Do You Consider TNA Successful?

[achromat666]

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.

I would like to answer the question, but as one of those ECW fans I do take exception to this. ECW NEVER had the financial backing of either WCW or TNA at any point in the time Heyman ran it, and financial reasons were the reason ECW closed not from lack of interest in the product. That remarks smacks of a rather unnecessary cheap shot, and a poor indicator of success.

I could run through all of the things TNA swiped from ECW's product to help launch their business, but honestly I don't blame them. I actually want them to succeed. And if as many people from TNA were constantly being snatched by WWE and WCW at the time ECW was around, we wouldn't be having this thread for many of the same reasons. Possilby sooner I would venture. And I would certainly prefer Heyman booking to what is in TNA currently.

But none of that's the point. To answer the question purely is yes they are successful. They have an audience, they generating revenue, and their performers still work.

I'm more curious as to how long they will remain successful under the current model. Living by the Controversy creates cash model only worked for so long.

 

[He's Phenomenal]

For me, TNA is very successful. I'm not one of these 'business head' wrestling fans. So if I enjoy what I'm watching and tune in every week, then I consider that TV show a success. TNA have certainly succeeded with me, as I wouldn't be watching wrestling if there was no TNA. I'm not going to sit here and bash the WWE, because their product is not aimed at me (I'm in my 20s), it's aimed at a younger audience. And TNA caters to people of my age. Wrestling doesn't have the best name over here in England, it's seen as only being for kids. But when I went to TNA last year at the Wembley Arena, there was roughly 9 or 10,000 in attendance and I'd say below 10% were children. So I do think TNA are a success and I think that's mostly due to the fact they target older fans who have grown out of wrestling.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

I would like to answer the question, but as one of those ECW fans I do take exception to this. ECW NEVER had the financial backing of either WCW or TNA at any point in the time Heyman ran it, and financial reasons were the reason ECW closed not from lack of interest in the product. That remarks smacks of a rather unnecessary cheap shot, and a poor indicator of success.

I could run through all of the things TNA swiped from ECW's product to help launch their business, but honestly I don't blame them. I actually want them to succeed. And if as many people from TNA were constantly being snatched by WWE and WCW at the time ECW was around, we wouldn't be having this thread for many of the same reasons. Possilby sooner I would venture. And I would certainly prefer Heyman booking to what is in TNA currently.

But none of that's the point. To answer the question purely is yes they are successful. They have an audience, they generating revenue, and their performers still work.

I'm more curious as to how long they will remain successful under the current model. Living by the Controversy creates cash model only worked for so long.

Sorry i didn't want to bash Heyman and ECW. You said that Heyman had no financial backing? Hum i heard somewhere or Mcmahon said it on Raw in 2001,
that he backed/compensated Heyman financially for his wrestlers something Bischoff never did and Heyman still failed. Anyways what i meant is that if a solid company doesn't want to invest in your product like what happened in ECW and WCW well its not good.

Either way i consider TNA a success so far.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I think first it's important to acknowledge that Gelgarin is right in general. There's a difference between what's "successful" from the viewpoint of a business and what's "successful" from the viewpoint of a fan. Personally, I think TNA is pretty awful at this point and really has been for a very long time. That, however, is my opinion on the quality of the product rather than the discussion of "success" in terms of business.

I also think that xfearbefore raised a good point as there's so much about the inner workings of TNA, from a purely numbers perspective, that we simply don't know. Aside from a few vaguely worded statements and rumors reported online, we have no real way of knowing just how TNA is doing from a financial stance. Given the expansion of their budged in 2010, I think it possible that they lost money but that doesn't mean that the company hasn't been "successful" generally speaking.

There is no clear cut way to answer, at least I don't think, with what information that we have. On the surface, I think it's easy to say that they're not because of individual ideas of what we think qualifies as success. For instance, there seems to be a decent sized consensus that holds that success for TNA means bringing in the same number of viewers, ppv buys and house show fans as the WWE, or at least a similar number. But, you have to look at the other side. A little less than a year ago at this time, TNA moved to Monday nights and drew some horrible numbers in the ratings against Raw. TNA moved back to Thursday nights and spent much of the rest of the year building back and regaining their hardcore following, which ranges some where in the 1.3-1.5 million range. TNA has managed to stay on the air and they've regained the number of viewers that they lost over the course of their move to Monday nights so that's a sure sign of success. If TNA stays exactly where they are over the course of the next 10 years, a legit argument for success can be made if they still retain that devoted, hardcore following.

