Facts Hurt (according to EB)

[JackBurton]

Even though the examples used in this article are WWE based - I feel this belongs in the TNA section for 2 reasons; 1. Its Bischoff and 2. This discussion of older vs younger talent has been raging for nearly 6 months in the TNA section (not sure about the WWE section - haven't posted in there more than a few times. Don't watch their programing enough at the moment to really contribute anything to their threads)

FACTS HURT!

On the heels of the big “youth push” in WWE during the past several weeks, here are some facts from this week in the business:

“Raw's demographic ratings among males 18-34 and 18-49 were the lowest in seven weeks.”

“Raw scored a 1.86 rating among males 18-34, which was down from a 2.03 rating last week.”

And during this months conference call to investors Vince McMahon admitted that:

"Basically, we had a lousy quarter," and then when on to pin the loss of Shawn Michaels, Batista, Triple H, and Undertaker (all 40 + years old) as the reason for the hit to PPV and live event revenue.

Now one could suggest that McMahon is insane enough to be intentionally misleading Wall Street with excuses that are not substantiated by financials that wouldn’t hold up under either SEC or Sarbanes Oxley Act 404 scrutiny, or maybe that he has no idea what he’s talking about despite the massive success of his business model.

Or one could recognize the direct connect between what TV ratings, PPV buy rates, and ticket sales have proven time and time again, as well as what legitimate focus groups conducted by credible media companies in the business of such have clearly identified: the TV audience (including 18-34 males) rate with ESTABLISHED (and yes older) stars!

Admittedly, these facts are kind of dry compared to the subjective opinion of those with their own agenda or the inflamed rhetoric that appeals to those perpetually pre-pubescent, parasitic internet “experts” who neither have any legitimate experience or success as executives in the television or wrestling industry, and the rants of the terminally irrelevant trying desperately to hold on to their last 200 fans.

But they are facts non-the-less.

In my opinion Vince Russo, Dixie Carter and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry.

That’s just my opinion. And my opinion is backed up by facts.

OUCH!

Sorry.

Lotta people wont like it. There isn't really much more to say that EB hasn't said. The part about know-it-alls with fuck all experience of things they're talking about was spot on though - whether you agree with Bischoff or not, he is right about that part.

Discuss. Not a mod or anything but please keep it civil and above all else objective.

 

[JackBurton]

You forgot this part of the article from PWTorch:

Never been on PWtorch? Do I seem like the sort of person who would intentionally leave out something from an article because it doesn't suit my position? Here's where I got the article from; http://www.ericbischoff.com/erics-blog.

Anyway, you posting that obviously adds to the discussion and presents another view of the situation which is exactly what we're looking for here. Just didn't want you or anyone to think I would white wash like that.

Even though examples of ratings were given I don't think EB's intention was to suggest TNA's ratings were phenomenal in any way - he was just pointing out (as me and you misterrob have discussed) the importance in established talent when trying to make new stars. Also this guy Caldwell makes the point about ratings not being as good as last year or the year before that - kinda counter productive to his point as those 2 years he mentioned TNA's "top guys" were all older talent, MEM etc etc. In other words - even when TNA does do strong numbers now or in the past its older talent that have the ball.

 

[Bobby B]

Whilst I agree with Bischoff that the Raw numbers are down, I don't really see how this correlates to TNA. Raw's

Yes the Raw numbers are lower than normal, but I really don't see how TNA have "utilised veteran stars to elevate young emerging talent".

Other than Kurt Angle, RVD and Jeff Hardy (you could possibly add AJ to that list too) - I don't really feel there are any other members of the TNA roster who are experienced enough to have that effect, but at the same time not too old so that the effect of putting talent over is lost.

Flair lost to Lethal. But that doesn't really feel like that did anything for Lethal. Flair is in his sixties, I'd be surprised if Lethal didn't win.

I haven't seen in many months many other examples of older talent putting over new talent. RVD hasn't lost his world title, Kurt Angle is running wild all over the top 10. The young talent seem to all be treading water against eachother. TNA's issue right now is that there are very few people in the RVD/Angle part of their career. They're probably past their peak, but they're still credible world champions.

As for the new Fortune vs EV2 feud. I cannot think of a single wrestler involved in EV2 that can help put over any member of Fortune. The EV2 guys are all old and slow.

