The Last Chance For TNA (And Why It Might Work)

[BigBombB]

I'm not a wrestling historian by any means but I can't think of any time when two different wrestling organizations were airing their primary shows back to back on a national network. To some ROH joining Destination America sounds like certain death for TNA but to me this sounds like the biggest opportunity TNA has ever had. Two well established, long running brands sharing a three hour block of television has a lot of advantages. Lets take a look at them...

01. The genuine anger that TNA talents have about this news could make for some very compelling television. Since this event will be breaking completely new ground that also means that there is a lot of fresh material just waiting to be capitalized on. TNA taking subtle shots at ROH (and vice verse) may only work in the short term but it is a short term that I am definitely excited to witness.

02. TNA doesn't have a choice but to be the best they've ever been. ROH will be doing everything possible to put on a show that TNA can't follow which means that TNA can't continue plodding along maintaining the status quo if they want to survive. TNA will have to take risks, they will be forced to turn to the most cutting edge people they can find, and that could mean a much needed breath of life into a consistent but faltering brand.

03. ROH have a knack for marketing themselves and TNA will be able to learn a lot from them. The on-screen product only matters for the people who are watching it, if you can't get eyes on your product by finding mainstream exposure where ever you can get it then you're never going to grow. TNA will be faced with the reality of their lazy marketing practices and be forced to compete OUTSIDE of their television product as well.

04. A three hour block of a hungry organization getting a big break followed by an established program that is fighting for it's existence sounds a lot more exciting than a three hour block of the same old Raw. If variety is the spice of life then TNA is in a much better position than people realize. I just hope that those within the company realize this opportunity and don't give up hope so soon.

05. The twitter battles could be epic. WWE has a solid hold on the internet market but much of their product is reliant on their history, not on pushing the envelope. TNA and ROH stirring up some real heat online would mean a significant increase in people interested in tuning in. Everyone likes real conflict and nothing is more real than someone trying to take your career away from you.

These are a few thoughts I hope everyone considers as we begin heading into one of the biggest events to happen to wrestling in a long time. I think Destination America is a lot smarter than they're being given credit for and intend on getting the most out of their investments, even if they have to force their hand to do it. I look forward to watching the fallout happen and I hope it can live up to (and exceed) my expectations!

 

[It's Damn Real!]

First of all, it's a one-hour block for ROH, and a two-hour block for TNA. ROH runs from 8PM eastern to 9PM, and then IMPACT from 9PM to 11PM — the same block they were in on Friday's, only shifted to Wednesdays.

As to why this probably won't work, it's simply business. ROH is syndicated, which means DA is almost certainly paying a fraction of what they pay to air TNA. If ROH's ratings can even equal TNA's, the business decision is easy — you always pay the least you can for the most you can get. Meaning if two employees you have both produce 100 t-shirts in ten hours, but one costs you $8.50 an hour and the other $85,000 a year, you cut unnecessary cost and keep the $8.50 an hour employee for the exact same output. The rest of that money? Pocketed.

 

[BigBombB]

First of all, it's a one-hour block for ROH, and a two-hour block for TNA. ROH runs from 8PM eastern to 9PM, and then IMPACT from 9PM to 11PM — the same block they were in on Friday's, only shifted to Wednesdays.

Noted and edited. I honestly think TNA would do better with a one-hour show anyway but, you're right, they are still two hours.

 

[ECW]

But your initial premise is still valid BigBombB. DA may be looking at becoming the 'destination' for the only two promotions that are national in nature and are not called the WWE. If they keep TNA (and they very well may) this could pay off for them in the long run with a lot of increased traffic for their channel. Besides I rather doubt DA would have signed a two year contract with TNA only to cut them loose after less than a year.

 

[stingray11214]

First of all, it's a one-hour block for ROH, and a two-hour block for TNA. ROH runs from 8PM eastern to 9PM, and then IMPACT from 9PM to 11PM — the same block they were in on Friday's, only shifted to Wednesdays.

As to why this probably won't work, it's simply business. ROH is syndicated, which means DA is almost certainly paying a fraction of what they pay to air TNA. If ROH's ratings can even equal TNA's, the business decision is easy — you always pay the least you can for the most you can get. Meaning if two employees you have both produce 100 t-shirts in ten hours, but one costs you $8.50 an hour and the other $85,000 a year, you cut unnecessary cost and keep the $8.50 an hour employee for the exact same output. The rest of that money? Pocketed.

