[Official] Disco Nation

[Frank the Frowner]

Off topic, but screw it.

How could you possibly say that Tom Brady is going to be a bust this year? Not only is he coming off the greatest year for a quarterback ever, but he still has all of his weapons intact. Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Jabar Gaffney all made the plays last year, and they're back. Belichick and Josh McDaniels are still running the offense. Maroney's going to emerge as well. If you call 30-35 TDs and 3500+ passing yards being a bust, then you're crazy.

Brady is not going to be a bust, period.

And to bring this slightly back on topic, please tell me that with Foley being signed with TNA that Don West is going to be back on the Home Shopping Network selling rookie cards...

 

[klunderbunker]

I remember a few months ago you were on a tour of New Zealand. I was wondering if you were going to be back in the ring anytime soon on indy shows, and if so if you knew who you would be working with.

 

[Disco Sucks]

when i refer to internet schmucks, i'm not referring to everyone as a whole. look at the bottom of marty 2 hotty's posts, and he has my quote as to what i describe as your basic internet fan. does ebert read about what happens in a movie from start to finish before he reviews it? guys like meltzer and his minions review impact after watching it after reading the spoilers. i'm not saying that meltzer isn't qualified to review a match, it's just that he's been wrong about the type of stuff that draws, yet will never admit it.

yeah, I've seen Marty's quote...

Besides the over exaggeration of what an "internet fan" is, what exactly is wrong with being a fan of Japanese wrestling? What is wrong with being a fan of high flyers and guys that can move faster and usually excite us more? Especially what is wrong with Paul Heyman? He booked a promotion that led to the direct influence of guys like vince Russo and the birth of the attitude era.

I think many see Meltzers negativity and simply think that ALL internet fans feel that way. It's not true. We know when what we're seeing is good or bad. We know that if we see Sting come off as a heel, and then own A.J. Styles which makes him look weak as the 60% tourist crowd of Orlando is cheering the heel - yeah, I think anyone can see what is wrong with that. All most internet fans want is good wrestling, and well booked characters and feuds. No "shades of gray" or 300 swerves per show. Judging by the success of the WWE, I'm going to go out on a limb and say this works.

*end rant*

 

[Disco Sucks]

you make a blanket statement that internet fans are the ones buying ppv's and merchandise. since tna doesn't release their buyrate information, how could you possibly know this? my whole point is that people that post on message boards and read the internet pundit's "news" get wrapped up in their own self importance, when there has never really been any concrete evidence that they actually are. i wouldn't expect a brainwashed community to be able to comprehend that what i try to teach them is far more important than what they've learned. it'd be like trying to be the keynote speaker at a hari-krishna convention, and telling all of them that people think they're a bunch of wierdos.

So is that why I had to introduce about half a dozen of my co-workers to TNA? (non internet fans) You know because TNA is reaching all audiences, right? It's why the Motor City Machine Guns and LAX are your top t-shirt sellers on shopTNA, it's why Curry Man was remotely popular upon his debut, it's why the World X Cup tore down the house a few months ago, the list goes on...

Dude, my man, TNA wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for the support of internet fans.

 

[gg inferno]

Off topic, but screw it.

How could you possibly say that Tom Brady is going to be a bust this year? Not only is he coming off the greatest year for a quarterback ever, but he still has all of his weapons intact. Randy Moss, Wes Welker, and Jabar Gaffney all made the plays last year, and they're back. Belichick and Josh McDaniels are still running the offense. Maroney's going to emerge as well. If you call 30-35 TDs and 3500+ passing yards being a bust, then you're crazy.

Brady is not going to be a bust, period.

And to bring this slightly back on topic, please tell me that with Foley being signed with TNA that Don West is going to be back on the Home Shopping Network selling rookie cards...

their passing defensive schedule is brutal, they'll run the ball more, teams figured out how to shut down moss at the end of last year, so low 30 td's would be a bust based on expectations based on last year's numbers

 

[Disco Sucks]

OK, Mr. Gilbertti, disregard my last few comments, I'm going to comment on the heart of your column, or at least what I believe it to be...

You're basically saying that the internet doesn't understand how the business truly works, and that the future of the business for it to be successful and for it to work is not what the internet fan wants it to be. That's what I get from your column. Fair enough?

What you need to understand is that we have an ever progressing society when it comes to technology. In an age where you can have high speed internet on your phone, kids (wrestling fans) are also getting access to the internet with relative ease. These wrestling fans will no doubt find others to share their interest in wrestling with online, and in the internet it's not just the WWE and TNA. A new internet fan will be exposed to Ring of Honor, Dragon Gate, CHIKARA, New Japan Pro Wrestling, SHIMMER, the list goes on. This won't be all by internet fans like myself leading them to it either. They will find it on their own, be it youtube or wrestling torrent sites. You know what? They are going to see something so different from what they are used to in a wrestling program that they are going to LOVE it.

They are going to love the strong style of Japanese wrestling, the honor and competitive nature of Ring of Honor, and even passionate promos from guys like Chris Hero, Eddie Kingston, and Nigel McGuinness that they will ask themselves "why aren't these guys in the WWE/TNA?" Eric Bischoff may have had the insight to turn wrestling into a spectacle, but remember it was Extreme Championship Wrestling, made popular by INTERNET tape trading that ushered in an entirely new era of wrestling that Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara themselves will admit had direct influence on them.

