The O.P asked for our thoughts on the rebranding. Those are my thoughts: it's a waste of time motivated by an incorrect assumption by the powers that be in TNA that changing the name of the company will improve the companies fortunes. I believe their time and effort would be better spent in changing the companies creative direction.
You do realize that Re-branding means changing everything and going into a different direction right?
The first step is to change the name and continue to take steps to change things around. I'm already seeing it but once again, people like you don't seem to notice the small changes that should lead to bigger ones going forward.
It's not going to happen the way you want. This isn't the NFL, NBA, NHL, MLB. There is no off-season to suddenly take a new direction.
The WWE went back to USA, which is a better network. But it was doing quite well on Spike, and in fact routinely had better ratings than it has had in the last few years. I mentioned this to show that Spike can't possibly be blamed for TNA's low ratings, as wrestling on the network has been successful in the past. Technically speaking, ECW on TNN also drew comparable ratings to Impact, despite having a fraction of the budget and the recognizable talent.
Yeah, Spike TV certainly can. They are 30th in cable viewership. USA is Top 3.
I'd love to see those Spike TV numbers during the WWE era there because I know it wasn't better than what they have done on USA.
Massive ratings? Are you joking? THAT'S a complete lie. And as for Hogan's debut, everyone on these boards speculated that TNA would receive a temporary boost in viewership thanks to Hogan's debut, and that they would have a limited amount of time to capitalize on it. They didn't, obviously. Ratings have shown some sign of improvement occasionally, but those occasions seem to be the exception and not the rule. But whatever, I'm not going to get into a ratings discussion with you. Mostly because TNA's defenders like to argue that they don't matter whenever someone points out how bad they are. But they are what they are and you can interpret them however you wish.
Really? So Hogan's debut drew a high of 3.4 million viewers. WWE averages 4 million for Monday Night Raw. That's not a huge difference. Therefore it is huge or massive for what TNA does.
During the Orlando Screwjob that got so heavily criticized they drew a Thursday high of 1.5 which was 2.9 million viewers which is equal to a SmackDown amount of viewers.
The first Post-BFG 2010 show drew a high of 3 million viewers. The weeks after said around 2 million per show.
Back in 2008, TNA drew 1.1 million viewers per show.
The purpose of getting people to buy into your stars and your image IS to increase your viewership
And, sometimes it doesn't increase. Did anyone buy into ECW/NXT? They drew 1.2 million viewers and never got higher.
Do you criticize that?
No. Nothing has improved. What's the difference?
You completely missed what I said. Read it again.
I'm sick to death of this line of reasoning. If someone dislikes TNA's current direction, it's because they are a 'smark', or a WWE fan, or whatever bullshit justification is convenient aside from accepting that people just genuinely aren't happy with the companies direction. This isn't a new direction that TNA is taking that I'm judging here; it's a rebranding, as you've so eloquently pointed out. Nobody is mentioning changing anything else with the company.
Really? You would be wrong.
Which, again, is my objection to this. It's a pointless name change when there's really zero evidence that one is necessary, or that it will help the company.
Name change = more opportunity to get new sponsors, advertises the company and get rid of the "What is TNA?" stigma that most WWE kids and parents are aware of.
There is over 40% of America that doesn't know they exist or think WWE should be the only "wrestling" company out there. Change the name, change your look and begin to market differently.
And even if rebranding does result in a temporary increase in viewership - just like Hogans debut - don't you think that if the same people remain in charge of the company that Impact Wrestling will become just as tarnished a brand as TNA currently is?
I'm pretty sure if they didn't want to change they wouldn't bother to look at name changes and re-branding their entire look.
And did I at any point claim that other posters were assuming the rebranding would result in some other changes in the company? No. I gave my opinion on why the name change is pointless, and explained it. It wasn't meant as a correction to some perceived error by other posters. I'm just explaining my reasoning. I honestly don't know why you TNA marks are so defensive and paranoid. I want TNA to succeed as much as you do. I just don't see how this will help, and I don't see the point in lying about my opinion.
First off, I'm no mark. Secondly, I am not being defensive. I'm defending the laws of logic.
Your complaining about rebranding and saying it's not going to mean anything. Rebranding means change the look, the feel and product.
Adding new talent, changing storylines,changing characters, etc. Going in a direction that will present success? How do you even expect change the direction of a company when there is plenty of storylines that must be completed before you go within that direction?
TNA is talking about using the rebrand to go on the road every week and bunch of other things that will make them money in large amounts.
I have no idea what else you thought it meant.
Its still the same wrestlers, ring, announce team, same bookers and same location (except some tapings and PPV's) so its the same company anyways.