Are TNA a Television Only Company?

[TWF Dave]

Simple question really - the boys on the show are constantly bringing up how TNA are a Television only company and aren't really interested in PPV buys, but can that actually work?

WWE rely heavily on their PPV income (particularly from Wrestlemania) to bump up their finances and if a company as big as WWE rely on them, can TNA seriously be making enough money from a TV deal to almost completely ignore them?

The timing may be off with this question given that we're currently approaching one of the two PPVs a year that they bother to build up, I know, but that doesn't make it any less relevant.

[The Pod-Father!]

I think being a TV-only company can work to a certain extent (especially in the age of internet PPVs)...But I do think you need to have at least 4 or 5 big shows a year that your fanbase actually wants to pay for.

If I were TNA, I'd eliminate every PPV except for Genesis, Lockdown, Slammiversary, Destination X, and Bound For Glory. Give each show a 2-month build and then throw in 2 or 3 super editions of Impact (like the Whole F'n Show episode a few years back). That way you're not wasting money on unecessary PPVs AND you're rewarding your loyal TV audience (and making your broadcast partner happy).

[yaknow]

Agreed I have been thinking for a while they should do their so called b PPVs for free on Spike on Sunday Nights. For it to be effective though they would need to have great matches. One of the things that hurts TNA PPVs the most is that at best you get 3 star matches so they don't even satisfy the hardcore wrestling fan. So even doing the shows free on Spike wouldn't matter unless the match quality improved.

[The Pod-Father!]

I think TNA right now is suffering from the opposite of what used to plauge them about 5 years ago. The undercard (which used to be great in the heyday of the X-Division) is now pretty much just filler...But the main 3 matches are usually pretty good (at least they have been over the past 9 months or so).

I think the template they need to follow is what they did on The Whole F'n Show (which arguably was among the best 2 hours of wrestling presented that year by any company). You have to have the great in-ring action, but they also had the benefit of stories & fueds being built up to that show for a month.

[DanThompson]

I was thinking about this the other day for TNA. I love the idea of only doing 4 Big PPV's a year but im wondering if they would still get the same number of PPV buys. Let's say on average TNA does 10,000 PPV buys for each PPV. So thats 120,000 buys for the year. Do we think they can average the 30,000 buys for the 4 PPV's to make it worth while?

[The Pod-Father!]

I think it would be worth it because honestly I don't think they're making that much money on those 7 or 8 secondary PPVs. If they build up each PPV for two months, maybe reduce the price by 10 bucks, and actually give the fans an incentive to buy them; I think they can easily hit 25-35 thousand buys.

Lockdown last year hit 20, 000 buys. And while it was a good show, it wasn't a great/must-see show. Imagine if this year they spent all of April & March building up to Lockdown (and moving it away from WrestleMania)...I think they could have hit at least 25K this year following that strategy.

[yaknow]

Didn't they get 60,000 buys for Angle vs Joe? They just need to convince people again that they are capable of great matches. To do that at this point they first need to tape outside the Impact zone. Crowd can make a good match great and that crowd is almost impossible to win over at this point.

[The Pod-Father!]

Apr 10, 2012 22:48:29 GMT -5 yaknow said:

Didn't they get 60,000 buys for Angle vs Joe? They just need to convince people again that they are capable of great matches. To do that at this point they first need to tape outside the Impact zone. Crowd can make a good match great and that crowd is almost impossible to win over at this point.

Amen.

They need to only work Orlando for Impacts and maybe the Slammiversary PPV (since it's TNA's pat on the back to itself). Other than that they should be holding PPVs in mid-sized southern towns (Flair Country if you will).

[DanThompson]

If TNA actually did that and built up 4 major PPV's a year I would consider plunking down money for 1 or 2. I just dont think it would ever happen.

[jimuni]

Eric Bischoff, ironically the guy that created the 12 PPV system, recently said he would like to see them go down to 6. I agree. 4 is a bit too little for right now.

[stevekasan]

Apr 11, 2012 14:23:30 GMT -5 jimuni said:

Eric Bischoff, ironically the guy that created the 12 PPV system, recently said he would like to see them go down to 6. I agree. 4 is a bit too little for right now.

Its all economics right? When the business was booming, 12 PPVs a year was profitable because people are going to pay. But, now things are down. Going back to 4 main PPVs is more profitable.

Godfather has stated, something they did with The Whole F'N Show ala Clash of the Champions would benefit more to TNA.

[A-Rob]

yes, they do all their big angles on tv, when you watch a ppv of theirs minus Lockdown, BFG and Slamaversary it feels like they are going through the motions

[ciaranhexcel]

Apr 10, 2012 22:48:29 GMT -5 yaknow said:

Didn't they get 60,000 buys for Angle vs Joe? They just need to convince people again that they are capable of great matches. To do that at this point they first need to tape outside the Impact zone. Crowd can make a good match great and that crowd is almost impossible to win over at this point.

I know it was also the excitement of Kurt's first match in TNA, but Kurt VS Sting or Jarrett never did anything close to Angle VS Joe. Joe was a bigger star in TNA then either of them at that point.....a shame how far he's fallen.