Who is more responsible for the ratings jump: Hogan or Bischoff

[justinept]

This isn't a debate over whether or not the current TNA product is good, great or even watchable ... This is a debate over a fact that can not be disputed and who is more responsible for it.

The fact: TNA has jumped in the ratings since the arrival of Hogan and Bischoff.

Now, one can say that the ratings had no where to go, but up ... however, I find that untrue since the ratings can always stay the same or go down. There's no force that demands the ratings increase...

That said. I think it is Bischoff's arrival that has sparked the added interest in TNA wrestling.

TNA has struggled for years with bringing in established talent and not seeing a dramatic shift in the ratings. Guys like Sting, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, Mick Foley, etc have all been brought in to the fold, and none of those names have caused viewership to rise.

Now, some might say that Hogan is so big to pro wrestling fans that he's the only current or former wrestler who could change that trend.

However, I think Bischoff's arrival has done far more for the company than people give him credit for. Bischoff, himself, is a legendary figure in the world of pro wrestling. The only guy to ever beat down Vince McMahon at his own game, Bischoff provded interest because people want to see if he can do it again. Bischoff is not only the guy who created the Monday Night Wars - by going live on Monday Nights with Nitro - but he also created the mold for the Attitude Era, by insisting on more adult storylines in WCW.

Bischoff's arrival has struck a chord with the Attitude Era fan who is tired of WWEs PG era ... Attitude Era fans are curious to see if Bischoff can re-create the magic of adult storylines in pro wrestling ... and are anxious to see if his aggressive approach can spark a response from Vince McMahon ...

Though Hogan is perhaps the biggest name in pro wrestling's history, I just don't think fans would have trusted his arrival in TNA as anything more than a pit stop ... as if the skeptical fans would have thought that TNA would have botched it badly. The arrival of Bischoff has given fans - if not hope, then curiousity to see if TNA truly can turn it around.

 

[Powerbomber]

Hogan and Easy E have good chemistry - I don't think either would be successful without the other in the current roles they are playing.

 

[psykohurricane]

The question should probably be who's responsible for the rating staying the same every week. Because except for the monday night episode, every week, they've gotten the same ratings. So what this mean is that they got some new fans interested but they also lost some of the older fans in the process because they are doing the same numbers every weeks and that was the number they had in the ratings last year. So Sure i guess hogan and bischoff are responsible for there ratings right now but i don't think either one of them is more resposible then the other.

 

[classicviolence]

You mean ratings decline (last 2 weeks are of the declining trend), then I would blame that on the combination of both of them.

However I would give credit to the initial boost in ratings to Hulk Hogan. The new regime debuted on 1/4 against RAW and due to Hogan's promotional tactics they got a solid rating. Also I would guess that TNA got some ratings because of channel flippers during RAW because they did have some new debuts and a solid Main Event.

However TNA's inconsistent storylines and character changes, are turning off the new viewers. Also too many skits with Hogan/Bischoff are drawing some people and also turning them away.

 

[Pedro08]

I think the initial ratings jump can be attributed to interest in Hogan getting back into wrestling. However, as has been pointed out the ratings have dropped back down, so the initial interest may be dying down.

Long term, Bischoff would probably be the bigger asset to TNA than Hogan. He knows how to to run a show and compete with the WWE. Hogan is the name that draws them in, but Bischoff is the one who would know how to keep them.

 

[milfy21]

i believe that is because of both hogan and easy e that the rating are up. Yes there staying around a 1.2 and honestly i believe this is because of all the fans reading the spoilers online. I believe once hogan and eric go live on mondays the rating will raise because u wont have all the people knowing whats happening 3 weeks in advance. i pretty sure if raw was taped less people would watch it. i would go asfar as to say if raw was taped and smackdown was live then smackdown would have the best rating. So watch out once TNA goes live the rating will go up because the storylines are way better then wwe (personally sick of seeing the same 8 guys every week on raw) No matter what u say and how you defend it tna my not have people on tv for 2 weeks but atleast its fresh and normally ur happy to see someone u havent seen last week. TNA is doing the right things and the wwe crowd will notice this is they but behing the sterio type of the big jack up wrestlers. Im more entertained with the nastyboys 3D match up then i am to even watch any wwe tag match ( they dont do any storylines hell they just threw 2 people out there and say here's the titles)

