Do You Consider TNA Successful?

[It's Damn Real!]

This is not at trick question. It' s a straight forward, objective question I'm asking you that has a yes or no answer — no grey area. Yes, they may be successful in some areas and "failures" in others, but I'm not looking to discuss any of their would-be peaks or valleys (there are plenty of threads for you to do that elsewhere) — I'm looking for a clear-cut response (given with explanation, of course) as to whether or not you consider the company successful and why (or why not).

During last week's TNA LD, Gelgarin and KB went toe-to-toe for one of the most entertaining debates I've seen here, albeit brief and only a few posts long, but Gelgarin posted one of the most well thought-out and well executed responses I've seen about this topic. I don't want to put him on the spot, nor do I want to capitalize (too much) on his hard work, but I figured it would make for a great non-spam discussion.

You can view Gelgarin's post that gave me the idea to open this discussion here: http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showpost.php?p=2884920&postcount=312

--

So have at it — is TNA successful? Why or why not?

If so, what makes them a success and why?

 

[Long Island Iced WXYZ]

TNA is successful financially, and that's good for everyone, good for the business and the wrestlers.

But after Jan 4th, TNA has been very difficult to watch. So much so that I'm seriously considering to stop watching all together.

They've been doing so many stupid things, pushing the wrong people, firing people that fans want to see, that it's hard to watch.

Their storylines make no sense, not all of them but enough to make it hard to watch.

Their getting decent ratings, PPV numbers are unavailable, so who knows.

Apparently they're making money on the house show circuit.

So yeah, as a business they're successful. But creatively, no.

 

[The Man They Call WMD]

No I do not. The reason I feel this way is hard to explain. The problem to me is that the TNA model is to give ppl an alternative to the WWE. In theory it makes sense because if there is a 1 billion dollar company in the wrestling business their must be room for another even on a smaller scale. IMO and I know others disagree they are not a alternative, they are more of a copy cat. They use old WWE wrestlers mostly and rip off the WWE. Stings promo, the Hall of Fame rings and many others. IMO ppl watch TNA because they want something other then the WWE. Sadly, TNA just offers a inferior rehashed product.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Well i consider TNA a success let me explain why i say so. The reason i consider it a success, is because considering the first time i was aware of the company was when they had the weekly PPV's i still watch them when i get the chance and i follow every storyline going on. They have managed to lure me away from WWE so that good for them. I also consider TNA a success because they have manage to stay in business longer than the Paul Heyman created ECW. sorry Heyman and ECW fans but its true.

 

[bighaas1]

i think tna is a Successful. because they got good talent like the moter city machine guns, a j styles, beer money and kaz ton name a few i think tnas x division is great plus it can be better if they get rid of hulk hogan.because wiith hogan there its going to be wcw #2 its going to be dead. also ric flair needs to stop wrestling to hes way to old like hogan but if they can get rid of them 2 they will be even more Successful

 

[Tattooed Jesus]

To me they have yet to become consistently one or the other yet. When they started with their weekly/monthly PPV shows I thought they were much more successful and entertaining than they are now. Then they had a short lived stint on Fox Sports iirc and that was a complete failure in my eyes. When they got onto Spike TV I considered that a success, and in the beginning of their run on Spike I would say that as a whole they had more ups than downs. Then right around the time of Samoa Joe joining the MEM, things started to lose their shine for me, and it has not really done much since then that I would say is a success. Hogan and Bischoff joining in my eyes was a complete failure in every since of the word. Although everything has not been completely a disaster since they arrived. Flair and AJ in the beginning of their pairing were one of the best things in all of wrestling, but that was completely fucked up. EV2.0 was a disaster in my eyes. 10-10-10 was a an overhyped pile of shit in my eyes. All the versions of "They" are just ridiculous. Right now the company has zero direction, well no they have to many directions and cannot even remotely stick to one path without changing that direction a million times a second. It is impossible to follow anything that happens on the show from week to week because things change so much. The fact that such big events are spoiled because of the tapings of the shows is another turn off to me. Picking up losers like Matt Hardy just for a cheap pop in the ratings is stupid as well. Matt Hardy is not a draw or a money maker and never will be. To me TNA has the talent and the potential to be a truly great company in and of itself. Not trying to be the next WCW or WWE or ECW, just be TNA. If they could find a consistent well planned program and follow that direction without deviation, then I believe they could be consistently successful. Until that time I think they are destined to continue to repeat the failures of their own past.

