Should TNA change their name?

[Reddannihilation]

Exactly. TNA picked the name when they expected to be, and were, a Russorific orgy of random swerves, tag teams dressed as penises, cross-dressing, tits-n-ass, and midgets beating off in trash cans. It was the name of a company with contempt for its audience and itself.

No. It was picked as an adult-oriented name. That simple.

Wasn't the point of the thread but, Ok.
Impact Pro Wrestling/Impact Championship Wrestling
USPW/USCW/USWF
National Championship Wrestling

LOL, what's up Ole Anderson? Should've called it Jeff and Jerry's championship wrestling from Nashville. All of those names suck, two of them could potentially cause a lawsuit from Impact Pro. Three of them read like shitty territory promotions and one of them is just WCW with National in place of World. Shitty idea, shitty results.

It only makes sense as part of an effort to completely rebrand the company. It would be a good move for a new owner.

What new owner? So this entire thread is based on a giant "what if" situation? "What if there was a new owner and they changed the entire company and name", great job. TNA doesn't need a name change, their name is fine.

 

[johnbragg]

Quote:
Originally Posted by johnbragg View Post
Exactly. TNA picked the name when they expected to be, and were, a Russorific orgy of random swerves, tag teams dressed as penises, cross-dressing, tits-n-ass, and midgets beating off in trash cans. It was the name of a company with contempt for its audience and itself.

RA: No. It was picked as an adult-oriented name. That simple.

Right, their idea of "adult-oriented" was cross-dressers, *********ing midgets and a tag team dressed as penises.

ReddAnnihilation says that all of my promotion names suck.

My names weren't terribly creative, and half of them had been used already--you just pay off the indy promoter for the rights to the name. WWE just did exactly that with SWA:NXT. All you need is a name that doesn't hurt you.

LOL, what's up Ole Anderson? Should've called it Jeff and Jerry's championship wrestling from Nashville

No, then you need a new name if you ever move or tour.

TNA doesn't need a name change, their name is fine.

No, their name is probably the worst name for a wrestling company ever. "TNA Wrestling" is as bad a name as "Whiz Cola." It would be like White Castle calling their burgers "Steamers." It gives people a bad impression immediately, that the company then has to overcome. But there are real costs to changing the name at this point, so it's a bad idea unless you're completely overhauling the company, and you can sell the name change as part of that overhaul.

 

[boywithatoy]

Hey guys, thanks for all your replies on this - it seems we are pretty much split 50/50 on this one which always makes for good debate.

The main argument from most of you seems to be "everyone knows it as TNA". First of all, what do you mean by "everyone"? If you mean "everyone who watches TNA knows it as TNA" then that's why you build it into the "they" storyline as well as dixie/hogan etc saying "change is coming" etc. And then you gradually phase in the new name/owners in a storyline takeover.

However, if you mean "everyone" as the general public, then no, they don't know what TNA is, if they did, then TNA wouldn't be getting the same ratings every week. To the general public, TNA = tits n ass and there is no way to change that. No matter how big TNA get, those initials will ALWAYS mean tits n ass. So when trying to get either new viewers or exposure in the mainstream media, it's automatically an uphill struggle because, as a first impression (which is what it is to new viewers and mainstream media), it causes ridicule and confusion. That's 2 factors hindering them - ridicule cos TNA is tits n ass and confusion cos it's not unique.

Having an unique name is key to branding a business. Take UFC as an example. Either you know it stands for Ultimate Fighting Championship or you don't know what it stands - there's no confusion about it and there's certainly no way anyone can take the piss out of the intials UFC. It's the same with Ring of Honor. Either you know ROH stands for Ring of Honor or you don't know what it stands for - no confusion.

Redd Annihilation said that no-one has come up with a better alternative but look it at this way. Imagine if TNA was not called TNA but something else, and we were having this same discussion to change the name. Then if someone suggested "how about Total Non-Stop Action and it could be abbreviated to TNA?". It would get laughed off this forum wouldn't it?!

 

[Reddannihilation]

Right, their idea of "adult-oriented" was cross-dressers, *********ing midgets and a tag team dressed as penises.

Seemed to work just fine for Goldust, Hornswoggle and The Smoking Gunns.

My names weren't terribly creative, and half of them had been used already--you just pay off the indy promoter for the rights to the name. WWE just did exactly that with SWA:NXT. All you need is a name that doesn't hurt you.

Never heard a single person claim they don't watch TNA Wrestling because of its name. How does it hurt them?

No, then you need a new name if you ever move or tour.

Twas a joke, apparently you didn't get it.

