Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 Therefore, as PPV plays a big part into the value of a TV episode, and TV is required to make a PPV as successful as it could possibly be, I don't see how this is a question that can be answered. The whole business model is built towards the PPV is the point I'm making. Not that television isn't important. Â Jason, stop being a tosser. You aren't even digesting what I am posting or having enough common sense to realise what I am saying. I know you like to batter an discussion to death by being completely tedious about stuff like Randy Orton never playing another character, but this thread reads like you want an argument or want to be proved right because you've been proved wrong on another forum or some shit. I really cant be arsed if its going to turn out like your other posts. Its Sunday fucking night man. Gone are the days when I will argue for hours over something that is pointless with someone who is a loony. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannRead Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 1) Why would a TV company care about Wrestlemania if they don't carry it?  2) "Get rid of the PPVs and why would anyone bother watching WWE?" Get rid of TV and you would have no Wrestlemania or WWE.  1) See my post which is kind of lost in the shuffle of your debate on previous page and start of this.  2) Exactly my point. The business requires both, and should PPV ever no longer exist in the form as we currently know it it will be replaced by some other form of further income generated product such as a "WWE presents No Way Out LIVE on the WWE Network" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 With all due respect I don't know how this question can be answered. Its a business based on income of which those two are major factors. Â How does one then take into effect the value of the after PPV TV rating which due to post PPV fallout, interest is usually up be it slightly or drastically? . There's 13 of those a year which in theory makes up a quarter of the value placed on the TV ratings, to minus this would have an effect of the TV income. Then there are things like the WrestleMania season where ratings are usually higher than the rest of the year. This is 3 month period covering Jan - late March / early April - and spanning 3 PPVs. Coupled with the after PPV TV ratings this would meal almost half a years worth of TV ratings is based on an after PPV rating or as part of the build up to the biggest live entertainment PPV of the year, which again to go back to my point earlier would then calculate into the value of the TV ratings income. Â Therefore, as PPV plays a big part into the value of a TV episode, and TV is required to make a PPV as successful as it could possibly be, I don't see how this is a question that can be answered. Â Got point Dann, but the answer to this is simple i think. Â I understand your point that there is an increase in viewers post PPVs and in the Mania season, but this would still be true if Mania and other PPVs were TV specials instead of PPV. Â Take the PPVs away and WWE still sell their TV shows around the world, they could still build to big TV specials (as stated above). Â Take TV away and WWE ceases to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 Therefore, as PPV plays a big part into the value of a TV episode, and TV is required to make a PPV as successful as it could possibly be, I don't see how this is a question that can be answered. The whole business model is built towards the PPV is the point I'm making. Not that television isn't important. Â Jason, stop being a tosser. You aren't even digesting what I am posting or having enough common sense to realise what I am saying. I know you like to batter an discussion to death by being completely tedious about stuff like Randy Orton never playing another character, but this thread reads like you want an argument or want to be proved right because you've been proved wrong on another forum or some shit. I really cant be arsed if its going to turn out like your other posts. Its Sunday fucking night man. Gone are the days when I will argue for hours over something that is pointless with someone who is a loony. Â Easy son... Â You stated something that wasn't right. I just posted why what you said wasn't correct. Â If you read the original post I asked if companies made more money from PPV sales rather than TV sales, not whether either was important or not. Â Chill the fuck out man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DannRead Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 With all due respect I don't know how this question can be answered. Its a business based on income of which those two are major factors. Â How does one then take into effect the value of the after PPV TV rating which due to post PPV fallout, interest is usually up be it slightly or drastically? . There's 13 of those a year which in theory makes up a quarter of the value placed on the TV ratings, to minus this would have an effect of the TV income. Then there are things like the WrestleMania season where ratings are usually higher than the rest of the year. This is 3 month period covering Jan - late March / early April - and spanning 3 PPVs. Coupled with the after PPV TV ratings this would meal almost half a years worth of TV ratings is based on an after PPV rating or as part of the build up to the biggest live entertainment PPV of the year, which again to go back to my point earlier would then calculate into the value of the TV ratings income. Â Therefore, as PPV plays a big part into the value of a TV episode, and TV is required to make a PPV as successful as it could possibly be, I don't see how this is a question that can be answered. Â Got point Dann, but the answer to this is simple i think. Â I understand your point that there is an increase in viewers post PPVs and in the Mania season, but this would still be true if Mania and other PPVs were TV specials instead of PPV. Â Take the PPVs away and WWE still sell their TV shows around the world, they could still build to big TV specials (as stated above). Â Take TV away and WWE ceases to exist. Â Â But unless they aired the "PPV" events live on the TV network that's already carrying them (which the networks would never pay the equivalent in income for) it's still a form of additional Paid Event revenue be it on something like WWE Network or otherwise, ergo people have still paid to view it, so it's still effectively the same thing. The goal of TV is to create additional revenue. Â I mean this in a nice way it's just I don't understand the point of this when the bottom line is about maximising revenue? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 Easy son... I'm fine thanks, Dad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Mayhem Posted January 7, 2013 Author Share Posted January 7, 2013 With all due respect I don't know how this question can be answered. Its a business based on income of which those two are major factors. Â How does one then take into effect the value of the after PPV TV rating which due to post PPV fallout, interest is usually up be it slightly or drastically? . There's 13 of those a year which in theory makes up a quarter of the value placed on the TV ratings, to minus this would have an effect of the TV income. Then there are things like the WrestleMania season where ratings are usually higher than the rest of the year. This is 3 month period covering Jan - late March / early April - and spanning 3 PPVs. Coupled with the after PPV TV ratings this would meal almost half a years worth of TV ratings is based on an after PPV rating or as part of the build up to the biggest live entertainment PPV of the year, which again to go back to my point earlier would then calculate into the value of the TV ratings income. Â Therefore, as PPV plays a big part into the value of a TV episode, and TV is required to make a PPV as successful as it could possibly be, I don't see how this is a question that can be answered. Â Got point Dann, but the answer to this is simple i think. Â I understand your point that there is an increase in viewers post PPVs and in the Mania season, but this would still be true if Mania and other PPVs were TV specials instead of PPV. Â Take the PPVs away and WWE still sell their TV shows around the world, they could still build to big TV specials (as stated above). Â Take TV away and WWE ceases to exist. Â Â But unless they aired the "PPV" events live on the TV network that's already carrying them (which the networks would never pay the equivalent in income for) it's still a form of additional Paid Event revenue be it on something like WWE Network or otherwise, ergo people have still paid to view it, so it's still effectively the same thing. The goal of TV is to create additional revenue. Â I mean this in a nice way it's just I don't understand the point of this when the bottom line is about maximising revenue? Â I'm not suggesting that they abolish PPV or anything, of course it is massive chunk of their income. Â The comment that prompted me to start this thread was a comment in another thread that TNA shoot themselves in the foot by giving away matches on their TV show rather than putting them on PPV. The same criticism has been leveled at WWE before also. Â However given the fact that WWE has shifted from making the majority of their revenue from PPV to making the majority of their money from TV, are they actually justified in giving away these big matches and having big "returns" etc on their TV show rather than PPV, not necessarily to build toward to PPV, but to keep the value of their TV high. Â Is the point of TV to make extra income, or is the point of PPV to make extra income. I think now that the PPV is considered a secondary source of income. Â Also has this had a detrimental affect of the quality of the PPVs given that we see big matches on TV on a regular basis? Â Easy son... I'm fine thanks, Dad. Â Good! Now be quiet.. Daddy is talking to another adult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members air_raid Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 Also has this had a detrimental affect of the quality of the PPVs given that we see big matches on TV on a regular basis? Â Yes, so fewer people are buying them. The figures you posted prove it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 It's not really a fair comparison to just look at the money WWE currently