Threads like this are commonplace, and the attitudes with in them seem to suggest that unless TNA is drawing comparable numbers to WWE, it's not doing its job:
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?p=4549253#post4549253
I should precede this by saying I don't watch Impact very often. I don't know what the current creative direction of the I think the whole problem the IWC has is that they think TNA should be able to compete with the WWE. It can't, and it probably never will be able to.
Again, we must look to history to understand why.
The WWE has a huge residual audience because it has existed since 1965 and dominated wrestling since 1984. That's literally generations of people who watch it, and need serious convincing to watch something else. WWE has built up a loyal audience, and most people are not sufficiently into wrestling that they are going to watch multiple broadcasts each week - this is why the Raw audience is far bigger than any other WWE TV broadcast. Sure, there's core fans, but it's clear that TNA has a core fan base, and this will include the majority of the 'wrestling fan' group.
How do you get people to tune into a different wrestling show? Well you can't.
But WCW did!
Oh yes Bischoff tried didn't he? Bischoff realised that he could never build stars that these people would change the channel to see. So he bought the WWE's stars and they brought the fans with them.
Except it wasn't that simple. If you listen to the interviews with Hogan, Savage, Luger, Nash, Hall, Hart etc. - all the names that moved and you see there's one thing they all say. "I would have stayed for the same money at WWF, but WCW offered me more, and it was guaranteed."
Bischoff shot for the moon, and he started to win the ratings war. Except winning wasn't enough. The money that comes from PPV and TV audiences being more than the WWE wouldn't suffice, as the outlay was more. So, the WCW downward spiral began - courting mainstream attention, and signing talents to long term, guaranteed contracts. TNA is not owned by Ted Turner, so it cannot do this.
Meanwhile, Vince McMahon, kept his philosophy, built a show around previous nobodies, and also appreciated he needed something to make the fans switch - after that he could keep them there, something that WCW had done with nWo. So he put all of his eggs in one basket called Mike Tyson. It worked, and the balance shifted. Mike Tyson didn't come cheap, but he was a short term investment for long term gain.
Meanwhile, WCW had made a long term investment for a short term gain, and got more and more into trouble. See now, it was making less in PPV and TV ratings than WWE, but spending more (see the problem?). The stars were on guaranteed contracts so they couldn't remove them, and by the time they closed, they had debts of over 70 million dollars.
I would be willing to bet that TNA hasn't spent that much in its entire existence, let alone had a net spend of that amount.
The only way you can compete with WWE is to take it's audience, and the only way you can do that is with huge financial outlay. It doesn't matter how much better Impact is than Raw, the fact is, without a catalyst, the fans won't move across. The only way that they can make that catalyst is to spunk a load of money they don't have on wrestlers on deals that don't make sense. Or they can attempt to find someone as controversial and famous as Mike Tyson who would associate with professional wrestling and wouldn't come cheap. Dixie isn't a machismo moron like Bischoff was in the WCW days and appreciates that the long term financial stability of the company (a company which has outlasted almost all professional wrestling companies in history) is more important.
Impact is clearly well received - it doesn't lose audience members and more importantly restored its number back to what it was before when it went back to Thursdays.
Appreciate it for what it is. The Monday Night Wars were not sustainable, and could only function because both sides had a budget that was enormous. TNA will never have Ted Turner level investment, nobody in wrestling ever will, and even if they did, the WWE has far more money to cope with a shot across the bows. You get one of the shitty people from Jersey Shore, we get Snooki.
People can complain that they use WWE rejects and model themselves on WWE, but that's a good idea. 1) WWE know what makes a good wrestler, so if they saw something in someone, there's probably something there. 2) WWE is the only American international professional wrestling company that hasn't gone out of business. Except TNA.
The time has come for wrestling fans to realise that TNA is a company that is doing its own thing and whether or not you like it should be based on a self contained critical judgement, not it's perceived threat to WWE. Take it or leave it, but don't will it to be a direct competitor, because it never can be.
