[Jasmine TNAfan]

You score points for a really interesting idea. I never heard of an idea like this before. Whether it would work or not, I'm not sure. I don't know if Spike TV would want to see "Impact" simply be a two-hour promo for a PPV. But I like the creativity!

 

[USAUSA1]

Too bad its cost more money to produce LIVE PPV's than LIVE TV. Not too mention the ppv providers going to eat up the revenue. They would actually lose money off this deal.

 

[Jimshine]

 

[Chan Hung]

Ironically i had thought yesterday that the TNA ppvs were too much...if TNA say did them for 19.99 or less i think things would have worked out better for them...problem was they were charging too much

 

[eldoon]

$40 for 3 hours is too much for their main ppv

But roughly $30-$40 bucks a month for 3-4 1 hour ppvs depending on the month is ok ?

 

[Muerte al fascismo]

It's a decent idea, if they had Turner money to play with. Unfortunately not sure how cost-effective it is. The 4 PPV deal is fine, if TNA knew how to build a card. Instead of building an effective card, they've actually gone backwards.

BFG had perhaps the worst build in recent memory. It also doesn't help that PPV matches don't seem to be much better then the ones shown on Impact.

 

[SpecialFNK]

it's kind of funny when you think about something from this point of view. people often use ratings as a way to judge/value the show. but then you see people complain about how they are giving away quality wrestling matches on free TV. if they lessened the quality of big matches for the TV show and saved them for the PPV, then you're making the quality of the show less and likely therefore you're going to get even worse ratings.

I like the idea of PPV Impact specials, and making them 3 hours long. but the difference is this PPV Impact special is packed with quality matches, and TNA charges more for the commercials. much like the NFL does for commercials during the Super Bowl. TNA also needs to do a better job at promoting these specials, which TNA doesn't seem to do well at all period as it is now overall.

one of the biggest problems with PPV regardless how many there are, is it's too easy to find a free stream online. I think TNA would make much more money if they could completely stop the free stream.

 

[RoosterSmith]

Positives

*Stops giving away PPV quality main events on free TV
*More consistent PPV revenue stream
*Value for the TNA fan. If only two matches per month are worth paying for, he/she pays for those two matches and not $40 for 6 other matches that the fan may not feel are worth a PPV premium
*In a typical monthly PPV set up, a main event star will only wrestle once. In this new model, someone like Jeff Hardy can be on PPV two or more times a month.
*eliminates filler matches during a PPV.

* I don't think it's a problem that they give away PPV quality matches for free. Makes the show better and it's not like they can build up to a PPV for three months. That would be way to early in my opinion and hurt the artistic credibility of the product. At what point does it become more about trying to sell their fans something and less about the wrestling?

WWE gives away PPV quality matches too, usually after the PPV. But just like TNA it's usually only one match. Maybe two. It just doesn't really hurt the promotion at all.

*Don't know if it would be more consistant in terms of revenue stream. When people think revenue streams they don't think weekly. They think on a per month or per year basis. And I reckon this way of doing things might just give them the same return in terms of how much money they make. Or worse, less return because the higher frequency of shows they have to put on and questions as to wether or not the fan base will take to the new way of doing things.

*It would be nice to only pay for one or two matches that are worthwhile. One big problem though is that people disagree on what they wanna see. I wanna AJ Styles but a lot of peopel don't like him. A lot of people love Bully Ray and I'm not that fond. So less people may end up buying the matches depending on who's in it. Every wrestling show has to have something for everybody in it. And that' especially true when asking someone to pay.

*It could really work out if you had a really popular guy like Hardy three or four times a month. That's best case scenario, that you get a guy like that who strikes a chord with people. One thing you might worry about is backstage politics where some less popular guy that TNA really needs will balk at why one guy keeps getting the PPV matches and he doesn't.

* It would successfully eliminate filler. Again though, one man's filler is another's entertainment.

Fresh way of looking at things, fun thread. I probably wouldn't go this route but you never know, the PPV industry as a whole is kind of dying out so maybe innovation and change could save it.

