So I.... What can... Ugh I Don't Effin Know...TNA needs your money.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Instead of focusing on the negative, Slammiversary only drew 7,000 buys. Focus on the positive, TNA have at least 7,000 fans who'll pay to watch that shit. Add to that at least 500 who watched it on Bravo and TNA is averaging a very healthy 1,000 new fans per year. This is an achievement in itself.

Or use the old phrase, ''it could be worse'', 6,000 buys for example.

Factor in the people in attendance. At least 1,000 of those suckers. At least 500 of them are ROH fans looking to see what happened to Joe.

The fact that TNA are getting people to buy their shows during this economical crisis is a reflection on how much they've grown in little over 7 years. Where were WWE after 7 years?

Thats not really a fair comparison though. When WWWF was seven years old, or seven years after McMahon Jr. took over wrestling had a very different profile.

Seven thousand buys isn't too bad though, paticularly when I imagine that most TNA fans are smarks. They don't have the same level of exposure as WWE where Joe Public can just stumble across them. Yes they are there, but they're only there 2/6 of the time WWE are (iMpact vs. Raw + SD + ECW + Superstars, even SNME sometimes).

My point is that smarks are less likely to buy a PPV if they know what's going to happen. Plus, they know they can watch it for free the next day on Youtube (not that I'm condoning that, it's generally a pretty bad thing, not just morally but for the business as it causes a loss of revenue, and less revenue means less investment in the product).
 
That is completely awful. For the second biggest PPV for the company 7,000 is an awful number. If Summerslam got 500,000 buys that would probably be disappointing, but it would still be 50 times more than TNA! This just shows how far away TNA really is from the WWE. They need to take a long, hard look at the direction of the company and strongly consider making some big changes.
 
I am a huge TNA fan and I am actually a life long WWE fan. Unfortunately the WWE is too stale and predictable. Many people in the writing offices talk about how bad it is in there and how Vince cares very little about anyone accept HIS guys on the roster.

TNA on the other hand has only one fundamental problem that I see. The writers AKA Jeff Jarrett. Don't get me wrong I love Jeff but ever since he came back after his wife died the storylines are continually getting worse and the X-Division ignored. That is not good for business. I think maybe it is best to get a new Vice President of Creative in there and let Jeff just be a performer. After storylines improve then maybe TNA ratings will improve.
 
I'd like TNA to work, but what's been said before: It's becoming WCW Part 2.

1) They need to get rid of the 6-sided ring and go back to the regular 4-sided ring. Yeah I know it's different, but it seems wrestlers get lost in that 6-sided ring.

2) Get different writers and creative. If Jeff Jarrett is doing this, he must be put to pasture.

3) Bring up the new guys. They are the future. Bye, bye MEM.

4) Get new announcers. Somebody with a wrestling background.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.
 
Thats not really a fair comparison though. When WWWF was seven years old, or seven years after McMahon Jr. took over wrestling had a very different profile.

You cannot compare TNA's failure now to the WWWF's success back then.
That was a different time, different era, and profesional wrestling was a different sport. Back then, technology was different, the sport was different, and there wasn't even a television in every household in America. Now there's an average of two televisions in every home. And presently, the product is about creating a television show with storylines and drama instead of just plain old wrestling matches.

The problem here is that TNA's writing team absolutely sucks the big, fat one. There is no reason to watch their programming. It's just a cheesy, watered down version of wrestling programming that we've already witnessed during the attitude era.

Seven thousand buys isn't too bad though, paticularly when I imagine that most TNA fans are smarks. They don't have the same level of exposure as WWE where Joe Public can just stumble across them. Yes they are there, but they're only there 2/6 of the time WWE are (iMpact vs. Raw + SD + ECW + Superstars, even SNME sometimes).

