On this day in TNA history...

[Reflection]

Well January 4th actually... But anyway, four years ago, TNA Wrestling saw the arrival of Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff, amongst others like Jeff Hardy, Shannon Moore, Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair (wooooooooo!!! sorry, couldn't help it), Scott Hall and Sean Waltman ("The Band is back together"), Nasty Boys, and Val Venis. Hulk Hogan announced that TNA would go head-to-head against the WWE on Monday nights.
Here is the opening paragraph from Matt Boone's WrestleZone Live Impact results of that night:

TNA Impact Opener:

A nice video package opens the show.

Mike Tenay and Taz welcome us to the special three-hour live Impact. They welcome in their new broadcast partner, Bubba The Love Sponge.

Video footage airs from the Hulk Hogan Appreciation Rally in Orlando yesterday, with Bubba interviewing random fans. Many fans took shots at Vince McMahon directly, claiming Vince has no idea what’s coming at him.

From there we head back into the live arena, where our first match is about to begin.

Things were looking really bright for TNA, and many of us felt that they were going to be a real competition for the WWE from that point on... And now, four years later, TNA is in a really bad position, from what we figure by reading news reports. Today there is a report on WrestleZone that TNA has failed to secure even the Impact! Zone from the last week of February onwards.
Hulk Hogan is back in WWE as if nothing happened (Its business, I understand). Others that went back include Rob Van Dam, Ric Flair, Scott Hall, X-Pac, Booker-T, Mick Foley and Kevin Nash. AJ Styles is gone, so is Jeff Jarrett, Kurt Angle hinted in a recent interview that he might leave too, once his contract is up.
I believe that the one thing that most people will agree with, is that TNA would have been better off without January 4th 2010. What was supposed to be the day that marked the rise of TNA, ultimately turned out to be the day that marked the rise of the steep fall of it.

 

[Father Uncle Oscar]

I agree with you 100%. On this day, TNA Wrestling had arguably the brightest future of all time. Now look at it, it's a piece of shit that can't hold onto their most recognizable talents OR THE FUCKING FOUNDER. But for me the problem wasn't necessarily all of the huge returns or the impacts they had (you're damn right that pun was intended)...

It's the fact that TNA tried to move Impact to Mondays.

In my eyes, even back then, the plethora of big name debuts still was not enough to try to start WWE vs. TNA. There will NEVER be enough to try to start WWE vs. TNA, solely because somebody was cocky enough to move the show to the same exact time as Raw. Don't get me wrong, it was a great show and very promising, but nowhere near where they would need to be to go up against the longest-running weekly episodic show in television history (I don't know if that was true at the time but I just wanted to type that from memory to prove how many fucking times that phrase came out of Michael Cole's mouth).

If that episode of Impact had aired on January 7th, 2010, holy shit would the script be flipped. Everybody would keep tuning to Impact because they didn't have to worry about missing ANY of their favorite Superstars; mainly because Thursday was when WWE aired WWE Superstars. All of these huge names could make brand new names for themselves as they built a company's entire legacy. We can only dream of where TNA would be today if they stuck to Thursdays. We can only dream of where guys like Styles, Jarrett, Bischoff, RVD, hell even Hogan would be when Wrestlemania rolled around.

Probably the Impact Zone.

 

[Alastor]

I agree the mistake was moving their time slot to start a 'ratings war'. This showed how out of sync the people in charge of TNA were at the time or how they listened to the wrong focus groups, i.e butthurt WCW fans who wants to one up WWE. They were still living in the 90s while the rest of the world had moved on. If they had just concentrated on making their own product instead of thinking up ways on taking potshots at WWE the shows would have been more tolerable. Their edge back then was a more exciting in ring product, something the fans could identify with. But with all the changes after that day, my perception of TNA slowly turned from a promotion that could attract wrestlers wanting to prove themselves in the business to one where even WWE developmental contracts were more appealing for hungry and younger wrestlers.

 

[Dagger Dias]

Hard to believe that was 4 years ago. Moving to mondays was a huge mistake, even though it was nice to have both Raw and Impact on the same night for a while there.