Is the entire future of wrestling solely in the hands of the internet? Of course not, but they will be a pivotal part. It's already started to happen, just look at the TNA and WWE World Champions, made popular by the internet. Most of TNA's young stars gained their popularity through the internet, it's not like WE'RE DUMB. It's not like we cannot recognize talent when we see it. If I tell you that Eddie Kingston is going to be the next big star of the business (if he tones up a little) and I'm not the only one saying it, I think you should take SOME consideration into it. As well as TNA and the WWE.

Debating who is paying for TNA's PPV's and merchandise is a mute argument, but it seems as if you ignore anything the internet has to say or feel towards TNA because some how in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Russo and Jarrett and Dutch have this all figured out, and "well see, you'll show us!" right?

Of course you also have to leave behind what you believe is internet booking philosophy. It's not really that hard honestly, in fact to put it in lamens terms, it's one part logical character building that the fans can become attached to (which the WWE does very well) one part realistic storytelling that does not exceed the bounds of said character (something WWE and ROH does pretty well) and one part great, competitive wrestling that makes the viewer believe even for a second that winning a world title is THE most important goal in the company. (something TNA does sometimes, and ROH most of the time)

What it comes down to really, is what you believe to work in professional wrestling, simply won't work anymore. Of course, I've only been a fan for over 20 years, I'm just a dumb internet smark right?

 

[gg inferno]

So is that why I had to introduce about half a dozen of my co-workers to TNA? (non internet fans) You know because TNA is reaching all audiences, right? It's why the Motor City Machine Guns and LAX are your top t-shirt sellers on shopTNA, it's why Curry Man was remotely popular upon his debut, it's why the World X Cup tore down the house a few months ago, the list goes on...

Dude, my man, TNA wouldn't be where they are today if it weren't for the support of internet fans.

christian cage is the top t shirt seller right now. and what does the internet crowd have to do with curry man?? and what are you talking about support? the internet buries tna.

 

[Disco Sucks]

christian cage is the top t shirt seller right now. and what does the internet crowd have to do with curry man?? and what are you talking about support? the internet buries tna.

I'm referring to the early years, 2002-2006 mainly, where TNA fans like myself couldn't stop talking about it and passing the world along to any WWE fan that would listen. Hell TNA ran iMPACT strictly on the internet for a while.

...and Christian Cage is a very popular internet wrestler. He's a guy that more than 90% of internet fans would say should be in the mix for the main event picture and if you were around, VERY popular on the net in his late WWE years when he was "Captain Charisma"

...CURRY MAN? Well, us internet fans love our Japanese Wrestling, so naturally we know all about Daniels and Curry Man. Most other people I talk to that don't know where Curry Man came from think the gimmick is kind of dumb.

 

[gg inferno]

OK, Mr. Gilbertti, disregard my last few comments, I'm going to comment on the heart of your column, or at least what I believe it to be...

You're basically saying that the internet doesn't understand how the business truly works, and that the future of the business for it to be successful and for it to work is not what the internet fan wants it to be. That's what I get from your column. Fair enough?

What you need to understand is that we have an ever progressing society when it comes to technology. In an age where you can have high speed internet on your phone, kids (wrestling fans) are also getting access to the internet with relative ease. These wrestling fans will no doubt find others to share their interest in wrestling with online, and in the internet it's not just the WWE and TNA. A new internet fan will be exposed to Ring of Honor, Dragon Gate, CHIKARA, New Japan Pro Wrestling, SHIMMER, the list goes on. This won't be all by internet fans like myself leading them to it either. They will find it on their own, be it youtube or wrestling torrent sites. You know what? They are going to see something so different from what they are used to in a wrestling program that they are going to LOVE it.

They are going to love the strong style of Japanese wrestling, the honor and competitive nature of Ring of Honor, and even passionate promos from guys like Chris Hero, Eddie Kingston, and Nigel McGuinness that they will ask themselves "why aren't these guys in the WWE/TNA?" Eric Bischoff may have had the insight to turn wrestling into a spectacle, but remember it was Extreme Championship Wrestling, made popular by INTERNET tape trading that ushered in an entirely new era of wrestling that Vince Russo and Ed Ferrara themselves will admit had direct influence on them.

Is the entire future of wrestling solely in the hands of the internet? Of course not, but they will be a pivotal part. It's already started to happen, just look at the TNA and WWE World Champions, made popular by the internet. Most of TNA's young stars gained their popularity through the internet, it's not like WE'RE DUMB. It's not like we cannot recognize talent when we see it. If I tell you that Eddie Kingston is going to be the next big star of the business (if he tones up a little) and I'm not the only one saying it, I think you should take SOME consideration into it. As well as TNA and the WWE.

Debating who is paying for TNA's PPV's and merchandise is a mute argument, but it seems as if you ignore anything the internet has to say or feel towards TNA because some how in the grand scheme of things, Mr. Russo and Jarrett and Dutch have this all figured out, and "well see, you'll show us!" right?

