Is TNA's FREE PPV a good idea?

Discussion in 'TNA iMPACT! (2011-2015)' started by Muraad Khan, Jan 6, 2014.

?

Who did the best with TNA?

Poll closed Jan 13, 2014.
  1. Jeff Jarret (2002-2004)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  2. Jerry Jarrett (2002-2004)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Dixie Carter (2004-Present)

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  4. Vince Russo (2002-2009)

    100.0%
  1. Really, WCW had clash of champions a twice to three times a year free ppv, but they still had their sole PPV's intact with GAB and Bash at the Beach and Halloween Havoc (Wrestlemania = not included) TNA, took REAL ppv's and made them free?!?!? TNA can't draw enough people to the arena nor on TV to fill the ratings
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. TNA's pay per views don't get buy rates (like, 10,000 buys would be a monster success for them) so it makes sense to me to try and use some B level PPVs to draw ratings for Impact instead.

    I don't like 4 PPVs a year though. Maybe 6 or 8 would have worked better, because now there just feels like too few IMO. And it doesn't make the PPVs feel special or anything, it just feels like 'jesus finally a TNA ppv its been forfuckingever'
     
    • Like Like x 1
  3. I agree completely, to me this is TNA's last resort. Jeff Jarrett and Jerry Jarrett all left as well as Vince Russo. Panda Energy (TNA PARENT COMPANY) is thinking of leaving wrestling especially TNA for it's bad reputation damaing Panda Energy sponsorship wise
     
  4. I do like the free Pay-Per-View idea really, it adds something special to the TNA episodes every here and there when they do it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  5. More people stream PPV's than buy them, so you're trying to get ratings out of them instead of nothing. Good move in concept, not sure about how well it's working since we don't know PPV numbers. Don't think these are drawing that big of ratings though.

    Anyway, with the 12 PPV model they didn't care much about the pay-for shows then. Pritchard and especially Russo wrote for TV and ignored the PPV's... if they were going to do that, then why bother having the shows to begin with?

    Only complaint is that they need to FEEL like a bigger deal, it's easy to forget that a "free PPV" is on Thursday when it comes.
     
  6. I agree
     
  7. I think it's a good idea, and I liked nearly all the "free" PPVs thus far they've had.

    TNA's business depends big time on the ratings, and in 2013, some of the biggest ratings came from these PPV-like specials, so why wouldn't it be considered a good decision if the ratings are important for TNA?

    Though, I'd like for them to go back to 6 real PPVs, 3 is too little.
     
  8. I don't think Russo left. I'm pretty sure he was canned (if he wasn't, well, he should've been. And a little bit of Russo is good, but again with a filter). Anyway, I think 3 real PPVs is way too little as well. If the income from PPVs wasn't worth the hassle, then why not convert that into bigger ratings for the specials? Nothing wrong there.