 

[ABMorales787]

Simply put YES. Do you see any other company coming remotely close to even TNA in this day and age? ROH only scratches the surface of what TNA's accomplished and they've both been around for the same amount of time. TNA established itself firmly as the #2 company in the U.S. and arguably, the world in a matter of about 6 or 7 years. Yeah, you can argue that the spot was easy for the taking, but TNA was the one that pulled the victory. And in decisive fashion too.

They are afloat. They are selling outside the Impact Zone. PPV's are selling. People are accepting contracts. People from other media outlets are taking notice. If TNA wasn't a success none of these things would be possible. ROH is a success and it doesn't have nearly as much of the things TNA does.

So the on-screen product sucks. So? The ratings indicate that nobody really gives a damn and would sit and watch regardless. After all ratings haven't budged in a long time. If TNA were a failure of any kind, they wouldn't be filming outside of the Impact Zone for the first time in years. They wouldn't have the amount of stars they today.

TNA is no failure. WSX was.

 

[Jackal960]

My answer is "NO". And i try to defend TNA at every thread as much as i can, because i think we need an alternative to WWE. But still, my answer is no...

The reson of my answer is simply put: Potential.

TNA has all the right ingrediants, not to become WWE, but to be a company where wrestling fans can watch as an alternative to WWE. Here are the reasons:

Being TV-14: To start with they can use blood in their favor. During a great rivalry, they can have intense wrestling matches, which wrestlers can beat the hell out of each other, they can make the feud more beleivable. Now where does blood stand in this? You can have -whatever you call it- match in a steel cage, and you can freely use the cage in your favor. You can easily increase the intensity of the feud. You can beat the hell out of eachother by not worrying about the match being stopped due to bleeding. You can make the match and the rivalry more beleivable that way. Wrestlers do not need to bleed, but they CAN bleed. And this will definitely add on to the intensity of the rivalry. Another advantage is using some specific words that you can't use on PG. Now when you are watching a promo, you don't wait for the next a$$ word but when you use words in the right place, that fits the situation more than anything else. Just think about the Rock talking to Cole in his infamous promo. If you were to limit the Rock saying you can't use this this and this, the promo would still be fun, but let's face it, it won't be as much as enjoyable. How many times you can make a trash talk without using any bad words, how believeable would it make the way you talk? One of the segments with highest ever rating is Rock's "This is your life!" segment, and how many minutes would they need to cut in PG, if not all of the segment.

Roster: Now there are wrestlers like Orlando Jordan or Tyson Kidd, where you won't miss anything by not seeing them on a weekly basis. So you don't add them into this conversation. But when you think of the main guns, i think TNA has lots of and lots of talent. Anderson, Hardy, Aj Styles, Kurt Angle, MCMG, Beer Money, RVD and the list goes on. Now you can argue that these guys are not as good as WWE's main talent (which is argueable) but you can't say these guys are not even worth 1/3 of WWE's big guns. So the difference in the roster is not that much but why does Raw triples Impact in ratings every week? That clearly means this roster is not being utilized enough. Better things can be done with this roster but TNA fails to utilize it's potential in their roster.

Possibility to reach wider audiance: Simple maths, let's assume there are 5 million people out there who is ready to watch wrestling in television each week. Then you have to put a great show to reach anything over 4 million. To push over 4 million you really need to push the quality of the show, because it means you are milking from every possible viewer. However, if only 1 million people is watching you then your possibility to get more viewers would increase dramatically. That's because even if you put an average show you can easily get an additional million. Going from 1 million viewers to 2 million will always be easier than going from 4 million to 5. The other thing is, TNA has the potential to reach more "age brackets". If you target the kids between "5 years old -15 years old" it's difficult to get a viewer who is 40 years old, because the product needs to change to fit both ages. But if you are doing a show for "16 years old-25 years old" a person who is 30, 40, 50 or 55 can easily find the show watchable. You don't need to make dramatic changes on the show to reach all these ages. The same show can serve for all these ages.

Having all these advantages and ingridients, TNA should have done better. I expect them to be better. I think it hasn't failed yet because it's not based on one moment in a timeframe. With all this potential they can still manage to grow bigger in time. For me it's a failure today for not utilizing it's potential, but who knows what will happen by next year this time? Hopefully we will open a thread of how TNA become successful in 2011. Watching a better TNA will make WWE and the wrestling world better as well.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Simply put YES. Do you see any other company coming remotely close to even TNA in this day and age? ROH only scratches the surface of what TNA's accomplished and they've both been around for the same amount of time. TNA established itself firmly as the #2 company in the U.S. and arguably, the world in a matter of about 6 or 7 years. Yeah, you can argue that the spot was easy for the taking, but TNA was the one that pulled the victory. And in decisive fashion too.