 

[jrob1113]

i see a lot of misinformation here from negative marks. i would say Eric Bischoff is more important in turning the company around, because he has done this before, but Hogan is the most important character on tv each week. I can't believe some people and what comes out of their mouths. It's as if they like eating corn flakes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and then their major excitement of the day is tuning in to WWE to see a consistently boring storyline of John Cena as world champ

 

[hogan is the greatest]

i would have to say without a dout the reason for the ratings jump is because of the greatest of all time hulk hogan plain and simple without a dout but bischoff has made some contributions to,but the only reason bischoff is there is because hogan brought him in with him remember. when hogan first partnered with tna bischoff was there but nobody knew what he was go do it was all about hogan, and lets not forget hogan is the one really running the show he is the bottom line period.

 

[cod500]

i see a lot of misinformation here from negative marks. i would say Eric Bischoff is more important in turning the company around, because he has done this before, but Hogan is the most important character on tv each week. I can't believe some people and what comes out of their mouths. It's as if they like eating corn flakes for breakfast, lunch, and dinner and then their major excitement of the day is tuning in to WWE to see a consistently boring storyline of John Cena as world champ

I don't see much misinformed, they saw the article with the ratings listed. The ratings have been going down, this is not made up, it is posted on the front page. Whatever WWE is doing, it must be better than what TNA is doing. I like TNA but the stuff they are doing now is even worse than what WWE is doing.

 

[jrob1113]

Bischoff and Hogan are responsible for ratings that went up. TNA is way more watchable. Period. I don't think that can be argued by anybody with a brain. But according to some nerdy, rating-obsessed marks, the so called ratings (which are reported for the same show differently depending on the day and which are talked about by circles of marks who through gossip get them wrong and don't understand what they even mean or what they can be compared to) are down an entire .000001 percent (or 3 viewers) from last week so this is a sign that the world is coming to an end in TNA. So, lets all not enjoy wrestling because the rating went down one week!

Success should only be recognized as a rating folks, not by the type of quality product we're watching. Last week there was a rating of 1.2345 the week later it went down to 1.2249, this means the product is failing and so has Bischoff and Hogan. If ratings were up to 1.2400 this would be a success and hooray for Hogan and Bischoff. WOW.

Long gone are the days when people weren't on the net analyzing everything, when there was only tv and no youtube or tivo to watch or tape wrestling, and there were quarterly hour ratings of 4.1 here and 3.9 there..now every second of a segment is analyzed from the irish whip, to the eye gauge to the standing sidekick..Samoa Joe's entrance brought the rating down by .0001 rating and it went up .0001 when Velvet Sky hit the ring. Who gives a flying F*** what the rating is and who really knows why it goes down by a tiny fraction..some people have to shit, who knows, maybe the commercials are so good that people wait till a boring fat guy like Samoa Joe comes on since he reminds them that they need to clear their bowels..who knows, who cares!!...start watching wrestling for the quality product it is or isn't and nothing else. Ratings, to me, are only indicative of people who have no interest in enjoying a product unless non wrestling fans are watching. Spend more time watching the show and less time commenting on the television network side things. Ratings were meant to be analyzed by networks who pay people big money to number crunch, they should have nothing to do with what we watch on tv each week and should not be used as a measure of quality or lack of.

ha! nothing TNA is doing is worse than watching WWE programming..in fact, nothing most shows on tv are doing is worse than WWE programming..i get enjoyment watching the house wives of New York City fast asleep on my couch with my girlfriend than i do tuning into the faceless starless crop of crappy new wrestlers and stale old guys on Raw or Smackdown who have about as much charisma as Yokozuna..those two shows should be combined for one 2 hour show a week, there is far too little star power for two shows.

