Declining Ratings: Coincidence or Booking?

[Weems2k]

Everyone keeps saying these supposed "NWO remakes" is dragging TNA down, but look on over to the E. It's been mostly Cena vs Another Bland Cocky Heel, which is pretty much their whole roster. Ratings haven't exactly been on fire over there the past couple years. Hell, Mania can't even draw unless they bring back all these old timers for 1 Night only.

I've said it many times before. Wrestling just isn't as big, or popular as it was back in the late 90's. They've all gone on to UFC/MMA. And the fans that are left, are either WWE Only Fan marks, or TNA fans. Honestly, I don't see what's wrong with doing a alleged "remake" of WCW 97. It was one of the best years in wrestling. Hell, look at all the remakes Hollywood keeps doing. There are no original, lightning a bottle, storylines left anymore.

 

[LSN80]

I can only speak for myself here.

I'm generally a Raw and Impact guy, and PPV Sunday's. Often times, however, after PPV's on Sunday and Raw expanding to three hours on Monday, Im simply tired of watching wrestling. It's not a slight at Impact, in fact, if Impact was on Monday and Raw on Thursday, I might just watch Impact on Monday and skip the Raw on Thursday after a PPV. The truth is, since I stopped being soley a mark around 2008 and became more analytical regarding the product, I get far more burned out on wrestling then I did before.

I don't think it's coincidental that the ratings dropped the week of Wrestlemania. Between a four hour Wrestlemania and a three hour Raw, that's eight hours of wrestling in two days. And when it comes to Wrestlemania, my friends, my wife, and myself generally watch the replay as well. Whether it's to get all we can out of paying $70 for a show or just to watch the biggest show of the year twice, that makes for 12 hours of wrestling in two days. I know myself, generally a consistent Impact viewer, was too burnt out from watching 12 hours of wrestling to watch Impact on Thursday. I was highly interested in the results of the tag title match and the Hardy/Ray match, but the only time I flipped over from the Penguins hockey game was to watch Taryn Terrell's match, much to my wife's....chagrin, let's say.

While we know that storylines are often repeated in wrestling as "there are only so many ideas", these in particular seem to be following WCW's most famous year almost shot for shot. With these two interwoven stories, you have the focus of TNA's product, and I would theorize that this time around, the similarities to the famous storyline simply can't be masked. It is the story we all know and many loved back in 1997 with it being clear as to which 2013 TNA wrestlers are playing the 1997 counterparts. People have seen this story before and I'd theorize that they are tuning out because they know they've seen it.

1. Every storyline out there in wrestling has been repeated. I can't remember the last time I've seen a successful original storyline in the last 7-10 years. So even if Bully is symbolic of Hogan and AJ of Sting, I don't think it makes a difference. I've seen storylines done over and over again in my 15 years of watching wrestling, but if the wrestling is good and the there's good interaction between the wrestlers, I'm invested.

2. 1997 was a long time ago. I started watching wrestling myself in 1997, and the NWO invasion was one of the first storylines I have a firsthand memory of. However, I didn't make the correlation in my head until you mentioned it, and this is speaking as someone who watches with a critical eye on the product. I haven't seen a ratings breakdown because it doesn;t particularly interest me, but I'd fathom that many of the people who watch Impact now aren't old enough to even remember 1997, or didn't watch at the time. Or, like me, they've not made the connection.

Are ratings down out of coincidence or are the booking similarities reason for declining ratings?

I don't believe it's either, to be honest. Like I mentioned above, I think the combination of Wrestlemania having been Sunday combined with a three hour Raw on Monday caused burnout in people. I know that it did with me. I take my hockey pretty seriously, but generally, on wrestling nights, I'm watching wrestling and flipping to hockey during commercials. This Thursday, I did the exact opposite, and it was because I was burnt out. I can always watch the hockey replay and avoid the score when wrestling is on, but that option isn't available vice versa.

This week, I simply didn't care. After 11 hours of wrestling between Sunday and Monday, I was done for the week.

The other thought that springs to mind is this: Perhaps Impact cut their PPV schedule too much too fast. With no PPV's to build towards until June, Impact is in the position where there's a slower build towards the show, which can turn viewers away from the product as well. Solid shows can bring them back, but for myself, I like to see strides made from each week more and more building towards the next big event, be it WWE or TNA. With TNA, they have more TV time now to burn in between shows, and some do nothing to build toward the next PPV. I may be the only one, but even a show gives away PPV quality matches but fails to build towards the next show just isn't very interesting to me.

