Jesse Sorensen Released from TNA

[Nate DaMac]

I don't get how WWECW wasn't a success.

 

[Tastycles]

Does NXT still run on TV over there?

Yes. It's in the same slot that its always been.

 

[Gelgarin]

So Impact is successful for sure - and simultaneously unsuccessful. That discrepancy still hasn't been reconciled.

Whilst you ponder it, follow up question.

Smackdown lost half its audience in ten years. You've stated multiple times before that Impact's success is tied to its ability to expand its audience (I repeat: Impact is unsuccessful because its not growing its audience faster).

If Impacts success can be called into question by a lack of audience expansion; why does a massive audience reduction not make Smackdown unsuccessful?

 

[Tastycles]

It lost two thirds of its audience and creatively the WWE decided it wasn't good enough so they replaced it with another show, requiring new set design etc, which would have cost money. WWE wouldn't have replaced ECW with NXT if it was serving its purpose or if they believed it had a purpose.

 

[Remix]

So WWE Main Event is a more successful broadcast than TNA Impact?

That depends on your perspective. Impact is probably a better show, that's watched by considerably more people, has been a thing for longer and from that angle it's not an argument, Impact wins hands down.

However, Main Event costs WWE very little to make. It's filmed using equipment that was already there for Raw/Smackdown and wrestlers that weren't going to get used that night anyway. WWE is probably paid multiple times what it costs to make Main Event. I doubt TNA can say the same for Impact.

Both WWE and TNA are businesses with the aim of making money. Most of WWE's comes from TV revenue. A show that costs very little to make is an efficient way to generate a profit. To support my case, I'd like to say that according to WWE's own numbers Main Event is partially responsible for a 15% rise in revenue from TV rights sales compared to last year.

 

[The Butcher]

I don't get how WWECW wasn't a success.

Not enough of The Abraham Washington Show, that's how.

 

[Tastycles]

To support my case, I'd like to say that according to WWE's own numbers Main Event is partially responsible for a 15% rise in revenue from TV rights sales compared to last year.

Without knowing the figures, or having seen this, I would speculate that this is almost certainly to do with the fact that their flagship show is 50% longer than it used to be.

 

[Nate DaMac]

I never watched it but just looking at the numbers it was doing better than Impact. Also, dropping from about a 1.5 to 1.0 isn't losing 2/3 of you audience, is it? I don't have the viewer numbers, only the ratings. It ran for nearly 4 years in a primetime spot and consistently garnered 1.0 ratings at least.

I'm not trying to stand up for it, I never really watched it. It seemed to me like they killed it for the same reason they're ending the brand split these days.

 

[klunderbunker]

So Impact is successful for sure - and simultaneously unsuccessful. That discrepancy still hasn't been reconciled.

Whilst you ponder it, follow up question.

Smackdown lost half its audience in ten years. You've stated multiple times before that Impact's success is tied to its ability to expand its audience (I repeat: Impact is unsuccessful because its not growing its audience faster).

If Impacts success can be called into question by a lack of audience expansion; why does a massive audience reduction not make Smackdown unsuccessful?

Because Smackdown once had that big of an audience, making it a success. Impact's has never been that high or anywhere relatively close to it.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

How was the show doing when Hogan and Hardy weren't there yet?

That's an actual question and not sarcasm.

To my knowledge - they only appeared in a handful of countries which has exploded to three figures and in some international markets they have a bigger TV market share than the WWe. In the UK, it has been on for a number of years but it has only been very recent that they have gone as fullboard (Xplosion; British Boot Camp and even wrestling supplemental program - WrestleTalk).

Hogan can be slagged from here to the moon but he is still the World's most recognizable wrestler which makes him marketable Worldwide. To a lesser degree - Sting, Angle and Hardy also meet this criteria but their big side is that they are still wrestling.

 

[Gelgarin]

I never watched it but just looking at the numbers it was doing better than Impact. Also, dropping from about a 1.5 to 1.0 isn't losing 2/3 of you audience, is it? I don't have the viewer numbers, only the ratings. It ran for nearly 4 years in a primetime spot and consistently garnered 1.0 ratings at least.