Problem is that we do NOT know how much money DA is paying ROH. That said, I would NOT be surprised if DA leased the airtime to Sinclair, and let Sinclair sell their own ads. Why? If DA had advertisers who did not want to advertise on TNA, why would they advertise on ROH? If this is the case, why would you pay ANY money to another pro wrestling company? In this case, a wrestling company owned by a mid-size broadcasting conglomerate? You don't unless you are getting something out of that relationship. In this case, I see DA taking money to air the repeats from ROH from Sinclair, and Sinclair doubling up the prices to the advertisers who are already ponying up to ROH. So, DA gets something back from its investment with TNA, in the form of ROH buying the airtime from DA. ANd, by buying the airtime, ROH can sell the ads with the advertisers that have been with them, AND get more eyeballs to the ROH product. It is a win-win for DA and ROH. That is how I am seeing this.

 

[Rayne]

If DA had advertisers who did not want to advertise on TNA, why would they advertise on ROH?

People with short memories around here forget that TNA has very recently made some questionable booking decisions, like encouraging their audience to cheer a man threatening physical violence against a middle-aged woman because she made him mad, or having a performer who was clearly under the influence of narcotics attempt to wrestle a match.

To people around here with their goldfish-like attention spans, this is all old water under the bridge. To someone who spends every single day of their life wondering if the brand they are employed by would synergize well with the company they're buying advertising from, this is part of a long established pattern of behavior. Professional wrestling is a hard enough sell as it is right now; if you deal with TNA, you could find yourself in a situation where you have to explain to the public-at-large why your company is helping to pay for a production encouraging woman-beating as a positive thing. It's really not hard to understand why TNA is on so many do-not-advertise lists.

 

[stingray11214]

People with short memories around here forget that TNA has very recently made some questionable booking decisions, like encouraging their audience to cheer a man threatening physical violence against a middle-aged woman because she made him mad, or having a performer who was clearly under the influence of narcotics attempt to wrestle a match.

To people around here with their goldfish-like attention spans, this is all old water under the bridge. To someone who spends every single day of their life wondering if the brand they are employed by would synergize well with the company they're buying advertising from, this is part of a long established pattern of behavior. Professional wrestling is a hard enough sell as it is right now; if you deal with TNA, you could find yourself in a situation where you have to explain to the public-at-large why your company is helping to pay for a production encouraging woman-beating as a positive thing. It's really not hard to understand why TNA is on so many do-not-advertise lists.

Have not forgotten neither. Remember Jeff Hardy v. Sting/Victory Road 2011 like it was yesterday. Also remember Bully Ray putting Dixie through a table. That said, that still does not answer the question, minus the intelligence-questioning of those asking the question, if many of those advertisers of DA will not advertise on any pro wrestling show, period, why would they advertise on a lesser-known product if they would not advertise on the more well-known product? Both have similar fan bases. Both have a similar demographic. So, the question remains.

 

[Rayne]

Have not forgotten neither. Remember Jeff Hardy v. Sting/Victory Road 2011 like it was yesterday. Also remember Bully Ray putting Dixie through a table. That said, that still does not answer the question, minus the intelligence-questioning of those asking the question, if many of those advertisers of DA will not advertise on any pro wrestling show, period, why would they advertise on a lesser-known product if they would not advertise on the more well-known product? Both have similar fan bases. Both have a similar demographic. So, the question remains.

It's a pretty simple answer. If the problem is "general professional wrestling" with advertisers, you don't pick up ROH. It's not that advertisers have a problem with professional wrestling, it's that they have a problem with TNA.

People are intent upon looking at this as some great mystery, when it's already been all but spelled out for people. This isn't a Narrative issue, where the television world is conspiring against that art form that they just can't stand- this is an issue with TNA being a scary entity to trust with money in any way/shape/form.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

People with short memories around here forget that TNA has very recently made some questionable booking decisions, like encouraging their audience to cheer a man threatening physical violence against a middle-aged woman because she made him mad, or having a performer who was clearly under the influence of narcotics attempt to wrestle a match.