Lets take an example - Kazarian. Put him in a singles match against any member of EV2 - Dreamer, Raven, Sandman, Sabu. Lets say they end up having a small program, and Kazarian ends up winning. Does Kazarian gain anything from it? I think not.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Yes the Raw numbers are lower than normal, but I really don't see how TNA have "utilised veteran stars to elevate young emerging talent".

Various feuds in which younger performers were put into spotlights they might not otherwise have been in had the circumstances not been this exact. Wolfe/Angle, AJ/Angle, AJ/Sting, Pope/Anderson, Flair/Lethal, MCMG/Beer Money Inc., etc.

Other than Kurt Angle, RVD and Jeff Hardy (you could possibly add AJ to that list too) - I don't really feel there are any other members of the TNA roster who are experienced enough to have that effect, but at the same time not too old so that the effect of putting talent over is lost.

Veterans are veterans. All it means, really, is that they have multiple years worth of experience. The more years of experience in which they were successful, the better value they have in creating new stars. AJ Styles I'd absolutely add to the list, too. He made Terry look a thousand times better than he is, as well as he does to anyone he works with.

Flair lost to Lethal. But that doesn't really feel like that did anything for Lethal. Flair is in his sixties, I'd be surprised if Lethal didn't win.

Irrelevant. You are focusing too much on the reality of the situation, which is to say you fail to suspend your disbelief. Obviously a 61-year old semi-retired man would lose in a real fight to a twenty-something year old in the prime of his life. That's not the point. The point is that by simply even being involved in a feud with him, people took notice of Jay Lethal, who prior to this was doing absolutely nothing worth noting.

I haven't seen in many months many other examples of older talent putting over new talent. RVD hasn't lost his world title, Kurt Angle is running wild all over the top 10. The young talent seem to all be treading water against eachother. TNA's issue right now is that there are very few people in the RVD/Angle part of their career. They're probably past their peak, but they're still credible world champions.

Kurt Angle may be "running wild", but he's still helping to add exposure by facing guys who you might not otherwise see in that position, regardless of the fact they lose. It's not as though he's squashing them, either, so your "running wild" assessment is far too heated a description. It paints a very unrealistic picture of the way things actually are.

As for the new Fortune vs EV2 feud. I cannot think of a single wrestler involved in EV2 that can help put over any member of Fortune. The EV2 guys are all old and slow.

I disagree. Raven, no matter how old or slow, always entertains, and again, this isn't about getting them over now (necessarily), as much as it might be helping them to eventually get over (Kaz, mainly).

Lets take an example - Kazarian. Put him in a singles match against any member of EV2 - Dreamer, Raven, Sandman, Sabu. Lets say they end up having a small program, and Kazarian ends up winning. Does Kazarian gain anything from it? I think not.

Exposure as a successful performer, which is more than he'd gain jobbing to Rob Terry in 6 second matches. Not all programs have to result in the winning youth "getting over" – it often takes years of "getting over" to actually get over. See: Randy Orton.

 

[JackBurton]

Dont mean to be rude and I mean this with the greatest respect - but you're all missing the point of what the old guys bring to the table.

Its not about what quality of matches they can give - its about the wealth of experience and knowledge they have about the art-form of working. Its much more about what they can learn outside the ring (which is where 90% of the important parts of drawing money take place). No, Raven couldnt teach AJ Styles anything about ring technique as it pertains to doing the moves - but as anyone who knows anything will tell you; working is what you do between the moves - not the moves themselves.

Heres an example of what I'm talking about, answer this question;

Whats the difference between the way a babyface sells and the way a heel sells? There is a massive difference. Can you tell me what it is? (this is one of the many, many things these young guys, who are great athletes but are not great workers, can learn from the likes of Flair, Hogan or some of the EV guys - especially Raven)

 

[candy girl]

just read this article over on 411mania.com and as expected wwe fanboy's are ripping e.b. a new one.........i mean it's his opinion i mean why do people, meaning the wwe fan boy's feel need to defend them at every turn, it not's as if mcmahon gives a shit about eric's rant, i mean you have to admitt that the ratings aren't what the used to be since they went p.g. we was just stating the obvious.

 

[JackBurton]

Well EB has been kind enough to give us a rebuttal of Caldwells piece;

“TNA consultant Eric Bischoff published a blog on ericbischoff.com yesterday critical of WWE's recent "youth push" based on low TV ratings on Monday's episode of Raw among adult males.”