No, their name is probably the worst name for a wrestling company ever.

Seems to have done pretty well for them. I mean there's all these other companies, Full Impact Pro, Chikara, Ring of Honor, Dragon Gate USA, Combat Zone Wrestling, not a single one has been as successful as TNA. So I don't think the name has any effect.

"TNA Wrestling" is as bad a name as "Whiz Cola."

So bad that it's the #2 wrestling brand in the world today. But you know, obviously the name is a hindrance.

It would be like White Castle calling their burgers "Steamers."

Steamed Hams.

It gives people a bad impression immediately, that the company then has to overcome.

Such a bad impression that they're #2 in only 8 years. Yeah, clearly people have been turned off by the name. Try not to fail so hard.

 

[FightOwensFight]

To the Impact Players commenting here...do you guys EVER have anything negative to say about TNA? It seems like they could have Abyss come and take a dump in the middle of the ring and you guys would somehow spin it as controversial and advancing the storyline.

I watch both WWE and TNA and criticize both (guest hosts on Raw are horrible, and enough with GM by laptop already). But, you guys always seem to miss the point about what other people are trying to say. Yes, there are many posts that are just TNA-bashing, but this one is a legitimate topic and you all dismiss it out of hand because it is a criticism of TNA.

You make a point to say "I haven't heard one person say they don't watch TNA because of the name" Well, it could be that the name isn't an issue, as you contend. Just as easily it could be because those same people never gave anything TNA-related a second glance and have no idea it even exists because every time they may have seen TNA assumed, with good reason, that it was something sexual in nature.

IDR, you point out that it has been a successful name for 8 years. How? They haven't really gained ANY market share and aren't really any bigger. They are still in the same place in Orlando and still struggle to draw PPV buys. All, with changing the ring, format, adding shows, bringing in new talent, bringing in established talent. The only common denomonator the whole time has been the name.

Now, of course I don't think changing from TNA to ICW (to borrow johnbragg's suggestion) would push their ratings to WWE level, but if there are, like people have attested to on this post, people out there that go right by TNA due to the initials, isn't it at least something to look at?

Finally, using "it would be expensive to switch now" is the way a lot of companies go out of business. If it is a problem (and there is no proof either way to be honest) then it would need to be addressed. What TNA should really do is conduct an independent, nationwide study on what people think of the name. I bet they would get a lot of negative responses from the public in general, and ultimately those are the people they need to be winning over.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

To the Impact Players commenting here...do you guys EVER have anything negative to say about TNA? It seems like they could have Abyss come and take a dump in the middle of the ring and you guys would somehow spin it as controversial and advancing the storyline.

Sure we do, we just don't do it in the abundance it's brought to us by the WWE fanboys here who love to shit all over TNA. I thought Abyss' "branding" escapade last night was ridiculous. There, I said something negative, you happy now?

I watch both WWE and TNA and criticize both (guest hosts on Raw are horrible, and enough with GM by laptop already). But, you guys always seem to miss the point about what other people are trying to say. Yes, there are many posts that are just TNA-bashing, but this one is a legitimate topic and you all dismiss it out of hand because it is a criticism of TNA.

No, a legitimate topic that doubles as a criticism of TNA would be saying that the way TNA booked story line A didn't make sense, or that burying wrestler B was a mistake. Complaining about the name of the company is about as petty a complaint as you can possibly find.

You make a point to say "I haven't heard one person say they don't watch TNA because of the name" Well, it could be that the name isn't an issue, as you contend. Just as easily it could be because those same people never gave anything TNA-related a second glance and have no idea it even exists because every time they may have seen TNA assumed, with good reason, that it was something sexual in nature.

Yeah, and I bet you'd find more people actually tuned in as a result of thinking that than tuned out. Sex sells.

IDR, you point out that it has been a successful name for 8 years. How? They haven't really gained ANY market share and aren't really any bigger. They are still in the same place in Orlando and still struggle to draw PPV buys. All, with changing the ring, format, adding shows, bringing in new talent, bringing in established talent. The only common denomonator the whole time has been the name.

No, I said they've been trying to establish their "brand" for 8 years now, and in recent years I'd go so far as to say it's begun to succeed – essentially since 2007 when they disassociated themselves with the NWA moniker that was formerly attached to them since 2002.

The "name" also has no bearing (or very little) on the success (or failure) of the program. Are you telling me that if the WWE changed it's name (again) to Connecticut Wrestling Worldwide that no one would watch anymore because it's a stupid name? No? Then why would anyone watch TNA more just because they change theirs to something a couple people like?

