Turd Ferguson
DA-DA Da Da Da Bah Da Da DADADA
TNA had an unfit to perform drug addict wrestle in the main event of a PPV.
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
WWE Superstars Canceled?
- Thread starter Kenny Powers
- Start date
TNA had an unfit to perform drug addict wrestle in the main event of a PPV.
I honestly can't imagine that any larger network is going to want to pick up a show that managed to lose 50% of it's audience over the course of twelve months. Superstars was a complete and unadulterated failure.
Additionally, WWE had just as much programing when they launched Superstars as they do now. Actually in terms of stuff that actually airs on TV I think they had more when Superstars was launched. So idea two holds little merit as well.
As such, it doesn't seem to far of a jump to get to the rather obvious conclusion.
Superstars actually was a bad wrestling show. You can tell by the way that people didn't want to watch it.
Please. Something isn't bad if not many people watch it. Popularity is a bad measurement of quality.
Look at TNA iMPACT!. When it was getting 0.8s last year, it was of higher quality than it is now, when it is getting 1.3s. Or so I've heard. Like fuck I'd watch it.
No; see this is where you're wrong.
"Quality" as you put it is a completely ethereal concept, it doesn't exist. What one person considers to be high quality another person might consider to be complete shit. Making any kind of judgement based on that is a futile waste of time.
Wrestling is not art. It's a business. The purpose of a wrestling show is to make money. Money is made by getting people to watch. Therefor a successful wrestling show is one that manages to retain and grow it's audience. That's the entire function of the show.
Similarly, you cant judge how entertaining something is by listening to a handful of vocal people on the internet. They're a fraction of the wrestling audience. The only reliable way to judge how entertaining a show is is to look at ratings.
If ratings trend upwards or stay level it means that the target audience is being entertained (ergo: the show is entertaining) is they consistently fall it indicated that the audience is not enjoying show, which means it is a bad show.
TNA is a perfect example. The vast majority of the internet is trumpeting endlessly about how horrible the product is supposed to be, yet in terms of audience retention TNA is far and away the most successful wrestling program on television. Over the past few years it is the only broadcast that has managed to avoid alienating large sections its fan-base.
Numbers don't lie. TNA has been entertaining the people who the broadcast is trying to entertain: making it a successful show. Superstars has been failing to entertain the people it is trying to entertain: making it an unsuccessful show.
You can argue over personal taste till the cows come home; one person's opinion on quality has nothing to do with weather or not a show is good or bad.
Stormtrooper
Championship Contender
Here's a question. Who the hell said that Superstars was cancelled? The reports all indicate that the last airing on WGN is April 7th. For all we know, they will be going to a bigger network, or maybe WWE is ending Superstars because they already have enough programming (RAW, SD, NXT, Tough Enough).
I don't see why everyone is jumping to conclusions here.
I don't see why everyone is jumping to conclusions here.
There can only be so much wrestling a fan will be willing to watch every week. Raw and Smackdown is more than enough for most. To me Superstars is non-cannon or not part of the main storylines in the WWE universe compared to stuff that happens on the main brands. I see no reason for me to follow it as such.
I suppose its main purpose was to be a Raw and Smackdown recap show with lower card wrestlers working tv matches. In this era of online videos and TiVo, a recap show is no longer needed. They should just put matches that are supposed to be on Superstars on NXT instead of having mindless challenges.
I suppose its main purpose was to be a Raw and Smackdown recap show with lower card wrestlers working tv matches. In this era of online videos and TiVo, a recap show is no longer needed. They should just put matches that are supposed to be on Superstars on NXT instead of having mindless challenges.
Not hugely untrue; but it was promoted well enough for it to garner a strong initial audience. I doubt that 50% of the people watching contracted amnesia and forgot that Superstars existed, they just decided that it wasn't worth watching anymore.
Given that the primary function of a television show is to get people to keep watching it, I don't think I'm pushing the envelope in any way by calling it a bad wrestling show.
Given that the primary function of a television show is to get people to keep watching it, I don't think I'm pushing the envelope in any way by calling it a bad wrestling show.
Mediocre? Surely you can come up with something better? (That, strangely enough, is what millions of people would like to ask Vince Russo).
OK, maybe I should explain something.
You're not a good company if you don't grow. iMPACT's ratings haven't grown since the start of 2009 (and that's despite having two of the biggest wrestlers of all time on the show). If you want to start from the start of 2007, the growth has been glacial.
Actually TNA has increased its ratings by almost 50% in five years.
In contract the WWE's ratings have been trending downwards for the past twelve years. They've been producing massive amounts of money for their shareholders, but your logic decries them as a bad company. Microsoft's market share has diminished dramatically over the past few years. They're still arguably the most valuable company in existence, but judged on your standard they are a failure. Don't even get me stared on the entire automotive industry.
Obviously all of these companies are not shit, your logic however is. A company does not have to grow, it has to make money. TNA is actually doing both.
In contract the WWE's ratings have been trending downwards for the past twelve years. They've been producing massive amounts of money for their shareholders, but your logic decries them as a bad company. Microsoft's market share has diminished dramatically over the past few years. They're still arguably the most valuable company in existence, but judged on your standard they are a failure. Don't even get me stared on the entire automotive industry.