Again, this is just my take on it. I like the idea of cutting PPV's, but perhaps it was too much, too fast. I respect KB's opinion, as always, but I don't buy the Bully Ray theory. If "Sexual Chocolate" Mark Henry who had a hand with Mae Young could re-invent himself after 15 years and increase Smackdown ratings when he champion, Bully Ray can as well. I don't know if I buy that as a factor.

 

[Olly]

The thing about ratings is, they only matter because they dictate how much you can charge for advertising. But paradoxically, it's advertising that makes people use their PVRs and torrents (as I do) rather than watching shows live. Here in the UK this week's iMPACT! is only due to be shown in 20 minutes time on TV, and I won't be watching as I'd rather wait for tomorrow night and skip the commercials.

I'm sure I'm not the only one. I wouldn't read too much into ratings. I'm sure there's an element of Wrestlemania week burnout when it comes to live ratings as well.

 

[Agent Of S.H.I.E.L.D.]

Ratings drop, ratings go up. Ratings drop, ratings go up. And so on the story goes....

It's not a big deal. TNA has its fan base and they seem fairly loyal. Are you they doing anything to steal some of those WWE fans away? Probably not, but I'm not sure what they could do. And yes, that's really the only way to gain viewers - take/share WWE fans, or wrestling fans in general.

I'm not a big fan of Aces & Eights, but I am a big fan of Bully Ray, who has most certainly given the angle a jolt. Still not a fan of the group, but Bully is the best heel they have.

I don't attribute a drop in ratings to Bully Ray's title reign, and neither should any of you.

While your opinions on things are commendable, and you're a real stand-up guy I have to say that I do attribute the drop in ratings to Bully Ray's title reign. He's a mediocre tag team wrestler from the late 90's who's somehow the world champ now? It's pretty funny, and I wouldn't be surprised if folks change the channel very quickly when they make that connection.

 

[Rayne]

To the people saying "well maybe TNA should just go to another network", here's the question. What does TNA offer to that new network that makes them want to host? People here make the mistake of comparing professional wrestling shows to other professional wrestling shows, and think that's relevant to anything when it comes to whether a network wishes to purchase programing.

What matters is cost of production versus ratings. A lower-rated show is a more profitable one if its cost of production (or purchase) is significantly above a higher-rated, but more expensive one. Live professional wrestling isn't a cheap program to produce. That cost gets turned around to the network in the sale price. How much do you think the production costs for something like "18 & Pregnant" are, when compared to Impact Wrestling?

People talk about professional wrestling being cyclical, but I have my doubts. It's spoken from an assumption that because professional wrestling has had cyclical popularity in the past, that it must always continue to do so, and that any downswing is to be followed by a guaranteed upswing. TNA right now isn't achieving the ratings they'd need in a good week to compete against other television for their costs, and the WWE is off of their benchmarks as well.

Cost reduction isn't a serious option for either company, as most of the costs they have are inherent to their business. Seeing the product on television drives people into arenas; without that, you're ROH. If the professional wrestling companies don't pull their ratings up and become more attractive competitors to cheaply made programming, we could be seeing the end of an era in professional wrestling. It's very plausible that in 20 years, people could be talking about the Territory Days, the Television Days, and the Internet Days.

 

[Mustang Sally]

The problem is if you're trying to tell a casual fan to watch the show, it's hard to sell them on a guy that they likely know for shouting D-VON GET THE TABLES for years on end. Yeah if they watch the show they'll see how good he is, but getting them to watch is the big problem.

Yes, the problem of a performer reinventing himself has got to be one of the toughest things to do in pro wrestling. WWE has the same difficulty; so many people on this forum claim to be bored to death with the product, but both companies have the same one: getting people to accept the "changes" in someone we've known for years.....as opposed to the guy who has never changed his act and bores folks for that reason. A good example of that is Rob Van Dam, who's been doing the same damn thing for years. Yet, if he tried to reinvent himself, what would he do....put on a clown costume and announce he wants to be known as Rob Van Doink?

Both companies are damned if they do .....and damned if they don't.

As for declining ratings, it's also the same as with WWE; trying to attach too much significance to week to week changes isn't worth the trouble. So, TNA did a .93 last week; next week they might "soar" back to 1.12. This is the area they've been operating in a for a long time now. Even after Mssr. Hogan predicted a 3.0 on Jan. 10, 2010, they were operating in the 1.0 range before his prediction and still are now.

I don't see why people get so excited about weekly ratings. Trends over the long term are more useful, but still aren't really something fans need concern themselves with.