 

[Reflection]

At that point, TNA was at their prime, and was presenting a better show than the WWE were. I actually thought they might be able to lure viewers away from WWE because of being edgy and catering to a mature audience... and that would force the WWE to try harder and improve their product, and in return TNA too would take a step further, and so on. The world of pro-wrestling would start to grow again because of the competition and the want to out-perform each other...
Unfortunately, the opposite happened.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Nah. It was a good move by TNA. What you guys seem to ignore is that 2010-2011 had all time high ratings for TNA. TNA had more fans watching their product in those 2 years than any other.

TNA never grew because of stupid brainwashed WWE fans who only watch WWE and don't want to give any other wrestling company a chance.They are not wrestling fans.They are a brand's fan aka WWE.

WWE fan logic = Keep watching a single product and keep complaining.Don't watch any other company so that they can compete with WWE hence making the product better by competition.

 

[Alastor]

They could have if they had remained TNA and focus on being themselves and not have entire promos focused on 'saving wrestling' or 'beating the other company'. I think that moment did spur WWE to improve their product. We are having more solid matches on WWE TV on a regular basis than ever before. They just didn't swift the content from cheesy Saturday morning cartoons to low brow Jerry Springer shows that certain fans seem to think is what pro wrestling should be.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

WWE may have more wrestling on their show now but their ratings have gone from mid-3s in 2012 to mid 2s in 2013-14. Now they struggle to even get a 3. This is not called success. What majority of IWC doesn't get is Pro-Wrestling is not all about "solid matches".

 

[Alastor]

And pro wrestling is not all about 'ratings'.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

Yes it is. It determines how good a show is. More ratings = More fans watching the product = the company making more money from advertising, merchandise sales, and everything else. A TV show's success is measured by ratings.

 

[Alastor]

Ratings only directly affect advertising money. Pro wrestling is not just a TV show. Raw is just a TV show.

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

What? TNA Impact/Impact Wrestling is also a TV show.

 

[Alastor]

All my point was that 2010 effort might not have sparked a deluded hope of a 2nd wrestling boom but it did improve the overall effort by WWE to make an effort on improving their product. It is just pro wrestling as a source of entertainment is not as in demand by everyone as 20 years ago.

What was your point again? Another rant about WWE fans and another rant about ratings. That shit got old 15 years ago.

 

[Rayne]

And pro wrestling is not all about 'ratings'.

No, just once you put a professional wrestling program on television, ratings become so important that the rest of the stuff doesn't really matter in a "big picture" view.

Pro Wrestling Guerrilla doesn't have to worry about ratings. TNA/WWE does, because if they aren't getting the ratings that make their broadcaster happy, they're either forced to make changes that will increase those ratings, or they get pulled off the air in favor of a program that WILL bring in those ratings.

Ratings only directly affect advertising money. However, they serve as an excellent canary-in-a-coal-mine. Ratings tell you how many people are watching a product, and if they aren't watching your product, they aren't spending money on house show tickets and replica championship belts. TNA's ratings spent the past year and a half trending down- just like the rest of the company. There were also people during this period yelling about how ratings don't matter.

 

[Gelgarin]

RAW's ratings have spent the past decade trending down, yet inexplicably the show appears to be OK. It's almost as if it's a great deal more complicated than that.

 

[Cereal Killer]

Hard to believe that was 4 years ago. Moving to mondays was a huge mistake, even though it was nice to have both Raw and Impact on the same night for a while there.

That was a similar mistake they made at WCW. They were obsessed with competing with WWE and getting higher ratings. For example, they rushed on Goldberg's World Championship win by suddenly announcing a match on Thunder for the Monday after on Nitro. All they wanted to do was get higher ratings and development of the product is something which wasn't focused on. The could have made millions should they have actually built Hogan vs Goldberg for a PPV.


I checked out the LD for the episode 4 years ago and everyone seemed so excited and believed this was a big step for TNA. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was too, but within weeks I realized they have some issues. Star focus moved from AJ to RVD, the ring lost 2 corners and the wrestling style changed from having that small indie element (what actually got them noticed) to another version of the WWE's. There was even a story about magic rings. It was these small changes and the direction they took afterwards that brought them to the position they are now. Whoever though 4 years after Hogan's arrival, the company would be struggling to find somewhere to tape their events? They were smoking hot in 2009, even those last two months without the Mafia were good. Styles was the World Champion, Desmond Wolfe was having some great matches with Angle and the rest of the roster were developing themselves. That's when they actually had a mid-card. Returning to that state should do wonders for them. Apart from 2011, 2009 beat every other Hogan year ratings wise.

