Welcome to the latest Roundtable discussion here at iFight365.com where this week we’re asking the question: Would TNA benefit from reducing the number of PPVs per year?

Phil Lowe: I have no doubt that dropping the number of PPVs would be a smart move by TNA. Buyrates are hardly setting the world alight and times are tough for the average wrestling fan. Given a choice between a WWE or TNA PPV (or even UFC or TNA), more often than not, TNA will lose out.

If TNA have to keep to the current format of 12 PPVs per year, I’d be tempted to adopt the old WWF ‘In Your House’ strategy of offering monthly PPVs at a reduced price and charging big bucks for your biggest events of the year, which for TNA would definitely include Bound For Glory and Lockdown.

But if I was Dixie Carter (which would be weird), I’d be looking at dropping down to six PPVs per year – one every two months. I’d keep Bound for Glory and Lockdown, along with another four from the current calendar. In a month without a PPV, TNA have a good enough relationship with Spike TV to be able to broadcast bi-monthly TV specials.

I can’t help thinking that without a radical overhaul of the entire structure of TNA, including the way shows are booked, the talent that is pushed and even the actual name of the company (which I still believe will not appeal to some casuals), the company will never become a success on pay-per-view.

And given that buyrates have failed to increase as Impact ratings slowly pick up on Spike, TV specials replacing some of the current PPVs would seem like a smart thing to do.

James Mustoe: Yes, I believe it would. While TNA does have a decent and varied talent roster, they just don’t seem to put the effort into the build of their shows. You know the ones I mean; those with the random 6 man tag as the main event. Cutting down on PPVs would mean they could put more effort into long term story lines to increase build and hype for their big PPVs such as Bound for Glory, and hopefully make these more profitable to make up for any shortfall from the dropped shows.

Mark Bright: Yes I would. I think one of the problems TNA has is that they throw so much crap at the wall, because they want to have something to hook viewers on each different PPV rather than the WWE method of doing several rematches month after month, especially at the top of the card. WWE can get away with that because, despite diminishing buyrates in recent years, they are still making money on their PPV shows. TNA are not. They have such a miniscule fan base as far as those who spend money on the PPVs every month, that it would actually be better for them if they were to spread out the shows, concentrate for a longer time period on building matches that people want to see, and building feuds that people want to see settled.

If TNA moved to bi-monthly PPVs like ECW used to, they could build the matches for longer, which would hopefully eliminate things like Bubba and D-Von Dudley in a four corner singles match for the World Title main eventing PPV shows. It would also mean they could move all their PPVs outside of the Impact Zone in Orlando, which is a move TNA needs to make, as long as they choose the right buildings. Focusing on one big show every two months, and giving the local media in the city holding the PPV the additional time to mass advertise and plug the show could lead to larger crowds.

Also, simply by running less PPVs they’re cutting costs, and this may mean their usual methods of cost cutting such as firing guys like Petey Williams could be avoided in the future. And while I’m not under any illusions that the main thing TNA needs to change is the booking, but if they got a competent booker in or the current guys changed their philosophy, these changes could be a benefit to the company.

Michael Campbell: 12 Pay Per Views in 2009? Yes, most definitely. Recent history has told us that while TNA have seen increased television ratings over the past year (good news); PPV buy-rates have remained somewhat static.

Their best drawing super-cards are still the Bound for Glory events, and those headlined by Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle. A year ago, those two grapplers being placed in main events was the only common denominator when it came to explanations for popping a buyrate. Now, especially with Joe, I wouldn’t be confident in that. What that tells me, is that there’s certain competitors fans are willing to pay to see, and there’s certain match-ups that they’ll shell out for, knowing that they’ll get value for money- a trend that often characterises the success of lesser UFC shows.

But by and large, fans are clearly watching Impact for free, and deeming TNA not worthy of paying money for – a good indicator that they run far too many, is to compare their efforts to that of the WWE. The folk in McMahontasia run at least one PPV per month, and this year, that’s going to add up to a crazy 14 efforts in 2009, which some already perceive as too much (I agree). The big cards, with brand value still do well (although WrestleMania is the only one that is seemingly invulnerable to a poor rating- Even Royal Rumble disappointed by its own standards), while the B-shows are anyone’s guess.

Lately, those with gimmick themes have performed better, especially with the likes of No Way Out hosting the Elimination Chamber efforts. However, the gimmick overkill, while it pops a buy-rate, is detrimental to the overall product, ironically, much like TNA’s own Lockdown. This all-Steel-Cage-Match show, generally does well, and sometimes, creatively, delivers. But its very concept is utterly flawed, and imposes unrealistic limitations on performers and the writing team. Aside from anything else, it doesn’t even look overly impressive, because UFC shows are all hosted in the Octagon, and TNA looks like the Pro-Wrestling rip-off to many casual observers. Since Lockdown began, I’ve campaigned for a re-think of its basic format (even the top two bouts being Cage matches would be an improvement).

But back to the point – if the WWE is struggling for consistent numbers, how can TNA expect to do better when their target audience is largely, the same crowd? Numbers dipping slightly month by month aren’t a big issue for them, because their numbers are so low it doesn’t matter in that sense. But the issue is the lack of growth and the general ballpark they’re in, never improving. TNA pulls buyrates that would have shamed WCW in its dying days.

Their biggest ever buyrate, Lockdown 2008, pulled around 1/10th the buys of WWE’s B-show, No Way Out, and less than 2/3 of Vince’s worst ever drawing PPV, the infamous December to Dismember. A reduction in volume would surely help to emphasise what remains, and if booked correctly, could slowly ape the growth the WWE saw in the 80’s, when they only ran four supercards per annum.

TNA needs to cut down on the PPVs, to either four or six a year, and really convince their solid fan-base, that they’re shows worth paying for. Guys like Mick Foley (who should not be wrestling at all, but hey), Kurt Angle (ditto), Sting, and Jeff Jarrett (although this is more of a health, and age issue, because he isn’t a draw, whereas it’s both with Foley and Kurt), should be saved for these cards, to increase their importance and add a little appeal for casual fans. Often, Angle’s seen working scintillating gimmick matches on TV for free. Since that’s the case, what’s the incentive to pay to see him? Likewise, there are only so many variations on the tired old dogs in the Main Events one can utilise on a monthly PPV basis, before you exhaust the reservoir of desirable bouts.

Ahhh, the frustration…