 

[Rampage Bentley]

That is a tough question to answer. Creatively, and as far as quality of product, no TNA is not succesful. But in terms of a business (which, when it all boils down, is what matters) I frankly don't know... Since TNA isn't publically traded they don't release buyrates, merchandise sales, etc. so we can only assume by what we see and what we see is a company who has spent millions aquiring new talent who really haven't delivered ratings. No improved ratings means no new fans, no new fans means no new customers.

That would make my answer no.... TNA is not succesful. Hope they become succesful soon, though

 

[X]

The thing about TNA is we don't really know their financial numbers. I believe the last we heard of TNA financially was Jarrett and Dixie saying vague things about turning a profit for the first time in 2009, right? I could be wrong but I believe that was the last I heard of TNA financially directly from the top. We haven't heard anything like that from Dixie, Jeff, Hogan, or anyone since though so we don't know if they really ARE successful right now as Gelgarin argued. Considering the massive amount of new payroll they took on in 2010, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they could have lost a fair deal of money in 2010.

But, again, we just don't know. We don't have the facts, as everyone knows TNA is a privately owned company, and they don't have to disclose their revenue or profits/losses to anyone. So really this is almost a trick question IDR, because there's no one who can really 100% truthfully answer this question besides TNA management themselves.

I'd say they're probably doing fairly well right now as a business. House show business has picked up from what I've read and they've been cost-cutting apparently, but at the same time, I can't imagine guys like the Hardys, RVD, Anderson, Sting, Flair, Hogan, and Bischoff come cheap. And they aren't exactly paying for themselves with great buyrates or TV ratings either as those remain in the exact same place as always seemingly.

From a creative standpoint, no, I don't consider TNA's current product and booking to be successful. At this point I'm certain most members of this damn forum would make better creative members than Russo and his merry band of pranksters. But that's really just my personal assessment of the company.

Good thread idea and all, but I don't see how anyone can REALLY answer the question faithfully when we don't have the facts.

 

[Rayne]

I really, really want to give you a yes or no answer here, but I can't. TNA's future is still very much in question, and until they are more solidly seated I can't make a good judgment on if they are successful.

First, my definition of successful: That TNA is a stable business with a competitive P:E ratio within the television entertainment industry. (We have to pretend it's financially divorced from Panda Energy, but if they start garnering more public interest and headed down the road to success, they will very likely have an IPO in order to raise cash for their continued growth. They can't suck on Panda Energy's tit forever.)

Do I think they have potential to be successful? Absolutely. Almost all of my displeasure in TNA stems from the fact that they have such incredible potential, but are squandering it with slapdash booking and false hype. They aren't making the same mistakes that WCW did; Time Warner cut WCW a blank check and said "have at". When the new owners came on board, they looked at the balance sheet, they looked at the future profit potential, and put the poor dog out of its misery.

TNA, on the other hand, appears fairly frugal. They've had some fairly pricey acquisitions, and the upgrade to HD they did last year definitely set them back a pretty penny. (Hulk Hogan does not come cheap, nor does a Jeff Hardy or Eric Bischoff. The "WWE rejects" they've picked up are actually a smart move; where else was Mr. Kenderson going to go? Was Mickie James going to go back to posing in girlie mags? (Her album is awful. It is a novelty piece for stalkers.) They got picked up on the cheap, and TNA's made good use of them.

I'm extremely suspicious of Jeff Jarrett's statements on profitability, because 'profitability' can be defined according to many different account methods. TNA could have taken out loans and be counting the payments against future years. (A common practice which now has many people looking for work.) They could be making $1 on an honest business sheet (which doesn't exist), which while 'profitable', would still be a poor performer. It wasn't a statement to inform, but it was a statement to politicize.