It's irrelevant. The name is the name – the product is what sells (or fails) the company.

Now, of course I don't think changing from TNA to ICW (to borrow johnbragg's suggestion) would push their ratings to WWE level, but if there are, like people have attested to on this post, people out there that go right by TNA due to the initials, isn't it at least something to look at?

Anyone who doesn't watch a wrestling program, especially one as large as TNA is (by comparison to other wrestling promotions in the US not named WWE) because of it's name has issues that surpass what TNA should consider making a change to accommodate for. What's next, no one watches 90210 because the real zip code should be 90211? Did people stop watching the WWE when it changed from the World Wrestling Federation to World Wrestling Entertainment? Didn't think so.

Finally, using "it would be expensive to switch now" is the way a lot of companies go out of business. If it is a problem (and there is no proof either way to be honest) then it would need to be addressed. What TNA should really do is conduct an independent, nationwide study on what people think of the name. I bet they would get a lot of negative responses from the public in general, and ultimately those are the people they need to be winning over.

They'd be wasting money conducting the survey in the first place, because if there was an option for "WHO GIVES A FUCK?", I guarantee more voters would select that than would the "Love it" or "Hate it" selections.

 

[Reddannihilation]

To the Impact Players commenting here...do you guys EVER have anything negative to say about TNA? It seems like they could have Abyss come and take a dump in the middle of the ring and you guys would somehow spin it as controversial and advancing the storyline.

I can't speak for everyone else, but I find that people who need to come up with extreme "what if" scenarios to try and prove a point tend to be grasping at straws.

I watch both WWE and TNA and criticize both (guest hosts on Raw are horrible, and enough with GM by laptop already). But, you guys always seem to miss the point about what other people are trying to say. Yes, there are many posts that are just TNA-bashing, but this one is a legitimate topic and you all dismiss it out of hand because it is a criticism of TNA.

Topic of thread; "Should TNA change their name?" Answer; no. Unfortunately if I just post "no" it'll be marked as spam.

You make a point to say "I haven't heard one person say they don't watch TNA because of the name" Well, it could be that the name isn't an issue, as you contend. Just as easily it could be because those same people never gave anything TNA-related a second glance and have no idea it even exists because every time they may have seen TNA assumed, with good reason, that it was something sexual in nature.

Everyone who's ever spoken to me about TNA was well aware it was a wrestling show. Part of this comes from the fact that they saw commercials for it, or the fact that there aren't any major networks playing porn at 8pm. Serious question, how would anyone make that mistake? Are we to assume scroll through their tv guide and see TNA iMPACT! and assume it's porn, during primetime? Apparently so. Better yet maybe they think the same about Xplosion, there's literally no way short of casual conversation being "do you watch TNA?" that someone could make that mistake.

IDR, you point out that it has been a successful name for 8 years. How? They haven't really gained ANY market share and aren't really any bigger.

You asked IDR but you're getting me, TNA didn't start off with over a million viewers weekly. You know what they call it when an album sells 1 million copies, they call it platinum. Every week iMPACT goes platinum.

They are still in the same place in Orlando and still struggle to draw PPV buys.

lololololololol. They started in Nashville and you cannot possibly know TNA's PPV buyrates. No one, other than TNA, knows that.

All, with changing the ring, format, adding shows, bringing in new talent, bringing in established talent. The only common denomonator the whole time has been the name.

Ah yes it's solely the name. The name that went from $10 weekly PPV's to over a million viewers each week is terrible. #2 company in the world, built themselves up on that name. Obviously a bad name.

Now, of course I don't think changing from TNA to ICW (to borrow johnbragg's suggestion) would push their ratings to WWE level, but if there are, like people have attested to on this post, people out there that go right by TNA due to the initials, isn't it at least something to look at?

No because those people are so dumb that they either think porn runs at 8pm primetime or just can't read/understand commercials. You know there's this other sports entertainment company on Spike TV that once had a really notable audience member who probably did think porn at 8pm primetime existed, of course he also looked like this;

Finally, using "it would be expensive to switch now" is the way a lot of companies go out of business. If it is a problem (and there is no proof either way to be honest) then it would need to be addressed. What TNA should really do is conduct an independent, nationwide study on what people think of the name. I bet they would get a lot of negative responses from the public in general, and ultimately those are the people they need to be winning over.

Again, if these people are so stupid as to assume that 1.) Porn is broadcast at 8pm primetime and 2.) A porn tour goes on live national and international tours each year then no TNA doesn't need them.