This is not a good excuse, in my opinion. Naturally, the WWE is able to spread themselves throughout the market more efficiently. But back in the early 80's, the WWF was running Prime Time Wrestling, Superstars of Wrestling, and All-American Wrestling during the week. TNA only puts on one television show per week, but they replay it 3-4 times during the week. Furthermore, they broadcast it on Spike TV, a national network suited for men's viewing. They have plenty of opportunity for exposure. Their problems are:

Their product sucks.
Their writers sucks.
Their arena sucks.
Their storylines are atrocious.
Having the same audience members that don't give two shits about the product attending their shows every week sucks.


And 2/6 = 1/3. But this isn't math class...

- To the average viewers, Raw, Smackdown, and ECW are only on once per week. The only way to catch their replays is to be a part of a household that utilizes HD programming, and then you could watch repays of Raw and ECW on Universal HD. But, we can't really count that towards the majority of the WWE's numbers.

- TNA has one television show (Impact) but it gets replayed twice per week. That's three shows, last time I counted.

If you combine the viewers from all three TNA shows throughout the week, it doesn't even exceed the numbers from ONE showing of ECW.

My point is that smarks are less likely to buy a PPV if they know what's going to happen.

What does this have to do with live PPV's? If TNA does its job correctly, the audience should be unable to determine the outcome of matches during the PPV's.

Besides, your statement is untrue. We all knew that Ric Flair was going to lose his match to HBK at Wrestlemania, yet we all tuned in. We're almost always convinced that the Undertaker won't lose at Wrestlemania, yet we all tuned in. It's not about whether we know the outcome or not. It's about if we give a shit.

Plus, they know they can watch it for free the next day on Youtube (not that I'm condoning that, it's generally a pretty bad thing, not just morally but for the business as it causes a loss of revenue, and less revenue means less investment in the product).

This is irrelevant. These days, we can find anything on YouTube, MetaCafe, or other sites in that category.
 
I can't stand it when some joker says "Get rid of the six sided ring". I saw their stuff before the six sided ring and it plain sucked. They tried to do an extremely fast product that is faster than any action anywhere and the ring was to big to get it done. The six sided ring is the main reason I love TNA. Without that ring it is just a faster and weaker version of Ring of most of these NWA promotions that will never make it. I love the fast action in the smaller ring. Honestly I'm tired of debating TNA with people who are nothing more than WWE marks and can't wrap their mind around the fact that there is an alternative that has better in ring action and does things differently than their god Vince McMahon.
 
To me, the problem is simple: I just didn't want to watch the show, and I don't think many other people did either. Why should we? Let's take a short look at the card.

Random X Division KOTM match: no need for the KOTM at all. It makes the main event look watered down, as well as making the show look too gimmicky. Also, why are these people getting title shots again?

Daniels vs. Shane Douglas: Bingo. This right here sums up what I feel is TNA's biggest issue. Why in the world would I want to see Shane Douglas? He's 44 years old and hasn't meant anything in over ten years. This is a prime example of TNA's biggest problem: they assume that if someone's name is known, fans want to see them. That works on indy shows, not major PPVs. I had no desire to see Shane Douglas at all. Why should I?

Angelina Love vs. Tara. Fine. Hot woman vs. good wrestler. That's truly hard to screw up, so this is fine.

Abyss/Wilde vs. Raven/Daffney. Douglas 2.0. Raven was one of the coolest characters ever. Emphasis on the word WAS. he was cool 13 years ago. Now he's a guy that used to be cool, yet everyone seems to think he's being wasted. It seems to me that he's been wasted far more than he's been utilized. What was the story here? He comes back for one day and I'm supposed to care? Again, no thought here.

Sting vs. Morgan. Ok, here we have a great example of TNA's 2nd biggest problem. Sting is probably in the top 10 biggest stars ever, and you could argue even top 5. He did not need to beat Matt Morgan, period. No loss is going to hurt his career at this point. Morgan beating Sting would have been a huge boost to his career. Why did Sting need to go over a guy that has been built up quite well?

Beer Money vs. Dudleys. This is another TNA issue: overkill. These teams have feuded for months and I have no idea why. It's not like TNA has a shortage of tag teams. Often times, a token tag match is best, where the champions are clearly going to win and that's fine. It doesn't have to be a dream match every time.