 

[cod500]

Bischoff and Hogan are responsible for ratings that went up. TNA is way more watchable. Period. I don't think that can be argued by anybody with a brain. But according to some nerdy, rating-obsessed marks, the so called ratings (which are reported for the same show differently depending on the day and which are talked about by circles of marks who through gossip get them wrong and don't understand what they even mean or what they can be compared to) are down an entire .000001 percent (or 3 viewers) from last week so this is a sign that the world is coming to an end in TNA. So, lets all not enjoy wrestling because the rating went down one week!

Success should only be recognized as a rating folks, not by the type of quality product we're watching. Last week there was a rating of 1.2345 the week later it went down to 1.2249, this means the product is failing and so has Bischoff and Hogan. If ratings were up to 1.2400 this would be a success and hooray for Hogan and Bischoff. WOW.

Long gone are the days when people weren't on the net analyzing everything, when there was only tv and no youtube or tivo to watch or tape wrestling, and there were quarterly hour ratings of 4.1 here and 3.9 there..now every second of a segment is analyzed from the irish whip, to the eye gauge to the standing sidekick..Samoa Joe's entrance brought the rating down by .0001 rating and it went up .0001 when Velvet Sky hit the ring. Who gives a flying F*** what the rating is and who really knows why it goes down by a tiny fraction..some people have to shit, who knows, maybe the commercials are so good that people wait till a boring fat guy like Samoa Joe comes on since he reminds them that they need to clear their bowels..who knows, who cares!!...start watching wrestling for the quality product it is or isn't and nothing else. Ratings, to me, are only indicative of people who have no interest in enjoying a product unless non wrestling fans are watching. Spend more time watching the show and less time commenting on the television network side things. Ratings were meant to be analyzed by networks who pay people big money to number crunch, they should have nothing to do with what we watch on tv each week and should not be used as a measure of quality or lack of.

you can't speak for everyone and just say TNA is more watchable just because you like it more. People have preferences. So because I like the Patriots should I say you don't have a brain because they are a more quality team than the cowboys, if you like the cowboys? If you like the cowboys, that is your opinion, i cant tell you you are wrong. If people think WWE is better than TNA who are you to tell them they should have the same opinion as you. We were talking about ratings, which is fact not opinion.

If Smackdown has low rating TNA marks want to say WWE is sucking, when TNA has low rating you guys want to blame the internet and spoilers. When (not if) TNA dies I want to see who you marks will blame it on. When Hogan got there, more people watched, week after week less people are watching. That is a fact. P.S.-- i like TNA but i am not blind, it will die. Peace, I'm out of this sub forum, what is the point of me being in a pro TNA or pro WWE sub forum. What was i thinking.

 

[jrob1113]

you can like something better even if it sucks. You just can't say it's objectively better if it isn't. If you think it is, and someone thinks it isn't, then there's a bias in there. Some people don't get stuff out of stuff because they are too immature to know what they are suppose to get out of stuff, and i can objectively say after watching WWE Raw lately that it stinks and anybody who watches it has no taste in quality wrestling programming. Its pg for kids!! Snore.

Ratings are indicative of nothing. They are not based on fact whatsoever. Sure, they're supposedly factual ratings. So what? That's not proof of any trend, its no proof of success. All it is are numbers that show that the same loyal households continue watching and defending their WWE product while the majority of the non wrestling watching public is not tuning into watch TNA. So what!! It's been one month, change happens in time, therefore day to day ratings mean absolutely nothing. They are not indicative of quality, success, or failure.

Real wrestling fans are waiting on the sidelines, waiting for the right motivation, and when they all come back they will not be watching WWE.

 

[LongHessa]

I really dont understand the IWC sometimes. You just make a thread about something that isnt even true. The ratings are not up people, except Jan 4th the raings are exactly the same they've always been. The last two weeks have been 1.2's.....again...the ratings are NOT, i repeat...NOT up.