 

[FightOwensFight]

Thanks for the responses. They were actually more tame than I expected. But, I still think you are both missing the main point of the post (at least what I take it to be). The first thing anyone sees from a company is usually the name or logo. Like it or not, TNA has conotations other than "Total Nonstop Action" and people will automatically associate it with tits and ass, even if only subconsciously. This WILL turn people away.

Also, I never intended to say the name is the only thing keeping them for world-wide domination (but I can see where it may have come across that way, so I apologize for being overly dramatic) but to just say it wouldn't make a difference is naive. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed their names a few years back because they found that people thought of them negatively due to Devil in the name. Now, I think that is insane (New Jersey Devils, Duke Blue Devils, etc) but that is what they were told, so they dropped the Devil. Before I get skwered, I am in no way suggesting their recent success on the field has ANYTHING to do with the name change, but the fact remains the name had a negative connotation associated with it.

Also, WWE changing from WWF is irrelevant to this conversation. This is about the possibility that the TNA name might be keeping people away, not if changing the name would drive people away. It can't be looked at both ways. Changing the name of a company or product should never cause people currently watching/buying it to stop, but rather, bring new ones in.

Is it really that difficult to believe that some people out there (espicially the ones thay may have been completely turned off by the Attitude Era in WWE) might not want to tune in to see what TNA is all about because of what the assume it stands for?

I don't think any company can afford to potentially alienate possible customers with the attitude of "TNA doesn't need them".

 

[Reddannihilation]

Thanks for the responses. They were actually more tame than I expected. But, I still think you are both missing the main point of the post (at least what I take it to be). The first thing anyone sees from a company is usually the name or logo. Like it or not, TNA has conotations other than "Total Nonstop Action" and people will automatically associate it with tits and ass, even if only subconsciously. This WILL turn people away.

This is TNA's logo;

Notice the word wrestling included in that logo? Yeah. Seriously, the whole idea that people are dumb enough to associate it with porn is pointless. Even so, it's an adult-oriented program, most adults should have enough of a brain to know that TNA on Spike TV is not porn.

Also, I never intended to say the name is the only thing keeping them for world-wide domination (but I can see where it may have come across that way, so I apologize for being overly dramatic) but to just say it wouldn't make a difference is naive. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed their names a few years back because they found that people thought of them negatively due to Devil in the name. Now, I think that is insane (New Jersey Devils, Duke Blue Devils, etc) but that is what they were told, so they dropped the Devil. Before I get skwered, I am in no way suggesting their recent success on the field has ANYTHING to do with the name change, but the fact remains the name had a negative connotation associated with it.

Straw man argument. You even say yourself it was pointless, the name change did nothing for the team. Just like a name change for TNA would do nothing for the company.

Also, WWE changing from WWF is irrelevant to this conversation. This is about the possibility that the TNA name might be keeping people away, not if changing the name would drive people away. It can't be looked at both ways.

Why can't it be looked at both ways? There are in fact two sides to a coin.

Changing the name of a company or product should never cause people currently watching/buying it to stop, but rather, bring new ones in.

That's funny, because when the WWF became the WWE they lost a ton of viewers. Maybe name changes do suck after all...

Is it really that difficult to believe that some people out there (espicially the ones thay may have been completely turned off by the Attitude Era in WWE) might not want to tune in to see what TNA is all about because of what the assume it stands for?

If they were turned off by the Attitude Era then what the hell are they going to like about TNA?

I don't think any company can afford to potentially alienate possible customers with the attitude of "TNA doesn't need them".

If they're dumb enough to think that porn is played during primetime on Spike TV or FOX8 or Bravo then they aren't going to be very useful fans anyway. So yeah, I think TNA should stick with the name that got them over a million viewers instead of catering to a small group that are too dumb to use the info button on their tv remote.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Thanks for the responses. They were actually more tame than I expected. But, I still think you are both missing the main point of the post (at least what I take it to be). The first thing anyone sees from a company is usually the name or logo. Like it or not, TNA has conotations other than "Total Nonstop Action" and people will automatically associate it with tits and ass, even if only subconsciously. This WILL turn people away.

What country do you live in, man? Certainly not the United States. Sex sells here – big time. It's the reason Russo attached the TNA moniker to NWA in the first place.

What people will be turned away by this? Shut-ins and the sexually repressed? They would have turned the program off the moment they saw physical contact anyway, so again, who have we really lost? No one.