KOTM: No one is under the age of 30. That's the big red flag here. TNA is old, plain and simple. Why not make this interesting? Put Morgan in there instead of Jarrett. See, there are people that scream they need to get rid of the old guys. No, that would almost be worse. The old guys serve a great purpose: putting the new guys over. It means nothing if new guy one beats new guy two. Neither have track records so it means nothing. Now if new guy one beats a former world champion, holy crap they've accomplished something, and they have, say it with me, CREDIBILITY! Instead, we have Angle, Jarrett and Foley, who are all old, AJ who is young and has at least ten years left, and Joe, who is fat. Joe then turns heel, giving the heels ANOTHER win.

All in all, this show just sounds meaningless. There's nothing here that makes me want to watch. Actually, the women's match sounds best. How sad is that? There are lots of problems in TNA, but the booking is worst.
 
Funny how many comments there are to this thread. I do have some news on this. You can read between the lines on this as i got the info from the same person that has exclusively released the TNA PPV buyrates two years in a row. I take no credit for what is below, just note that i have censored the name of the site that originally broke the story and i will not divulge who gave me this information.

****** Report right? I will just say when I was a member of that site, on many occasions they would put out incorrect information which made TNA or WWE look bad. I would let them know and a few times they would change it...

**** is also known for rat reports or news stories that would "enforce" their opinions of the product for example, they might think that the product sucks, so they put a poor report out on that product and get the fans to "see" their side...Since TNA doesnt release buy rates, they will never defend themselves.

1) It takes WWE two months to get full buyrate information, and when that happens its released to many different people because its a publically traded company. Slammiversary happened June 21st, which is like a month ago, its still too early to tell

2) TNA PPVs air on 5 different PPV Providers so my guess is that the 7,000 buys were from the a medium provider...Through that estimation, Slammiversary would be getting between 20-35,000 buys which is about on par from what they have been getting before.

3) If TNA did that bad, nobody would know, I guarantee it
 
I can't stand it when some joker says "Get rid of the six sided ring". I saw their stuff before the six sided ring and it plain sucked. They tried to do an extremely fast product that is faster than any action anywhere and the ring was to big to get it done. The six sided ring is the main reason I love TNA. Without that ring it is just a faster and weaker version of Ring of most of these NWA promotions that will never make it. I love the fast action in the smaller ring. Honestly I'm tired of debating TNA with people who are nothing more than WWE marks and can't wrap their mind around the fact that there is an alternative that has better in ring action and does things differently than their god Vince McMahon.

This is a double-edged sword. Ok, the six-sided ring is innovative... but why reinvent the wheel? Sometimes, innovation can be BAD for product. To wrestling fans, it seems fresh and new. But to an 'average joe' that has never been a wrestling fan, it looks like something they would throw in a circus that should contain elephants walking on beach balls. It's nothing but another problem that makes TNA watered down and cheesy... gimmicks.

The six-sided ring is only useful in the strange and attention-span-killing gimmick matches that TNA puts in their PPV's. As far as I'm concerned, it's a shame that TNA does this with their matches. They clearly have an extremely talented roster that puts on solid matches. Why do those superstars need to be involved in gimmick matches that make the match look faker than it is?? Even though we know that wrestling is fake, it grabs an audience because people enjoy suspending their disbelief for long periods of time and getting lost in television programming. If TNA continues to put on matches that are clearly choreographed bullshit, no one (outside of true wrestling fans) is going to care about the matches OR their outcomes. Therefore, they won't spend money on PPV's.

Funny how many comments there are to this thread. I do have some news on this. You can read between the lines on this as i got the info from the same person that has exclusively released the TNA PPV buyrates two years in a row. I take no credit for what is below, just note that i have censored the name of the site that originally broke the story and i will not divulge who gave me this information.

****** Report right? I will just say when I was a member of that site, on many occasions they would put out incorrect information which made TNA or WWE look bad. I would let them know and a few times they would change it...