 

[cod500]

Ratings are indicative of nothing. They are not based on fact whatsoever. Sure, they're supposedly factual ratings. So what? That's not proof of any trend, its no proof of success. All it is are numbers that show that the same loyal households continue watching and defending their WWE product while the majority of the non wrestling watching public is not tuning into watch TNA. So what!! It's been one month, change happens in time, therefore day to day ratings mean absolutely nothing. They are not indicative of quality, success, or failure.

Real wrestling fans are waiting on the sidelines, waiting for the right motivation, and when they all come back they will not be watching WWE.

Man you don't what you are talking about. You are just the ol fashion TNA mark. Nothing more nothing less. Real wrestling fan? You clownin man. So people that watch WWE are not wrestling fans? Now you just make no sense. You should stop writing.

So real wrestling fans would stop watching wrestling if there was no good product instead of watching wrestling because they love it? Think about what you just said. Because I watch TNA and WWE both, I am not a wrestling fan? And you are more of a "real" fan because you only watch TNA. Think about that, who is the real wrestling fan here? So if my favorite football team stinks, I should stop watching them, sit in the waiting until they got better and jump on the bandwagon? Shouldn't I watch them because I love my team and football. I love wrestling and I will watch TNA, WWE, ROH, or backyard wrestling just because I love wrestling. Too many immature babies running around saying "i boycott you because you are for kids". "You are better than them, so i quit watching them."

 

[proofinlife]

The initial ratings boost on the 1/4 edition of impact can undoubtedly be attributed to Hogan and the storyline's they ran with "the band", as well as debuting talent and better spotlighting of talent (Such as Pope).

January 4th's Impact did a 1.5, and have settled at a solid 1.1/1.2. Now, that's not much of a drop from 1.5, but it's not much of a climb from 0.9, either. I wouldn't consider Hogan or Bischoff responsible for any "Major" ratings boom, because there hasn't been a major ratings boom whatsoever. Now, if they picked up a consistent full point turnover, for example a 2.0, that would be something to be patted on the back for, but .3 is nothing to brag about.

TNA had the chance to follow up on the Monday Night Impact if they would have advertised the show still being on Thursday, but fans that don't read the internet would have been confused, looking for TNA on Monday's.

You can pile on as much star power as you want, but if you don't advertise properly, it won't do a thing for ratings, so I wouldn't consider anything TNA has done ratings wise as huge a success as Dixie and company want to make it out to be.

 

[jrob1113]

i watch tna occasionally but i would not consider myself a TNA mark..but in the past month i'm liking wrestling again and considering tuning in each week if this keeps up..and there are more of me out there on the fence not watching than of you watching each week to defend your beloved WWE..like a lot of my buddies, i hate the direction wrestling has gone the past decade and instead we watch ufc or old WCW nitros...i am not a tna mark whatsoever, objectively i can say i am 4 life an anti-wwe mark. WWE only gives us good wrestling when they are being challenged by another promotion, otherwise they give us a cornflake diet of John Cena.. the crappy wrestling programming they've been feeding fans since 2001 should disgust the lot of you..what TNA is doing right now is a shot in the arm of the wrestling i grew up on a decade ago, it's exactly what wrestling needs and you WWE marks don't even get it cause you've grown up on mediocrity.

 

[cod500]

i watch tna occasionally but i would not consider myself a TNA mark..but in the past month i'm liking wrestling again and considering tuning in each week if this keeps up..and there are more of me out there on the fence not watching than of you watching each week to defend your beloved WWE..like a lot of my buddies, i hate the direction wrestling has gone the past decade and instead we watch ufc or old WCW nitros...i am not a tna mark whatsoever, objectively i can say i am 4 life an anti-wwe mark. WWE only gives us good wrestling when they are being challenged by another promotion, otherwise they give us a cornflake diet of John Cena.. the crappy wrestling programming they've been feeding fans since 2001 should disgust the lot of you..what TNA is doing right now is a shot in the arm of the wrestling i grew up on a decade ago, it's exactly what wrestling needs and you WWE marks don't even get it cause you've grown up on mediocrity.