Of course you also have to leave behind what you believe is internet booking philosophy. It's not really that hard honestly, in fact to put it in lamens terms, it's one part logical character building that the fans get become attached to (which the WWE does very well) one part realistic storytelling that does not exceed the bounds of said character (something WWE and ROH does pretty well) and one part great, competitive wrestling that makes the viewer believe even for a second that winning a world title is THE most important goal in the company. (something TNA does sometimes, and ROH most of the time)

What it comes down to really, is what you believe to work in professional wrestling, simply won't work anymore. Of course, I've only been a fan for over 20 years, I'm just a dumb internet smark right?

if you're making the claim that the internet is so important to the business, then just look at the growth of the internet community over the last eight years, then look at the style of wrestling that has emerged, then look at the lack of stars, then look at the ratings. would it be safe to assume that what the internet community has been promoting hasn't drawn a dime?? all the guys that the internet community thinks are so great are what i'd like to refer to as thousandaires. they'll make thousands of dollars in the business. they'll never be millionaires, because they don't look and act like stars.

 

[Disco Sucks]

if you're making the claim that the internet is so important to the business, then just look at the growth of the internet community over the last eight years, then look at the style of wrestling that has emerged, then look at the lack of stars, then look at the ratings. would it be safe to assume that what the internet community has been promoting hasn't drawn a dime?? all the guys that the internet community thinks are so great are what i'd like to refer to as thousandaires. they'll make thousands of dollars in the business. they'll never be millionaires, because they don't look and act like stars.

John Cena, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Samoa Joe, CM Punk, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, A.J. Styles, these guys aren't stars? The ratings dropped from the late 90's because wrestling was a fad. it was everyone's guilty pleasure in the 90's, and most fans from that era that fell in love with the nWo are now watching the many reality TV shows now readily available on just about any channel that has replaced said guilty pleasure.

It's not like Ring of Honor and TNA were around at the start of the internet growth period. Both made their debut in 2002, and it really didn't catch on until I would say 2004 really. By then the WWE had full control and were doing whatever they wanted to, and it SUCKED. You'd probably agree with me there. There ratings weren't so hot either though even compared to the fans that were left, but suddenly the WWE started to put on good wrestling again with no so insane storylines and now they're making more money than ever.

...and Glenn you should know it's all about buyrates, not so much ratings.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

Hey I like Glenn's bashing of the Online Community. He tells it like it is> i'm surprised he knows so much about how they think because I've been reading since 2002 and have read a lot of BS, and Glenn just tells it like it is. Quite frankly, he needs to continue doing more of it. Of course he believes what he says and the online fans that repeat what Meltzer/Keller say can rarely write any comebacks.

Glenn doesnt back Russo just because they're friends. They're great minds that think alike. Most net fans can't think for themselves. Like if Meltzer/Keller did a review of 90210/Lost/Prison Break 2 hour premieres like they do for IMpact, the entire TV industry would laugh at them. Yet they continue doing it, and the peopel that read it that believe it post their thoughts and conclude Keller's statements as facts.

Basically, Angle, Karen, Sting drew 1.27 for a entertainment segment. It doesn't necessarily mean that by doing the exact same thing the next week, they'll do the same. MMG may draw a low quarter, but that doesn't mean that if you put them in a segment like DX, swearing, sexual innuendo, doing/saying controversial things in the ring for 20 minutes, that they wouldn't able to do a 1.3. It all depends on any time and the content and for whatever reason, more people could be watching a specific minute for whatever reason.. it doesn't necessarily mean that "nash doesn't draw, and will never draw - you should take him off TV forever based on this quarterly rating"

guys like meltzer and his minions review impact after watching it after reading the spoilers.

I have become an online fan where I read the spoilers, but most of the time, the spoilers don't really go into detail about about pretapes and everything, so shows like the thanksgiving special - the spoilers didn't do it justice, because the show when i watched it was super entertaining.

Meltzer obviously doesn't know what draws today or 10 years ago... but I guess he says what he has to say to sell his dirtsheets

you make a blanket statement that internet fans are the ones buying ppv's and merchandise

Yeah, casual viewers buy ppvs, attend shows and buy merch as well.

yeah, I've seen Marty's quote...

Besides the over exaggeration of what an "internet fan" is, what exactly is wrong with being a fan of Japanese wrestling? What is wrong with being a fan of high flyers and guys that can move faster and usually excite us more? Especially what is wrong with Paul Heyman? He booked a promotion that led to the direct influence of guys like vince Russo and the birth of the attitude era.

This is the post of an IWF right here.. haha

As for stars, the online fans all think alike. They all seem to like Curry Man and Beer Money for unknown reasons. I mean ALL. However, I enjoy Curry Man's interactions with the ladies and Shark Boy. Him dancing around is funny, but him saying "Myrey Cyrusa" and saying "action action action" hitting on Angelina and asking them "do you want to know how dewicious i am" - that's the comedy.

Him talking to LAX, him interacting with Christy "you and me can make beautiful music" - that's funny.

I agree with glenn that most people online dont' know what it takes to be stars. I think it's not difficult as glenn thinks. He says there'll never be a rock/austin because of that era and the talent they all had. I think most ot eh young guys at TNA just need some good edgy dialogue to be given to them, and once they start practicing and getting the groove of their character they need to continue interacting with people in the ring, on a regular basis.

Austin was kind of a natural. Rock when he started was atroicious, but given time and week by week interactions, he started growing into his character. I think most people at TNA have that same potential.. but it's about the character. Wrestling ability is not important to become a star in north america.. People generally just want to be entertained

Online fans shat on Mankind before he was a star. He became humourous, starting growing as a fan favourite, brought out socko, was put in great segments, and interactions, stories.. and fans loved him. He wasn't the best worker

You don't need to be a good worker to get over, it's that simple.