 

[Rayne]

RAW's ratings have spent the past decade trending down, yet inexplicably the show appears to be OK. It's almost as if it's a great deal more complicated than that.

One thing ratings aren't good at are comparing different eras. The WWE faces a lot more competition from a greatly diversified media environment over the past decade; people here like to think it's WWE vs. TNA (for some reason), but the real battle is WWE vs. Duck Dynasty, vs. the NFL (they aren't expected to win this one, obviously), vs. the Internet, etc., etc.

The WWE is doing quite well nowadays because they were smart enough to diversify from straight up professional wrestling. People love to shit on WWE Films, but they fairly consistently turn out movies that make money. (Not always, The Condemned rings a solid, strong bell.) They made a turn towards more youth-oriented programming, because that market is more likely to buy merchandise than the 18-30 audience the WWE targeted during the '90s and early 2000's.

Ratings aren't "the only" answer, but they're most of the answer. For USA, the WWE would have to trend downwards quite a bit more before they thought of replacing RAW; there aren't many other tentpole programs they could secure to draw attention to their original programming. For SpikeTV, they have to be asking themselves if another two hours of Bellator would be a better long-term bet.

I checked out the LD for the episode 4 years ago and everyone seemed so excited and believed this was a big step for TNA. Don't get me wrong, I thought it was too, but within weeks I realized they have some issues. Star focus moved from AJ to RVD, the ring lost 2 corners and the wrestling style changed from having that small indie element (what actually got them noticed) to another version of the WWE's. There was even a story about magic rings. It was these small changes and the direction they took afterwards that brought them to the position they are now. Whoever though 4 years after Hogan's arrival, the company would be struggling to find somewhere to tape their events? They were smoking hot in 2009, even those last two months without the Mafia were good. Styles was the World Champion, Desmond Wolfe was having some great matches with Angle and the rest of the roster were developing themselves. That's when they actually had a mid-card. Returning to that state should do wonders for them. Apart from 2011, 2009 beat every other Hogan year ratings wise.

We all remember how awesome the night of January 4th, 2010 was. On one channel, you had the Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels staredown, on the other, Hulk Hogan's return to professional wrestling.

Then, they focused the development of the company around two men who were more than twenty years older than most of their co-workers. For a while, it became The Hulk and Eric show, which turned off a lot of the people (myself included)- many of whom never began watching TNA again. (I remember the exact moment I said "fuck this"- the Thursday after the THEY reveal, when Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff performed nearly forty-five minute self congratulatory monologue featuring the occasional guest, and the supposed 'star' of the angle, Jeff Hardy, appeared for sixty seconds. I remember a lot of people talking about how that was smart booking, too.)

Early on in the H/E era, TNA made some big gambles that you can't really fault them for. They didn't end up working out, and what you can fault them for is failing to recognize this and taking corrective action. The Aces and Eights storyline is a microcosm of TNA as a whole during 2012-13; it wasn't working, but the people doing the showrunning kept with the same program, figuring that time was the problem, not material.

 

[Gelgarin]

You think SPIKE TV should be asking themselves about replacing the most consistently high drawing show on their network with two additional hours of a show that already airs and that, even with more promotion than anything else they air, still pulls consistently lower than TNA.

Seriously?

 

[ProWrestlingFan]

the Thursday after the THEY reveal, when Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff performed nearly forty-five minute self congratulatory monologue featuring the occasional guest, and the supposed 'star' of the angle, Jeff Hardy, appeared for sixty seconds. I remember a lot of people talking about how that was smart booking, too.)

Oct. 14, 2010 - This episode of Impact was the second highest rated Impact in TNA history with 1.4 rating / 1.90 million viewers.

 

[Rayne]

You think SPIKE TV should be asking themselves about replacing the most consistently high drawing show on their network with two additional hours of a show that already airs and that, even with more promotion than anything else they air, still pulls consistently lower than TNA.

Seriously?

With all of the major draws in TNA leaving? I think they're looking really hard at what kind of ratings they can expect from TNA in six months, so, yes. SpikeTV isn't looking at how TNA did in in the past when they're thinking about 2014. Bellator right now is playing the hand that TNA was in 2010, and their cost of production is far less than TNA's.

This is, of course, if TNA is even able to continue offering Impact. Anyone paying attention could tell that their finances over the past couple of years weren't balancing, and right now the story on that seems uglier than even the most pessimistic person here thought.