lol, im prolly older than you. grew up with mediocrity? lol. My favorite wrestling era was late 80's early 90's, which was one of the greatest eras and which was PG TV. lol mr. "i am a real wrestling fan but a life time anti-wwe mark, but I dont watch wrestling that much, just sparingly with UFC". you back tracking buddy. lol. It's all good man. You like what you like, I'll watch what i like. Freedom is great, but you should bash people for liking what I like. My wife likes the Hills, I don't bash her and say reality tv is stupid. It's what she likes.

 

[jrob1113]

The team analogy that guy gave earlier is funny. You like a team so objectively you think they are the best? That's not how it works. Your opinions don't mean anything if they aren't objective. Favouring one team is subjective. I like the Montreal Canadiens, for instance, they are the best. But they are objectively nowhere near good enough to win the cup this year. But i'm still rooting for them. To the guy with the team analogy, you can like the Patriots all you want, they were not the best team this year although they were your favourite team. But if the Patriots were getting higher rated games of viewers than the Colts and the Saints, would that be your reasoning for why the Patriots are the best and why they are your favourite team?? TNA right now is like the Saints, WWE right now is like the Patriots. Better tv ratings, sure, and perhaps more entertaining players, that's subjective, but they had worse overall placement as they did not win the Superbowl this year. But perhaps, financially, the team made more money than the Saints and Colts. Or had higher ratings all season. These areas of analysis are not indicative of the fact that the Saints won the Superbowl, and therefore are regarded as this years top NFL team.

 

[cod500]

The team analogy that guy gave earlier is funny. You like a team so objectively you think they are the best? That's not how it works. Your opinions don't mean anything if they aren't objective. Favouring one team is subjective. I like the Montreal Canadiens, for instance, they are the best. But they are objectively nowhere near good enough to win the cup this year. But i'm still rooting for them. To the guy with the team analogy, you can like the Patriots all you want, they were not the best team this year although they were your favourite team. But if the Patriots were getting higher rated games of viewers than the Colts and the Saints, would that be your reasoning for why the Patriots are the best and why they are your favourite team?? TNA right now is like the Saints, WWE right now is like the Patriots. Better tv ratings, sure, and perhaps more entertaining players, that's subjective, but they had worse overall placement as they did not win the Superbowl this year. But perhaps, financially, the team made more money than the Saints and Colts. Or had higher ratings all season. These areas of analysis are not indicative of the fact that the Saints won the Superbowl, and therefore are regarded as this years top NFL team.

Dude, your done. If this was a case and we were lawyers, I would have won the case. It's over. You backtracked and just said stuff that made no sense. The "real wrestling fan" thing finished you. I'm out, you can write more stuff, but I won't be in here to read anymore. I guess you can still write for the other readers, and I'm sure you will. Stay cool guy.

 

[jrob1113]

i'm not trying to win anybody over with what i'm saying today. I'm just trying to rattle some WWE marks. I'm not backtracking. I have never watched TNA consistently, just here and there. That's not backtracking, that's just me explaining i'm not a tna mark. I want WWE to be enjoyable to watch, it just isn't, i tune in hoping and it always lets me down. That's why i don't watch wrestling routinely. I grew up on the same pg wrestling of the late 80s and early 90s as you did and it was a lot better than the crap nowadays. Perhaps that's because i was a kid watching pg tv not an adult. I watch enough pg tv with my kid, don't need to tune into a persona-less fake sport with grown men in tights sweating all over each other wrestling in boring storylines for a corporate giant feeding fans the same old crap..i liked wrestling when it was entertainment, when it was about the factions, the hot chicks, about the rivalry, about the beatdowns, the chair shots, the crazy weird things, the huge main events, the crazy crowd reactions, the emotion..the stuff that's all missing in WWE's product.