This was the opening paragraph on Wade Keller’s site posted by James Caldwell.



Critical?



Where exactly was I critical of WWE’s recent youth push? What harsh words did my blog utilize to critique the talent, scripting or strategy of building new stars?



Hold on a minute, let me go back and read my blog again. Maybe I did.



I will be right back.



Nope. I was right. I was not critical of WWE’s current “youth movement”. What I DID do was point out the fact that established talent (and many of those over 40) rate well in the key demos (M 18-34 and M 18-49) and I used WWE’s current ratings and recent comments to Wall Street that support this fact.



Now I know this may feel like a criticism to guys like Caldwell who find facts like these to be an affront to him and people like him, because it flies in the face of the lemming like dialog that is so popular among his readers, but I assure you there was no malice in my words.



The fact (I am using this word a lot lately) is that I applaud WWE’s efforts to build a new generation of stars. They have done an amazing job developing the developmental territory in Florida and while I think NXT is a patchwork mess of “kind of a reality, kind of a wrestling show” from a creative and production perspective, I also applaud the investment and effort to showcase young stars there.



But I also know that using established stars to help bring credibility, awareness and experience to younger starts is the correct formula to successfully target key male demos. History has proven it.



The numbers don’t lie, they don’t have an agenda, and they don’t try to attract headlines on IWC sites in an attempt to gain favor.

Sorry, but he's right on this one, that guy clearly tried to twist the issue into EB having a go at WWE's youth movement rather than tackle the facts EB presented. EB clearly was only using it as an example of how important established talent is. Anyone who uses straw man arguments like this Caldwell guy did is obviously of a lower intelligence than the rest of us.

 

[JJYanks121]

To Eric Bischoff, I say "good job seeing the small picture. You were always good at that. Of course, you never saw the big picture, and that's why your last company failed. You might want to try that this time."

When a company undergoes a youth movement, or a sports team, or whoever else, there will often be short term loss. However, if the right pieces are found, there will be long term gain. You can look at the Florida Marlins as a great example of this. They won a title in 1997, but their players got old. They sucked for a few years, but as their youth movement started to hit, they got better, eventually winning again in 2003. If they had kept their 1997 team, eventually those guys who have faded out, and they wouldn't have been able to use those talents to obtain younger ones who would eventually bring them back to the promised land.

Compare that to WWE. Of course, losing proven draws like HBK, Batista, even JBL will hurt in the short term. Over the next couple of years it's even possible to lose Mysterio, Kane, Undertaker, maybe even Triple H. That's a lot of cash cows to lose, but in order to take that loss and not deal with last place seasons (or mega ratings drops in this case), steps must be taken while these men are here to prepare for their departure. Those steps include the continued focus on younger talents like Sheamus, Miz, Nexus, McIntyre, Rhodes, Dibiase, etc.

While today, those names are not known as "legends", neither were the aforementioned older stars at some point. What made them so was the opportunity to shine. When Hogan and Savage left, HBK and Undertaker were given the chance to move to the forefront. With HBK retired and Bret Hart moving on, Triple H was given a chance to run as top heel in the company. When Rock and Stone Cold left, JBL broke out of his "gun for hire" role and became the Wallstreet Cowboy we love to hate.

I know people will argue "but JJ, when Triple H got big, WWE was already doing well". I know that because I'm not a fucking idiot, but he helped ratings stay hot and even go up as McMahon faded and McMahon Helmsley became hated.

My main point is that you could compare this time period to 1996-1997 I think. At this time, WWE was still in that "new generation phase", but they were beginning to develop new stars. Ratings weren't great and they were getting beat all the time by WCW. The difference was, while WCW was riding on their old horses, WWE was building new ones. By 1998-2000, WWE had built up megastars like Rock, Stone Cold, Triple H, Foley, Angle, etc. while WCW made Goldberg. The lack of long term focus hurt WCW and they died.

WWE doesn't have direct competition today, but they know that for their product to grow, you can't rely on your old horses forever. They are putting major efforts into creating new stars, which for the short term might bring ratings down a drop as casual fans will wonder "where are the stars?", but after a little while, these new guy WILL BE the stars. When that happens, I believe ratings will grow.

