TNA's budget - "Money limitations are the problem?"

[gg inferno]

People. Why don't we all just shut up and watch. And with that, we have the choice to either watch or don't. Stop listening to all of the Gilberti's and the Storms and the Heyman's and all of the other washed up idiots out there who know so much but are so far from the main spotlight that it aint even funny. The budget if the budget.

Whether you spend $1 an episode or you spend 1 million dollars and episode, either you will watch it or you won't. If you have a problem with the production value, then stop watching. It's just the plain and simple folks. It's just that plain and simple. In the meantime, I'm going to watch. Because no matter whether it's in a bingo hall, a bathroom, or an amusement park, I'm a wrestling fan and will watch until the day that I am on my deathbed and my finger can't change the channel to whatever match is on at the moment that I take my last breath. Period!

don't tell people to stop listening to me! they'll never learn anything about the business!

 

[Talon_DR]

Glen,

The Networks happy? What is the standard they have set for TNA? Was the overall goal to have 1.3 million viewers by the end of their 3 year contract with TNA?

I also heard there are stipulations that say if TNA sinks below a 0.8 or whatever for so many weeks, Spike will pull the show. Is this true?

What is the next business step TNA needs to take with the assocation with Spike? Live TV, TV on the road, an additional show, more iMPACT Specials, what?

 

[gg inferno]

Glen,

The Networks happy? What is the standard they have set for TNA? Was the overall goal to have 1.3 million viewers by the end of their 3 year contract with TNA?

I also heard there are stipulations that say if TNA sinks below a 0.8 or whatever for so many weeks, Spike will pull the show. Is this true?

What is the next business step TNA needs to take with the assocation with Spike? Live TV, TV on the road, an additional show, more iMPACT Specials, what?

as for your first question, i am not a network executive so i cannot answer. but if the show we're doing now is getting a higher rating than the show that preceeded it at that time slot, i don't see why they wouldn't be happy. i don't know where you heard the 0.8 thing, but tna needs to invest more moolah to take the next step, since those things cost more money.

 

[HBK-aholic]

common sense would dictate that advertising and promotion are part of your budget.

Yes, something which I said in my post.

This may link hand in hand with budget, but I personally think the reason TNA has low ratings is due to lack of publicity.

See?

And my point is that with their budget, publicity should be a greater issue for them. You see, if no one knows about the product, people aren't going to watch it. TNA have been pulling regular 1.0-1.3 etc for a while now, but, the majority will be the same viewers. This is good as it shows that they are putting out a good product with loyal viewers, but also bad as it means they aren't picking up new people, and without those new people the ratings can never increase.

 

[kingdom_come]

you mention two movies. two. good argument, especially since one is a porn flick. i have a million jokes going through my head right now, but the bottom line is that more people would obviously rather watch mission impossible with tom cruise than blair witch project. you make it sound like being creative is the easiest thing in the world when we're talking about a show that's based on people fake fighting each other. this is the last time i will say this: THE NETWORK IS HAPPY WITH THE SHOW. THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.

since you also mentioned napolean dynamite, maybe you can continue your ridiculous campaign by having VOTE FOR KINGDOM COME t-shirts printed and sold on the home page. or better yet, since you mentioned a porn flick, maybe you can show your own creativity by making a porn flick of your own entitled KINGDOM CUM and make yourself 600 million dollars worldwide over the next 36 years. damn, i sure am funny when i wanna be.

I intentionally mentioned a "porn flick" because the acting and writing in those films are on the same level as that in pro wrestling. The only difference is the action in one is sex and in the other is "fake fighting!"

You're missing my whole point if "you think" I'm saying that being creative in "fake fighting" is easy. What I'm saying is the exact opposite. Especially if you are working with a lower budget than your competition. If you want to compete you have to be "MORE CREATIVE" than your competitor.

Creative in marketing, promoting, advertising, and most importantly in the writing of your show. Basically you have to know how to do more with less. Instead of talking about bringing in creative people that can do this you choose to blame the lower budget on the failure to rise in the ratings.

Yes ... you are the one that first mentioned TNA's budget so don't turn around now and say that we should not discuss a subject that you brought up.


-----------------------------


For you to be funny you can't be the only one laughing at your jokes.

I've heard the Kingdom "Cums" joke before from Konnan. At least he was creative with his funny when he said, "Kingdom cums on his moms face."