If you were a lawyer dude you wouldn't get paid a whole lot for copping out of an argument the way you just did..you didn't come anywhere close to winning any case and i didn't lose any case because this is a forum not a courtroom and i didn't backtrack whatsoever, i just corrected somebody's misinterpretation of what kind of wrestling fan i am. I can and will write more stuff all i want, it's over for you, not me, i'm not the one living in my own subjective world, i'm not the one who analyzes ratings like some loser. Your condescending comment about me staying cool suggests you don't know how to win an argument any other way than patting yourself on the back and congratulating yourself on a job well done and then splitting before you get further whooped in an argument. You're living in box man, the same tunnel vision most WWE marks have and use in their arguments to justify their favourite promotion. I don't even think you're arguing the same thing i am, you're basically just arguing that WWE is better for you subjectively because the ratings said so and you've always been a fan, and that just objectively isn't true because TNA programming is obviously better and ratings don't mean squat as i objectively proved earlier.

Under your reasoning then, if i were a judge, i'd say you were in contempt for being a WWE mark who only looks at shit subjectively.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

You mean ratings decline (last 2 weeks are of the declining trend), then I would blame that on the combination of both of them.

However I would give credit to the initial boost in ratings to Hulk Hogan. The new regime debuted on 1/4 against RAW and due to Hogan's promotional tactics they got a solid rating. Also I would guess that TNA got some ratings because of channel flippers during RAW because they did have some new debuts and a solid Main Event.

However TNA's inconsistent storylines and character changes, are turning off the new viewers. Also too many skits with Hogan/Bischoff are drawing some people and also turning them away.

I agree. Bischoff is not a household name and Hoagn is. Hoagn alone will bring some people in.

Apparently they're not keeping them though.

Why is that when WWE ratings start to slide the ratings mean something yet when talking TNA ratings don't seem to mean much? Ratings are important for both but right now but they're critical for TNA. They went all in. If they can't compete with Hogan and lemming they will not be able to compete at all.

If the WWE ratings fall some they still have a place to TV. If TNA falls anymore they are in a world of hurt.

 

[Dagger Dias]

I'd argue that it's both of them. Hogan's debut was going to be huge and have a positive effect on the ratings no matter what.... but then eventually the excitement would die down. Then what? That's where Bischoff comes into the picture. He's often regarded as one of the best onscreen authority figures (THE best in my opinion) and comes up with controversial but interesting ways to keep people interested in coming back to see what happens next.

Why isn't it Hogan? The fan interest would eventually have gotten back to where it was before his arrival once the novelty of him now being in TNA had died down. Plus, let's use Raw or Smackdown as another example. Hogan would cause a small jump in the ratings there too, but the ratings would still die down after a while.

Why isn't it Bischoff? His arrival would have sparked a ratings increase, but much smaller than Hogan's debut did.... he would generate an increase in ratings that lasts much longer than Hogan's, but it wouldn't be as big if he was by himself and Hogan wasn't there too. What if Bischoff suddenly became the GM of Raw or Smackdown instead? Ratings might increase and stay that way there too, but only by a little.

Why is it both of them? They are both responsible for the ratings jump because Hogan generated fan interest and got more people to tune in first, and then Bischoff's character helped them want to see more. One without the other (either Hogan or Bischoff) wouldn't have been able to cause this large a jump in the ratings or for it to last this long.

 

[klunderbunker]

WHat jump? They're at 1.2 right now after about 3 weeks of going up .1. If you want to call this thread who is responsible for the CHANGE, it's Hogan. He could be washing his car and some people would tune in. Bischoff is good at what he does, but it doesn't mean much at the end of the day. It's Hogan and it's not even close.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I'm assuming this thread was started before the ratings of iMPACT! sank back into the average 1.2 territory? Any increase TNA has temporarily received since the debut of Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff has to be contributed primarily to Hulk Hogan. Whatever negative things anyone can say about him, and there are quite a few, Hogan is the biggest overall draw in pro wrestling history. His name is recognized by millions of people who have never even watched a wrestling match. That's always going to count for something.