BUT- do I think that overall, TNA loses more money then it makes? No. Last year was a rough one for sure, as they had a lot of extra expenses and almost no expansion to show for it, but the expenses they had are not recurring ones. If they can get publicity, they aren't going to need to sign big contracts like the ones the Hogans and Jeff Hardy's have.

TNA's future is still in question; not this year or next year, but 3-5 years from now. Without being able to say that they're going to be around and returning money to their investors at least equivalent to what they could get by investing in something else, I can't say that they're a success.

I can say that they have great potential to be 'successful'.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

The thing about TNA is we don't really know their financial numbers. I believe the last we heard of TNA financially was Jarrett and Dixie saying vague things about turning a profit for the first time in 2009, right? I could be wrong but I believe that was the last I heard of TNA financially directly from the top. We haven't heard anything like that from Dixie, Jeff, Hogan, or anyone since though so we don't know if they really ARE successful right now as Gelgarin argued. Considering the massive amount of new payroll they took on in 2010, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they could have lost a fair deal of money in 2010.

But, again, we just don't know. We don't have the facts, as everyone knows TNA is a privately owned company, and they don't have to disclose their revenue or profits/losses to anyone. So really this is almost a trick question IDR, because there's no one who can really 100% truthfully answer this question besides TNA management themselves.

I'd say they're probably doing fairly well right now as a business. House show business has picked up from what I've read and they've been cost-cutting apparently, but at the same time, I can't imagine guys like the Hardys, RVD, Anderson, Sting, Flair, Hogan, and Bischoff come cheap. And they aren't exactly paying for themselves with great buyrates or TV ratings either as those remain in the exact same place as always seemingly.

From a creative standpoint, no, I don't consider TNA's current product and booking to be successful. At this point I'm certain most members of this damn forum would make better creative members than Russo and his merry band of pranksters. But that's really just my personal assessment of the company.

Good thread idea and all, but I don't see how anyone can REALLY answer the question faithfully when we don't have the facts.

Agreed about what you said, but still they must be successful because if they were not ,we would have heard from a credible source and not rumors that they were in serious trouble. And like i said before so far it has lasted longer than Paul Heyman's ECW, so that has to count for something.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Technically yes, TNA is a success.

The company has grown quite a bit since its initial inception and that is what would make them successful. TNA has gone from $10 a week PPV's to a 2 hour primetime slot every Thursday night on a network plenty of people get, they now have actual monthly PPV's and they have garnered a bunch of marquee talent that people know.

I really don't know what the state of the company is financially but I assume its pretty good considering the people they were able to bring in and not going belly up, business wise they are probably doing something right.

Since the company has grown and is probably financially sound I would have to say under those 2 attributes I would consider them a success.

The problem is what fans consider as success, even though TNA has accomplished a lot I feel much of the wrestling community feels they should be neck to neck with the WWE at this point in time and that's really unfair on their part. Even though I'm not a fan of the current product and sometimes wish they were putting on a better product that was more competitive with the WWE in the long run its naive to think they should be.

TNA is less than 10 years old and considering they've accomplished more in 10 years than most wrestling organizations ever had I would have to say that's pretty impressive overall. Perhaps their should be more growth by now but they are moving forward and thats really the important thing.

 

[JaDoE05]

I have read the OP read the post referred to by the OP and skimmed some of these answers. Am I reading something wrong? It seems everyone is looking at this from a financial standpoint. While this is extremely important for any business (because that's what businesses do is make money) on a wrestling forum I would expect other standards of success and failure.

In my opinion TNA is a failure, at this point simply because of the goals some of its leaders (Dixie, Bischoff) have set especially in relation to the WWE. A prime example is their abysmal attempt to start a new Monday night war.

I think if they stop trying to beat the "other place", they would have much more success.

 

[CrayzChris]

The problem is what fans consider as success, even though TNA has accomplished a lot I feel much of the wrestling community feels they should be neck to neck with the WWE at this point in time and that's really unfair on their part. Even though I'm not a fan of the current product and sometimes wish they were putting on a better product that was more competitive with the WWE in the long run its naive to think they should be.