Also, I never intended to say the name is the only thing keeping them for world-wide domination (but I can see where it may have come across that way, so I apologize for being overly dramatic) but to just say it wouldn't make a difference is naive. The Tampa Bay Devil Rays changed their names a few years back because they found that people thought of them negatively due to Devil in the name. Now, I think that is insane (New Jersey Devils, Duke Blue Devils, etc) but that is what they were told, so they dropped the Devil. Before I get skwered, I am in no way suggesting their recent success on the field has ANYTHING to do with the name change, but the fact remains the name had a negative connotation associated with it.

Yeah, and they also operate within the dreaded Bible Belt, which makes sense, as they were likely pressured by religious zealots to do so — that's hardly an indication of the global take on the team name, which was probably that of utter indifference, especially when they announced they'd simply be going by "Rays" from here on out.

Also, WWE changing from WWF is irrelevant to this conversation. This is about the possibility that the TNA name might be keeping people away, not if changing the name would drive people away. It can't be looked at both ways. Changing the name of a company or product should never cause people currently watching/buying it to stop, but rather, bring new ones in.

It absolutely is not irrelevant to this conversation, as the crux of your argument was that in not changing it, they may be losing fans, which is to say that by changing it, they'd be gaining them — the WWE went through the exactly same process and lost fans as a result. So what you're offering is the opportunity for TNA to likely lose fans again? Yeah, no thanks.

Is it really that difficult to believe that some people out there (espicially the ones thay may have been completely turned off by the Attitude Era in WWE) might not want to tune in to see what TNA is all about because of what the assume it stands for?

You mean the era that saw the biggest boom in modern day wrestling history? Yeah, those folks can go fuck themselves with a crowbar for all I care.

No, it' s not that difficult to believe that some people out there might be turned off by the innuendo, but is that difficult to believe that those people actually matter. You are talking about a very small minority of potential viewers who likely moonlight as hypocrites considering they'd be shunning a program for it's sexual innuendo, but supporting it for it's gratuitous violence.

I don't think any company can afford to potentially alienate possible customers with the attitude of "TNA doesn't need them".

I do, because you're talking about alienating a group of people who wouldn't be watching (or stay watching very long) anyway. Again, they can go fuck themselves with a crowbar for all I care.

 

[FightOwensFight]

Yes, I realize it has wrestling in the logo, but nobody refers to it as TNA Wrestling, it is only referred to as TNA, so that is irrelevant.

As far as the Devil Rays arguement and you dismissing it out of hand, again, you miss the point (plus they did have a rise in ticket sales after the name/logo change, so it did work in the short term). The problem there is that at the time the Rays still sucked (thankfully as I am a Red Sox fan) and no name change will mask a shitty product. I think the idea that someone wouldn't watch the baseball team because it has Devil in the name is silly, but the fact remains it was true. I didn't make this up. Do I think it is logical that someone would dismiss TNA because they think it is something other than what it is? No. But, that doesn't mean that probably isn't a substantial number of people that may be doing just that.

I could be mistaken but I think the name change to WWE coincided pretty closely with the end of the Attitude Era, so that might be the reason they lost viewers, not the name change.

As raunchy as TNA can sometimes get it still isn't at the level of the Attiude Era so that really isn't a valid point.

Also, enough with the porn (talk about someone using extremes). I never once said porn, I said TNA is inexorably linked to the idea of tits and ass. Big difference. Now, if all anyone ever saw of TNA were the Beautiful People, than their preconceptions would be proven true, but the rest of the show is just wrestling with a bit more violence than WWE (and as a WWE fan even I can admit that much of the actual wrestling on Impact often surpases anything WWE puts out on a weekly basis).

Bottom line, and you obviously don't agree with me, I honestly believe that there are at least some people out there that are not giving TNA a chance because of what they think it might be. If even 100,000 people around the country felt that way (a staggerlingly low percentage of total population) felt that way and actually had a reason to turn in and become fans that would increase TNA's viewership by 10%. Nothing to sneeze at.

I just find it odd that you both have the opinion of "We don't need those fans anyway". Isn't more people watching better? Isn't the idea of any business to grow? Who cares if they are hypocrits? Certainly not TNA's sponsors.

Also, you do realize TNA is broadcast out of the same state the Rays play in right? That same dreaded Bible Belt you referred to? So it might have more significance than you think.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Yes, I realize it has wrestling in the logo, but nobody refers to it as TNA Wrestling, it is only referred to as TNA, so that is irrelevant.

False. It's advertised as TNA Wrestling, everywhere. In fact, it's almost often noted as Total Non-Stop Action Wrestling. Read any of their press releases.