**** is also known for rat reports or news stories that would "enforce" their opinions of the product for example, they might think that the product sucks, so they put a poor report out on that product and get the fans to "see" their side...Since TNA doesnt release buy rates, they will never defend themselves.

Not necessarily true. For every website that claims to state the truth, there are 5 websites that claim those reports are bullshit. Remember everyone, the core purpose of wrestling websites (such as Wrestlezone) is to be informative and to report wrestling news. It is a part of the mainstream media. When has mainstream news ever been 100% accurate and truthful? Therefore, these sites post bullshit statements just to get people to read them.

Now, this is yet another double-edged sword that can go both ways... the sites that report buy-rates could be bullshitting their numbers to get people to go onto their site, while the ones that deny their competitors' story could be aiming for the same result. I guess it's a matter of who we believe, and judging by TNA's recent product and bookings, I believe the site that report TNA's buyrates were horrific.

1) It takes WWE two months to get full buyrate information, and when that happens its released to many different people because its a publically traded company. Slammiversary happened June 21st, which is like a month ago, its still too early to tell.

This is true, but WWE publicises it's estimated buy-rates as early as the week after the event occurred. These numbers always wind up being right on the money. The reports you've heard about TNA is probably right along the same lines.

2) TNA PPVs air on 5 different PPV Providers so my guess is that the 7,000 buys were from the a medium provider...Through that estimation, Slammiversary would be getting between 20-35,000 buys which is about on par from what they have been getting before.

Why would anyone report buy-rates from only ONE provider? Those reports can never be available to the public. The only ones ever released are TOTAL buy-rates. This seems like a transparent defense that doesn't hold any water.

3) If TNA did that bad, nobody would know, I guarantee it

Are you willing to bet money on it? If so, I'll take that bet.

No matter how much TNA tries to keep their failures a 'secret,' the public is always going to find out the truth. There are too many insiders and reporters that find true facts about wrestling promotions that work for these sites. Saying that TNA would keep things secret is a direct insult to wrestling reporters. Once again, this is a weak argument that is too opinionated.
 
It's obviously because people would rather watch the PPV on a Internet Stream, WWE gets more PPV buys because they have eliminated all Internet Streams which forces everyone to buy their PPV.
 
It's obviously because people would rather watch the PPV on a Internet Stream, WWE gets more PPV buys because they have eliminated all Internet Streams which forces everyone to buy their PPV.

Once again, this is not 100% true. If people were actually excited about the product, they wouldn't wait until the day after to search the internet for the video.

It's like the UFC. I absolutely MTFO for UFC fights. Even though I know that I can see the fight the next morning on many internet sites, I et so excited about the fights that I order the PPV to see the results as they happen. TNA should be no different.

Deny it as much as you want to people, but this is all about their crappy product.
 
the main issue is the fact that TNA's booking is bad really bad, just this week i saw something that i though i would never see, too many teams, stables and not enough focus on the main storyline here....

When the WWE had stables such as evolution they had no other stable around, it made them look dominant and allowed them to become something amazing, now look at tna's structure we have at least three different stables, The ant americans with Eric Young, the MEM fronted by Angle, the Beutiful people in the womens division, the MCMG and Lethal Consequences, Beer Money (now just a tag team), the TNA Originals, this is too much there shouldnt be this many teams out there there needs to be some kind of focus and in TNA there is none.

and Don't forget Dixie Carters whole hiring policy, she hired Brutus Magnus a green wrestler who is now one of the main focuses of TNA, Rob Terry who looked horrible in the tag match he stood there no sold and looked like he was taking a crap instead of looking scary!, at one point she even wanted to hire vanilla ice, this is the issue the problem isn't the product its the fact that they are letting people run the product who have no idea what the hell is going on, let the bookers do their job and the talent make the angles work otherwise TNA will be in big trouble and will eventually go out of business.
 