I think the reason most fans feel this way, is because it seems like TNA's sole mission, is to compete with the WWE; especially since Bischoff and Hogan have come in. TNA tried to go head to head with RAW on Monday Night. Hogan and Bischoff made a lot of comments about how they were "coming after Vince".

I think all fans WANT TNA to be a legit contender. I think we all hope that TNA gives WWE a run for their money. But the fact that most fans EXPECT that, is because people in TNA have come out and said that was their goal on numberous occasions.

I have been watching TNA since their inception, and their growth has been awesome. I'm proud to see TNA action figures in stores, and TNA monthly pay per views, and a TV deal with Spike! TNA fought to get where they are, and they fought hard. In that respect, TNA is definitely successful. They have definitely grown faster than any other wrestling organization has been able to.

From a business standpoint, it seems that TNA is definitely successful. We just all want them to be MORE successful - and that's what's frustrating.

 

[tgrfan]

long time reader of the site.have been trolling on here for a while reading.but when i saw this i had to register.id say yes they are successful.for a few reasons.they are a profiting business and rating wise they do why not great ratings but decent ratings considering the network they are on,their limited funds and few resources they have.

 

[Jeritron5000]

I have read the OP read the post referred to by the OP and skimmed some of these answers. Am I reading something wrong? It seems everyone is looking at this from a financial standpoint. While this is extremely important for any business (because that's what businesses do is make money) on a wrestling forum I would expect other standards of success and failure.

In my opinion TNA is a failure, at this point simply because of the goals some of its leaders (Dixie, Bischoff) have set especially in relation to the WWE. A prime example is their abysmal attempt to start a new Monday night war.

I think if they stop trying to beat the "other place", they would have much more success.

I absolutely agree. I believe someone mentioned they've outlasted the original ECW, but...come on, they have a multi-million dollar company behind them and Paul Heyman was doing promo's in his mom's basement. TNA certainly has come a long way since its inception. I usually give them a hard time but it's mostly because I would be excited if they would actually come around and succeed as being a legitimate force in the wrestling world. Is TNA a success? I don't think so. It's certainly become MORE successful but where do they go from here? The Sting return promo says it all. People would go absolutely apeshit if the 2.21.11 vignettes were for Sting. In TNA it's a much different story. TNA doesn't give anyone but their true fans a reason to care about their product and I can't fathom that changing. Imagine John Cena hypothetically jumping ship. Can any of you honestly say even that wouldn't get screwed up somehow? It's laughable how the WWE can put some of TNA's biggest stars in their video games and it doesn't make a bit of difference. Nash got a pretty pop at the Rumble and it was like his entire TNA run didn't happen. It's a joke. Even if TNA is somewhat financially successful at this point, they are very far from being considered an actual success.

 

[Zigglerfan227]

My answer is NO. I don't hate TNA, but i don't like it. I only watch it when I am bored. Sure, there alot of TNA fans, but it does not meet the standards of the WWE. Heck, even the original ECW was better than TNA. Even WCW was better than TNA. Even the AWA was better than TNA!! Everything is better than TNA! TNA just doesn't have the "IT" factor that it needs.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

This is not at trick question. It' s a straight forward, objective question I'm asking you that has a yes or no answer — no grey area. Yes, they may be successful in some areas and "failures" in others, but I'm not looking to discuss any of their would-be peaks or valleys (there are plenty of threads for you to do that elsewhere) — I'm looking for a clear-cut response (given with explanation, of course) as to whether or not you consider the company successful and why (or why not).

I understand you do not want a so-so, "grey" area type answer, but in all reality, that's the only answer a fan can give. Why is that? Quite simply, as fans, we have no idea what TNA is really trying to accomplish.

Gelgarin made an assumption. He says TNA is happy where they are. That's nothing more than an assumption. I have never heard Dixie say this, and I've never heard Bischoff or Hogan say this. Until someone in charge actually tells us they are perfectly happy where they are, I can't give a solid answer, and neither can anyone else.

On one hand, you guys have made fair points. TNA doesn't cost nearly as much to operate as something like WWE. They are on a network that doesn't draw huge numbers, and may not expect anything more from TNA (another assumption).