As far as the Devil Rays arguement and you dismissing it out of hand, again, you miss the point (plus they did have a rise in ticket sales after the name/logo change, so it did work in the short term). The problem there is that at the time the Rays still sucked (thankfully as I am a Red Sox fan) and no name change will mask a shitty product. I think the idea that someone wouldn't watch the baseball team because it has Devil in the name is silly, but the fact remains it was true. I didn't make this up. Do I think it is logical that someone would dismiss TNA because they think it is something other than what it is? No. But, that doesn't mean that probably isn't a substantial number of people that may be doing just that.

Again, no, because it's listed across the United States by every cable company as "TNA Wreslting", not simply by "TNA".

As raunchy as TNA can sometimes get it still isn't at the level of the Attiude Era so that really isn't a valid point.

It absolutely is, because they're still comparable. TNA utilizes blood, as well as depicts overtly sexual situations, torture and all sorts of implied gratuitous violence. The idea someone wouldn't watch because they thought TNA stood for Tits 'N' Ass but would stick around when they watch Abyss mutilate some poor punk backstage by branding him on television is preposterous.

Also, enough with the porn (talk about someone using extremes). I never once said porn, I said TNA is inexorably linked to the idea of tits and ass. Big difference. Now, if all anyone ever saw of TNA were the Beautiful People, than their preconceptions would be proven true, but the rest of the show is just wrestling with a bit more violence than WWE (and as a WWE fan even I can admit that much of the actual wrestling on Impact often surpases anything WWE puts out on a weekly basis).

See above.

Bottom line, and you obviously don't agree with me, I honestly believe that there are at least some people out there that are not giving TNA a chance because of what they think it might be. If even 100,000 people around the country felt that way (a staggerlingly low percentage of total population) felt that way and actually had a reason to turn in and become fans that would increase TNA's viewership by 10%. Nothing to sneeze at.

See above again.

Those same overly sensitive people would change the channel immediately regardless.

I just find it odd that you both have the opinion of "We don't need those fans anyway". Isn't more people watching better? Isn't the idea of any business to grow? Who cares if they are hypocrits? Certainly not TNA's sponsors.

Because they don't. Those people don't matter. Tapping into the UFC market again is what matters. Tapping into markets where wrestling fans are brought back — you know, those people who are predisposed to actually liking gratuitous violence and sex— is what matters.

Also, you do realize TNA is broadcast out of the same state the Rays play in right? That same dreaded Bible Belt you referred to? So it might have more significance than you think.

Yeah, and you realize baseball is the 2nd largest sport in the United States, right, and that there is far more influence there than there is for a professional wrestling company, yeah?

You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

[Kenny Powers]

These threads are just as redundant as the I hate Cena threads. TNA's logo is Total Nonstop Action Wrestling. Anyone that sees that logo no matter how juvenile they are know that it stands for wrestling. Anyone that is immature enough to think the logo stands for "Tits N Ass" Wrestling probably sits at home making dick and fart jokes all day long. I seriously don't think its uptight families because they probably don't even know what TNA stands for. You could spin pretty much any abbreviation or phrase into something dirty. WWE could stand for "Wet Women Exercising"

TNA being on an adult network like Spike TV does more harm to them then their name. Also considering Spike TV isn't carried on most cable stations like the USA Network. If the name was such a hindrance then why haven't they changed it? Why are they the #2 wrestling company in the world? If anything I think getting rid of the NWA name made them more prosperous. They looked more minor league being TNA-NWA then just TNA.

The TNA product is TV 14 but it really isn't that violent or raunchy when you think about. Its ten times more mild than anything in the WWF Attitude Era. TNA changing their name would alienate more fans then bring them in. If people were really so closed minded that they wouldn't watch a wrestling show because the initials were TNA, then they wouldn't watch a wrestling show no matter what the name is.

 

[FightOwensFight]

I actually meant TNA as word of mouth or just overhearing, but I will agree you make a better point referring to actual TNA publications and advertising, so a point for you Also, I can agree that the violence does seem to have ratcheted up again lately especially pertaining to Abyss. Finally, I have never said people think TNA actually stands for Tits and Ass, just that the initials brought a certain stigma with them.

I guess I will leave it be that we have a diffence of opinion. I agree that changing the name may not have any effect whatsoever, but still feel dismissing fans out of hand because you assume they won't watch doesn't make a lot of sense. I still feel they would be wise to look into if the name is an issue if for no other reason than to eliminate it as something that may need addressing (after all, despite what you may think based on my argument I really am a fan of TNA and am not some WWE fanboy just looking to trash TNA every chance I get).