To people around here with their goldfish-like attention spans, this is all old water under the bridge. To someone who spends every single day of their life wondering if the brand they are employed by would synergize well with the company they're buying advertising from, this is part of a long established pattern of behavior. Professional wrestling is a hard enough sell as it is right now; if you deal with TNA, you could find yourself in a situation where you have to explain to the public-at-large why your company is helping to pay for a production encouraging woman-beating as a positive thing. It's really not hard to understand why TNA is on so many do-not-advertise lists.

Very valid, except ... if advertisers have that much of an issue with controversies, then why are they even bothering with the WWE? Never mind the stuff that happened between 1980-2005.

Let's talk about things like the Edge & Lita live Sex Celebration, anything related to Chris Benoit, exploiting the death of Eddie Guerrero, the fat shaming of Mickie James, the overall sexism when it comes to the Divas, the continued use of little people as props and comedy relief purely based on their look, CM Punk dumping Paul Bearer's ashes on the Undertaker only three days after Paul Bearer actually passed away, Heidenreich raping Michael Cole, shaming Vickie Guerrero for being "fat" and "ugly", Mohammed Hassan's terrorist storyline while the London Bombings were happening ... and many, many, many more.

Things like the Katie Vick storyline, the death of Owen Hart, the steroid scandal of 1994 still stick out like sore thumbs.

Want something more recent? Natalya's fart problems, anything with Hornswoggle (why WWE has such a hard on for little people is beyond me), R-Truth smoking on TV, the shaming of Jim Ross for his weight, the general stereotyping of any wrestler that's not white. We can do this all day long.

Fact is - this isn't a TNA problem or a WWE problem. Wrestling as a genre finds it difficult not to be sexist, racist, or another kind of -ist because that's the standard. I'm not a part of it, I don't know why they have to do those things.

So if WWE can get advertising, despite being far more controversial than TNA, then maybe those things aren't as big of a factor. With the WWE it's bypassed by how lucrative it is during their position and their audience. They have a large viewership = more eyes to your product. That's what advertisers care about, not morals that will be questioned by a few opinionated customers.

Look at it this way - if the UFC got tons of advertising and sponsors, wrestling should to. UFC is human cock fighting. Not exactly following a moral code.

However, the UFC is smart. They go for big fish related to sports, like Reebok for example. Clearly Reebok doesn't care. Has the WWE or TNA tried to get those guys on board?

I really think should employ a sponsorship and advertising model similar to the UFC. Why not wear a brand logo on your shorts? Why not plaster them all over the ring? TNA used to do this, I thought it was awesome. It looks more sporty. Every major sport in the world does it, yet wrestling doesn't. Why? Slap some logos on their tights, on the ring mat, down the ramp, on the barricades - whatever. It brings legitimacy as well. Don't make it a damn product placement show, but advertisers love their logos being displayed left and right. Right now it's not done at all and I think that's a mistake.

TNA is not a lucrative place for sponsors and advertisers, not because it's wrestling (although that's a factor) but maybe because their audience is too small or not relevant. Wrestling always had a hard time with this, even the WWE is not pulling in big time advertisers.

 

[johnbragg]

Very valid, except ... if advertisers have that much of an issue with controversies, then why are they even bothering with the WWE?

{Long, long list of good points snipped}

This was a major reason behind the PG Era and the clean-cut, saluting, drink-your-milk-eat-your-vegetables-stay-in-school I mean HustleLoyaltyRespect SuperCena.

Many of your examples were from that era, but I think Vince McMahon basically can't help himself/doesn't konw any better/is too rich and en-bubble-d to listen as much as he should.

....and many, many, many more.

So if WWE can get advertising, despite being far more controversial than TNA,

Two points:

1. I don't know that WWE is "more controversial" than TNA. WWE has a long history, and along with the Attitude Era, there are a lot of "kid-friendly" let's-sell-some-toys-and-breakfast-cereal periods that WWE can point to. TNA, besides being named "Tits-And-Ass", has never tried that approach. (I'm not saying that they should or that it would work--if WWE is Budweiser and Coca-Cola, then TNA is Sam Adams. Maybe WWE is able to transition to Coca-Cola and Kool-Aid, that doesn't mean TNA can do the same)

2. It's not that WWE *can't* get advertisers, it's that they can't get the advertisers that their ratings would lead you to expect if you didn't know the demographics or the history of the product. Relative to other shows with the same ratings, WWE advertising has to sell at a discount, partially because of demographics (older, lower-income) and partially because of reputation (we don't want our product associated with trashy rednecks wearing wifebeater t-shirts in their trailer parks etc).