They are afloat. They are selling outside the Impact Zone. PPV's are selling. People are accepting contracts. People from other media outlets are taking notice. If TNA wasn't a success none of these things would be possible. ROH is a success and it doesn't have nearly as much of the things TNA does.

So the on-screen product sucks. So? The ratings indicate that nobody really gives a damn and would sit and watch regardless. After all ratings haven't budged in a long time. If TNA were a failure of any kind, they wouldn't be filming outside of the Impact Zone for the first time in years. They wouldn't have the amount of stars they today.

TNA is no failure. WSX was.

What you said about ROH is true. Yes they have success but are not even able to get a TV deal and its a shame for them considering that they have been in operation as long as TNA have. So considering that fact TNA is a success, because it could have easily been the other way around. Are they on the same level with WWE? No of course not because WWE has been there for so long. The reason that TNA failed on monday nights, well its simple if you are so acustomed to watching Raw on monday nights, no wrestling company can put a show there and expect that people will watch over night. So yeah they failed in this aspect but atleast they tried and nobody can fault them for that.

 

[achromat666]

AntiChristDeicide, fair enough but read my response.

I never said they had no financial backing, simply not the backing that WCW had or that TNA has. Vince helped, but couldn't outright financially support them as that would have been counterproductive business wise, whereas WCW had Turner and TNA has Panda Energy/ Dixie Carter.

Nevertheless, neither WCW nor ECW is still in business, and TNA is.

 

[Hollywood Naitch]

YES

I do believe TNA has been a success, as it is now a permenant weekly wrestling show, showcasing some of the best talent and biggest names that the business has to offer.

Kurt Angle, AJ Styles, Sting, Rob Van Dam, MCMG, Jeff Hardy, Hulk Hogan, Mr Anderson, Ric Flair, Matt Morgan, Samoa Joe, Scott Steiner etc. That is some serious name talent, and that isnt even including all the talented wrestlers that they have on the roster who are being underutilised. TNA has a talent roster that is comparable to WWE's, they just cannot use it right.

Just look at some of the other names that have appeared in the company since its creation : Mick Foley, Christian Cage, CM Punk, Raven, Rhino, Jeff Jarrett, Lashley, Diamond Dallas Page, Randy Savage, Kevin Nash, Booker T, Scott Hall, Ken Shamrock, Beer Money and many many others.

TNA has grown into a genuine alternative to WWE, and for all the mistakes Dixie Carter has made, and my god she has made alot, TNA is established as by far the 2nd largest wrestling promotion in the US. There are so many other companies that have started from scratch since the demise of WCW and ECW that have not even achieved a 100th of what TNA has done. They are doing arena shows in the UK, they have Impact! on UK TV, they have hundreds of DVD's available, they are able to sign almost any WWE talent as soon as they are available.

TNA is not making the most of the opportunity it has. With the PG restrictions that WWE has in place right now, TNA has the chance to capitalise on the disgruntled fanbase that WWE is not focusing on right now, and offer them an attractive product with established names, while still working to create new talent for the future. However, they are not doing this right now and seem intent on redoing angles from the past, focusing on the old talent which is a mistake and copying WWE (their rip-off of the Sting angle is appaling).

TNA as a wrestling company has been a success, but could be much more successful than it has been. It is established, but needs to capitalise on the available opportunities and utlise its talent better, but as an actual business it has been a financial failure as they make barely any money.

By focusing on improving the product, ratings will increase and therefore the financial situation will also improve, making TNA a success across the board.

 

[Iced]

The 2nd most popular wrestling organization in North America aren't as successful as they could be but they're certainly not a failure. I guess it depends on your personal view of success...

They've been successful at getting a MAJOR financial investor twice now. First HealthSouth and then Panda Energy, the latter was more of a stroke of luck than earned success though.

They've been moderately successful in television also. I think Impact used to air on Saturday nights, TNA was able to increase their ratings and thus earned a better time slot. They've managed to keep a pretty solid rating over the course of prime time Impact, however they've failed to improve their average rating as the show has been hovering around a 1.1 since 2007.

TNA has been successful at getting themselves into a very enviable postion with a television show and major financial backer, but they've failed to do anything notable once there. They don't have a "claim to fame" so to speak.

I do commentary for a local promoter here in WV for an organization known as ASW. The promoter is a long time wrestling fan who likes to meet the wrestlers and put on a little show for people in the area. He's not trying to become the biggest or best, its merely a hobby, but he is successful. He entertains the fans and he gets to meet and book some of his favorite legends and will continue to do so in the future. He's accomplishing what he set out to do.