 

[Spinebreaker]

While your opinions on things are commendable, and you're a real stand-up guy I have to say that I do attribute the drop in ratings to Bully Ray's title reign. He's a mediocre tag team wrestler from the late 90's who's somehow the world champ now? It's pretty funny, and I wouldn't be surprised if folks change the channel very quickly when they make that connection.

TNA's figures have been at roughly that million mark for years. They didn't shoot through the roof with RVD, Ron Killings or even Hardy as champion. They didn't fall horribly with Jarrett, Abyss or Raven in the top spot. I simply think that we're about 20-30 years too late for individual wrestlers to affect the ratings that much...

People talk about professional wrestling being cyclical, but I have my doubts. It's spoken from an assumption that because professional wrestling has had cyclical popularity in the past, that it must always continue to do so, and that any downswing is to be followed by a guaranteed upswing. TNA right now isn't achieving the ratings they'd need in a good week to compete against other television for their costs, and the WWE is off of their benchmarks as well.

Cost reduction isn't a serious option for either company, as most of the costs they have are inherent to their business. Seeing the product on television drives people into arenas; without that, you're ROH. If the professional wrestling companies don't pull their ratings up and become more attractive competitors to cheaply made programming, we could be seeing the end of an era in professional wrestling. It's very plausible that in 20 years, people could be talking about the Territory Days, the Television Days, and the Internet Days.

Most things are cyclical. It happens with movies, literature, fashion... Why not wrestling? The rebellion against Reality TV has begun. As cheap as it is, it'll die if no-one watches.

Cool stuff becomes popular, popular stuff becomes mainstream, mainstream becomes establishment, establishment is rebelled against, people find something new and cool.

 

[MB1025]

The ratings are down because of the first hour. Since the move to 8PM, and anyone can go look it up, their first hours are usually well below a 1.0. So when 9PM rolls around they bump back up to their 1.1 and 1.2. Problem is that first hour is so low it drags the rest of the show down.

 

[Rayne]

Most things are cyclical. It happens with movies, literature, fashion... Why not wrestling? The rebellion against Reality TV has begun. As cheap as it is, it'll die if no-one watches.

Cool stuff becomes popular, popular stuff becomes mainstream, mainstream becomes establishment, establishment is rebelled against, people find something new and cool.

Reality TV isn't the only form of cheaply made television. What about crappy shows like "1,000 Ways To Die"? They pull in shit ratings, but cost almost nothing to produce. THAT'S the threat to professional wrestling. It's not "people will never be interested again", it's "there won't be enough people interested for the television model to continue being profitable".

There are also new competitors directly within the WWE's traditional wheelhouse. Prior to professional wrestling, the only real televised combat competition was boxing. MMA, despite both sides repeated denials, has a portion of their audience in common with professional wrestling. Will the MMA craze stick around? (This isn't a question of an individual's personal taste; this is a mass audience question.) I don't know about that, but it's a competitor from a direction that professional wrestling hasn't had to worry about in the past.

In response to your "why not wrestling" question, I directly respond "why wrestling?" Everything isn't cyclical; the appropriate phrasing would be "every cycle is a response to the previous cycle". That doesn't necessarily entail that every cycle ends up being a repetition of a previous cycle. Read your Frank Herbert!

 

[New Hot Fed]

Bully won the title on March 10. That means he's been champion for five Impacts now. If my memory is right, only the fourth one (April 4's show) showed an increase in the ratings from the previous week. The March 14 show had no tournament to go up against and still went down. The April 4 show was the first week with no NCAA Tournament game on in a few weeks and ratings went up slightly. Then there was this week, which was live and built as a major show. There was no basketball and nothing significant on TV that I can remember. This isn't just a one night thing. It's been a trend since Ray won the title.

Now the question is why. The shows have been FAR better quality since Ray took the title and the Aces and 8's stopped being a bunch of losers. However, the people still aren't watching, even with a big show like Thursdays with a big world title match airing.

Maybe it's people being tired of Aces and 8's in general. As I've said many times before: a few good shows doesn't make up for nine months of dreadful ones. The fans may just be tired of watching these guys.

However, there's one reason above all others that is causing this: Bubba Ray Dudley is TNA World Champion. Now yes, I completely agree that Ray is on the run of a lifetime at the moment and is the best heel in the company and well deserving of the TNA World Title. The problem is if you're trying to tell a casual fan to watch the show, it's hard to sell them on a guy that they likely know for shouting D-VON GET THE TABLES for years on end. Yeah if they watch the show they'll see how good he is, but getting them to watch is the big problem. For fans who watch every week regardless it's not an issue, but for a fan who might watch every few weeks or is a WWE fan, it isn't doing them any favors.

I don't think it has anything to do with Bully being champ but more like what you talked earlier: months and months of pure crap.