All that being said, I did make a request just now on your sig page, so hopefully our disagreement on this issue (and on the last couple we have both commented on to be honest) won't preclude you from hooking me up. You did give me a rep point after all for listing MCMG as my favorite TNA wrestler/team don't forget

 

[boywithatoy]

Thank you Evolution RKO, you seem to get the point i'm trying to make.

It's Damn Real! & Reddannihilation: perhaps my point has been slightly skewed by other people's posts so i'll rephrase it. To brand a buisness, the name needs to be unique so when someone sees or hears it for the first time they don't confuse it for something else and unfortunately, "tna" does mean other things besides the wrestling company. Forget the "porn" (your words, not mine) reference for now, it's the fact that it's not unique. Imagine if they were called BMX - if people saw those initials they'd quite rightly assume it was about BMX bikes! or if they were SOB - people would assume it meant son of a bitch.

I tried to find a video of Hogan on The View where the host took the piss out of the name but there isn't one so here's a link to a recap of the interview.
http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/TNA_News_1/article_40981.shtml

"The unintentional highlight was co-host Joy Behar unwittingly questioning the "TNA" name, with Hogan having to explain it's "T-N-A" and not "T&A."

That is exactly my point.

Also, i'm not putting TNA down - i'm a massive fan. I watch all the shows (impact, reaction, xplosion) and i'm going to see them live in Janaury when they come to the uk (it was either tna or wwe but i choose tna). Also, I feel, especially in the last few months, tna has been far more entertaining than wwe and i think the "they" storyline has been one of the best i've seen in years to the extent that it's had me thinking about all the possible explanations for it much in the same way "Lost" did - and that's praise of the highest order. I'm just suggesting this name change cos I want them to succeed.

But finally do you two have to be so rude just because we have different views on this? Reddannihilation: there's no need to say "to all those that said yes please die". But then again, i'm getting used to your style of writing because either a: you are Vince Russo or b: you want to be him.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Why would the folks at TNA Wrestling pre-occupy themselves with something as insignificant as a name change? Quite honestly, I think the name of the organization is pretty much irrelevant. I cannot imagine that anyone in the world is tuning in to TNA, whether the name "wrestling" is attached or not, simply because they think it is synonymous with the other concept of T&A. Even more preposterous is the notion that people, especially in the demographic that professional wrestling is typically targeting, would tune out because of any negativity associated with tits and asses. If anything, I think that would be a draw, not a deterrent. Personally I don't think it is a deterrent or a draw, I think it's irrelevant. If you are not a professional wrestling fan, you are likely not watching TNA anyway, whatever name is attached to it. If you aren't a fan but may become one, chances are you are tuning in to WWE first and foremost as it is the more recognizable promotion, especially to the non-wrestling fan, who would probably think it's still WWF featuring Hulk Hogan.

If you are a fan of professional wrestling, the name will not be an issue. You know what WWE is, you know what TNA is, and you make your judgments and assessments accordingly. If you have any sense, your choice will be WWE (sorry iMPACT players, couldn't resist ) Whether or not you choose TNA will have absolutely nothing to do with the name on the logo. It will have to do with the roster, the storylines, the action, whatever floats your boat about pro wrestling.

As far as I'm concerned, TNA has far more pressing matters on their agendas rather than worrying about something as insignificant as a name change. They need to worry about ratings. They need to stabilize their roster. They need to clarify and improve their storylines. At the moment their most pressing need is delivering upon the hype and hooplah associated with the arrival of "them" at Bound For Glory on 10/10/10. Because if they build up the hopes and anticipations of the TNA faithful, or even the TNA wannabees, and fail to deliver again, or even fail to attempt to deliver upon the expectations which have been produced, they may as well rename their organization TNT. Because it's all going to blow up in their faces if they let their fans down with this one. Again.

 

[boywithatoy]

Anyone that is immature enough to think the logo stands for "Tits N Ass" Wrestling probably sits at home making dick and fart jokes all day long. .

Or they host mainstream talk shows....

You could spin pretty much any abbreviation or phrase into something dirty. WWE could stand for "Wet Women Exercising".

The point is, the initals TNA stood for tits n ass before TNA Wrestling came along. No-one will assume wwe stands for wet women exercising. Tell you what. The next time you are at work/school/college find someone who you know doesn't watch wrestling and aksed them what WWE is. Then asked them what TNA is and see what answers you get.

If the name was such a hindrance then why haven't they changed it?

Because Vince Russo came up with it and he hates to admit when he's wrong.

If people were really so closed minded that they wouldn't watch a wrestling show because the initials were TNA, then they wouldn't watch a wrestling show no matter what the name is.