When the WWE had stables such as evolution they had no other stable around, it made them look dominant and allowed them to become something amazing, now look at tna's structure we have at least three different stables, The ant americans with Eric Young, the MEM fronted by Angle, the Beutiful people in the womens division, the MCMG and Lethal Consequences, Beer Money (now just a tag team), the TNA Originals, this is too much there shouldnt be this many teams out there there needs to be some kind of focus and in TNA there is none.

So, let me see if I understand you; You think that a wrestling company that has a Main Event heel stable, a Midcard Heel stable and a Women's Heel stable is too many groups? I'm confused as to what your point is, it groups the heels in each division together which allows for storyline development. I'm not even going to bother with your part about the tag teams and as for the Originals it's an umbrella term for any face wrestler in TNA, there's literally no issue there. In fact by grouping wrestlers together it organizes the roster, what would you prefer?
 
So, let me see if I understand you; You think that a wrestling company that has a Main Event heel stable, a Midcard Heel stable and a Women's Heel stable is too many groups? I'm confused as to what your point is, it groups the heels in each division together which allows for storyline development. I'm not even going to bother with your part about the tag teams and as for the Originals it's an umbrella term for any face wrestler in TNA, there's literally no issue there. In fact by grouping wrestlers together it organizes the roster, what would you prefer?

Too much of anything is... well... TOO MUCH. You can't overkill an idea like a stable. They need to be used in moderation.

The idea behind a stable is a group of people that act as if they are the elite force in the wrestling promotion. What is so elite about a group of guys that are amongst 4 other similar groups?? I can understand the MEM and the Beautiful People, since they never need to interact. But stables within a sea of stables?? That reminds me of the WWE's Attitude Era when DX, the Job Squad, and the Ministry were all in the WWE together. The only thing that made them interesting was the fact that they all feuded with each other. In TNA, all of the stables have seperate agendas. Therefore, none of them stand out as being important and no one gives a shit about them.
 
Not necessarily true. For every website that claims to state the truth, there are 5 websites that claim those reports are bullshit. Remember everyone, the core purpose of wrestling websites (such as Wrestlezone) is to be informative and to report wrestling news. It is a part of the mainstream media. When has mainstream news ever been 100% accurate and truthful? Therefore, these sites post bullshit statements just to get people to read them.

The same thing can be said against the said report. You are simply choosing to believe that the report is true.


Now, this is yet another double-edged sword that can go both ways... the sites that report buy-rates could be bullshitting their numbers to get people to go onto their site, while the ones that deny their competitors' story could be aiming for the same result. I guess it's a matter of who we believe, and judging by TNA's recent product and bookings, I believe the site that report TNA's buyrates were horrific.

TNA buyrates have not changed in the last two years much. Hell, Raw sucks more crap than a toilet right now and their buyrates haven't changed much either.



This is true, but WWE publicises it's estimated buy-rates as early as the week after the event occurred. These numbers always wind up being right on the money. The reports you've heard about TNA is probably right along the same lines.

Never seen that Before, even the WM rates were given well over one month after.



Why would anyone report buy-rates from only ONE provider? Those reports can never be available to the public. The only ones ever released are TOTAL buy-rates. This seems like a transparent defense that doesn't hold any water.

You tell me.



Are you willing to bet money on it? If so, I'll take that bet.

So would I. Where is the source of this info anyways? I'm sure any dirt sheet would claim the same thing an "insider" source. The recent buyrates list was made public by one person. That one person does not even have any affiliation with any of these dirt sheets any more. Everyone has simply copied the info from him. When he releases the new buyrates later this year, I will be sure to bump this thread from the grave to collect my pay. :lol:


No matter how much TNA tries to keep their failures a 'secret,' the public is always going to find out the truth. There are too many insiders and reporters that find true facts about wrestling promotions that work for these sites. Saying that TNA would keep things secret is a direct insult to wrestling reporters. Once again, this is a weak argument that is too opinionated.

Getting questionable news from a dirt sheet is hardly the truth. It's just like we have literally been fed 5 different stories about Kurt/Karen/Jarrett.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,851
Messages
3,300,884
Members
21,726
Latest member
chrisxenforo
Back
Top