Just remember, we're talking about the thoughts of Eric Bischoff here. Keep in mind this moron made the EXACT SAME MISTAKE with WCW. Him talking about "using the old guys" should be a clear sign that this is ******ed because WCW died on the backs of "old stars". He obviously does not and will never get it. Thus, I treat his opinion like Perez Hilton's. In one ear, out the other, into my hand, and shove it back up their ass.

 

[MisterRob]

I agree entirely with JJYanks. Eirc Bischoff has not learned from history one bit and he's headed, along with TNA, into being doomed to repeat it. His mentality is exactly what will drag TNA down long term and kill them, and his dialogue might sound good for the short term and pesent, but it's just flawed in the long term. WWE is doing exactly what they did a decade ago before the Attitude Era, they're ushering out or just plain losing old talent and they're focusing on the young talent that will be their next generation. There's always going to be short term loss with young talent who aren't known and therefore haven't proven themselves to the audience watching, but the more exposure they get and the more they do prove themselves in those roles then the more value WWE will get from them and in the future they'll be the stars just like HBK, Triple H, Undertaker, Mankind, the Rock and Austin were before them.

People seem to forget that while WCW was exploding and beating WWF back in the day, WWF was slowly building their new stars like Austin, DX, the Rock, and even Undertaker. Those years paid off didn't they? Because eventually those stars exploded and took off and WCW ended up having nothing to fall back on, no young talent they'd made for themselves because they buried them under their 'known stars' and proven draws. WW's smart because they continually go through the same cycle, a boom and then a rebuilding stage, and then repeat. And where Bishcoff's been known to fail at exactly that McMahon has been successful time and time again at it.

A lot of people also don't realize that this PG era is, in fact, a phase for WWE in that same regard. They're focused on the younger audience NOT the adult male demographic that TNA is and Bischoff is talking about in that very blog. What happens when those PG era kids get older and become adults? Well, there's as many that are likely to continue watching WWE and helping to usher in WWE's next phase as there are those who may drift off t other interests. So those who slam the PG era are in fact also short sighted, because there's reasoning behind it and it's going to benefit the WWE long term.

Vince isn't afraid for a bit of short term loss because he knows he'll have long term gain, he's build an empire because he's smart like that. Bischoff's history has proven he sees only the short term and fails beyond that, and I see TNA going the exact same route if they don't change course and smarten up.

 

[TellMeWhy]

Nothing is wrong with what Bischoff is saying. WWE became what it is by using established stars to build their promotion and take them to promise. Vince took all of his guys from territories. Hogan for example was already a star from the AWA and he took him, put the ball in his hand, and ran with it.

People are comparing TNA to WWE but people forget that TNA is dealing with another dynamic here. TNA wants to get over the hump of somehow getting more eyes on their product so therefore they can build new stars to a more bigger audience. WWE has a stage already with millions of eyes on them. They can build up anyone and have them become a star instantly.

TNA has to go through many humps. In order to get eyes on their product, they are following the WCW route of using established stars that are already well known. It's no problem with that. That is great strategy and a strategy that proves to work. Now the mistake would be if TNA was to become as huge as WCW and not push younger talent once they reach that promise. I don't think TNA or even Bischoff would make that mistake again.

I believe if guys like RVD, Angle, Hogan, and Flair help TNA get bigger, then guys like Joe will be put in the top spots to showcase themselves on a big platform. That is the ultimate goal for TNA. TNA wants to use the veterans to make a big stage so they can hand that stage to the young and talented comeups. Ultimately, TNA is trying to use these veterans to help establish their future but I'm sure most WWE marks will never get that logic though.

 

[CJ The Pirate]

The problem with presenting statistics as fact is that there are a hell of a lot of stats to look at. Here, Bischoff has looked at two. It's foolish. There are a lot of stats that just would make Bischoff's arguement moot. He chooses not to include them in his posts.