TNA would have to make up for it with months and months of great stuff to see the ratings rise. Wrestling has always been like that. The nWo started in 96 and people say that 1998 wasn't the best year for WCW yet it was 98 where they got their best ratings. Cause of the word-of-mouth.

I believe if TNA would have continued doing what they were doing great in 2012 with Bobby Roode as champ and no Aces and 8s stuff they would have 1.2 ratings right now. Or more.

 

[New Hot Fed]

I don't think this discussion should turn to whether Bully Ray can draw as champion. Sure, it's probably part of the equation, but it's not the whole thing certainly. Also, we're not talking about why a champion isn't able to pull in new viewers, we're talking about why people who were viewers are tuning out. I proposed a theory to that and so too has KB in a sense. I'm still asking whether there's validity to my theory.

Look at it like this. My favorite movie is Scarface. If you were to make a movie today and call it Miami: Drug Capital and it would literally follow the plot of Scarface shot for shot, would you be into it? Or would you think it was a knock off that isn't very original. Plus, the main guy is Mark Wahlberg who, while good, isn't Al Pacino.

I'm simply suggesting that people might see this is a cheap knock off and that won't help ratings. Keep in mind that much of Impact's audience likely has seen WCW 1997 or at the very least was aware of it so if we're talking about that core 1 million or so, you are going to get a percentage of those people that know they've seen this and seen it done better. That's what I'm suggesting and that if they think that, they may not feel like tuning in.

However, since SD suggested that Bully Ray's match was the highest rated thing this past week, lets go a step further. In 1997, the undercard had some decent feuds in DDP/Savage and a lot of people dug the 2-3 cruiserweight/TV/US title type matches per show that were more about the wrestling. The variety was excellent. Perhaps the lack of options for viewers hurts as well as wrestling is often "something for everyone" but with the focus solely on one overlying storyline, either you like it or you don't.

Is my first theory more accurate? The second? You decide.

Fantastic post.

Not to mention after the nWo, we've had
-The New Blood vs Millionaire Club
-The Elite 7
-The InVasion
-S.E.X.
-The Kings of Wrestling
-Planet Jarrett and Evolution(that were more Horsemen-like)
-The Main Event Maffia
-Ev2
-Fortune
-Immortal
-Nexus

So people are getting sick and bored by the same old thing. It's not new and exciting. It's especially not impressive if the new brand of invaders are jobbers, keep losing matchs and the only way they can win is by hitting people with a hammer. And bickers? It's a pretty uninteresting concept. Remember how people were sick of losers like Crimson and Gunner? Aces & 8s are full of guys like this.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I don't think it has anything to do with Bully being champ but more like what you talked earlier: months and months of pure crap.

TNA would have to make up for it with months and months of great stuff to see the ratings rise. Wrestling has always been like that. The nWo started in 96 and people say that 1998 wasn't the best year for WCW yet it was 98 where they got their best ratings. Cause of the word-of-mouth.

I believe if TNA would have continued doing what they were doing great in 2012 with Bobby Roode as champ and no Aces and 8s stuff they would have 1.2 ratings right now. Or more.

If Roode's reign was so damn good (which it was) that it would've brought ratings, or if this whole psychology TNA had back then was continued, then why were the ratings in the shitter back then as well?

Roode's reign didn't last two weeks, pal. It lasted a long while. So did Aries' but that's when Aces and Eights came in, which should've been a high point since the storyline was intriguing at first.

So why didn't the ratings go up during that period? They didn't do it long enough? Oh they did. So ... what happened?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Reality TV isn't the only form of cheaply made television. What about crappy shows like "1,000 Ways To Die"? They pull in shit ratings, but cost almost nothing to produce. THAT'S the threat to professional wrestling. It's not "people will never be interested again", it's "there won't be enough people interested for the television model to continue being profitable".

There are also new competitors directly within the WWE's traditional wheelhouse. Prior to professional wrestling, the only real televised combat competition was boxing. MMA, despite both sides repeated denials, has a portion of their audience in common with professional wrestling. Will the MMA craze stick around? (This isn't a question of an individual's personal taste; this is a mass audience question.) I don't know about that, but it's a competitor from a direction that professional wrestling hasn't had to worry about in the past.

In response to your "why not wrestling" question, I directly respond "why wrestling?" Everything isn't cyclical; the appropriate phrasing would be "every cycle is a response to the previous cycle". That doesn't necessarily entail that every cycle ends up being a repetition of a previous cycle. Read your Frank Herbert!