At the end of the day though, I think TNA left PPV's for the right reasons. It wasn't profitable for them. Wouldn't be surprised if they just don't do it at all in a year or two.

 

[Muerte al fascismo]

The point of having TV programming is to make it a shop window for the PPVS. Sure you can have good matches, but the stars and main-eventers are supposed to save something back. Why not let the mid-card kill it on Impact TV. Provides them exposure and saves the stars people want to pay for.

You could build focus on different divisions each week. For example you could build up a Tag scene one week, culminating in a long TV main event. Next week the X-Division, Knockout division and so on. Like UFC creates new stars via the Ultimate Fighter, you could use Impact to build up the mid-card, while utilizing the increase PPV waiting time to build a well-hyped card, where the main-event talents can showcase their shit.

This new format has so much potential, but it requires some out of the box change in philosophy, from TNA's current creative. TNA's audience is always steady, pretty much regardless of who's on TV. Why not at least attempt to convert more into buying the PPV?

 

[USAUSA1]

That's why the days of squashing a local wrestler is so miss. It was much easier to build ppvs and house shows. TNA actually did this in the Fox Sports era and it definitely made their ppvs attractive. I remember like it was yesterday. People was excited to order a TNA ppv.

 

[Fred Spoila]

They wouldn't give away any for free if they didn't change the PPV Format.

 

[TNA is Here]

it's kind of funny when you think about something from this point of view. people often use ratings as a way to judge/value the show. but then you see people complain about how they are giving away quality wrestling matches on free TV. if they lessened the quality of big matches for the TV show and saved them for the PPV, then you're making the quality of the show less and likely therefore you're going to get even worse ratings.

That is why I think you compensante by the lack of important matchs on the free tv show by having a stronger focus on storylines, like a soap opera. Sort of like Attitude Era WWE. Now bear in mind I was more a WCW mark but there's a reason why WCW went of business and WWE thrived, while WCW were giving away great quality matchs for free on Nitro, RAW was more storyline-focused away from matchs and all their top matchs were on PPV. You would watch Nitro and get Ray Mysterio vs Juventud Guererro for free then it would be the exact same match for the PPV or opponants that Mysterio had already faced a thousand times in the same month. Vince and WWF were smart enough to not do that and make sure there was a difference between the free weekly shows and PPVs. And that to get the real good stuff, you had to pay for it.

 

[SpecialFNK]

it's hard to use WWE as a comparison as to what works. for years before WCW, WWE was the only wrestling on TV. before RAW it used to be a 1 hour show with jobbers and then you would have 1 legit star vs star match (usually mid carders) as the main event final match of the show.
WWE also got incredibly popular as the years went on, and even had Saturday Nights Main Event on NBC in place of Saturday Night Live. they had a large number of viewers before NWA/WCW was even competition.

you would think if you're putting on PPV quality matches for the TV show, that you're going to be getting more viewers. but it hasn't seemed to work that way. ratings in both TNA and WWE have been down in recent years.

maybe 1 example of non PPV quality matches on the TV show, was this past weeks episode. it was promo heavy with the main event being between Hardy and Sabin. yet it seems many people complained that this show was not good because of the lack of quality wrestling.

 

[AWESOM-O]

What is this shit?

 

[#1Hulk-A-Maniac]

I believe that the PPV market is dying with the continuation of live streaming on the internet. Perhaps TNA needs to capitalize on a couple of different ventures to make it more exciting and innovative for TNA fans to watch PPV.

Thoughts that I had include the following...
-Partner up with Netflix to air live first run mega shows like your pay-per-views. This could be your One Night Only events as well as your TNA specials.

-Lower the cost of PPVs so that your fans are only paying a small amount to view them. Why would I spend $40.00 to watch it live when I can wait a few months and buy it on DVD for $17.00 or even steam it online. If PPVs were cheaper it would make more sense to tune in. Why not charge $25.00 for your pay-per-views?