Obviously all of these companies are not shit, your logic however is. A company does not have to grow, it has to make money. TNA is actually doing both.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
Haven't seen a discussion this one sided since the Thesz-Vader thread. Sadly at the end of the day the idiots still run the asylum because of the strength in numbers.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
I'm sure Superstars didn't work for several reasons. One of those reasons being it was filled with jobbers.
You're right. Let's say that the average iMPACT! rating in 2006 was 0.9 and the average for this year is 1.2/1.3. Well done TNA, you've gone up in ratings by less than 0.4 in five years. Like I said, glacial.
Ah, you see, this is awkward because the first bit, erm... isn't true. Take 2008 for example. In 2008 the ratings for Raw were on average lower than what the average has been this year. Not that it's important. I just dislike falsehoods.
Anyway, ratings are not a good way of seeing the growth of WWE as it is not just a wrestling company. It makes films, releases music, publishes books, etc. It has a number of subsidiaries that TNA don't have. Those are the things which are bringing in growing revenue.
You can't compare the successes of WWE and Microsoft. One is a sports entertainment company, the other is one the largest companies to ever exist.
TNA has been growing glacially in the past five years. In the past two years, it hasn't grown at all. As for making money, please, give me evidence. Oh hang on a second, you can't because TNA doesn't release it's finances. So blind conjecture is what you're going on. Nice.
Can you just like, not post any more?
Oh gods; you're one of those people. If your TV show is drawing a 1.0 then you cannot shoot up to a 3.5 inside a year. That's not how television works. Unless you run some kind of phenomenal advertising campaign then your ratings growth is limited by your existing size. 50% is not glacial, it represents around six-hundred-thousand US households per week. Roughly the same number of people who stopped watching Superstars on account of it being a terrible show.
Please, if you don't understand my post then just ask, I'm not going to think any less of you.. I said WWE's ratings had been trending downwards, not that they had gone down every single year. RAW decreased it's average annual audience eight times in the past eleven years. Plot it onto a graph and you will see a consistent downward trend. Smackdown is even worse, having lost viewer share ten years out of the past eleven. WWECW lost viewers every year until it got taken off of TV. So did Superstars. NXT only managed to exist on television for one season. I'm given to understand Ring of Honor's show flopped as well.
TNA is the only show that has been able to grow it's audience, despite having nothing close to the financial resources of the WWE. You can ignorantly dismiss their growth as 'not being fast enough', but at the end of the day TNA actually has ratings growth whilst nobody else does.
At least 80% of the WWE's revenue still comes from traditional sources, not that this is in any way relevant. Actually, whilst we're being irrelevant I might as well mention that TNA has expanded considerably outside of the world of television ratings as well. They've expanded their house show schedule, increased live gates, increased filming outside of Orlando, expanded into highly lucrative international markets (I'm pretty certain Impact is matched by more people than RAW in the UK for example)... all sorts of lovely growth that probably wouldn't be described as glacial.
Blind conjecture? How about the fact that Jeff Jarrett and Dixie Carter have both stated multiple times that TNA is a profitable company. Of course I'm sure you're going to tell me that they're lying so want a non TNA example? Glen Gilberti after leaving the promotion told us plenty of times that TNA made money. You seriously going to sit there and doubt Disco Inferno?
So that's three highly informed sources telling us that TNA is profitable. The company makes money, even the people who don't like the show concede that it makes money.
This is fast becoming dull for me.
Superstars failed because it was shit. People watch wrestling for the storylines, an idea that the IWC spectacularly misunderstands. Superstars is entirely bereft of storylines, so it was inevitable that it would fail.
On the other hand, this show only ever got commissioned in the first place because the network gave the WWE a big sack of cash to make them a programme. If the WWE seriously needed or wanted a show to keep the shit wrestlers on, they wouldn't have cancelled Heat.
On the other hand, this show only ever got commissioned in the first place because the network gave the WWE a big sack of cash to make them a programme. If the WWE seriously needed or wanted a show to keep the shit wrestlers on, they wouldn't have cancelled Heat.
Big Nick Dudley
Nick
A jobber squashing jobbers..interesting.
For what it's worth, TNA's average rating last year was down from 2009.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
It is a dirtsheet report so who cares but I found the first line pretty funny under the circumstances.
Apparently not enough to actually check them. Average rating from the first 11 shows of 08, 3.58, average rating for same period of 2011, 3.445.
TNA does release music and if you cannot see any areas that TNA has grown in that make money then you need to get your eyes checked.
What exactly are you basing your statements on that isn't blind conjecture?
I'll have to concede that point because this guy keeps digging himself deeper. Not IC's best showing IMO but even him on an off day is miles above what we are seeing here.
Apparently not enough to actually check them. Average rating from the first 11 shows of 08, 3.58, average rating for same period of 2011, 3.445.
TNA does release music and if you cannot see any areas that TNA has grown in that make money then you need to get your eyes checked.
What exactly are you basing your statements on that isn't blind conjecture?
I'll have to concede that point because this guy keeps digging himself deeper. Not IC's best showing IMO but even him on an off day is miles above what we are seeing here.