Bischoff is a bitter man who just can't let things go. He will never be a success. He lucked out in a time long since past and the market he is trying to win with just isn't large enough. Roll over Eric. Just enjoy your job and retire a happy man.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

He's using the performance of Raw for a single week in an attempt to show that Raw is faltering overall. Of course, the key demographic tends to be males 18-34 and I'm not surprised to see that the numbers were lower on Monday night. There's bound to be some short term loss in viewers when new faces are being pushed and older ones that fans are used to, like and have seen for years are no longer there. Shawn Michaels decided to retire. He's done it all, he's 45 years old so can you really blame him? Dave Batista now wants to be an MMA fighter so he left, Triple H is out with injuries, The Undertaker is also in his mid 40s and the years of wear and tear have started to catch up to him so he'll be fortunate if he has another few years left even if he wrestles on a limited schedule. Older wrestlers like Edge and Christian are still out there doing their thing and they're helping to put younger guys over, like The Nexus. There's a distinct lack of older wrestlers in the WWE as of late and there's not exactly much that the WWE can do about that. Eventually, older wrestlers are going to quit or retire and new stars are going to have to be built to take their places. It's not going to happen overnight. I do think that the WWE dragged their feet when it comes to really pushing heavily on young stars with so many of their older and established talent leaving the business or out injured. When it comes to making new stas, I'm not exactly sure how much Eric Bischoff would know about that. I mean, he's never really helped make any young guys into stars that I'm aware of. When he was in charge of WCW, he had young and talented wrestlers on the roster yes but that's not being a "star" in the sense we usually mean. He had Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, for instance, when he was in WCW. They put on great matches in WCW and were great wrestlers. We all know that because we saw them and, as fans, we saw overall what was there. But they didn't really become stars or were given opportunities to be among among the top guys in the company until they came to WWE.

Getting back to the specific subject of Raw's low adult male demographic ratings on Monday, Raw was up against MNF and MNF is going to have an impact on adult males no matter what show it is. However, even though the numbers were lower, Raw still ranked in the in the top 10 cable shows each week in terms of not only overall audience but in the adult male demographic as well. Bischoff also didn't point out that Raw drew a strong 4.09 rating in males 12-17, which are tuning in to see some of these newer faces being pushed. These people are, of course, going to grow up and want are going to make up the WWE's audience in time. Now, before anybody busts a nut and starts on the whole WWE is for kids stuff, the 12-17 demo is also responsible for the healthier numbers that TNA has been pulling in for the past little while.

If we wanna use ratings as a kind of tape measure as it relates to the whole older and established stars elevating younger talent argument, then I don't exactly see how TNA has been successful. TNA's numbers are down as a whole in 2010 when you compare to the past couple of years. Overall, since Hogan and Bischoff joined the company, interest in TNA has most certainly dwindled rather than grown. As I indicated earlier, however, TNA's numbers have shown some signs of improvement due to a healthy influx of the 12-17 demographic. But, you've also got to remember that TNA has drawn some of the worst numbers in its history in 2010. Now, if TNA does more than a 1.0, it looks great by comparisson. A year and a half ago, however, a 1.15, like TNA drew this past Thursday with the Whole F'N Show would've been viewed as a huge disappointment rather than the moderate success it's viewed as now.

 

[JackBurton]

He's using the performance of Raw for a single week in an attempt to show that Raw is faltering overall. Of course, the key demographic tends to be males 18-34 and I'm not surprised to see that the numbers were lower on Monday night. There's bound to be some short term loss in viewers when new faces are being pushed and older ones that fans are used to, like and have seen for years are no longer there. Shawn Michaels decided to retire. He's done it all, he's 45 years old so can you really blame him? Dave Batista now wants to be an MMA fighter so he left, Triple H is out with injuries, The Undertaker is also in his mid 40s and the years of wear and tear have started to catch up to him so he'll be fortunate if he has another few years left even if he wrestles on a limited schedule. Older wrestlers like Edge and Christian are still out there doing their thing and they're helping to put younger guys over, like The Nexus. There's a distinct lack of older wrestlers in the WWE as of late and there's not exactly much that the WWE can do about that. Eventually, older wrestlers are going to quit or retire and new stars are going to have to be built to take their places. It's not going to happen overnight. I do think that the WWE dragged their feet when it comes to really pushing heavily on young stars with so many of their older and established talent leaving the business or out injured. When it comes to making new stas, I'm not exactly sure how much Eric Bischoff would know about that. I mean, he's never really helped make any young guys into stars that I'm aware of. When he was in charge of WCW, he had young and talented wrestlers on the roster yes but that's not being a "star" in the sense we usually mean. He had Chris Jericho, Rey Mysterio, Chris Benoit and Eddie Guerrero, for instance, when he was in WCW. They put on great matches in WCW and were great wrestlers. We all know that because we saw them and, as fans, we saw overall what was there. But they didn't really become stars or were given opportunities to be among among the top guys in the company until they came to WWE.