In my estimation, a wrestling company really only needs to do 2 things to be successful:
1. Make money or Avoid bankruptcy/defunction. TNA may not be making money per se (maybe they are but I doubt it and there's really no way for us as fans to know) but they don't appear to be in danger of dissolution so in that regard they are successful.
2. Entertain their fans. Though what is entertaining can always be argued, I think TNA is entertaining. Entertaining in a so-bad-its-fun-to-watch sort of way for me personally, kind of like watching a low budget 80's horror movie. I watch it because I'm a huge wrestling fan and TNA is so nonsensical it makes for often unintentional humor. I've never been to a live TNA event, but I've been told they do a great job interacting with fans and putting on a good show.

Further and greater success than that depends on the goals of the promoter, in this case Jeff Jarrett and Dixie Carter, and on the goals and smaller successes of the crew and roster. If Jarrett's vision of TNA was to be the best wrestling organization in history, then NO, he is not even remotely successful. If his vision of TNA was simply to be an alternative to WWE programming, then he's been incredibly successful as few promoter's get to where he is right now. Just because TNA is poorly written and executed, for the most part, doesn't mean that it isn't successful. They are a wrestling organization that through hard work and luck managed to make it on a national cable network, that's more successful than almost all wrestling organizations in the last 10 years.

 

[Phenomenal]

Who are the people on the frickin internet to judge if TNA is successful or not.

TNA is still around isnt it? they have million of T.V viewers, am i right?, they sell tickets wherever they go, they probably have promotional deals around the world.

They may not be a billion dollar wrestling company like WWE, but they are small successful business.

 

[Clem]

I'd like to think TNA are moderately successful, at least on the scale they operate.

Unfortunately there are constant reminders that they're nowhere near the top of the business. They're damn near always taped, they're only now escaping the Impact Zone after eight years, their crowds are miniscule, they're always directly referencing WWE programming rather than their own, they're always pushing former WWE stars rather than their own and for some reason feel the need to bring in "celebrities" to get mainstream exposure.

I'll tell you where they are successful though - abroad. They may never crack the domestic market, but if their international tours prove anything, it's that they're in the wrong damn country! Admittedly the entire roster lives in the US and wouldn't really be interested in going elsewhere, but TNA is huge in the UK and they could pack out Impact tapings for months in advance. In proper arenas.

 

[JaredJammer]

It's hard to say without knowing their finances. Ignoring that half of the equation, though, I'd say yes. In a relatively short time they've risen from an incredibly generic, low-budget upstart promotion to a legitimate world-wide wrestling organization with a TV deal with a major cable network and over one-million weekly viewers.

If you don't compare them to the monopoly with a near-60 year history that is the WWE, and just look at TNA in-and-of-themselves, I'd say they've done pretty damn well.

 

[Dogfingers]

It depends how you measure success.

If it's measured in terms of critical appraisal then its a failure. Wrestling critics are genuinely repusled by the shoddy booking, the poor production values, the ridiculous storylines and the misuse of its roster.

It's certainly not successful in terms of PPV buys. It's largely believed that Genesis: Joe vs Angle was their highest grossing PPV with 20,000 buys.

In terms of TV, it has a relatively lucrative spot and attracts not an unreasonable audience demographic that pleases its network.

A moderate success in terms of TV, and nothing else.

 

[EasyE]

I consider Jeff Jarrett's TNA a success because he started a promotion from the ground up after WWE became the ONLY major promotion in one fell swoop. He started a business that was successful enough to attract a buyer to purchase it from him. In the business world, THAT is a success. Good for him. The buyer was a middle aged woman playing with her daddy's money, but that's irrelevant to the point. TNA owned by Dixie Carter is a FAILURE as a wrestling promotion because they constantly dissapoint potential fans, and I have a hard time believing they are successful as a business.

 

[MB1025]

Yes I do and here is why..........


For starters TNA from the start ( June 2002 ) has been in business and stayed in business during one of the worst times in wrestling. Now not only have they been able to survive, but what sets them apart from ROH and other smaller promotions is that they actually grew, got a TV deal, and sustained success.

People can bitch and moan all day long about their creative process, small arenas, and cheap shot tactics until their face turns blue. The bottom line is they have not lost their Thursday audience and now more than ever have been able to get more people to tune in to their program. The problem is keeping that audience.