 

[gg inferno]

John Cena, Batista, Rey Mysterio, Samoa Joe, CM Punk, Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, A.J. Styles, these guys aren't stars? The ratings dropped from the late 90's because wrestling was a fad. it was everyone's guilty pleasure in the 90's, and most fans from that era that fell in love with the nWo are now watching the many reality TV shows now readily available on just about any channel that has replaced said guilty pleasure.

It's not like Ring of Honor and TNA were around at the start of the internet growth period. Both made their debut in 2002, and it really didn't catch on until I would say 2004 really. By then the WWE had full control and were doing whatever they wanted to, and it SUCKED. You'd probably agree with me there. There ratings weren't so hot either though even compared to the fans that were left, but suddenly the WWE started to put on good wrestling again with no so insane storylines and now they're making more money than ever.

...and Glenn you should know it's all about buyrates, not so much ratings.

buyrates???? that's the most clueless fallacy that i hear from the internet community. when we were kicking ass in wcw and wwf was drawing huge numbers, we could walk into any club in the country and people knew who we were. do you think everyone knows who paris hilton is because of her drawing power in the movie industry, which is zilch? buyrates don't make you a star, the amount of people that know you do. and the wwe isn't making more money than ever because of good wrestling, they're making more money because they opened up a ton of new markets. that's one of the main problems with the internet community, when they try to discuss the business side of wrestling and they have zero clue what they're talking about. dude, i guess you're new to this message board, but if you go back and read the posts you'll see that nobody is going to get the best of me. i just know way more about the biz than you do. WAY more.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I don't always 100% agree with Glenn, but he's spot on here. Ratings and Buyrates are inflated propaganda, nothing more, and each day that passes devalues and renders those figures irrelevant.

For starters, in order to compare the ratings of the 90's with today would be to remove DVR technology from the equation. That unquestionably affects ratings, as well it should, since few, if any, of the people who DVR TV shows actually watch the commercials rather than simply fast forwarding through them. Comparing the two is like comparing the stats of an NFL player from the days of the 12-game schedule to the stats of a player from the proposed new 18-game schedule. Apples to Oranges.

Second, the PPV buyrates aren't as important as long as the WWE remains CONSISTENTLY in ownership of so many slots on the DVD Sales lists. How many lists do you see WrestleZone publish in which WWE holds 4 or more of the top 10 DVD sales for the week or the month? Whether it's a Pay Per View, a compilation, or a DVD about a superstar, WWE has blown the DVD market WIDE OPEN after acquiring the libraries of WCW and ECW.

 

[Disco Sucks]

buyrates???? that's the most clueless fallacy that i hear from the internet community. when we were kicking ass in wcw and wwf was drawing huge numbers, we could walk into any club in the country and people knew who we were. do you think everyone knows who paris hilton is because of her drawing power in the movie industry, which is zilch? buyrates don't make you a star, the amount of people that know you do. and the wwe isn't making more money than ever because of good wrestling, they're making more money because they opened up a ton of new markets. that's one of the main problems with the internet community, when they try to discuss the business side of wrestling and they have zero clue what they're talking about. dude, i guess you're new to this message board, but if you go back and read the posts you'll see that nobody is going to get the best of me. i just know way more about the biz than you do. WAY more.

Which is why you skipped over my other points about the importance of the internet and it's booking philosophy and the many stars that have been created in this era?

Put it this way, if iMPACT! does a 1.7 rating, TNA doesn't really get anymore money. They might get a few advertising deals, but that's likely it. On the other hand if TNA did 30,000 more buyrates than usual, that's big bucks right there. Ratings can be important but seeing as they are based off of what only 5,000 random people watch, I don't view them as important as buyrates. UFC is huge right now, and their cable shows only do about 1.2 average rating, yet their PPV's pull in higher buyrates than the WWE and TNA combined, and they are selling out arenas just as big as the WWE as well for their shows. Explain that one.

Glenn in your days of WCW club-hopping, the promotion you worked for was also drawing high buyrates along with high ratings. Sure the two go together, but I'm going to guess the latter makes you more money. In reality it's a pointless argument, but there are still a lot of wrestling fans that haven't learned about TNA yet, so if TNA could pull a high percentage of buyrates in comparison to it's ratings like UFC can, that's a sure sign that your show is doing very well, and hence has a better shot at national recognition on a WWE like level. I agree though, you do know more about the business than I do, you've worked in it, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how business in general works outside of wrestling, the rules do not change here.

 

[Marty2Hotty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by gg inferno
buyrates???? that's the most clueless fallacy that i hear from the internet community. when we were kicking ass in wcw and wwf was drawing huge numbers, we could walk into any club in the country and people knew who we were. do you think everyone knows who paris hilton is because of her drawing power in the movie industry, which is zilch? buyrates don't make you a star, the amount of people that know you do. and the wwe isn't making more money than ever because of good wrestling, they're making more money because they opened up a ton of new markets. that's one of the main problems with the internet community, when they try to discuss the business side of wrestling and they have zero clue what they're talking about. dude, i guess you're new to this message board, but if you go back and read the posts you'll see that nobody is going to get the best of me. i just know way more about the biz than you do. WAY more.

Which is why you skipped over my other points about the importance of the internet and it's booking philosophy and the many stars that have been created in this era?

