Yours is probably the best post I've seen so far on this subject. I tried to take the same tack, albeit thru a different route, about this being a careless business decision on his part. But I think I can add to yours just a bit if I may be so bold.
I work in specialty retail. Our company has a customer service survey that we ask our consumers to complete at home online. Now, for us, ANY negative feedback is seen as poor performance on our part, much less any visible % of negative feedback. In fact, our company tracks these surveys as a percentage of not only how many our completed, but how many, as a percentage, are positive versus negative.
So here we are with EB essentially saying that he doesn't mind writing off, potentially, 10% of their base. If I even considered that in the business I'd work in, I'd be relieved of my duties immediately.
Thanks, and I agree completely. 10% of your customers, particularly if it's the the most loyal and diehard part of that group, would be a big deal to any company. Of course, that 10% is something Bischoff is pulling out of his ass, as it's practically impossible to track just how much of his audience is on internet forums. You'd need far too much in-depth information on the true identities of people to be able to get such figures. While other companies are utilizing the internet at every turn to try and gather more information about potential customers, and sell to them, Bischoff is marginalizing and dismissing internet wrestling fans as irrelevant
I was going to make a post based around the fact that the IWC generally can't even agree with one another about wresters and storylines, and while I skipped to the last page so I don't know if someone else touched on that too, I saw that you did. With that said, I still disagree with you for the most part. The IWC most certainly does exist. One can nitpick at the definition of the word community all they want, it doesn't matter because its a term. I haven't seen IWC in a dictionary yet. Aside from that, even within any community there will be vast differences in opinion. For example, the mayor where I live was elected with a 53% vote, which means as I'm sure you can tell, that half the city didn't want him. And while agree a lot of wrestling fans check wrestlers pages on Facebook or Twitter, that is not the IWC. The IWC are the people on the forums. The IWC are the ones checking spoilers, writing fantasy storylines, e-feds, desperate to learn of any new politics or upcoming storylines or returns. It is not simply a wrestling fan with an internet connection. I would dare say Bischoff rounded up to 10%, and that we're more like 5%. Of all the wrestling fans I've met, I know one other member of the IWC.
Now here's the problem with the IWC. As an aspiring wrestler myself, ask yourself, if you were in the WWE or TNA, would you respect us? I sure wouldn't. I don't have much respect for us now. The IWC 8 years ago? Sure. I was on WZ back then, I had around 3000 posts. I helped run WZCW. There were thousands upon thousands of posters, yet they were vastly intelligent. The spammers were banned, a few were kept around to be made fun of. Then it started changing. It became flooded with idiots. Ten year olds were getting internet access and finding their way into the IWC, enough that I quit posting. Now? The idiots and kids outnumber the intellectuals 25-1. The IWC truly is a joke. Half are still "marks" who don't even realize what is going on. Another quarter are social outcasts who try to act cool and hope everyone is measuring their dick size by their post count or Moderator status, and the rest usually can't even agree amongst themselves and tend to be hypocritical as hell, not to mention impossible to please.
While there's not 100% consensus on the term, here's part of the wikipedia entry: "Traditionally a 'community' has been defined as a group of interacting people living in a common location. The word is often used to refer to a group that is organized around common values and is attributed with social cohesion within a shared geographical location, generally in social units larger than a household." While the people in your town may have different political opinions, at least they live in the same area, have largely the same problems and concerns, and I assume have a similar culture. That can't necessarily be said of the fans here. As I was saying, there's no real community here because the people on these forums share little else other than a love of wrestling and an internet connection (well, and enough passion about wrestling to post about it, or at least lurk on the forums).
But put aside the validity of the term for a minute, and lets get to the main point, which (with all due respect) you're kind of making for me. As you admit yourself (and even if you're going to narrow the definition of "IWC" down to just forum users), it's impossible to look at the so-called "IWC" and conclude anything about its' likes or dislikes, because there's very little consensus to draw conclusions from. And when you point out that the forums used to be comprised of mainly intellectuals, but are now populated by "idiots," "kids," "social outcasts," and "10 year olds," that just illustrates the point even more. We're getting fans of all sorts even on these forums: the marks who don't know what's going on are casual fans, the intellectuals are the hardcore. People here don't even like each other, let alone agree on anything. To say that members of the "IWC" are a community based on a devotion to wrestling is the same as saying that hardcore liberals and conservatives are a community because both are politically active.
Ultimately though, the actual existence of an "IWC" (which I personally think is a figment of peoples imagination) is irrelevant and secondary to what people PERCEIVE it to be. As you say, the fact that it's not in the dictionary makes it very open to interpretation. In your case, you're making a subjective distinction between internet users and people who post on forums/look at spoilers/etc, but there's no evidence to suggest that the two groups activities are mutually exclusive. Or that the average fan will make the same distinction. And even a slight dabbling in forums/dirt sheets would make a fan a part of Bischoff's "IWC" generalization. I think Bischoff is underestimating how active the average fan is on the internet, and to what extent the average fan is involved in forums/message boards/spoiler sites/etc when it comes to entertainment that they enjoy. I also think he's erroneously assuming that everyone criticizing TNA is a part of a small and vocal minority. Rather, I think you've just got a lot of people here who like and dislike various things about TNA, and that they are all getting lumped together even though they really don't agree on anything.
The main point though, is even if you conclude that E.B only insulted 10% of TNA's fanbase (and as others have pointed out, that's highly questionable), and even if some of those people honestly deserve the criticism, what's to gain by doing so? E.B may know a lot more about pro-wrestling than we do, but he sure as hell doesn't seem to grasp that deliberately alienating any portion of your customers is just a bad idea. I'm not going to lose any sleep over Bischoff "offending" me, but there are plenty of fans out there who will take this personally, and really I'm not sure that TNA can afford to lose them.