I'm not trying to stand up for it, I never really watched it. It seemed to me like they killed it for the same reason they're ending the brand split these days.

It was pulling 2.2-2.4 for the first few months, then the number started going down and basically never stopped. It recorded a net ratings loss every single year it ran - which is unusual.

 

[Nate DaMac]

It was pulling 2.2-2.4 for the first few months, then the number started going down and basically never stopped. It recorded a net ratings loss every single year it ran - which is unusual.

Ah. I was just looking at the yearly averages which yes, went down every year but so did almost every other wrestling show on TV other than Impact.

Oh! I get it!

 

[Remix]

Without knowing the figures, or having seen this, I would speculate that this is almost certainly to do with the fact that their flagship show is 50% longer than it used to be.

I'm quoting what WWE's CFO said during the most recent conference call back in may. And yes, it would mostly be down to the extra length of Raw. Which is why I said partially. Sure, it's a small part, but it's a part none the less. Don't you just love weasel words?

 

[Gelgarin]

Because Smackdown once had that big of an audience, making it a success. Impact's has never been that high or anywhere relatively close to it.

It gets even more complicated. Smackdown's ten year ratings slide is a sign of success because the rating used to be better.

We'll more to some hypothetical questions now. If Smackdown's ratings plummet at the same rate for another ten years - will the show still be successful?

At what point does making your audience stop watching become a sign of an unsuccessful broadcast?

 

[Mighty NorCal]

I have no idea what is actually occuring here, but I hope the TNA zealots havent lowered themselves to the level of indignity of acting like Impact being on par with a thrown together, one match having, lower mid card shit storm like Main Event is some kind of badge of honor.

 

[newwaveknight]

Ahh; I can answer that one. Jessie Sorensen once had his thread hijacked by a discussion about WWE Main Event.

That's the connection that this discussion is build off of.

And whose fault is that?

 

[klunderbunker]

At what point does making your audience stop watching become a sign of an unsuccessful broadcast?

When it stops being profitable, which is what all these shows' successes should and actually are graded on.

 

[Gelgarin]

And whose fault is that?

Zema Ion's - keep up.

 

[newwaveknight]

Zema Ion's - keep up.

No, my little special snowflake, I mean whose fault is it that this thread got hijacked, because I don't believe it was I who brought Main Event into this.

Can we just bring this conversation back to Jesse Sorensen. Jesus, at least my Goderrz/Sorensen bumblefuckery somehow contributed to the main topic. Cease this WWE ratings talk!

 

[Nate DaMac]

Can we just bring this conversation back to Jesse Sorensen. Jesus, at least my Goderrz/Sorensen bumblefuckery somehow contributed to the main topic. Cease this WWE ratings talk!

Who the fuck cares about Jesse Sorensen?

 

[Gelgarin]

When it stops being profitable, which is what all these shows' successes should and actually are graded on.

But Superstars got axed by the network. As in the people who commissioned and paid for it stopped paying for it. And you still declare it an overall success.

 

[Gelgarin]

No, my little special snowflake, I mean whose fault is it that this thread got hijacked, because I don't believe it was I who brought Main Event into this.

Can we just bring this conversation back to Jesse Sorensen. Jesus, at least my Goderrz/Sorensen bumblefuckery somehow contributed to the main topic. Cease this WWE ratings talk!

Go yell at Zema Ion, not me.

 

[klunderbunker]

But Superstars got axed by the network. As in the people who commissioned and paid for it stopped paying for it. And you still declare it an overall success.

It's still around and making money, thereby making it a success for WWE although not as much for WGN (network it aired on).

 

[shattered dreams]

Who the fuck cares about Jesse Sorensen?

Dweebs

 

[Gelgarin]

I believe Tasty already explained that - but I'm going to slide over that and onto what seems to be the circular reasoning at the core of your argument.

You seem to be under the assumption that any show the producer continues to produce is making them money. Any show that is making money is a success. Therefore any show that exists is successful.

I'll expand the scope beyond wrestling for this next one.

Are there any television shows that exist that are not successes?