You know what? Actually you are funny since you think that investing $20,000 into a project that will return $600 million over "36 years" is a joke.

Ok, maybe funny isnt the right word for you if you would turn that down. But it would be "funny" to laugh at you afterwards!


*** Spike TV is happy with the ratings? ***

So going down in the ratings the last two months doesn't bother them? Ok, if you say so.


TNA Impact ratings .. 2008


January 3, 2008 1.1
January 10, 2008 1.1
January 17, 2008 1.2
January 24, 2008 1.2
January 31, 2008 1.2
February 7, 2008 1.1
February 14, 2008 1.1
February 21, 2008 1.1
February 28, 2008 1.1
March 6, 2008 1.2
March 13, 2008 1.1
March 20, 2008 1.0
March 27, 2008 1.0
April 3, 2008 1.1
April 10, 2008 1.0
April 17, 2008 1.0
April 24, 2008 1.0
May 1, 2008 1.0
May 8, 2008 0.9
May 15, 2008 0.9
May 22, 2008 1.0
May 29, 2008 0.9
June 5, 2008 0.9
June 12, 2008 0.9


Wanna blame it on the NBA playoffs? Can't do that when the ratings last year during the playoffs where higher.


May 3, 2007 1.0
May 10, 2007 1.0
May 17, 2007 1.0
May 24, 2007 1.0
May 31, 2007 0.9
June 7, 2007 ?.?
June 14, 2007 1.1
June 21, 2007 1.2
June 28, 2007 1.2

 

[gg inferno]

Yes, something which I said in my post.



See?

And my point is that with their budget, publicity should be a greater issue for them. You see, if no one knows about the product, people aren't going to watch it. TNA have been pulling regular 1.0-1.3 etc for a while now, but, the majority will be the same viewers. This is good as it shows that they are putting out a good product with loyal viewers, but also bad as it means they aren't picking up new people, and without those new people the ratings can never increase.

you are absolutely correct and i'm not arguing that. that is why this discussion is so ridiculous, because you make such a simple point that most posters can't grasp. you need to spend money to make money.

 

[HBK-aholic]

you are absolutely correct and i'm not arguing that. that is why this discussion is so ridiculous, because you make such a simple point that most posters can't grasp. you need to spend money to make money.

That's true. It's like a neverending circle really. The WWE has all the money it could ever want practically, and people then wonder why it's the biggest promotion in the world. When you go into shops for example, you see action figures of the WWE stars, titatrons fom the WWE etc etc. You don't see anywhere near the same for TNA. In order for TNA to have this, they need to make money, and in order to make money they need to have things like this.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

don't tell people to stop listening to me! they'll never learn anything about the business!

I seriously doubt that they are going to learn anything about the business from someone who is a backstage talent that prolly only gets 5 or 6 days of work in a month with the actually production. You are merely showing loyalty to the company that signs your paychecks. There is nothing wrong with it, and I commend you for it, but your opinion is therefore tainted. Just like anybody who comments again who gets a paycheck from someone else or those who are bitter because they can no longer get paychecks from these companies.

I attempting people to inspire people to think for themselves rather than be spoonfed what they should think by you and other who really have no room in this debate due to your vested interests. I'm a die hard wrestling fan. I watch it, whether it is good or whether it is bad. I even watched one particularly bad episode of AWA Allstars(you know which one) that would really be rather debatable. But what I am saying here is that either people want to watch it or they don't want to. They just need to stop bitching and nit picking about every little thing along the way.

 

[gg inferno]

I seriously doubt that they are going to learn anything about the business from someone who is a backstage talent that prolly only gets 5 or 6 days of work in a month with the actually production. You are merely showing loyalty to the company that signs your paychecks. There is nothing wrong with it, and I commend you for it, but your opinion is therefore tainted. Just like anybody who comments again who gets a paycheck from someone else or those who are bitter because they can no longer get paychecks from these companies.