However, TNA being happy right where they are is hard to buy into. Why bring in Hogan and Bischoff? Why move to Monday night? TNA makes a lot of moves, and they usually look like they are aimed at taking TNA to another level.

There is no clear answer, because we don't have nearly enough facts, straight from TNA, to make that call.

 

[Kitten Cutter]

Here's another perspective on it:

Why should we look at TNA as just a wrestling company and nothing else? Yes, as a wrestling company, TNA is in the same boat as WCW from the late 80's to early 90's and ECW: they can't beat the WWE. It's an established product with loyal fans and consistent storylines. (Not amazing, groundbreaking storylines but consistent ones that keep the fans coming back) If TNA's mission was to simply beat the WWE, then they so far have failed. The good thing is that TNA doesn't have to beat the WWE in ratings, at least not yet. WCW under Eric Bischoff took 4 years to beat the WWE in ratings. It's not like the wrestling war is over, people. It's only been roughly a year of the Hogan\Bischoff regime, and the company has room for massive growth. It only takes one spark to lift a wrestling company up, and no one can say TNA doesn't have the talent, both young and old. Plus, the show benefits greatly because it fits into Spike TV's man-oriented programming, so they may not suffer WCW's fate of losing their channels. And they have benefactors who know business (The Carters and Panda Energy are an established company that knows profits), so they may not suffer ECW's fate of simply running out of money.

If TNA were simply another Spike TV man show like the UFC, MANswers or 1000 Ways to Die, they'd be a huge success. TNA has a loyal fan base that gives the show consistent ratings that hovers about 1.0-1.3, which is not bad for a Thursday night show that competes with Grey's Anatomy and its multiple spin-offs and NBC's comedy stuff. It has a global appeal and established stars (Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Sting and to a lesser extent Jeff Hardy) that give the company recognizable faces. Their way of doing their shows makes them create more profit than loss. And the company, despite people's opinions of their creative direction, has done nothing to completely shame the network (Jeff Hardy's trial hasn't affected the company's profile yet, and since he won't serve jail time that helps TNA a lot more) unlike some shows with repeat offenders. (*cough* *cough* Charlie Sheen! *cough* *cough*)

Our opinions of their creative direction doesn't matter in the least, because we're watching, and therefore we add to their ratings. As long as TNA's fans continue to watch and the show continues to bring in the usual ratings and fans, then the company IS a success hands-down, because they are not in danger of being shut down by their owners or the network, and because they are generating profit for their show. And any business owner or show producer would happily take what TNA has for their show.

 

[Rayne]

I should add on to my original statement:

My definition of successful: That TNA is a stable business with a competitive P:E ratio within the television entertainment industry.

Professional wrestling is different then most television; most television doesn't tour. You have to separate the company into television and live promotion/merchandising if you want to compare it to other television entertainment companies, which is an extremely grey area due to the percentage of expense you're spending on wrestler salaries, as well as that most television companies aren't selling anywhere near the merchandise a wrestling promotion does. I couldn't even begin to tell you what percentage of income comes from merchandising, advertising, ticket sales, or so forth for various kinds of television companies.

The basic idea is the same; you want to convince investors that they can make more money investing with you then they could somewhere else. (Private companies can have up to 500 individual shareholders before they have to report financials to the SEC, which usually leads to going public. TNA is a private company in which Panda Energy has a controlling share- they are not an 'arm' of Panda Energy.) But I thought I'd clear that up, since I reread it and it sounded like I was comparing TNA directly to something like a Chuck Lorre Productions.

 

[GameOver]

Successfull in that they rose up from the death of WCW and have stayed afloat for aslong as they have. Not so successfull in improving anything the whole time.

 

[milenniumman8]

I'm debated for awhile before I decided to reply to this topic. I'm been a huge fan of wrestlezone for a very long time. Haven't posted on forums alot but I do read them. I'm also a huge pro wrestling fan. It doesn't matter if it's WWE or TNA or WCW or whatever I'm a mark for pro wrestling not for any one company in particular. So answering this question is tough for me, but in short I would say Yes TNA is successful..