Put it this way, if iMPACT! does a 1.7 rating, TNA doesn't really get anymore money. They might get a few advertising deals, but that's likely it. On the other hand if TNA did 30,000 more buyrates than usual, that's big bucks right there. Ratings can be important but seeing as they are based off of what only 5,000 random people watch, I don't view them as important as buyrates. UFC is huge right now, and their cable shows only do about 1.2 average rating, yet their PPV's pull in higher buyrates than the WWE and TNA combined, and they are selling out arenas just as big as the WWE as well for their shows. Explain that one.

Glenn in your days of WCW club-hopping, the promotion you worked for was also drawing high buyrates along with high ratings. Sure the two go together, but I'm going to guess the latter makes you more money. In reality it's a pointless argument, but there are still a lot of wrestling fans that haven't learned about TNA yet, so if TNA could pull a high percentage of buyrates in comparison to it's ratings like UFC can, that's a sure sign that your show is doing very well, and hence has a better shot at national recognition on a WWE like level. I agree though, you do know more about the business than I do, you've worked in it, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how business in general works outside of wrestling, the rules do not change here.

Glen made the best post. Glenn, fyi, everyone talks the same about ratings vs buyrates. I had this huge argument on another forum and I pretty much won it..

"disco sucks" - If TNA doubles their TV audience, they're more likely going to get a higher buyrate and grow in every revenue stream. More people sampling/enjoying your product - more people are more likely going to attend your shows, buy your merch/ppvs. It's that simple. Why would buyrates go up if nobody even bothers to watch your free TV show

I used the super bowl argument. Why are advertisers willing to fork out lots of cash to advertise during superbowl? More potential customers due to high amount of poeple WATCHING. Same applies to Wrestling and PPVs. If more people watch your free TV show - which is a marketing tool for the PPVs and product, more will pay for your product. THAT SIMPLE. CASE CLOSED

And Dont you just hate it when they bring up the same fucking UFC argument UFC is a legit sport that did 200,000 buys before they had the reality show that is ultimate fighter (which doesn't even build to matches at the PPV). the show helped the company become more recognizable. But you're comparing shoot fighting w/ wrestling. Compare UFC's buyrates to Boxing's buyrates if Boxing gets a reality show about boxing.

Compare TNA's buys to WWE's buys. TNA gets 35,000 buys from a 1.0 rated show. WWE gets like 150,000 buys from a 3.4 rated show. IT evens out approximately.. Stop comparing UFC (a shoot fighting proudoct) with a fake wrestling/entertainment show

Glenn's post owned yours btw

 

[gg inferno]

Which is why you skipped over my other points about the importance of the internet and it's booking philosophy and the many stars that have been created in this era?

Put it this way, if iMPACT! does a 1.7 rating, TNA doesn't really get anymore money. They might get a few advertising deals, but that's likely it. On the other hand if TNA did 30,000 more buyrates than usual, that's big bucks right there. Ratings can be important but seeing as they are based off of what only 5,000 random people watch, I don't view them as important as buyrates. UFC is huge right now, and their cable shows only do about 1.2 average rating, yet their PPV's pull in higher buyrates than the WWE and TNA combined, and they are selling out arenas just as big as the WWE as well for their shows. Explain that one.

Glenn in your days of WCW club-hopping, the promotion you worked for was also drawing high buyrates along with high ratings. Sure the two go together, but I'm going to guess the latter makes you more money. In reality it's a pointless argument, but there are still a lot of wrestling fans that haven't learned about TNA yet, so if TNA could pull a high percentage of buyrates in comparison to it's ratings like UFC can, that's a sure sign that your show is doing very well, and hence has a better shot at national recognition on a WWE like level. I agree though, you do know more about the business than I do, you've worked in it, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how business in general works outside of wrestling, the rules do not change here.

rey, batista, and cena are not products of the internet community.

 

[paulsoprano]

Put it this way, if iMPACT! does a 1.7 rating, TNA doesn't really get anymore money. They might get a few advertising deals, but that's likely it. On the other hand if TNA did 30,000 more buyrates than usual, that's big bucks right there.

This is a theoretical point, so you would need to know exactly how much TNA would make from an increase in 30,000 buys. It's all theory, really. My hypothesis would be this: consistent 1.7 ratings on Spike would surely be better than 30,000 more buys. It would likely ensure more opportunities on the network and a juicier, more lucrative contract.

The most telling point is this: significantly better ratings usually go hand-in-hand with better buyrates. Traditionally, in these circumstances, strong ratings point to a hot product across the board. If TNA went to a 1.7 average, I can pretty much guarantee that the buyrates would go up in that ratio.

Ratings can be important but seeing as they are based off of what only 5,000 random people watch, I don't view them as important as buyrates. UFC is huge right now, and their cable shows only do about 1.2 average rating, yet their PPV's pull in higher buyrates than the WWE and TNA combined, and they are selling out arenas just as big as the WWE as well for their shows. Explain that one.

It doesn't take a lot of explanation. It's a hot product and people will always pay to watch a hot, hyped-up, unpredictable product. UFC gets a lot more coverage than TNA and infinitely more opportunities on Spike. That helps. And the presentation of UFC is excellent, with great production values and a solid amount of promotion for their fights. Can TNA learn from UFC? Sure. But they are two different beasts entirely - in terms of genre, tradition and budget.

Glenn in your days of WCW club-hopping, the promotion you worked for was also drawing high buyrates along with high ratings. Sure the two go together, but I'm going to guess the latter makes you more money.