Argh!!!! I'm tearing my fucking hair out here!!!! I'm not saying they WONT watch TNA because of the name, i'm saying they are NOT AWARE of TNA because it's not a unique name for a brand and it's hindering TNA from letting people know they exist. The mainstream already look down on wrestling so don't make it harder for yourself by calling it tits n ass wrestling!

 

[WarrenIronman]

I'm gonna get to the ponit. TNA is on at 9pm(here), if I tell someone to watch TNA and what time it's on, I think they would be smart enough to figure out its not porn. How many times do you tell people to watch somthing and not the time?

 

[johnbragg]

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
Anyone that is immature enough to think the logo stands for "Tits N Ass" Wrestling probably sits at home making dick and fart jokes all day long.

Or, they assume that a company that chose to be known as Tits N Ass Wrestling will likely rely on lame dick and fart jokes. Which, in their weekly PPVs, they did. A tag team dressed as penises, a crossdresser competing for Ms TNA (this turd just wouldn't flush and returned as Santina in WWE), a Rainbow Express "hey look! ******s!" tag team.

TNA has grown beyond that. Instead of getting rid of the six sided ring which wasn't a problem, Hogan should have quietly shifted to "Hulk Hogan presents Impact Wrestling."

Originally Posted by Kenny Powers View Post
If people were really so closed minded that they wouldn't watch a wrestling show because the initials were TNA, then they wouldn't watch a wrestling show no matter what the name is.

Guess what? Pro wrestling is a tough sell to most people, even without a stupid name. And when you have to explain that TNA isn't about tits and ass, and how come if it isn't T'n'A they call it TNA, they've stopped caring before you can get to Styles, Angle, Joe, Anderson, MCMG or whoever or whatever you were going to try to sell them on.

And T'n'A isn't porn. The Beautiful People are T'n'A, and there's nothing wrong with that. But it's not the focus of the company.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

I don't watch WWE because their ( not there, learn to fucking spell it!! ) logo has no "E" on it. It's just, WW. Booooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!!1!!!!!!!!! Sux0rzzz!!

That makes as much sense as not watching TNA because of the three letters, or what they represent. If you even CARE about shitty little things like that - chances are, you're a little arrogant douchebag that deserves to have three Cena matches and six Diva matches, and a dance off every Monday. Harsh, but you do.

No, TNA shouldn't change their name. It doesn't matter, it didn't matter in the last eight years, and I'm quite sure it won't last in the next TEN years ( yeah, prick who thinks they won't last that long, I said TEN years ).

People didn't stop watching when NWA:TNA went to just TNA. Didn't hurt anybody, and didn't help - irrelevant. People didn't stop watching when WWWF became WWF. They didn't stop watching when WWF became WWE. None of the name changes affected much, so it's not worth the hassle.

 

[Bobby B]

If I'm back in 2001, and somebody gives me the chance to not name the company Total Nonstop Action Wrestling, then yes, I jump at the chance.

Coming in now, no. Well, with an unlimited pot of money I might go for a rebrand, but it really isn't that important. Right now there are many bigger things wrong with TNA, and I don't think the name is one of them.

As for the "Tits 'n' Ass" line - pfft. maybe. I'm not really sure there's that many people who go - "hahaha, it stands for Tits and Ass" I'm now going to completely change my opinion about the product.

 

[johnbragg]

Right now there are many bigger things wrong with TNA

This is true. But if someone came in with a plan to fix those things, wouldn't changing the company's name be an effective way to sell the idea that there were changes in this company, and that people should give it a second look?

 

[Bobby B]

This is true. But if someone came in with a plan to fix those things, wouldn't changing the company's name be an effective way to sell the idea that there were changes in this company, and that people should give it a second look?

You could very well be right. But it's all hypothetical. Hypothetically, if they sorted all of their problems, then yes rebranding the company could well mislead people into believing that it were a different promotion because it was branded differently. It could. But I don't think that it's a massive issue. Sure it might help, but I'm not sure that the effort and money needed to rebrand the company - and launch it, would get enough return.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

This is true. But if someone came in with a plan to fix those things, wouldn't changing the company's name be an effective way to sell the idea that there were changes in this company, and that people should give it a second look?

They don't need a name change to market such an idea. How about something more visual - say the layout of the iMPACT Zone. New ramp, new set, new entrance, new titantron, new ropes, new/old six sided ring - plus they won't have to go through all the unecessary paperwork and throwing out all their merchandise with a TNA logo on it. It's a big pain in the ass for management, I'm sure.