PWF- I am well aware of how many people watched that October episode. I was one of them. There was a lot of hype for that angle, which was quickly deflated. People wanted to see what happened next, until they didn't.

 

[Gelgarin]

All the major draws in TNA are leaving? I must have missed that.

And SPIKE know what ratings they can expect from TNA in six months. Everyone who can count knows what ratings to expect from TNA in six months, and they're higher than almost everything on SPIKE's card.

This is somewhat beside the point since SPIKE signed a multi-year deal with TNA in 2012 and axing the show would be unlikely to be a viable option even if it weren't a ******ed idea to do so. But hell - if you want to predict a ratings slide/doomsday over the next six months then I won't argue with you, it's easier just to wait.

 

[Rayne]

All the major draws in TNA are leaving? I must have missed that.

And SPIKE know what ratings they can expect from TNA in six months. Everyone who can count knows what ratings to expect from TNA in six months, and they're higher than almost everything on SPIKE's card.

This is somewhat beside the point since SPIKE signed a multi-year deal with TNA in 2012 and axing the show would be unlikely to be a viable option even if it weren't a ******ed idea to do so. But hell - if you want to predict a ratings slide/doomsday over the next six months then I won't argue with you, it's easier just to wait.

Yeah, I must have missed the whole AJ Styles thing, the Jeff Hardy thing, the Hulk Hogan thing, Kurt Angle talking about waiting out his contract, so on, so forth. I'm sure Magnus and EC3 will support the show, however. (We could also talk about the show runners leaving, but let's stick to onstage talent.)

Anything to offer besides "TNA did well in the past, so they will in the future?" I've heard that from a lot of other people, it didn't make any sense coming from them, and for some reason I've been led to believe you could construct a better argument than THAT. You seem to be really good at saying other people's ideas are ******ed, but if it's not 1960's professional wrestling, you usually don't have much more to offer.

Almost all television deals have escape clauses based upon performance metrics. Whether that escape clause is exercised depends on if it would be worth it to exercise that, and the arguments there will be more complex than "TNA did well before, so it obviously will in the future".

 

[Dagger Dias]

There was even a story about magic rings.

The sad thing is, that right there is NOT the only contender for worst TNA angle ever. That was cringe-worthy. Hogan had stated in some interview that Abyss was the next Hulk Hogan (before the ring angle began).... Still trying to figure that one out.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm just going to flag one little part of this, because it basically exemplifies everything that I'm going to talk about.

Anything to offer besides "TNA did well in the past, so they will in the future?" I've heard that from a lot of other people, it didn't make any sense coming from them, and for some reason I've been led to believe you could construct a better argument than THAT.

Err... no. That pretty much is my argument - that's how intelligent people analyse things. It's called precedent. You see what you do is you look at how things have gone in the past - then you look to see if their are any credible reasons why the are going to go differently thing time around - and if there aren't, then you assume that the established pattern will continue.

When you are the person advocating a dramatic shift in the statuesque then the onus falls on you to provide rational to support that shift. Turning around and going "Well you can't tell me why TNA isn't going to collapse" shows a fundamental lack of understanding about how analysis works.

I don't actually have to prove why TNA is not going to be axed by the network, for much the same reason I don't have to spend two hours with you explaining the evolutionary impossibility of a dragon. The lack of any credible foundation for your position 'is' my argument. There is no reason to believe Dragons exist, and this is all that needs to be said on the subject. You can repeat your argument innumerable times. Moan, complain, belittle and despair that nobody is presenting with a good reason why there aren't any - it won't change their lack of existence.

The 'arguments' you have presented as to why TNA is going to be discarded by SPIKE fail to hold up to even basic scrutiny.

You say all their top draws are leaving... except for the ones who aren't.

Jeff Hardy is being written off TV on account of being a meth-head who is not allowed into the UK, where TNA will be touring in January. You need to pay more attention to Mike Killam's reporting - since he called this one at the end of last year.

Kurt Angle is going nowhere, he's been making the same comments about a WWE return for the past four years. Once again I direct you to the theory on historical precedent, or alternately Einstein's definition of insanity. Kurt Angle will never be taken back full time by the WWE for similar meth-head related reasons - I suspect you know this, and are just being willfully ignorant to try and support your argument.