I still don't see the connection between MMA and Wrestling. I don't get the argument that a lot of wrestling fans became MMA fans and MMA is taking away wrestling's audience. Unless a giant ass MMA show is live during RAW, there shouldn't be a problem.

What? MMA fans have to like only one of the two?

I understand that some MMA fans feel they're big mighty men because they like MMA and wouldn't watch wrestling because it'll make them seem like panzies, but is that all of the MMA fans?

It just seems like a flimsy theory to me. If MMA is doing it then football and every other sport should be doing it, because they're all real and wrestling is the only fake one.

I still think it comes down to the content. Good TV is good TV. A great show is a great show. I'm not a huge fan of zombies and gore, but I watch the shit out of The Walking Dead because it's good television.

If the product is good enough people will watch and follow. There's always going to be that portion of the audience who just won't like it no matter what, but overall we'll see SOME increase.

This all goes to the WWE of course. TNA has their own excuses. Brand recognition, SpikeTV, blah blah. WWE has absolutely NO excuses. They have the money, they have the legacy, they have the stars and there is nothing positive happening in the numbers department.

Therefore, if we take the WWE as a case, if brand recognition, money and all that are not the problem, all that's left is the product. The show is not good enough. The same would happen to TNA if they had everything WWE does, no doubt about it. We TNA fans THINK that if TNA had all of WWE's resources they'd take off but they fucking won't. They'd be just as stuck because even though I love it, I know the mass audience wouldn't because both RAW and Impact are half baked at best, and when compared to FLAWLESS shows like Game of Thrones or one of those, they downright stink.

I know it's not fair to compare TV series with wrestling since it's apples and oranges, but if wrestling is to compete with TV series it HAS to be as good or better than them. Otherwise be glad you're on the air and keep on making fat guys dance and fake bikers run around with no purpose.

 

[Ovaltine]

The problem is that Aces & 8s is a rehashed story line from 1997.While most of the wrestlers who are involved in this story line are very good (Bully, Styles, Storm, Joe, Magnus, Angle) there are those who are just useless (almost all of Aces and 8s aside from Bully) and while Impact has an ass kicking roster it doesn't have the star power like WCW had in 1997. Also, why should I be interested in a story line that is essentially the same, but not done with the star power, the innovation or the name brand talent as the one that it is copying? I have missed the first hour of the past two weeks episodes of Impact (due to work), but I really don't care. The second hour (which technically is suppose to be the better part of the show) can barley hold my interest. The matches aren't all that good and they always end with some kind of outside interference. Impact isn't holding my attention anymore because I have seen all of this before on a much grander scale and it was called WCW. Now, I am not faulting any of the wrestlers who are involved. I am faulting the creative direction of the company. They keep trying and trying... and trying to reinvent the n.W.o. and it just isn't going to happen. I thought that tonight's episode was so boring that for the first time in quite awhile I found myself thinking I hope Sting retires soon so I can finally stop watching wrestling altogether. To me it just isn't good anymore. I get frustrated at how complicated they make what should be easy booking. How about trying to book a feud based on someone claiming I am the best and you can't beat me. How simple is that? Does the TNA booing committee think that that is that too simple for people to like? Well, it works for MMA. It works for boxing. It worked for Hogan Vs Warrior. It worked for Hogan Vs Andre. It is simple and it works. I feel like I am being a downer by even posting this here, but this is my honest opinion. Impact is just overbooked, over thought out and completely rehashing the one idea that pushed WCW into that stratosphere. TNA needs its own identity and it still doesn't have it. To me it truly has become the red headed step child of WCW.

 

[Rayne]

I still don't see the connection between MMA and Wrestling. I don't get the argument that a lot of wrestling fans became MMA fans and MMA is taking away wrestling's audience. Unless a giant ass MMA show is live during RAW, there shouldn't be a problem.

What? MMA fans have to like only one of the two?

I understand that some MMA fans feel they're big mighty men because they like MMA and wouldn't watch wrestling because it'll make them seem like panzies, but is that all of the MMA fans?

Does it have to be all the MMA fans? Once again, you try and make your point aggressively, without really understanding the issues at play, and end up falling flat.

The issue is that there is a new product which fits right into professional wrestling's traditional wheelhouse of "combat" entertainment. As I mentioned previously and had this obviously overlooked, professional wrestling hasn't had a real competitor in that field. Now, there is a product which offers all of the combat aspects of professional wrestling, with none of the stigma of being a 'fake' product. It doesn't matter whether you feel that stigma; it's something professional wrestling fans make a point to ignore, because, "it's real to me!"