Getting back to the specific subject of Raw's low adult male demographic ratings on Monday, Raw was up against MNF and MNF is going to have an impact on adult males no matter what show it is. However, even though the numbers were lower, Raw still ranked in the in the top 10 cable shows each week in terms of not only overall audience but in the adult male demographic as well. Bischoff also didn't point out that Raw drew a strong 4.09 rating in males 12-17, which are tuning in to see some of these newer faces being pushed. These people are, of course, going to grow up and want are going to make up the WWE's audience in time. Now, before anybody busts a nut and starts on the whole WWE is for kids stuff, the 12-17 demo is also responsible for the healthier numbers that TNA has been pulling in for the past little while.

If we wanna use ratings as a kind of tape measure as it relates to the whole older and established stars elevating younger talent argument, then I don't exactly see how TNA has been successful. TNA's numbers are down as a whole in 2010 when you compare to the past couple of years. Overall, since Hogan and Bischoff joined the company, interest in TNA has most certainly dwindled rather than grown. As I indicated earlier, however, TNA's numbers have shown some signs of improvement due to a healthy influx of the 12-17 demographic. But, you've also got to remember that TNA has drawn some of the worst numbers in its history in 2010. Now, if TNA does more than a 1.0, it looks great by comparisson. A year and a half ago, however, a 1.15, like TNA drew this past Thursday with the Whole F'N Show would've been viewed as a huge disappointment rather than the moderate success it's viewed as now.

Why is the point of EB's blog so easily lost on so many people that, I know - for a fact, are very intelligent and very knowledgeable? I don't wanna start accusing people of being intentionally obtuse but what other reason could you give for this happening? Im not gonna argue the points that have been made as to why RAW's ratings were down because frankly those numbers were never the main point of the post - they were used to illustrate a point! The point being, contrary to what the IWC thinks; so called "over the hill" stars still have something to contribute to the business. That's the point of the thread. EB wasn't burying RAW as a draw, or burying WWE's attempt at talent development - clearly.

As for TNA's ratings being better last year or the year before that? It was still mainly older more established talent that was on top in those 18-24 months. So I don't understand how that refutes anything being said in favor of using older talent? Going in circles. Round and round. Can we stop please?

As for the points about Vince making new stars during the attitude era; He didnt have a choice at the time. All his established talent had jumped ship over the previous four or five years. He only had Shawn and Bret. Both of whom he used to get Austin over. The Rock was surrounded by established talent from the minute he was on TV. These didn't just appear and BOOM they were over. Undertaker wasnt built up at that time either - he was already established. The Undertakers character however, was embellished and then they used him to get Kane over (and have continued to use "big red" to "make" guys year in and year out ever since).

 

[Davi323]

Except he ignores a major piece of information. If the older stars are such an important part of the ratings for wrestling, why are TNAs numbers still dreadful? Bischoff claims the WWE is going down because of the loss of older guys...and that the older guys are who people want to see...but that creates a huge problem for TNA. Their ratings don't reflect what Bischoff claims. If they have indeed done as good a job blending the older guys with the younger guys as he says, the ratings should be stronger, period.

Even with the disappearance of the old guard in the WWE, they still get over triple the viewers...Bischoff is talking out of his ass, as usual. Remove the plank from your own eye before trying to remove the speck from the WWE's, Eric. This is the kind of blog that would make sense if TNA's ratings had been surging upward, while the WWE's ratings have been steadily tanking. But to make the claims based on a single week? Bischoff has been spending too much time in RVD's van inhaling the smoke...

Whether you want to admit it or not Eric, TNA's ratings are still abyssmal. Despite you, Flair, Hogan and the rest of the Social Security Stable "supposedly" appealing to that 18-34 demographic.

OUCH.

Truth hurts.

 

[waylon p]

first of all, WCW most certainly, did NOT fail. they went through a slump, but were still making money. certain people in the turner network decided to use that slump to cut WCW's budget quite a bit, exacerbating the problem, and ultimately, to convince the new owners that they should yank the promotion's timeslots in order to make room for movie reruns. wcw's average ratings at the time their budget was cut was higher than wwe's ratings last week. i hear noone saying that vince is about to fail. eric and wcw did not fail, they were bumped off.

i agree with much that eric said here. younger workers need the in ring guidance of older wrestlers in order to acheive the next level.

tna's problem lies not in the mix of young and old. it lies in the inability to devise and carry through with compelling storylines.

and part of the reason NXT does as well as IMPACT! is that the other shows in the mammoth organization do a better job of promoting it than the tiny TNA and spike network do for impact!

it is simple as that. Vince is good at his job. it is called Promoter. he promotes much
better than eric. at tna, eric is creative/talent. you cannot even compare the two.