-Start running promotions with Bars, Restaurants, and Movie Theatres to broadcast TNA Pay-Per-Views. If the idea is that the company wants to get more exposure, tap into the sports bars across North America and offer some promotional deals in order to get more people watching your product.

 

[TNA is Here]

I believe that the PPV market is dying with the continuation of live streaming on the internet. Perhaps TNA needs to capitalize on a couple of different ventures to make it more exciting and innovative for TNA fans to watch PPV.

Thoughts that I had include the following...
-Partner up with Netflix to air live first run mega shows like your pay-per-views. This could be your One Night Only events as well as your TNA specials.

-Lower the cost of PPVs so that your fans are only paying a small amount to view them. Why would I spend $40.00 to watch it live when I can wait a few months and buy it on DVD for $17.00 or even steam it online. If PPVs were cheaper it would make more sense to tune in. Why not charge $25.00 for your pay-per-views?

-Start running promotions with Bars, Restaurants, and Movie Theatres to broadcast TNA Pay-Per-Views. If the idea is that the company wants to get more exposure, tap into the sports bars across North America and offer some promotional deals in order to get more people watching your product.

I like all those ideas too. Marvel already has decided to partner up with Netflix for tv shows about Daredevil and a few others, this could be a great venue for wrestling.

 

[GothicBohemian]

*Don't know if it would be more consistant in terms of revenue stream. When people think revenue streams they don't think weekly. They think on a per month or per year basis. And I reckon this way of doing things might just give them the same return in terms of how much money they make. Or worse, less return because the higher frequency of shows they have to put on and questions as to wether or not the fan base will take to the new way of doing things.

*It would be nice to only pay for one or two matches that are worthwhile. One big problem though is that people disagree on what they wanna see. I wanna AJ Styles but a lot of peopel don't like him. A lot of people love Bully Ray and I'm not that fond. So less people may end up buying the matches depending on who's in it. Every wrestling show has to have something for everybody in it. And that' especially true when asking someone to pay.

*It could really work out if you had a really popular guy like Hardy three or four times a month. That's best case scenario, that you get a guy like that who strikes a chord with people. One thing you might worry about is backstage politics where some less popular guy that TNA really needs will balk at why one guy keeps getting the PPV matches and he doesn't.

The three bolded are where I also see roadblocks. Getting casual fans - and TNA has more viewers who tune in every week for two hours and never think of them again until the next week than they do ardent fans - to pay that frequently could be a real challenge, especially early on, which could lead to the new plan being dropped quickly.

Then there's the whole Who do you put on the show? issue; if the same people are used over and over then they become stale and you alienate fans of other wrestlers/ring styles, but if you make a collection of different themed shows every month you again lower your options by eliminating the people who will buy just because Wrestler X is featured and also lose any kind of focus for your product. And yeah, agreed that keeping the talent satisfied and reasonably accommodated has to be taken into account.

Interesting idea the op had, but it has potential problems, mostly due to TNA having grown beyond the audience it had prior to its tv deal.

 

[brunoandporky]

hahahahahahahahahahaha

maybe 10k true wrestling fans in the united states.

out of those 10k maybe 2500 watch TNA

out of those 2500 maybe 150 are dumb enough to pay for a PPV

They will just stream it online a week later when some dumb ass posts it on the internet.

so 1500 is what they would make and that doesn't even pay for the venue


if tna cant draw 5000 people for bound fir glory what makes you think 500 people will pay 10 bucks a week for a PPV


what a great idea keep this idea in a forum hahaha.............


:woolcock

 

[Kizzo]

The PPV business is becoming less important. It's all about TV contracts and possibly creating your own TV network (everyone's dream). Why do you think WWE, UFC, and other sports are trying to increase their TV right fees?! That's where they will be making the majority of their revenue from in the future... just look at WWE's latest financial numbers! So expect a lot more Netflix, Amazon, Yahoo, Google, and Hulu deals in the future.

A very good idea if this was the 90s/early 2000s, but the world has changed.