But it's there, and it's real. Many of you will think twice about which friends to invite out to go watch whatever the fuck the next pay-per-view is. (Don't even care anymore, the product from both companies is just awful lately.) I can bring a new date to an MMA party at a bar (if I'm feeling stupid) and explain to her that you can't cheer for Michael Bisping, ever ; I bring that new date to a SummerSlam party and talk to her about the merits of a John Cena heel turn, and I might as well just take off my dick and leave it at home.

MMA doesn't have to beat Monday Night Raw in a head-to-head competition. People just end up convinced that professional wrestling isn't as good of a product to watch than the UFC. (Bellator and the WSOF are jokes, but their success even as jokes should be giving professional wrestling fans pause.) It doesn't have to be EVERY professional wrestling fan; just enough to make the current business model no longer feasible.

 

[Ovaltine]

Actually, according to an article on Lance Storm's websight there have been studies as to where those missing WCW fans went after WWF purchased WCW and he said that many of them went to MMA. If you watch early NWA and even WCW up until 1998 the emphasis was always on the in ring product. Televised matches were sometime 20 minutes long. NWA was ALWAYS about the work ethic and while WCW may have had many guys who were older and couldn't go anymore the undercard was amazing! On WCW TV and PPV there was usually only one clunker of a match and it was usually the main event. Watch an MMA PPV and then watch an episode of WCW Monday nitro and it'll become clear as day that that is where many of those fans went. Watch how rowdy the MMA fans are. It's like watching an 80s NWA house show or an episode of WCW Monday Nitro from 1997-1998. TNA has the best wrestlers in the world. They are better than what ROH has better than what WWE has, but they aren't letting these guys showcase their talents in the proper way. An alternative to WWE would be a REAL WRESTLING company which TNA claims to be, but clearly aren't. It has become just as gimmicky and watered down as WWE and while WWE can do that due to having its 50+ year old fan base who will watch no matter how awful it becomes TNA doesn't have that luxury. They just come across as a poor mans WWE or the bastard step child of Russ era WCW. TNA could be great, but by trying to compete with the WWE they continuously hinder themselves. Be the alternative TNA. Don't be WWE-light don't be WCWs step child- be yourself!

 

[MisterRob]

It's not coincidence, it's clearly the booking.

The thing people have to remember is that any show on television, when there's a change in direction or an altering in the course of the program, the reaction from the audience is not going to be evident right away. People are going to quite possibly watch the first few shows after this "change", and depending on their perspective of that change, they're THEN going to stop watching. But that won't happen until a week or two into things, so the ratings won't reflect that until three or four weeks after the fact.

People were already sick and tired of the Aces and Eights storyline going into the ppv that Bully Ray won the championship and was revealed to be the leader of the group. So it's very likely some people, already tired of everything, would have given this slight change in direction (or revelation in the main angle of the product) a chance for a show or two. It's based off what they saw from there, that point, that would determine whether they continued watching or whether they accepted that Bully Ray was just another medicore part of a terrible angle and THEN stopped watching.

So Bully Ray as TNA champion isn't the CAUSE of the decline in ratings, but he certainly has not been any help to it. The booking is terrible right now, the angle with the Aces and Eights is just bad, and people are starting to stop watching. The proof is right there in the ratings. They've been lingering at 1.0 or 1.1 for ages now, they haven't dropped to the number they DID the past week. People don't want to see this angle that the entire product is revolving around right now, so TNA better realize that and change course now.

People can overstate how good Bully Ray is as champion (and he's not that great, sorry), but the causal fans see him as nothing more then Bubba Ray Dudley from WWE and have no reason to see him differently. He just adds another lackluster layer to the weak Aces and Eights stable and angle, and as champion of the company he's NOT working.

 

[New Hot Fed]

If Roode's reign was so damn good (which it was) that it would've brought ratings, or if this whole psychology TNA had back then was continued, then why were the ratings in the shitter back then as well?

Roode's reign didn't last two weeks, pal. It lasted a long while. So did Aries' but that's when Aces and Eights came in, which should've been a high point since the storyline was intriguing at first.

So why didn't the ratings go up during that period? They didn't do it long enough? Oh they did. So ... what happened?

But who knows where they would be if Roode's run would have continued longer in 2012? TNA was doing good work with the whole thing but since the same people watch TNA over and over, it's hard for people to become aware of TNA and for TNA to bring more people in. But it's more than that, it's trying to bring back those that have left along the way cause there wasn't enough wrestling or the others that were there in 2009 when the ratings was around 1.2(or even 1.3) that are not there anymore.