I think after the failure of WCW the wrestling business got incredibly stale. Vince didn't hafta necessarily pull out all the stops to put forth a great product because he knew he was just competing against himself. There wasn't a ton of young talent getting built because there was only 1 major company and we all know how the Indy circuit is, so there weren't many people coming up that way either.

Although TNA isn't scaring Vince McMahon by any means it does give us other options. Which is something wrestling fans greatly need! We need to be able to have a chance to see another product, see what else is out there. TNA most definitely has it detractors for many reason's and many are valid. I think replacing the 6 sided ring was a huge mistakes, Hogan/Bischoff hasn't worked as planned, I could book TNA better than Russo,etc.

But however TNA does have many positives as well. Bringing in some of these ex wwe wrestlers was a great idea. Especially someone like Kurt Angle. Jeff Hardy is what he is, Matt Hardy Sucks. Mr.Anderson has done well with his second chance. I think AJ Styles is possibly the most talented wrestler alive and absolutely love watching him perform, and contrary to other's opinions I think he could be a star for Vince! I think Matt Morgan is a star and was one of Vince's biggest misses ever! The Pope, Samoa Joe, Jay Lethal, Douglas Williams, Hernandez, Kaz could all be profitable stars if marketed right. TNA has made tag team wrestling relevant which is one of their biggest accomplishments. The death of tag team wrestling within WWE has definitely been felt. WWE no longer has a way to get good young wrestlers out there. It used to be stick them in a tag team and watch them flourish(Shawn Michaels, Bret Hart, Edge & Christian, Hardy's) look what tag team wrestling did for their careers! Teams such as Beer Money, Motor City Machineguns,Generation Me are good for business.

One other thing is TNA in my opinion has put together a solid women's division. Most of their ladies can actual perform in the ring and aren't just pretty fitness models put on tv for their looks(torrie wilson,etc). TNA has also gave us the best women's stable ever in The Beautiful People, I've loved Velvet and Angelina from day one and could watch their entrance for 2 solid hours,lol!

So I guess instead of looking at what TNA isn't, maybe we should think of what TNA is and to me that makes it successful. We have options again to me as a wrestling fan that is HUGE! We don't have to worry about going back to the day's of complacency because of only one company out there to follow!!

 

[DethMetal]

Although it's difficult to watch and the creative team can't be creative to save their lives, TNA is a success, in general. If they would stop trying to compete with WWE they'd be alright. To answer the question of whether or not TNA is successful or not, you just need to ask one question: They're still here aren't they??

They still sell tickets to shows. They have PPVs which people pay for, and they still have fans who still give a rat's ass about them. They're not the biggest wrestling promotion out there, and they have ALOT of work to do before they can be considered competition for anyone, but in the long haul, TNA is successful. And as long as they have guys like AJ Styles, Beer Money, the Guns(oops. Hogan might sue me), Kazarian, and such and such, they will continue to be a success.

 

[SinCityBlitz]

The thing about TNA is we don't really know their financial numbers. I believe the last we heard of TNA financially was Jarrett and Dixie saying vague things about turning a profit for the first time in 2009, right? I could be wrong but I believe that was the last I heard of TNA financially directly from the top. We haven't heard anything like that from Dixie, Jeff, Hogan, or anyone since though so we don't know if they really ARE successful right now as Gelgarin argued. Considering the massive amount of new payroll they took on in 2010, it's not unreasonable to suspect that they could have lost a fair deal of money in 2010.

But, again, we just don't know. We don't have the facts, as everyone knows TNA is a privately owned company, and they don't have to disclose their revenue or profits/losses to anyone. So really this is almost a trick question IDR, because there's no one who can really 100% truthfully answer this question besides TNA management themselves.

I'd say they're probably doing fairly well right now as a business. House show business has picked up from what I've read and they've been cost-cutting apparently, but at the same time, I can't imagine guys like the Hardys, RVD, Anderson, Sting, Flair, Hogan, and Bischoff come cheap. And they aren't exactly paying for themselves with great buyrates or TV ratings either as those remain in the exact same place as always seemingly.

