Curtain Jerker, 1/12/13: PPV Reduction

11 Submitted by on Sat, 12 January 2013, 08:00


Some people are ringing the oft-rung death-bell for TNA, after word came out that the company would revert to a schedule of four PPVs a year: Genesis (January), Lockdown (April), Slammiversary (June), and Bound For Glory (October). The remainder of the schedule is filled in with pre-taped, lower-cost PPVs with themes based on tag teams, the X Division, et al.

While other folks mock TNA for a perceived one-step-back, I have to say I’m for this idea.

Think about it. Some of you long time fans out there talk about the WWE time-frame from 1987-92 like it was the holy grail. As a fan from that time-frame as well, I agree.

And how many PPVs came each year? No more than 4, right?

Shows were more memorable back then. You didn’t have those feuds that ran over 2-3 months that you had to pay $120 or so to see the entire length of.

I mean, it was different in the Attitude Era when feuds ended abruptly, title changes were frequent, and people turned face or heel depending on oft-changing star alignments. Each show felt a little fresher then.

Nowadays, everyone runs together to try and conserve angles, but they take so long to play out on a monthly PPV schedule that oversaturates our minds, and things drag.

WWE is no better than TNA in this regard. Other than theme-PPVs like Money in the Bank and Hell in a Cell, can you really tell most of the shows apart? It’s the same matches month to month!

I think TNA is doing the right thing. People are going to stream most of the PPVs anyway; why run your costs up with live production? Instead, make your “big four” special, and have some bonus, lower-cost shows to fill the remainder of the year.

So what say you? Do you agree or disagree with TNA doing this? And is this something you think WWE should consider, given the economy and the availability of streams? Not to mention the quality of the shows?

(Follow Justin Henry on his Twitter for live site updates and live-tweeting of Raw and PPV!)

Written by

Justin Henry is WrestleCrap's inquiring newsman, thirsting for knowledge always. He enjoys the art of satire, as you'll find in many of his works here at WrestleCrap. Drop him a line on Facebook ( and Twitter (
11 Responses to "Curtain Jerker, 1/12/13: PPV Reduction"
  1. RD Reynolds says:

    In the 3 seconds we talked about it on The RD and Blade Show, Ep 2, I voiced my support for it. One of the biggest issues with wrestling now is simply overexposure. I mean, I can tell you match lineups for shows from 20 years ago better than I can from 2 years ago, simply because the matches MEANT something. So yeah, thumbs up, pally!

  2. Overlord-G says:

    If this will lead to developing feuds better and increasing the match quality (You have to admit, TNA PPV matches have been pretty good recently, most of them anyway), then I support this decisions. Besides, my wallet would be thankful as well. I hope someday in the near future, WWE will follow this tactic as well. Lord knows their PPVs are even more hit and miss than TNA’s.

  3. Josh says:

    I too love this idea! It seems that all of their taped PPVs are going to have some sort of gimmick (X-Division, Lethal Lottery style tag tournament, etc.). Also, if word of mouth gets out about the show being great before it airs, that should get more people to buy it and make them more money.

  4. downwithOPC says:

    WWE probably won’t go back to 4 PPVs, but I think they would do better with just 8 or 9.

  5. Kenneth Wise says:

    Well I’m okay with this. The way I go about wrestling ppv’s from the big 3 is to just watch them when they get put out on youtube. If it’s good, I buy the dvd when it comes out.

    As far as TNA’s new strategy goes, I’ll have to watch the first ppv to make an opinion.

  6. Shawn Doc Girt says:

    I think TNA doing what theyre doing with 4 PPVz a year iz an excellent idea. True theyve spent money like it meant nuthing on so many people that proved theyre not worth it but honestly this iz a great idea. I Seriously doubt we’ll see WWE doing this anytime soon. But TNA iz doing the smart thing. Rock on n God bless em.

  7. Autrach Sejanoz says:

    TNA’s doing the right thing on this one, especially if Hogan makes good on his threat to become TNA World Champion.

  8. Brian E says:

    Frankly, one PPV a month (for both WWE and TNA) has been overdoing it for a while now. Especially in the case of WWE, where the results of the main event don’t mean the feud’s over; they’ll most likely be back at it next month.

    I say TNA’s on to something here; could work well for them in the long run. As for WWE, I say they should at least cut it in half; six a year means more time and resources can be put towards the qualities of the show rather than quantities. On top of that, feuds and storylines can be given more time to develop, that is, if they are even worth developing. One-off feuds with random tag teams don’t work too well. *looks glaringly at WWE*. Neither does building up for weeks and leading to a weak payoff at the PPV. *looks glaringly at TNA*

  9. Derick says:

    It’s a double-edged sword. While I support long-running feuds, I don’t think taped PPVs are a good idea at all. One of the reasons I don’t watch smackdown is because I already know the results via dirtsheets. I can watch the show if there is something big happening, but that’s because I’ve already paid for the cable.

    Would I drop an additional $20-40 to see something I already know is going to happen in detail? No.

  10. Alan says:

    From what I’ve read on the interweb, WWE PPVs still somehow make money, so I don’t see them reducing their PPV schedule any time soon. Regardless of that, seeing that WWE has multiple hours of free programming each week, they ought to cut back to just the Big Four. In the long run, they’d theoretically get more PPV buys since there’ll be more of a big event feel to each one.

  11. 80's Guy says:

    I still, for the life of me, don’t see how WWE still makes money on their oversaturated ppvs. Yes, some matches are higher quality, but they have the participants fight each other so many times on free tv that it loses its luster come ppv time.

    Like some people have already said, there’s no build up and some feuds run through a couple of ppvs. If they treated all matches and feuds special, like they did in the 80’s, then you would have a more well rounded product in general and probably even more popularity as a result.

    You need time for people to get invested. You have to make things look viable. Things are either too rushed with no direction, or stretched out way too far with no rhyme or reason and too much in ring contact between the feuders.

    Good idea, I think. I think WWE could go lower, but not necessarily to 4. Make it 6 or 7 and it’d be fine.

leave a comment