Buyrates make the company money, but the other revenue streams are extremely and possibly more important. These are so often overlooked by the pundits online. TNA is a profitable company, and one which probably really needs a white-hot angle and the wrestling industry to boom again. For any company to be profitable in this financial climate, especially considering where and how TNA started, is a major accomplishment.

In reality it's a pointless argument, but there are still a lot of wrestling fans that haven't learned about TNA yet, so if TNA could pull a high percentage of buyrates in comparison to it's ratings like UFC can, that's a sure sign that your show is doing very well,

Well, of course. But if I could win the lottery or come up with a winning invention, I'd be a millionaire. It's all about the "ifs". We all know that, if you sell more, you earn more. My issue is not this obvious claim, which GG is not disputing. It's the claim that, if TNA just fired the booking team and booked the way a lot of the Internet critics suggest, they'd grow their buyrates by 30,000. There is no evidence for this at all.

A lot of the critics online will go to great lengths to bolster their own creaky arguments.

 

[MNF]

Glenn Gillberti, any comments on Mark Madson's comments in his column here, that if you go to TNA, you will sink and ruin your legacy? Not specifically about the rumored signing of Mick Foley.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.php?articleid=221937449

 

[dzonewrestle1]

I know this is the Disco nation, but did anybody read Mark Madden's stupid column? He basically buried Samoa Joe and pretty much said he didn't deserve his current success. I'm sorry, but it doesn't take a high IQ to know that TNA's booking team has booked him like a whiny complainer b*tch for so long that some fans have turned against him. Joe once was sad that he didn't pin Booker T at Victory Road, and pretty much crying on Impact. He's booked to be pissed all the damn time on Impact, and in a rage. In 05, 06, Joe was super over not saying much and having great X-division matches. Fans wanted to see Jarrett vs. Joe at Bound for Glory 06, yet he was placed in a meaningless 4-way no dq match with Spike, Raven & Abyss. Joe potential was so hot in 06, and TNA blew that. Lockdown 08 did great buys for a simple fued and Joe was over. Mark Madden was a horrible announcer and he's wrong about Joe in my opinion. Joe deserves his success, he's only doing his job when he follows TNA's scripts. And if TNA's scripts make him look like a whiner jackass, then there really ain't much he can do about it.

WWE and Vince McMahon know what they are doing, thats why Batista isn't ALWAYS mad, Cena isn't ALWAYS mad, WWE knows how to book.

 

[Disco Sucks]

rey, batista, and cena are not products of the internet community.

My point was that since the boom of "internet wrestling fans" there are still stars out there. It's not as if the rise of internet fans have hurt the business in terms of number of stars. You said the IWC's rise can be equated to lack of star power and low ratings. Well, star power is still there and while ratings aren't as high as they were, the WWE is very profitable, better than it's ever been.

Ratings will not guarantee you better buyrates though. Just look at TNA's growth. They went up from a 0.6 to a 1.2 in a few years, but their buyrates stayed the same. More people may watch, but that doesn't mean they're buying the PPV. Granted the chances are BETTER that they will buy the PPV if more people are watching, but in the end it's your ticket sales and buyrates that will make you more money. I do agree that higher ratings will likely equal higher buyrates, but the key word there is likely which as just mentioned, TNA's boost over 2 years has garnered little buyrate increase at all, but if the show is GOOD, then people will more than likely tune in for the PPV regardless of rating.

I really wish Glen would address internet booking philosophy as I had previously mentioned in earlier posts, it seems as if many of you are simply taking maybe one part of my comments and working over that instead of anything else I've said.

As dzonewrestle1 said, WWE knows how to book. TNA simply doesn't right now because they cannot get a grip on how to properly utilize their characters logically in regards to how their character would act in certain situations, along with the fact that they have no clue how to book their faces in situations to make them look like a face. It sucks. It's as if TNA wants this new angle to be a feud with no heels and faces but just tweeners, which may have worked - 10 years ago.

 

[gg inferno]

Which is why you skipped over my other points about the importance of the internet and it's booking philosophy and the many stars that have been created in this era?

Put it this way, if iMPACT! does a 1.7 rating, TNA doesn't really get anymore money. They might get a few advertising deals, but that's likely it. On the other hand if TNA did 30,000 more buyrates than usual, that's big bucks right there. Ratings can be important but seeing as they are based off of what only 5,000 random people watch, I don't view them as important as buyrates. UFC is huge right now, and their cable shows only do about 1.2 average rating, yet their PPV's pull in higher buyrates than the WWE and TNA combined, and they are selling out arenas just as big as the WWE as well for their shows. Explain that one.

Glenn in your days of WCW club-hopping, the promotion you worked for was also drawing high buyrates along with high ratings. Sure the two go together, but I'm going to guess the latter makes you more money. In reality it's a pointless argument, but there are still a lot of wrestling fans that haven't learned about TNA yet, so if TNA could pull a high percentage of buyrates in comparison to it's ratings like UFC can, that's a sure sign that your show is doing very well, and hence has a better shot at national recognition on a WWE like level. I agree though, you do know more about the business than I do, you've worked in it, but it doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how business in general works outside of wrestling, the rules do not change here.

do i really have to explain ufc's buyrates? do you actually really need to have that explained to you?? you're going to feel really stupid after you read what you're about to read, but since you asked me to explain, i will oblige.