You're not going to convince these people to come back just for a 6 months of good wrestling and good storytelling. You have to choose an angle and keep at it for a long time so that the word-of-mouth can grow, so the shout up be big enough so that these people realise that "it's OK to comeback to watch this". It may not have worked ratings-wise short-term but buyrates-wise, Roode vs Storm got the biggest buyrates of the year for Lockdown 2012. To me it's a sign that things were slowly but surely working. Roode and Storm were getting over. I think it needed maybe another 6 months of that to make it epic and create a momentum but you had Roode losing the belt, Storm getting de-pushed, there was an Aces and 8s invasion and the BFG series that sort of derailed things and changed the the focus of the company and along the way it became something else.

 

[braveh]

I think that Brooke Hogan actually brought in some viewers. She is a reality tv celebrity. That wedding, if I remember this correctly had monster ratings according to Meltzer (the segment not the episode). And besides Jeff Hardy isn't a champion anymore. The only people in TNA that we can say for sure is a draw is Jeff Hardy. Sting was a draw years ago but I don't about now.

It has to count for something. They took the belt off Hardy and the ratings went down?

But who knows where they would be if Roode's run would have continued longer in 2012?

I didn't hate everything about Roode's title reign. The build-up to Lockdown was pretty good.

But as far as Roode as the big heel with the huge tile reign it was a failure. The promos were all predictable, I doubt he got any heat from the tv-audience. He is not a great heel. The best thing it did was all the momentum Aries got from it....but they turned him heel in two months! You would think Vince Russo is still booking TNA!

 

[Rayne]

I think that Brooke Hogan actually brought in some viewers. She is a reality tv celebrity. That wedding, if I remember this correctly had monster ratings according to Meltzer (the segment not the episode).

No. Brooke Hogan is a reality TV celebrity only to people who watch Impact Wrestling. To everyone else in the world, she is Hulk Hogan's daughter, a woman who has yet to have a single product of her own stand up without her father's supporting money coming from behind.

I can promise you that there is no such thing as the Brooke Hogan Bump.

 

[New Hot Fed]

I think that Brooke Hogan actually brought in some viewers. She is a reality tv celebrity. That wedding, if I remember this correctly had monster ratings according to Meltzer (the segment not the episode). And besides Jeff Hardy isn't a champion anymore. The only people in TNA that we can say for sure is a draw is Jeff Hardy. Sting was a draw years ago but I don't about now.

It has to count for something. They took the belt off Hardy and the ratings went down?



I didn't hate everything about Roode's title reign. The build-up to Lockdown was pretty good.

But as far as Roode as the big heel with the huge tile reign it was a failure. The promos were all predictable, I doubt he got any heat from the tv-audience. He is not a great heel. The best thing it did was all the momentum Aries got from it....but they turned him heel in two months! You would think Vince Russo is still booking TNA!

You're completly out of the loop, Roode became hands down the best heel TNA ever had. And the angle was ultra-compelling, TNA never did something as good since. Roode is a pure asshole as you're ever going to get, nobody can touch him. The way he lowblowed Sting, the way he terrorized Dixie Carter. He even spit in her face! I could see Roode would make a natural heel the moment I saw him in Team Canada. And he was even better when he had Tracy Brooks for valet when he was feuding with EY. Becoming a heel champ was destiny. And Hogan and his cronies should never have taken it away.

Also turning Aries face around Lockdown 2012 was a huge mistake.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

But who knows where they would be if Roode's run would have continued longer in 2012? TNA was doing good work with the whole thing but since the same people watch TNA over and over, it's hard for people to become aware of TNA and for TNA to bring more people in. But it's more than that, it's trying to bring back those that have left along the way cause there wasn't enough wrestling or the others that were there in 2009 when the ratings was around 1.2(or even 1.3) that are not there anymore.

You're not going to convince these people to come back just for a 6 months of good wrestling and good storytelling. You have to choose an angle and keep at it for a long time so that the word-of-mouth can grow, so the shout up be big enough so that these people realise that "it's OK to comeback to watch this". It may not have worked ratings-wise short-term but buyrates-wise, Roode vs Storm got the biggest buyrates of the year for Lockdown 2012. To me it's a sign that things were slowly but surely working. Roode and Storm were getting over. I think it needed maybe another 6 months of that to make it epic and create a momentum but you had Roode losing the belt, Storm getting de-pushed, there was an Aces and 8s invasion and the BFG series that sort of derailed things and changed the the focus of the company and along the way it became something else.

Did you just claim to know buyrates information? Dude, I knew you were full of shit but this is just silly. You're better than that. Or so I thought.