It appears Hulk Hogan has indeed left - you could build a valid position around the idea that losing Hogan will significantly hurt TNA's ratings. You'd be wrong, but it would be a valid position to have. Unfortunately you've spent quite a portion of your time telling anyone who will listen that Hulk Hogan hasn't increased ratings in his time at TNA. If Hogan hasn't increased ratings (which for the sake of completeness he has - just not domestically) then why would his absence cause ratings to plummet. It simple does not make cogent sense.

AJ Styles has also left, for the time being, but if you think AJ Style leaving is going to cause a full scale ratings collapse then I've been treating you with far too much respect.

So yeah; losing all their top stars doesn't really hold water. Certainly not enough to give credit to yet another "TNA is dying" saga. What else have you got?

The product is shit? By IWC standards to product has been shit for almost TNA's entire existence as a major company. A&8, Immortal, the tail end of the MEM, Claire Lynch, Victory Road, Anything involving anyone names Hogan, and almost every other major angle the company has run in recent memory has been resoundingly defecated upon by the balance of the IWC and heralded by the dumber members of that balance as being the harbinger of death for the company. Thus far everybody has been wrong - and internet complaints have comically failed to correlate to company success over the past decade. (Interesting Trivia: TNA's five best years in terms of domestic TV ratings it has been branded the worst wrestling broadcast by the Meltzar army. TNA's worst year in terms of domestic TV ratings it was branded the best wrestling broadcast by these same individuals).
I think it's safe to say that someone on the internet thinking the product is shit cannot be taken by a reasonable person as a reasonable barometer to chart future performance by.

So that leaves us with basically nothing to suggest that TNA's viewership is going to unexpectedly crumble. But hay, if you know something that I don't, or your analysis is so far beyond mine, put your money where your mouth is and make an actual prediction you can be called on. I'll make mine.

In 6 months time TNA will still be airing on SPIKE TV, and will be drawing much the same numbers as they are right now.

Do you think otherwise?

 

[Rayne]

So that leaves us with basically nothing to suggest that TNA's viewership is going to unexpectedly crumble. But hay, if you know something that I don't, or your analysis is so far beyond mine, put your money where your mouth is and make an actual prediction you can be called on. I'll make mine.

In 6 months time TNA will still be airing on SPIKE TV, and will be drawing much the same numbers as they are right now.

Do you think otherwise?

Again, on the whole seriousness thing- are you seriously suggesting that circumstances haven't changed for TNA over the past year? It would seem you're basing your whole argument on the idea that TNA is in the same financial position that they were previously.

-TNA's aggregate ratings for July 2014 will be less than their aggregate ratings for December 2013; provided TNA is still able to continue producing Impact.

-AJ Styles alone leaving doesn't hurt the company, Kurt Angle alone leaving doesn't hurt the company, Hulk Hogan alone leaving won't hurt the company, Jeff Hardy alone leaving won't hurt the company, but the exodus of several familiar names in a short time frame will hurt the company- and with so many people leaving over money issues, it's hard to imagine that others won't have the same issues when their contracts come up. Your argument seems to be "but if I saw three legs off of this table, it doesn't stand up!" (That's called "reductio absurdum"; examining the parts of an argument independent of the whole, to the point where you're no longer examining the original argument. Weak shit, Gelgarin.)

-Hulk Hogan isn't responsible for a ratings increase; however, his arrival heralded a different direction for TNA that attracted a different fan. The 1.0 they were getting in 2012 isn't the same 1.0 they were getting in 2009.

-Precedent works, until it doesn't. Sometimes circumstances change which make prior assumptions invalid. That's like... day one shit. Circumstances for TNA have changed, unless you're one of the crowd who yells "you don't get their financial report, so you can't be SURE". Do we really have to recap all of the events since July 2013 which suggest TNA is in a bad financial state? We can, but honestly, that has been discussed to death.


Again, you're really good at calling other people ******ed, and you're pretty good talking about wrestling heroes from the 1960's, and apparently you're awesome at producing logical absurdities like "I don't have to explain this, because I insist it can't be real", but when it comes to recognizing changing circumstances, we can just call you Zeven.

And for the love of Christ, don't come at me with "well people on the internet said this once" again. I am not responsible for every single person's thought on the internet about TNA for the past four years. Let's stick with what you and I have to say, hrm?

By the way, here's an article about the Komodo dragon. Looks pretty real to me, and a lot of other people can claim to have seen one.