[quote[
then maybe those things aren't as big of a factor. With the WWE it's bypassed by how lucrative it is during their position and their audience. They have a large viewership = more eyes to your product. That's what advertisers care about, not morals that will be questioned by a few opinionated customers.[/quote]

Demographics also matter a lot. Fashion and "halo effects" matter a lot to advertisers.

[quote[Look at it this way - if the UFC got tons of advertising and sponsors, wrestling should to. UFC is human cock fighting. Not exactly following a moral code. [/quote]

UFC is also "cool", fresh, hip, new, fashionable. Wrestling is not. That 15-year old who completely lost his shit when Austin gave McMahon a stunner for the first time is now 32, and if he's still following pro wrestling then the world has more or less passed him (us) by.

However, the UFC is smart. They go for big fish related to sports, like Reebok for example. Clearly Reebok doesn't care. Has the WWE or TNA tried to get those guys on board?

Pretty sure WWE has tried. TNA who knows.

Good idea about branding the living daylights out of the ring and the wrestler's gear. Second thoughts about the wrestler's gear--you'd have to answer to Corona why their guy is losing to the guy in Dos Equis shorts, and/or why the Corona guy made a heel turn.

 

[Zeven_Zion]

{Long, long list of good points snipped}

This was a major reason behind the PG Era and the clean-cut, saluting, drink-your-milk-eat-your-vegetables-stay-in-school I mean HustleLoyaltyRespect SuperCena.

Many of your examples were from that era, but I think Vince McMahon basically can't help himself/doesn't konw any better/is too rich and en-bubble-d to listen as much as he should.



Two points:

1. I don't know that WWE is "more controversial" than TNA. WWE has a long history, and along with the Attitude Era, there are a lot of "kid-friendly" let's-sell-some-toys-and-breakfast-cereal periods that WWE can point to. TNA, besides being named "Tits-And-Ass", has never tried that approach. (I'm not saying that they should or that it would work--if WWE is Budweiser and Coca-Cola, then TNA is Sam Adams. Maybe WWE is able to transition to Coca-Cola and Kool-Aid, that doesn't mean TNA can do the same)

2. It's not that WWE *can't* get advertisers, it's that they can't get the advertisers that their ratings would lead you to expect if you didn't know the demographics or the history of the product. Relative to other shows with the same ratings, WWE advertising has to sell at a discount, partially because of demographics (older, lower-income) and partially because of reputation (we don't want our product associated with trashy rednecks wearing wifebeater t-shirts in their trailer parks etc).

then maybe those things aren't as big of a factor. With the WWE it's bypassed by how lucrative it is during their position and their audience. They have a large viewership = more eyes to your product. That's what advertisers care about, not morals that will be questioned by a few opinionated customers.
Demographics also matter a lot. Fashion and "halo effects" matter a lot to advertisers.

Look at it this way - if the UFC got tons of advertising and sponsors, wrestling should to. UFC is human cock fighting. Not exactly following a moral code.

UFC is also "cool", fresh, hip, new, fashionable. Wrestling is not. That 15-year old who completely lost his shit when Austin gave McMahon a stunner for the first time is now 32, and if he's still following pro wrestling then the world has more or less passed him (us) by.



Pretty sure WWE has tried. TNA who knows.

Good idea about branding the living daylights out of the ring and the wrestler's gear. Second thoughts about the wrestler's gear--you'd have to answer to Corona why their guy is losing to the guy in Dos Equis shorts, and/or why the Corona guy made a heel turn.

True, I agree with WWE being able to point to their vanilla moments whenever a potential sponsor roasts them about man rape or Chris Benoit.

I only like the idea of branding wrestlers' gear because then we can get some heated match ups such as Cola vs Pepsi, McDonalds vs Burger King (special ref. KFC) and of course one wrestler can have Nandos on his shorts so we can make "Cheeky Nandos with the lads" jokes.

Spoiler alert: that's gonna be Spud.

And finally, for the Main Event, Apple vs Microsoft in a 16 year old girl with rich parents on a Pole match.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

It's a pretty simple answer. If the problem is "general professional wrestling" with advertisers, you don't pick up ROH. It's not that advertisers have a problem with professional wrestling, it's that they have a problem with TNA.

