TNA reducing number of PPVs

[Troy]

As I wrote last night, the Lockdown PPV being moved up to March 2013 was likely a sign that the company was planning to cut back on their PPV calendar. That is indeed the case. Sources are indicating that the February Against All Odds PPV has been scratched. The company will go from January's Genesis PPV to Lockdown in March. March is usually Victory Road, but that title can always be used for another month. There may be 1-2 other PPVs removed from the calendar as well, but I am not completely sure which shows that may be. Dixie Carter has talked publicly about wanting to cut back on PPVs because there was not a need for running them monthly, but contractual obligations and deciding the right balance of PPVs for the company had been an issue. One would think this could lead to a price increase for the remaining shows, but I haven't heard that either way.

Finally they are doing this, it should have been done a couple of years ago but I guess they couldn't due to contractual obligations. TNA drawing sub 10k PPV buys would most likely be costing them money rather than bringing in any profit. If they can streamline the schedule and drop it to 6-8 PPVs a year they can build them properly and try to make them seem important. That would also require them to stop saving big moments for Impact to pop a rating and instead have them happen on PPV. I think that six PPVs would be enough, one every two months sounds good.

 

[Keith]

Finally they are doing this, it should have been done a couple of years ago but I guess they couldn't due to contractual obligations. TNA drawing sub 10k PPV buys would most likely be costing them money rather than bringing in any profit. If they can streamline the schedule and drop it to 6-8 PPVs a year they can build them properly and try to make them seem important. That would also require them to stop saving big moments for Impact to pop a rating and instead have them happen on PPV. I think that six PPVs would be enough, one every two months sounds good.

Totally agree, this makes sense and six a year sounds about right. To be fair like I said before TNA are starting to make many smart business moves this year. WWE should follow suit.

 

[Troy]

WWE are back to 12 a year which is the right number for them, even their worst PPVs manage to draw around 175k buys which is a lot better than 10k and they would still be profitable since they are so expensive as well. TNA are starting to make some smart business moves and hopefully it works out for them, if they change Impacts starting time back to it's old time that will be another move in the right direction.

 

[Keith]

^ Well I don't think twelve is the right number. The lesser ppvs would make more money if there were fewer of them, in fact if there was less of them they may not so much seen as lesser events.

 

[Troy]

But even with 175k buys they are pulling in close to $10 million (minus the cut for the distributor). Plus cutting one of the 175k PPVs won't result in 350k buying the next PPV. The better idea would be to actually cut the price a bit or at the very least put a hold on increasing the price for the next few years.

I hope that when TNA cut the number of PPVs that they don't suddenly bump up the price of PPVs. Keep it the same and see what the reaction is first.

 

[Dale]

- TNA is reportedly dropping September's No Surrender pay-per-view for 2013. This move will allow a two month build up leading into TNA's biggest event of the year - Bound for Glory. As noted earlier, Against All Odds will be removed as well.

Not sure what to make of this decision really because they're not going to get double the amount of buys to make up for sacrificing these PPV's. Whether that still means they'll save money by cutting these PPV's I don't know.

 

[Keith]

Not sure what to make of this decision really because they're not going to get double the amount of buys to make up for sacrificing these PPV's. Whether that still means they'll save money by cutting these PPV's I don't know.

They might not get double the buys but there is a chance that the figures will improve if the bigger card events are given bigger builds and not side tracked by the lesser shows. Lockdown and BFG are TNA's biggest ppvs so this makes sense.

 

[Dale]

But if they don't double the buys then surely they're going to lose money again. Say for instace

PPV A - 10k
PPV B - 10k
PPV C - 10k

You cut out PPV B and they're down 10k buys and I just don't see the PPV's either side of the cut one picking up the slack.

 

[Keith]

^ Ok you may have a point there, so chances are they would have to try and cut some costs involved in running these events, but just thinking long term it has to be a better thing to have less events and making each one mean more.

 

[Dale]

Sure it could be great for each PPV to mean more, but if it doesn't make them more money than when they were running 12 PPV's or whatever it was then eventually it doesn't mean anything.

 

[The New F'n Show]

It's a decent business move because it does cut costs and if the revenue falls too badly then they just add PPVs back. No real risk here.

 

[Chriss]

What Scott says. There is always a way back and TNA will take that way back if this decision does them bad.

 

[Troy]

But if they don't double the buys then surely they're going to lose money again. Say for instace

PPV A - 10k
PPV B - 10k
PPV C - 10k

You cut out PPV B and they're down 10k buys and I just don't see the PPV's either side of the cut one picking up the slack.

They may not pick up the same number of total buys each year but they won't need to. They are reducing PPV costs by half by running them half as often, they won't need to double PPV buys to make up for the difference, it will need a much smaller increase to make it profitable since they have already cut the costs. An increase by only 3k/4k may be enough to get them into profitability for each PPV.

 

[Rated R Superstar]

I'm pretty sure either way, they're still going to be in the shitter. How many PPV's do they currently have anyway?

 

[Troy]

I'm pretty sure either way, they're still going to be in the shitter. How many PPV's do they currently have anyway?

They run one a month and have done since 2005. Next year I can see them running a maximum of 8 and a minimum of 6.