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?p=4549253#post4549253
I should precede this by saying I don't watch Impact very often. I don't know what the current creative direction of the I think the whole problem the IWC has is that they think TNA should be able to compete with the WWE. It can't, and it probably never will be able to.
Again, we must look to history to understand why.
The WWE has a huge residual audience because it has existed since 1965 and dominated wrestling since 1984. That's literally generations of people who watch it, and need serious convincing to watch something else. WWE has built up a loyal audience, and most people are not sufficiently into wrestling that they are going to watch multiple broadcasts each week - this is why the Raw audience is far bigger than any other WWE TV broadcast. Sure, there's core fans, but it's clear that TNA has a core fan base, and this will include the majority of the 'wrestling fan' group.
How do you get people to tune into a different wrestling show? Well you can't.
But WCW did!
Oh yes Bischoff tried didn't he? Bischoff realised that he could never build stars that these people would change the channel to see. So he bought the WWE's stars and they brought the fans with them.
Except it wasn't that simple. If you listen to the interviews with Hogan, Savage, Luger, Nash, Hall, Hart etc. - all the names that moved and you see there's one thing they all say. "I would have stayed for the same money at WWF, but WCW offered me more, and it was guaranteed."
Bischoff shot for the moon, and he started to win the ratings war. Except winning wasn't enough. The money that comes from PPV and TV audiences being more than the WWE wouldn't suffice, as the outlay was more. So, the WCW downward spiral began - courting mainstream attention, and signing talents to long term, guaranteed contracts. TNA is not owned by Ted Turner, so it cannot do this.
Meanwhile, Vince McMahon, kept his philosophy, built a show around previous nobodies, and also appreciated he needed something to make the fans switch - after that he could keep them there, something that WCW had done with nWo. So he put all of his eggs in one basket called Mike Tyson. It worked, and the balance shifted. Mike Tyson didn't come cheap, but he was a short term investment for long term gain.
Meanwhile, WCW had made a long term investment for a short term gain, and got more and more into trouble. See now, it was making less in PPV and TV ratings than WWE, but spending more (see the problem?). The stars were on guaranteed contracts so they couldn't remove them, and by the time they closed, they had debts of over 70 million dollars.
I would be willing to bet that TNA hasn't spent that much in its entire existence, let alone had a net spend of that amount.
The only way you can compete with WWE is to take it's audience, and the only way you can do that is with huge financial outlay. It doesn't matter how much better Impact is than Raw, the fact is, without a catalyst, the fans won't move across. The only way that they can make that catalyst is to spunk a load of money they don't have on wrestlers on deals that don't make sense. Or they can attempt to find someone as controversial and famous as Mike Tyson who would associate with professional wrestling and wouldn't come cheap. Dixie isn't a machismo moron like Bischoff was in the WCW days and appreciates that the long term financial stability of the company (a company which has outlasted almost all professional wrestling companies in history) is more important.
Impact is clearly well received - it doesn't lose audience members and more importantly restored its number back to what it was before when it went back to Thursdays.
Appreciate it for what it is. The Monday Night Wars were not sustainable, and could only function because both sides had a budget that was enormous. TNA will never have Ted Turner level investment, nobody in wrestling ever will, and even if they did, the WWE has far more money to cope with a shot across the bows. You get one of the shitty people from Jersey Shore, we get Snooki.
People can complain that they use WWE rejects and model themselves on WWE, but that's a good idea. 1) WWE know what makes a good wrestler, so if they saw something in someone, there's probably something there. 2) WWE is the only American international professional wrestling company that hasn't gone out of business. Except TNA.
The time has come for wrestling fans to realise that TNA is a company that is doing its own thing and whether or not you like it should be based on a self contained critical judgement, not it's perceived threat to WWE. Take it or leave it, but don't will it to be a direct competitor, because it never can be.