From a creative standpoint, no, I don't consider TNA's current product and booking to be successful. At this point I'm certain most members of this damn forum would make better creative members than Russo and his merry band of pranksters. But that's really just my personal assessment of the company.

Good thread idea and all, but I don't see how anyone can REALLY answer the question faithfully when we don't have the facts.

Exactly. Without the numbers none of us really know.

I guess it's a good sign that they are still around. So in that regard they would have to consider that a success. But if they're bleeding money the good times will not last for long.

It didn't look good when Bischoff came out and said ratings were going to be this high and they didn't reach those goals. They need to stop worrying about the WWE and concentrate on their own product. Wrestling fans need an alternative not a Sr. and Jr.

 

[CaptainZaltan]

Objectively, it's impossible to tell. We don't know what goals TNA has set for themselves, or how close they are to reaching them. We are only privy to dirt sheet rumors and the spin of Eric Bischoff and a few others (I'm more inclined to believe in the former than the latter). However, I don't buy for a second that TNA is merely trying to be a niche product and are happy where they are. If that were the case, than why bother attempting another Monday Night War at all? No company sets out to be anything less than number one in their field; anyone who says they are satisfied being second best has merely realized that there is no chance that they can ever become number one, and is accordingly trying to save face.

Subjectively, it depends on your own criteria. If TNA is really a tax write-off for Panda, than I guess that's a success in it's own right. I can't argue about the companies financial success without having the facts. If you read the dirt-sheets though (and I know you all do), there have been rumors before that PPV buyrates suck and that a lot of talent isn't being paid particularly well (believe them if you wish). And while you could argue that the ratings have improved, how much for what expense? TNA has brought in some of the biggest names in the business at great expense for marginal increases in ratings. To put it in perspective, lower ratings than syndicated episodes of older television shows (which Spike may or may not obtain at a lesser expense. You tell me). And the Impact Zone crowd, while despised by many IWC posters (and apparently TNA management), are basically still the only live audience the company has. Still, they've achieved and maintained a television deal for a few years, and while Spike isn't exactly a big deal, that's still a great accomplishment for a wrestling company. Can't take anything away from them there.

Critically, TNA is a flop. Pretty much anyone with any actual industry experience or knowledge (Madden, Kevin Kelly, Morey, Meltzer, even Nash and Chris Jericho) who aren't working for TNA are constantly berating the sorry state of it's creative and management. Hell, it seems as though a majority of posts about TNA by it's own fans are criticizing it. With the exception of a couple of super-marks who refuse to accept that there is anything wrong with the company (and you damn well know who you are), it hardly seems that TNA's fans have much faith in the company to pull off a consistently good product. Gelgarin and others are right that it's not TNA's job to please everyone. TNA doesn't need to please Madden, Kelly, or any of us, so long as they are pleasing enough people to stay profitable. Still, much like in any entertainment medium pro wrestling critics have their place and do influence the opinions of fans and potential fans, and that does influence how many people will check out the product, their attitudes going into it, and therefore how much money the company makes. The same can be said for word of mouth; the more people that walk away from watching your product with good things to say, the more money you can make. So far though, TNA doesn't really seem to care much about what critics, or even most of it's fans, want to see (which is generally a new creative team). Which I suppose is fine, if they really are happy with where they are. It seems to me though, that only minor changes would be necessary for massive gains in critical response. Obviously, you can't bow to every inconsistent whim from every audience member, but when half your live audience is chanting for your head writer to be fired you should probably consider that he isn't well liked.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

You have to say successful.. its been nearly 9 years and they are still running, and you can't they they aren't do all that well, they still have over 2 milion viewers for iMPACT every week, they still have the tv deal with Spike, they have big stars even though they are old... At times they have good storylines and can put on classic matches with certain wrestlers..

If TNA was a failure, they would be bankrupt, or running iMPACT on their website and wouldn't have a tv deal etc. But thats not the case, they are still growing but very steadily, They can be very dull at times and we do see a lot of crap storylines and matches and even when they sign crap wrestlers.. But as for the question, right now TNA are still going and are not going down, nor do I see them going down anytime soon.