People are intent upon looking at this as some great mystery, when it's already been all but spelled out for people. This isn't a Narrative issue, where the television world is conspiring against that art form that they just can't stand- this is an issue with TNA being a scary entity to trust with money in any way/shape/form.

Except DA should have known of TNA's past sins prior to going in to business with them. They should also be aware of ROH's problems or rumored problems as well:

1) didn't they have a child molester high up in the company?

2) don't they have a openly homophobic wrestler on the roster?

3) didn't they once employ Matt Hardy?

4) does Evan Bourne's past transgressions get a pass?

5) didn't their champion get stuck in Canada for a while?

What I'm saying is that I don't know much about ROH but I find it hard to believe DA has been so nonchalant with their research with either TNA or ROH before signing these deals.

Maybe they are just stupid. They are run by TV executives.

 

[Rayne]

Damnit Zeven, I thought you were into one of your good phases where you were thinking and analyzing before posting.

Very valid, except ... if advertisers have that much of an issue with controversies, then why are they even bothering with the WWE? Never mind the stuff that happened between 1980-2005.

Let's talk about things like the Edge & Lita live Sex Celebration, anything related to Chris Benoit, exploiting the death of Eddie Guerrero, the fat shaming of Mickie James, the overall sexism when it comes to the Divas, the continued use of little people as props and comedy relief purely based on their look, CM Punk dumping Paul Bearer's ashes on the Undertaker only three days after Paul Bearer actually passed away, Heidenreich raping Michael Cole, shaming Vickie Guerrero for being "fat" and "ugly", Mohammed Hassan's terrorist storyline while the London Bombings were happening ... and many, many, many more.

Things like the Katie Vick storyline, the death of Owen Hart, the steroid scandal of 1994 still stick out like sore thumbs.

Want something more recent? Natalya's fart problems, anything with Hornswoggle (why WWE has such a hard on for little people is beyond me), R-Truth smoking on TV, the shaming of Jim Ross for his weight, the general stereotyping of any wrestler that's not white. We can do this all day long.

As to your first three paragraphs, the WWE made a drastic change to their programming over a decade ago, and it's an endlessly discussed thing around here called "the PG era". They did this for the exact, specific reason that they wanted to attract more lucrative advertisers.

As for the next- and I know we've had this discussion before and we've established that you can't differentiate between minor and major wrongs- farting is not the same as beating a woman. The existence of little people is not offensive. Their race problems they manage to conceal well enough so that no one will be concerned until there's a major incident. And that's not to say that the WWE doesn't have advertiser issues even in spite of their massive and insincere PR efforts; they got taken pretty hard in their last TV negotiation with USA.

You're also[/i] making the mistake of thinking that advertising is the one, sole, and only issue. There's also the difference of scale. The WWE is a corporate behemoth with arms in reality TV and film, and has advertising relationships going back decades. TNA is a small professional wrestling company which puts together a few nights of shows every couple of months. When someone can do more for you, you're willing to put up with more of their bullshit. The WWE also invests very heavily into public relations efforts to make themselves look better, while TNA's corporate arm is usually busy reinforcing the stereotypes they encourage.

Ask yourself who you'd rather have be your pitchman- John Cena, who's major goal in life right now is to fulfill 1,000 Make-A-Wish requests, or Jeff Hardy, who still can't legally leave the country due to his drug distribution conviction.

This whole discussion is only a hard one if you refuse to acknowledge that TNA made a whole series of bad decisions that ended up having consequences, but again, I'm talking to a person who's capable of equating woman beating with farting.

 

[Rayne]

Except DA should have known of TNA's past sins prior to going in to business with them. They should also be aware of ROH's problems or rumored problems as well:

1) didn't they have a child molester high up in the company?

2) don't they have a openly homophobic wrestler on the roster?

3) didn't they once employ Matt Hardy?

4) does Evan Bourne's past transgressions get a pass?

5) didn't their champion get stuck in Canada for a while?

What I'm saying is that I don't know much about ROH but I find it hard to believe DA has been so nonchalant with their research with either TNA or ROH before signing these deals.

Maybe they are just stupid. They are run by TV executives.

Honestly, I'm wondering just exactly what the hell was happening behind the scenes between TNA and DA, because less than a week before this whole cancellation thing broke I was still saying how it's too early to evaluate the whole DA/TNA thing. The viewership numbers were pretty much exactly within reasonable expectation, so this advertiser situation must be bad. That's not something DA could necessarily predict beforehand- you don't go to your advertisers and ask them if it's OK to pick up a program, you tell your advertisers what you'll be showing for the next quarter at the upfronts.