makes from TV and PPV to decide which is "more important." You have to take into account the potential: PPV has the most scope to rapidly increase your revenue. Saying PPV isn't important because you aren't making money from it could just as easily be framed as you not making money from it because you don't make it important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Benno Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 Without exact figures its difficult to say but it would appear TNA have more eyes on and earn more revenue from television as opposed to ppv. So even though their product is geared around building to ppv matches, perhaps it actually shouldn't. Â Theyre doing the right thing by lowering the number of shows and it seems Dixie Carter isn't a fan of the current model if dirtsheets are to be believed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andrew "the ref" coyne Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Additional Data 2007 PPV Revenue - $94.3 million 2008 PPV Revenue - $91.4 million 2009 PPV Revenue - $80.0 million 2010 PPV Revenue - $70.2 million  2007 TV Rights Rev. - $92.4 million (-2.1% vs. PPV) 2008 TV Rights Rev. - $100.7 million (+9.2%) 2009 TV Rights Rev. - $111.9 million (+28.5%) 2010 TV Rights Rev. - $127.0 million (+44.7%)  Although I applaude how you've put your argument forward, you have missed two very important things.   1) TV gets more hours than PPV, thus PPV makes more per hour.  Your argument, using the above data, is that "TV makes about the same, it not more, than PPV, and therefore justifies the top matches."  However what you are forgetting is that $127 million income from TV rights (2010) is from ALL tv shows throughout the entire year. WWE at that time had 7-10 hours of tv a week (Raw, Smackdown, ECW, Experience, Superstars etc).  In other words if I do a rough bit of maths... on average WWE "free" programming brings in about $12.7 million an hour. Meanwhile PPV brings in $23.4 million an hour.  Therefore using your logic, PPV IS more lucrative than TV and thus needs the big matches. After all, WWE's TV income has increased because they churn out more tv shows... not because the quality of the shows have improved.   2) Who exactly is paying the money?  Something else you need to understand is who is paying for what.  Advertisers (indirectly) pay for TV shows, and the fans pay for the PPV. Sticking a Wrestlemania quality card on free tv is not likely to increase the income of show by much, but will more likely improve the buy rate of the PPV. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Jason, stop being a tosser. You aren't even digesting what I am posting or having enough common sense to realise what I am saying. I know you like to batter an discussion to death by being completely tedious about stuff like Randy Orton never playing another character, but this thread reads like you want an argument or want to be proved right because you've been proved wrong on another forum or some shit. I really cant be arsed if its going to turn out like your other posts. Its Sunday fucking night man. Gone are the days when I will argue for hours over something that is pointless with someone who is a loony. Â His post going "Del Rio's more popular than Randy Orton, because I like Del Rio more and I've no sense of perspective" was one of his funniest. Duke got wound up a treat before realising he was dealing with a nutter. Jason's got quite a decent highlight reel for stuff like this though. Â Pay-per-view. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 TNA is a more interesting case because they really make fuck all from their PPVs, to the extent where they have to work bloody hard not to make a loss on the ones that are on the road (as opposed to being in Orlando). I think TNA could exist completely without PPVs at the moment, and be a tv only company. Â That doesn't change the face that they should be able to build a better PPV business. If they cut down to 6 a year, built to them with the same diligence they do for BFG, and potentially opened up the pay-er-stream system off their website to worldwide, they could generate better income from just 6 than they currently do from 12. IMO, obviously. Â I suspect one reason they are reluctant is that their relationship with Spike is SO important, they daren't risk angering them. If they were to lose Impact on Spike, they'd be dead in the water. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 Does BFG generally sell much better than their other pay-per-views? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted January 7, 2013 Paid Members Share Posted January 7, 2013 Lockdown actually draws more due to the all cage mentality. Bound For Glory did the worst buyrate its done since it got TV. It did around 18,000. That was credited to building to a Storm title win all year and them suddenly changing plans at the last minute and doing a main event that was built up withing 4 weeks with a heel turn taking place the week before. Which was odd. And then there was the Aces and 8s shite which turned off viewers by the thousands. Â A regular TNA PPV does about 6000. BFG and Lockdown usually do around 20,000 each. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.