Australia
Austria, Germany and Switzerland
Canada
Chad, Ivory Coast, Ghana,
Nigeria, Sudan, Uganda, Zimbabwe
Denmark
France
India, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives,
Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka
Israel
Italy
MENA
Mexico
Portugal
United Kingdom and Ireland

Besides the United States these are the other countries that air Impact. Not to mention they are able to go over there and tour Europe and the Middle East. A company, according to some on this board, who has been on their death bed for years wouldn't be doing such things.

Then you have people complaining about Hogan and Bischoff and say that they destroyed everything great about TNA and it was so much better before they got their. Really? Well let me ask a question to anyone who feels like stepping in. Say TNA never got Hulk Hogan and Eric Bischoff. That means you wouldn't have

Ric Flair
Jeff Hardy
Mr. Anderson
Matt Hardy
RVD

So here is my question.

Does anyone think that TNA would have been able to tape 2 shows of Impact in NC, possible 2 more in KY in a couple weeks, if those names were not in TNA as we speak?

It is really a simple question and we can all agree that in order for TNA to grow they have to travel. Well is anyone going to buy 60 dollar tickets to see all those stupid gimmick matches TNA use to run before 2010. Or how about all those wrestlers that had no personality or drawing power. Before Hogan and Bischoff it was ROH with a better TV deal.

TNA doesn't get enough credit for what they have accomplished because fans are so cynical about it. They watch the show for the negatives so they can run to message boards or youtube and get themselves over.



The fact is this.

1. TNA will be tapping Impact outside of the Impact Zone more than they have ever had before.

2. TNA House Show numbers are better then ever before.

3. According to Jeff Jarrett TNA is profitable and has been for a few years now. ( More Signs of growth )

4. TNA has gotten more exposure in 2010-2011 then ever before.


No matter what anyone wants to say or blabber over the internet to get themselves over is irrelevant. TNA has over 2 million people watching their product ( PWTorch has the official numbers after DVR viewing ). All it takes is one storyline or event to push them over the next hump and it will be funny when that happens because everyone with change their tune about TNA. When things are going great no matter what the company throws out there people find ways to like it. The attitude era is an example.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Exactly TNA would not be able to do all the things MB1025 posted if they were not sucessful. Like i said before, are they on the same level as WWE? No but give it time and you will see what happens

 

[TUFFY54]

I think you have to look at TNA in two ways:

On the surface, as a wrestling company, they have been very successful. Any company that has been around for 9 years against the WWE is a success. They have had a TV show for 6 years now that gets about a million viewers. That is certainly successful. Any company that has Hulk Hogan, Ric Flair, Mick Foley, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, Sting, and Eric Bischoff signed away from the WWE is successful. While I don't really like their storylines, the in ring action is usually very good. In that light they are a success.

From a business standpoint, it's a very different question. We don't know if they are successful because they don't release any business info. However, I doubt they are making money. I don't think TNA would have lasted 3 years if Panda Energy hadn't bought it. I also think they would have shut it down years ago if their daughter wasn't running the company. I don't know if a company can be called successful if it is only being kept open as a favor.

I don't work for TNA. I don't have any money invested in TNA. All I do is watch their wrestling show. Therefor, as a wrestling fan, TNA is a success from my point of view. Thats all that really matters.

 

[DigitalInfamous]

Honestly, as long as there isn't midgets *********ing in trash cans I don't mind the show.
-If you have seen early TNA shows you know what i'm talking about-

I really doubt we'll be seeing TNA go out of business anytime soon even if 89% of the IWC thinks it will.

 

[Lionheart]

Who are the people on the frickin internet to judge if TNA is successful or not.

Well, your opening statement is interesting, but...we were kind of asked our opinion at the beginning of this thread. So, whereas normally I would say I don't really know anything for sure as I am not a TNA employee and not privy to their financial information, an open question was fielded in an open wrestling forum of which we are all members. So that's who we are.

In a lot of respects, TNA is a successful business. They have a TV deal, they have a place to operate their programming and they have talented performers. All essential ingredients in keeping a wrestling company afloat and poised for growth.

From a creative standpoint, I humbly have to admit that TNA sucks. But we have Vince Russo to thank for that and, further, anyone who just listens to whatever Vince Russo has to say and airs it.

I'm also not a big fan of their business practices of over-hyping the goings on of their weekly television show and then delivering sub-par results. I see this as a detriment to the growth of their fan base as people will likely get fed up with this tactic.

Besides all of that, yes, TNA is successful. They appear stable financially and their have been no reports that I have read that their has been rumours of people not being paid or whispers of bankruptcy. That says a lot in the business of pro wrestling as it is a very difficult field of work to stay afloat in.