Somewhere along the line here, someone had an expectation that was wildly unmet, because otherwise there's no reason to pull the rip cord.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Honestly, I'm wondering just exactly what the hell was happening behind the scenes between TNA and DA, because less than a week before this whole cancellation thing broke I was still saying how it's too early to evaluate the whole DA/TNA thing. The viewership numbers were pretty much exactly within reasonable expectation, so this advertiser situation must be bad. That's not something DA could necessarily predict beforehand- you don't go to your advertisers and ask them if it's OK to pick up a program, you tell your advertisers what you'll be showing for the next quarter at the upfronts.

Somewhere along the line here, someone had an expectation that was wildly unmet, because otherwise there's no reason to pull the rip cord.

The other metric that I don't think is being discussed and I have no clue about but something that we could measure to get a better idea of TNA's value to DA is how much improvement DA has seen in it's rating on all of their shows but mainly the shows they advertise on Impact and the shows that precede and follow Impact.

If I were a dirt sheet reporter I would be all over this stuff right now.

 

[johnbragg]

Honestly, I'm wondering just exactly what the hell was happening behind the scenes between TNA and DA, because less than a week before this whole cancellation thing broke I was still saying how it's too early to evaluate the whole DA/TNA thing. The viewership numbers were pretty much exactly within reasonable expectation, so this advertiser situation must be bad. That's not something DA could necessarily predict beforehand- you don't go to your advertisers and ask them if it's OK to pick up a program, you tell your advertisers what you'll be showing for the next quarter at the upfronts.

Somewhere along the line here, someone had an expectation that was wildly unmet, because otherwise there's no reason to pull the rip cord.

I personally think that Dixie Carter and TNA have alienated the DA executives.

1. Arguing back and forth about how to report the ratings numbers--do you include the 3-day DVR numbers? Which demo to highlight? etc.
1A. Having these arguments reported in the dirtsheets, almost immediately.
2. Arguments over the UK tapings. (This is partially DA's fault, the UK tapings aren't in any way surprising, but it's TNA's problem.)
3. Dixie Carter not being at the first DA taping in NYC.
4. The email calling the DA executives "dummies"
5. Dixie Carter no-showing the second quarterly meeting with DA
6. TNA asking for stuff from DA that isn't in the contract.

I don't assume that teh DA execs are cool, calculating Vulcan businessmen who don't take things personally. These aren't the top guys at Fox or Disney or NBC-Universal, they're the B-team or C-Team at Discovery Channel networks. I don't assume that they researched and evaluated the entire history of TNA and Dixie Carter and Jeff JArrett and Vince Russo before they signed with TNA--they should have, sure, but.....

My theory is that Dixie Carter and her team have alienated the decisionmakers at DA, and TNA and Dixie Carter aren't making them enough money to make putting up with her crap worthwhile.

Remember, Carter now has a track record of business relationships that have gone sour. A lot of TNA veterans talk badly about how TNA is run. Bischoff is suing them for back pay. Jeff Jarrett obviously isn't crazy about her. Hogan wrote himself off TV in the worst way possible for TNA. The Spike TV-Russo fiasco.

Dixie Carter is not a very good businessperson.

 

[johnbragg]

Oh yeah, I forgot the part that would absolutely terrify me if I were TNA's TV partner:

http://www.topropepress.com/news/6443/strike-avoided-tna-finally-pays-their-production-staff

If this actually happened on May 8, then that doesn't make TNA look good to Destination America. "Oh, don't worry, we nearly didn't deliver the same-day-taped show because we can't manage our payroll. But we worked it out."
Really?

 

[Zeven_Zion]

Oh yeah, I forgot the part that would absolutely terrify me if I were TNA's TV partner:

http://www.topropepress.com/news/6443/strike-avoided-tna-finally-pays-their-production-staff

If this actually happened on May 8, then that doesn't make TNA look good to Destination America. "Oh, don't worry, we nearly didn't deliver the same-day-taped show because we can't manage our payroll. But we worked it out."
Really?

In all fairness, there was never any report or proof of actual plans for an actual strike. Seems like they're hot shotting the story. Simply saying "TNA paid its people" won't generate as many clicks as "Strike avoided".