UFC is real. wrestling is fake. wrestling is storyline driven. ufc is legitimate athletic competition. let's look at boxing. two of the best fighters in the world, legit, mayweather and delahoya, announce they're going to fight each other. you don't need hype. the fight hypes itself. just like the super bowl, just like the world series. sports fans become interested in what the outcome will be. stars come out and pay big bucks to sit as close as possible to the action. it creates basic human interest. now you're trying to compare wrestling to that business model??? where everyone knows it's fake?? and parents bring their kids to come watch?? you cannot compare ufc, or boxing, to wrestling. the only way that they're similar is that they're on ppv. just like porn. lesnar and couture announce a fight and they're on sportscenter the next morning. are you so blind to reality that you think the same thing would happen if we announced joe v. aj ironman match?? or HHH v. uh, well, you couldn't announce anything on wwe even that would generate that buzz. there's only one matchup in wrestling today that would gain publicity based on the merits of the competitors alone. Austin v. Hogan. and that would only get people talking on the web, but it could bring older fans out of the woodwork that would be interested in the outcome. don't compare ufc to wrestling ever again. it's a completely flawed argument.

btw, paulsopranos last sentence in his post hits the nail right on the head.

 

[Disco Sucks]

do i really have to explain ufc's buyrates? do you actually really need to have that explained to you?? you're going to feel really stupid after you read what you're about to read, but since you asked me to explain, i will oblige.

UFC is real. wrestling is fake. wrestling is storyline driven. ufc is legitimate athletic competition. let's look at boxing. two of the best fighters in the world, legit, mayweather and delahoya, announce they're going to fight each other. you don't need hype. the fight hypes itself. just like the super bowl, just like the world series. sports fans become interested in what the outcome will be. stars come out and pay big bucks to sit as close as possible to the action. it creates basic human interest. now you're trying to compare wrestling to that business model??? where everyone knows it's fake?? and parents bring their kids to come watch?? you cannot compare ufc, or boxing, to wrestling. the only way that they're similar is that they're on ppv. just like porn. lesnar and couture announce a fight and they're on sportscenter the next morning. are you so blind to reality that you think the same thing would happen if we announced joe v. aj ironman match?? or HHH v. uh, well, you couldn't announce anything on wwe even that would generate that buzz. there's only one matchup in wrestling today that would gain publicity based on the merits of the competitors alone. Austin v. Hogan. and that would only get people talking on the web, but it could bring older fans out of the woodwork that would be interested in the outcome. don't compare ufc to wrestling ever again. it's a completely flawed argument.

btw, paulsopranos last sentence in his post hits the nail right on the head.

Thanks, but the difference between Mixed Martial Arts and Professional Wrestling need not be explained to me. The question that needs to be asked is WHY Mixed Martial Arts has grown so significantly. The answer? People understand it better now, they look beyond the fact that it's just a fight, but a technical, strategic, physical competition. The different fighting styles can be appreciated by this generations fans, and that's something that wasn't necessarily the case 10+ years ago in the sport.

Why is this important? Well beyond the fact that for centuries people are drawn to athleticism and competition, wrestling fans now are better understanding the physical nature of Professional Wrestling. 10 years ago most wrestling fans may not even understand what "chain wrestling" is, but now most fans (majority online) do understand it, and can appreciate it when they see it.

Glenn, wrestling fans have always KNOWN it's fake, but never before has the fan base carried so much knowledge into how the sport works than ever before. Wrestling fans have simply become smarter and with that appreciate great matches and great wrestlers more than raunchy, B-rate "entertainment". 10 years ago extreme, racy, in your face wrestling was something new and many people ate it up, but now these same fans have already seen it. If they want to see poop and tranny jokes, they can watch Comedy Central they do not want it in their wrestling show when they have a better understanding of how the show works and just want to see good wrestling. Here's something quite amazing that you may or may not know...

People watch wrestling, for the wrestling.

Look at the great moments in wrestling history, HBK/Hart (Ironman), Austin/Hart, RVD/Guerrero, Savage/Warrior, Hardy/Undertaker, HHH/HBK/Benoit, and even in TNA with Joe/Styles/Daniels, XXX/AMW, and Joe/Angle - ALL MATCHES. Few people remember great in-ring segments, most remember great matches. WHICH IS WHY I compared UFC to Wrestling, because the fan base HAS GROWN UP. Audiences want to see a sport of a more competitive nature, and when Joe vs. Angle draws the highest buyrates in TNA history, I think that should be an indication of where wrestling fans want the sport to go. Fans have had their fill of "CrashTV", they just want to see some good wrestling and good storytelling, not swerves and pole matches. The proof is in the pudding which is the WWE, which draws a high fan base, high ratings, and has a very simplistic system now of mixing good wrestling with simple storytelling.

 

[gg inferno]

Thanks, but the difference between Mixed Martial Arts and Professional Wrestling need not be explained to me. The question that needs to be asked is WHY Mixed Martial Arts has grown so significantly. The answer? People understand it better now, they look beyond the fact that it's just a fight, but a technical, strategic, physical competition. The different fighting styles can be appreciated by this generations fans, and that's something that wasn't necessarily the case 10+ years ago in the sport.

Why is this important? Well beyond the fact that for centuries people are drawn to athleticism and competition, wrestling fans now are better understanding the physical nature of Professional Wrestling. 10 years ago most wrestling fans may not even understand what "chain wrestling" is, but now most fans (majority online) do understand it, and can appreciate it when they see it.

