TNA Should Drop Most of Their Money-Losing Pay-Per-Views

Matthew HemphillCorrespondent IIMarch 11, 2012

picture courtesy of
picture courtesy of

Most of TNA's pay-per-views don't stand out and feel like watered-down versions of WWE events.

Lockdown feels like Hell in a Cell.

Hardcore Justice feels like Extreme Rules, though with WWE's PG stance, that is a change.

Other pay-per-views like Genesis and Sacrifice are just badly named. Do fans really want to order something that notes a heroic action? Most PPVs such as Sacrifice don't have any gimmicks involved with them and let's be honest, the gimmick shows are the best-selling events.

With the exception of WrestleMania, there are few straight-forward events that do well.

The Royal Rumble is always a big seller and back when there were multiple team bouts, Survivor Series always flourished. King of the Ring had a healthy run as a pay-per-view and Money in the Bank is one of the most talked-about matches.

That doesn't mean there shouldn't be some "normal" offerings with a lack of gimmick matches, such as cages or extreme rules, but they should be fewer and far between. If TNA wants to compete with the WWE, they are either going to need to slash prices of their PPVs or remove some of them. They have 12 PPVs a year.

They should have six.

Having six events and spreading them out each by two months would not only allow TNA to grow feuds in a healthy manner, but it would make each pay-per-view mean something. Fans wouldn't be asked to spend $50 every month, but every two months.

In this economic climate, that's a bit more reasonable.

It will also give the events an air of importance. They aren't just another PPV which fans can miss and tune in next month to see.

They are an integral part of the growing story and a staple for any fan that wants to follow the growth of their favorite wrestlers.

Instead of buying events because they are expected to, fans could purchase them because they are genuinely interesting.

TNA is never going to rival the WWE by traditional means. Part of that includes PPVs. The company can't match the output of WWE and has only one TV show to the other's two. The WWE can build up enough stories with these shows.

TNA can't.

They have only an allotted amount of time that they can progress their angles and that means that plenty of wrestlers won't get a chance to see TV. For all the matches to be built up properly, they would need to give everyone more time.

Rotating these stars out every few weeks and allowing angles to build would not only help the PPV sales, but help the performers grow as well and connect with more of the audience.

Fans wouldn't have to wonder why certain matches on the undercard were taking place. They would understand their importance and have a vested interest in them.

It might hurt TNA's profits in the beginning, but in the long run, cutting pay-per-views would only benefit their brand. They just have to see the bigger picture.