It had a buyrate of approximately 7,000. That is not a typo, I didn't leave out a zero, that is seven thousand. That is a horrible number to do especially when TNA regularly gets 1.5 million viewers each week for Impact. Using those two figures TNA are converting about half a percent of viewers into PPV buyers. Even for WWE's worst buyrates they are converting over 3% of viewers.

For too long TNA didn't put enough emphasis on the PPVs. The proper way to do it is you use your tv shows to push the PPVs, TNA would work in the opposite fashion using the PPV to set up tv storylines. PPVs are where the big money is at and for TNA the current plan isn't working at all.

My suggestion to fix that is for TNA to drastically cut the number of PPVs they produce each year. Go down from 12 to something like 6 or maybe even 4. It gives TNA plenty of time to properly build feuds and storylines and the big payoffs can then occur on PPV. If you make the feuds interesting enough then fans will be willing to spend their money on the product. Running the PPVs less frequently also makes it more affordable for fans to purchase every PPV.

TNA also need to run every single PPV outside of the Impact Zone. That way they can get more fans in to earn a bigger live gate. It also creates a better atmosphere and makes it look more than just an episode of Impact.

What do you think?

 

[The New F'n Show]

I don't know if less PPV's would help tbh may even drop interest as angles would run too long. If they can't get 10K buys, they can't afford for PPV's to be elsewhere either. This is just sad.

 

[John McHenry]

$245,000 is what they make off of 7k buys. Plus the door. Their paying enough to produce the shows but probably not a helluva lot more than that. But as we know TNA has never been in it for the money. Not really. It's a girl with a hobby.

 

[rcoot93]

If you go on some TNA news sites you find there full of guys saying TNA should reduce the PPv numbers, so I think it would be a populaur idea.

7,000 is about average for TNA there biggest is bound for glory which usually gets a couple hundred thousand.

The main problems are the impact zone the crowds are dead so how will that encuorage people to buy the PPV if it doesen't look like a big deal

Also hate the way they annuonce matches at the PPV or from the commentators desk, too many matches that don't mean anything.

Finally if they reduced to around 8 and had a few free to air it might drum up intrest, also I wouldnt say their losing a lot of money however as they have got a pretty good deal with universal

 

[Deuce]

I doubt less PPVs would do anything for TNA.

 

[Dale]

Surely them doing less PPV's would actually hinder them and the money they make?

7k bought the Jan PPV so lets assume 7k would buy the Feb PPV and 7k buy the March PPV under the current format. Thats 21k buys over 3 PPV's over 3 months.

7k bought the Jan PPV, there was no PPV Feb so that would leave them needing to get 14k buys (double what they usually get just to draw evens)

Maybe i'm making things overly simple, but I believe that they would actually lose money from the situation.

 

[We Are Legion]

It would be easier to answer this question if I had even the vaguest idea what TNA's long-term goals are.

None are really evident from the way they carry out their show these days. They tried to challenge the throne, and practically raised the white flag since then, so I dunno. If what they are doing now is working well enough for where they want to be at, I say don't change anything.

 

[Deuce]

PPV's bring more money in most of the time, so less PPV's would probably equal less money, I don't know what they have to do to earn more money than they are making, maybe less talking segments, because it seems like most of their iMPACT shows are talking segments.

 

[Ben]

Basically they need to restructure how they do them and cut the number down. Here's how I would have it set up.

Run 3-4 PPVs a year: Lockdown, Slammi, Bound For Glory, some other random show. Make sure there all on the road and actually take a month or 2 to actuall build them up.

If they stick with 3 they have 9 Sunday Night spots to fill, do that by doing a live PPV quality show once again on the road and air it on Spike. Just like Clash back in the day in WCW. So simple it's not even funny, which is why they won't ever do it.

 

[Troy]

$245,000 is what they make off of 7k buys. Plus the door. Their paying enough to produce the shows but probably not a helluva lot more than that. But as we know TNA has never been in it for the money. Not really. It's a girl with a hobby.

TNA don't make all the money that people fork out for the PPV, they wouldn't even make half of that, most of it goes to the cable provider. I remember reading that WWE make less than $20 per PPV buy and their PPV costs a lot more than TNA's. From the $35 price I would be willing to bet that TNA probably make $15 out of it. That would mean that they get $105,000 from 7k buys and I highly doubt that is enough to make a profit considering they have to pay the talent more for PPVs. Because of this if they run one every two months they don't need to make 14k buys to remain steady but something less could mean more money than two shows with 7k buys each. I don't know what the breakeven point is but surely it would be above 10k buys.

If they do better with the build and save the big matches and segments for PPV then they should be able to increase buyrates. Eventually the goal should be at least 25k per show and they can build from there. With their current format they have no chance of having a successful PPV business.

 

[Keith]

Yeah I quite like Ben's idea of three or four a year and maybe a Clash style mini-event once in a while also. Leaving two or three months to build a show has to be a plus. I wouldn't have every ppv on the road, but certainly would mix it up a bit. Less is more in this case.