Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
That's true. If the ratings stay or raise, I'd say the angle did its job. If they drop, that is a problem
This sums up my thoughts on TNA.
- Thread starter FromTheSouth
- Start date
That's true. If the ratings stay or raise, I'd say the angle did its job. If they drop, that is a problem
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Exactly. See, what people fail to realize are a few things: first of all, the ratings now are about what WCW was when it was plummeting, as in late 99/2000. Look at the roster: Hogan, Bischoff, Nash, Hall, Foley, Styles, Angle, Joe, Anderson, Steiner, Flair, maybe Hardy and Sting and I'm sure I'm leaving a bunch of people out.
They're averaging a 1.2 to a 1.3. How in the world can that be called a success?
They're averaging a 1.2 to a 1.3. How in the world can that be called a success?
Thanks. Not only that, but just look at how many people are viewing the TNA forum right now. Well over 400 last I checked. Have that many people EVER been viewing that forum at once? That has to tell you something.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
There were 512 about 40 mintues ago.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
They will get there. They don't have a (semi) long legacy like WCW did, don't have nearly as much money, and most of those names haven't really been relevant in a while. They are big names and will help TNA, but we are in an era where if you leave WWE, the mainstream fan thinks you disappeared. Once they get their name out there some more, the ratings will come
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Not when you look at the breakdown. The first hour was like a 1.9 and then it just fell through the floor, down to like a .9 or a 1 I think.
As Dreamer said in Rise and Fall of ECW: you can have the best show in the world. if no one watches it, it means nothing. We're going to watch every week. We're MAYBE 5% of the market. TNA is marketing to the masses, not to us.
As Dreamer said in Rise and Fall of ECW: you can have the best show in the world. if no one watches it, it means nothing. We're going to watch every week. We're MAYBE 5% of the market. TNA is marketing to the masses, not to us.
We're the ones that are going to recommend it to our friends though, theoretically.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
I'm not sure on that. Nash is certainly a big name. Les sthan a year ago I read an interview with him where he said he was in an airport and a fan recognized him and asked for his autograph. Nash talked to him for a bit and the guy said it's a shame he hadn't been on TV since he left WWE in 2003. Nash said he wrestled on national TV the previous night. The guy had never heard of TNA but was clearly a big fan as Nash isn't exactly a household name.
That's not good at all.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
In theory yes. The problem is simple: what if we don't? There's too many potholes in TNA's way and that's what worries me.
FromTheSouth
You don't want it with me.
But, a 1,3 is up 20%. That's huge in TV ratings. If it raises their ad revenue 20%, and they already pulled a profit in two consecutive years, they can get out and travel, do live shows, etc.
These are the things that get a war going.
These are the things that get a war going.
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
This is exactly what I'm saying. People will remember these names and learn about the new guys, but they need to know they are there. If TNA can funnel their money into marketing, they can really compete with WWE
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
....up 20% from what? They got a 1.2 or 1.3 for months before that.
Advertising during Raw was a hell of a start. I loved that.
That pothole is fucking Spike TV, why the fuck they're still on that "we don't really give a fuck about anything but UFC" network amazes me.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
The other thing that worries me is WWE. They're clearly not treating TNA as a threat. There's a major weapon that could nearly cripple TNA: Vince McMahon's checkbook. Do you think Hall, Nash, Waltman, Young, Joe, 3D, Foley, Steiner and a ton of others wouldn't show up at WWE at the drop of a paycheck?
Yeah but it looks like maybe Spike is coming around. I'm seeing a lot more TNA promotion from them lately, and they seem very willing to work with TNA on their tv schedule... moving them to mondays, going live, etc. They've sucked in the past, but it seems to be getting better.
That's a good point, and the one thing you've said so far that I agree with. That's a concern.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Exactly. Vince has WAY more money than TNA does and he's willing to put a lot of it out. If he picks off all of them and you have AJ and Angle left, while they're great, people aren't going to pay to see them and Raven vs. Abyss at every PPV. And if things get bad enough, which they could, something tells me this could happen.
*phone rings*
Vince: Hulk, I'll give you 2 million dollars to tap to Cena at Summerslam.
Hulk: Yo Eric! I've got something to take care of, be back in a week!
*phone rings*
Vince: Hulk, I'll give you 2 million dollars to tap to Cena at Summerslam.
Hulk: Yo Eric! I've got something to take care of, be back in a week!
Thriller Ant
Beep Bop Boop
I think the older guys like "The Band", Steiner, and maybe 3D and Nash would, but I truly believe the younger guys are loyal to TNA. Take Joe. He was great and became a nationally known wrestler in ROH, but he became the star he is today in TNA. He is an upper midcarder/main eventer in TNA but would get stuck in the midcard in WWE.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
What's better to do: make say 80 grand a year in TNA, or 500,000 a year in the WWE midcard?
Good point. But they're old so who gives a shit. A building block like Kennedy is more worrisome, it's pretty obvious he's going to bounce back to where his heart is once he makes a name for himself there and Vince realizes he fucked up.