You've heard this before but I'll say it again. TNA is a private company, there is NO WAY for the scum sheets to have access to this information. If they did, they would have definite numbers. You can choose to trust them, but that's idiotic. What's even more idiotic is basing your argument on bullshit information. Unless a credible institution released the number they have no business in any argument. Period. You can look them up, you may think it might be close to the truth but you use them as rock solid fact, and that's stupid.

"Roode vs Storm got the biggest buyrate". Not only is the buyrates information fictional, but even if it wasn't you have no way of knowing what "sold" the Pay-Per-View unless you did freakin' research on it. Even TNA doesn't know what sells their Pay-Per-Views, not down to which match at least.

Moreover, spare me the coulda woulda shoulda. 6 months is PLENTY of time to draw SOME viewers in. We saw none, in fact we saw drops in viewership. You can't run the same shit for a whole year and expect there to be no benefit within that first year, only after. If it didn't happen in 6 months, it won't happen. That's 6 PPVs, dude. Over 20 shows. Forget about it.

In the end, you pawn off a fictional scenario as something that WOULD HAVE HAPPENED NO MATTER WHAT but somehow TNA missed out on it because obviously you know something they don't, then you go on and you pull the buyrates bullshit based on the always trustworthy dirt sheet reports who just a few days ago reported the latest TNA rating and wrote that 0.98 is lower than 0.93, show an obvious lack of grammar in almost every column and every post and despite having access to buyrate information never give you a specific number but a rounded up one (credibility out the ass), and in general you just proved to everyone that your opinion is more useless than a WWE RAW review by yours truly.

Give me a break, man. Here I thought you were going somewhere logical with this.

 

[braveh]

You're completly out of the loop, Roode became hands down the best heel TNA ever had. And the angle was ultra-compelling, TNA never did something as good since. Roode is a pure asshole as you're ever going to get, nobody can touch him. The way he lowblowed Sting, the way he terrorized Dixie Carter. He even spit in her face! I could see Roode would make a natural heel the moment I saw him in Team Canada. And he was even better when he had Tracy Brooks for valet when he was feuding with EY. Becoming a heel champ was destiny. And Hogan and his cronies should never have taken it away.

Also turning Aries face around Lockdown 2012 was a huge mistake.

Two words for ya! Cheap heat!
IMO Jeff Jarrett is the best heel TNA ever had.

With Roode it was the same promo every week. "On sunday at this ppv I'm gonna bla bla bla". It's subjective but IMO Roode isn't a great promo, he isn't a strong personality, he is not that heel despicable. He is just mediocre but a fine wrestler.

No. Brooke Hogan is a reality TV celebrity only to people who watch Impact Wrestling. To everyone else in the world, she is Hulk Hogan's daughter, a woman who has yet to have a single product of her own stand up without her father's supporting money coming from behind.

I can promise you that there is no such thing as the Brooke Hogan Bump.

Come on that's not fair. She had her own reality series on mtv or vh1 and god knows that series might have had more viewers than Impact.

I just searched TMZ
79 hits for brooke hogan
26 hits for dwayne johnson

Do you see what I'm saying?

 

[The Gribbler]

While your opinions on things are commendable, and you're a real stand-up guy I have to say that I do attribute the drop in ratings to Bully Ray's title reign. He's a mediocre tag team wrestler from the late 90's who's somehow the world champ now? It's pretty funny, and I wouldn't be surprised if folks change the channel very quickly when they make that connection.

Have you actually watched any of Bully Ray's promos since... I dunno, a year and a half ago? He is a completely different person right now then he has been at any other point in his career, he is an old school heel and has developed more than I would have EVER thought possible.

Although I can see the potential for people to tune in and recognize him (millions of people watched WWF every night during the attitude era, it wouldn't surprise me if one would happen across TNA) I don't see why that would hurt. Call him mediocre if you want to, but the fact of the matter is that during a period in the Attitude Era, the Dudleys, E&C, The Hardyz etc. Were solidly popular in their own right. They would likely recognize one of the participants in those legendary TLC matches.

And as for the drop in ratings, TNA are something like a yo-yo dieter, things will plump up, just a little, in a couple of weeks. Hulk Hogan/Dixie will post on twitter how proud he/she is, then the ratings will sink again.

Lather, Rinse, Repeat.

TNA is a reasonable wrestling show, they just don't have that big of an audience.

Just My Opinion.

 

[IT Factor]

It is certainly no coincidence. TNA has had bad booking throughout their company history. Although since guys like Hogan, Bischoff, and Pritchard have joined the quality has become even worse than before. Of course, their intentions for joining the company were clearly selfish and out of greed and not to help. TNA needs to rid themselves of those types to advance.