TNA's Pay-Per-View Conundrum: How to Balance Quality and Quantity

« Prev
1 of 14
Next »
Use your ← → (arrow) keys to browse the slideshow
TNA's Pay-Per-View Conundrum: How to Balance Quality and Quantity

Reaction to Victory Road 2011 was overwhelmingly negative. The second to last match was a double count out between Mr. Anderson and Rob Van Dam in a No. 1 contender's match.

But that does not touch the surface of what happens next in the main event. An impaired Jeff Hardy lost to Sting in less than a minute.

TNA pay-per-views need to be promoted better. There needs to be more time to build up feuds. Increasing the quality of these pay-per-views will compensate for the reduction of total pay-per-views by generating more buys.

I will tackle the pay-per-view conundrum surrounding the professional wrestling industry as a whole.

Do I have fewer pay-per-views but more buys or do I continue to have more pay-per-views but fewer buys? Moreover, would slashing prices boost total buys or reduce revenues?

I will answer that question by saying pay-per-views always need to be worth buying. WWE does not understand that not everybody wants to churn out $55 to see John Cena destroy the Miz or Randy Orton bury Christian.

My solution to this problem for both companies is to have nine or 10 pay-per-views a year. That allows enough time to properly build up matches while generating enough revenue to keep TNA afloat.

$29.95 is the ideal price for pay-per-views. It is high enough to generate sufficient revenue while low enough to not "Sting" the wallets too much.

Was that the corniest joke you have ever seen?

Begin Slideshow »
Load More Stories

Follow B/R on Facebook