Glenn, wrestling fans have always KNOWN it's fake, but never before has the fan base carried so much knowledge into how the sport works than ever before. Wrestling fans have simply become smarter and with that appreciate great matches and great wrestlers more than raunchy, B-rate "entertainment". 10 years ago extreme, racy, in your face wrestling was something new and many people ate it up, but now these same fans have already seen it. If they want to see poop and tranny jokes, they can watch Comedy Central they do not want it in their wrestling show when they have a better understanding of how the show works and just want to see good wrestling. Here's something quite amazing that you may or may not know...

People watch wrestling, for the wrestling.

Look at the great moments in wrestling history, HBK/Hart (Ironman), Austin/Hart, RVD/Guerrero, Savage/Warrior, Hardy/Undertaker, HHH/HBK/Benoit, and even in TNA with Joe/Styles/Daniels, XXX/AMW, and Joe/Angle - ALL MATCHES. Few people remember great in-ring segments, most remember great matches. WHICH IS WHY I compared UFC to Wrestling, because the fan base HAS GROWN UP. Audiences want to see a sport of a more competitive nature, and when Joe vs. Angle draws the highest buyrates in TNA history, I think that should be an indication of where wrestling fans want the sport to go. Fans have had their fill of "CrashTV", they just want to see some good wrestling and good storytelling, not swerves and pole matches. The proof is in the pudding which is the WWE, which draws a high fan base, high ratings, and has a very simplistic system now of mixing good wrestling with simple storytelling.

your arguments get worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. for one, PEOPLE don't watch wrestling for wrestling, WRESTLING FANS watch wrestling for wrestling. non-wrestling fans watch it for the other stuff, which is why rock-foley "this is your life" is the highest rated segment of all time. just stop trying to argue with me. it's a squash. you keep making statemnets that aren't true and have NOTHING to back them up. "The proof is in the pudding which is the WWE, which draws a high fan base, high ratings, and has a very simplistic system now of mixing good wrestling with simple storytelling" is the single worst argument you've made, because "crash tv" , as you call it, drew 6's, and wwe right now does 3.5's. Are you TRYING to argue like a jobber on this message board, or are you joking and playing the fool? that's a serious question.

 

[MisterRob]

Compare TNA's buys to WWE's buys. TNA gets 35,000 buys from a 1.0 rated show. WWE gets like 150,000 buys from a 3.4 rated show. IT evens out approximately.. Stop comparing UFC (a shoot fighting proudoct) with a fake wrestling/entertainment show

How does it even out? What grade of math are you taking? TNA's 1.0 rating x 3 would equal 105,000 buyrates. So if TNA was doing the same ratings as WWE the WWE would be getting an average of 40,000 more buyrates. That's more then TNA gets TOTAL right now! (lol)

 

[Disco Sucks]

your arguments get worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse and worse. for one, PEOPLE don't watch wrestling for wrestling, WRESTLING FANS watch wrestling for wrestling. non-wrestling fans watch it for the other stuff, which is why rock-foley "this is your life" is the highest rated segment of all time. just stop trying to argue with me. it's a squash. you keep making statemnets that aren't true and have NOTHING to back them up. "The proof is in the pudding which is the WWE, which draws a high fan base, high ratings, and has a very simplistic system now of mixing good wrestling with simple storytelling" is the single worst argument you've made, because "crash tv" , as you call it, drew 6's, and wwe right now does 3.5's. Are you TRYING to argue like a jobber on this message board, or are you joking and playing the fool? that's a serious question.

I think the fool would be the guy who is obviously stuck on the past, and believes that what worked 10 years ago will work today. Wrestling fans are going to stick with their product no matter what, now "PEOPLE" as you called them, will not, because they've moved on. The internet boom was a FAD much like the Macarena was. Yet, two fat Mexicans singing a song about a dance isn't the recognized formula for success in the music industry. It was a fad.

Think about it...

Sure the WWE is pulling 3.5's now, but in 1987 Saturday Night Main Event drew an 11.6. It's not like they never had an audience and suddenly Vince Russo comes along and BAM! 8.1! I think what you need to ask yourself is why ratings started to DECLINE around 2002-2003? Sure Russo wasn't writing for them, but the WWE was still in hardcore "sports entertainment" mode then, where you had Necrophilia angles, swerves, Austin getting ran over by a car, the Rock getting smashed by the nWo, Kane de-masking, invasion and stable wars, the works...Many of the elements in the late 90's with "Crash Booking" and yet the ratings dropped...

Why?

Could people have finally gotten sick of swerve after swerve after swerve? When you have so many dirty endings to matches and ridiculous plot twists they become mundane, insignificant, and people start to expect them, and when they happen, nobody is surprised. Especially the newer, smarter generation of wrestling fans. It's common sense.

I really do not see how honestly you've "squashed" me. I continually make points that you ignore, be it about the stars created in this decade in the midst of the internet rise, the acknowledgment of a smarter fan base, the fact that most great moments in wrestling history are in fact wrestling matches and not segments, the correlation in TNA of high buyrates and ratings to a main event with two of the best wrestlers in the world (Joe/Angle Turning Point/Lockdown) the list goes on...

I don't ignore your points, and I recognize that in the late 90's what you consider to be the style in which wrestling should be booked, worked. It did work, and it worked well, but I can also observe what has happened since, which is a smarter, more knowledgeable fan base has taken over, and they don't live in the 90's man, and they do not want to be insulted by swerves and heel turns that they can see a mile away.