 

[ATT]

first of all, WCW most certainly, did NOT fail. they went through a slump, but were still making money. certain people in the turner network decided to use that slump to cut WCW's budget quite a bit, exacerbating the problem, and ultimately, to convince the new owners that they should yank the promotion's timeslots in order to make room for movie reruns. wcw's average ratings at the time their budget was cut was higher than wwe's ratings last week. i hear noone saying that vince is about to fail. eric and wcw did not fail, they were bumped off.

If I am not mistaken they lost something around $80 million in one year before they disappeared. If that isn't failure I don't know what is?

 

[harrythem]

This is the same Bischoff that stated, in another recent interview, that Vince McMahon isn't a better wrestling promoter then him, he's just lucky. That's right, Bischoff put all that Vince's achieved in wrestling down to luck.

I think he does have some valid points in what he's written there but, to me, there was no need to add the praise to TNA, it makes it come across more as a dig at WWE while praising TNA, instead of just stating facts.

and, waylon P, you're a tool for thinking WCW was turning a profit. There was more red flowing around WCW then during the last Rambo movie

 

[Bobby B]

This is the same Bischoff that stated, in another recent interview, that Vince McMahon isn't a better wrestling promoter then him, he's just lucky. That's right, Bischoff put all that Vince's achieved in wrestling down to luck.

I think he does have some valid points in what he's written there but, to me, there was no need to add the praise to TNA, it makes it come across more as a dig at WWE while praising TNA, instead of just stating facts.

and, waylon P, you're a tool for thinking WCW was turning a profit. There was more red flowing around WCW then during the last Rambo movie

It's also the same Eric Bischoff that claimed that the comparision between Pro-wresting and Mixed Martial Arts was "Apples and Bricks". After that statement, I find it very hard to take seriously anything he says.

This line is very odd: "In my opinion Vince Russo, Dixie Carter and the team at TNA have done a great job of utilizing veteran stars to help elevate some of the young emerging talent in TNA and at the same time gaining awareness and credibility within the media industry.

That’s just my opinion. And my opinion is backed up by facts."

What? both of those statements are opinion? You can't back either one up with facts. "Awareness and credibility in the media industry" - that could be one article in a magazine. The first line is complete opinion - nothing more.

 

[Tastycles]

I think people are missing a few very obvious points here, by and large.

Firstly, don't think for a second that Eric Bischoff isn't trying to be antagonistic here. He is deliberately biting into the competition, something he has done before, albeit with varying success. However, he is making an absolutely piss poor argument.

Firstly, he is attributing the figures of one week to a general trend, which is obviously bad logic. Secondly, and this is the primary focus of this point, the past seven weeks have been the time when the WWE has operated without all of the stars mentioned. To argue this as a trend is ridiculous.

The second glaring omission from the argument is the TNA figures. TNA scored a .73 in the 18-34 bracket last week. A rough calculation presents that is 60% of their rating accross all audiences. That doesn't mean their audience is 60% M18-34, it means that group attracts only 60% of the average across all demos. What does that mean? It means TNA is failing miserably at attracting their target demo. WWE's figures aren't brilliant, it's true, but that got a figure of 83% of the value across all demos. So, Eric Bischoff obviously doesn't have the answers there either. By comparison, the WWE was pulling in around 120% of their average across all demos in the 18-34M group in 2000. At that time their main event players - Triple H, The Rock, Kurt Angle, Steve Austin, Undertaker, Kane, Rikishi, Undertaker etc. were all under 35.

Thirdly, and this is true regardless of the first two points, fans are more likely to tune in to wrestlers they are familiar with. Kids don't give a fuck, they'll tune in when Evan Bourne is there because he's entertaining. They'll tune in when Santino's there, he's entertaining. That'll do for the kids. The older fan needs to be sold on a wrestler, which is why WWE are promoting youth when they aren't against the NFL, so that the 18-34M demographic can be drawn in when there is more serious competition.

Facts may hurt, but I'm afraid the whole truth will hurt TNA more.