I attempting people to inspire people to think for themselves rather than be spoonfed what they should think by you and other who really have no room in this debate due to your vested interests. I'm a die hard wrestling fan. I watch it, whether it is good or whether it is bad. I even watched one particularly bad episode of AWA Allstars(you know which one) that would really be rather debatable. But what I am saying here is that either people want to watch it or they don't want to. They just need to stop bitching and nit picking about every little thing along the way.

it's easy to blindly say my opinion is tainted because of who i work for, and that statement would have some merit if i didn't argue my points with irrefuteable facts. Not to mention what a ridiculius statement you're making that my only knowledge of the business is the fact i work backstage in tna. maybe you think i've forgotten everything i learned during my previous sixteen years??? i wouldn't "seriously doubt" someone with that much knowledge. that would be an error in judgement on your part.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

it's easy to blindly say my opinion is tainted because of who i work for, and that statement would have some merit if i didn't argue my points with irrefuteable facts. Not to mention what a ridiculius statement you're making that my only knowledge of the business is the fact i work backstage in tna. maybe you think i've forgotten everything i learned during my previous sixteen years??? i wouldn't "seriously doubt" someone with that much knowledge. that would be an error in judgement on your part.

No sir. The error in judgment is this. An "irrefutable fact" is on paper and is offered up as written in stone evidence that someone who is saying the opposite of your stance should shut their mouth because you are right and they are wrong.

But when you offer up hearsay and comment made in passing as your evidence, then you are stating you "opinion". An opinion that is no different that the gentleman who stated that be believes that ECW was able to do more with less during their time. An opinion no different that me stating that I believe that ratings are down all over the board and therefore his opinion is a mute argument. An opinion that is no different that me saying that people should tune you out and think for themselves and either watch the product or shut up and don't watch.

An "irrefutable" fact is that spell check says that "irrefutable" is i-r-r-e-f-u-t-a-b-l-e and not i-r-r-e-f-u-t-e-a-b-l-e. See there is evidence, thusly making it an irrefutable fact rather than my own perception on the matter as third party evidence was used to back up the fact. See how that works? Good.

 

[gg inferno]

No sir. The error in judgment is this. An "irrefutable fact" is on paper and is offered up as written in stone evidence that someone who is saying the opposite of your stance should shut their mouth because you are right and they are wrong.

But when you offer up hearsay and comment made in passing as your evidence, then you are stating you "opinion". An opinion that is no different that the gentleman who stated that be believes that ECW was able to do more with less during their time. An opinion no different that me stating that I believe that ratings are down all over the board and therefore his opinion is a mute argument. An opinion that is no different that me saying that people should tune you out and think for themselves and either watch the product or shut up and don't watch.

An "irrefutable" fact is that spell check says that "irrefutable" is i-r-r-e-f-u-t-a-b-l-e and not i-r-r-e-f-u-t-e-a-b-l-e. See there is evidence, thusly making it an irrefutable fact rather than my own perception on the matter as third party evidence was used to back up the fact. See how that works? Good.

i'm going to have a field day with this post. in good faith, i'm going to let you go back and edit the grammatical and spelling errors YOU have since you'd like to make a point that I mispelled a word by one letter. lol. then i will respond. or you can leave your post as is and look like a moron.

 

[synbios1978]

I honestly regret I didn't get the chance to watch TNA in the early years. I didn't start until the past year or so but from what I saw I really regret not seeing some of the great matches such as many of the Ultimate X. To weigh in with my personal opinion of what I think would help TNA (and this may sounds really weird) is for WWE to create a better product. A better product would produce more viewers and more wrestling fans and generate more money in the wrestling area.

As for TNA specifically, I would love to see continued large pushes for their original talent (meaning non WWE/WCW). While I believe those names help give credibility to the brand, talent such as AJ Styles, Joe, Christopher Daniels, LAX, the entire X Division, etc give some fresh breath into a business which has seen everything. Matches like Ultimate X and the 6 sides of steel are awesome to watch. Unforuntaely, since I missed out on the early years, I didn't get to see nearly as many great matches as I wish I had. I think one of the worst things that happened to TNA was the huge push Kurt Angle received, not as a wrestler but on mike time. I think it just pulled a lot of time away from other wrestlers who deserved their time on the screen, especially before the 2 hour time slot.

My final complaint with wrestling in general is the lack of great tag team wrestling these days. TNA has WWE dominated in this division, but it's as if they refuse to take advantage of it. WWE has Cody Rhoades & Hardcore Holly, while TNA has the Team 3D, the Steiners, LAX, BG & Kipp James, the Motorcity Machineguns, and they had Christoper Daniels and AJ Styles at one point in time. I feel like I'm leaving someone off this list, and I apologize if I am, but it seems a huge advantage for TNA that just isn't used enough. On the flip side, I love a lot of the decisions by TNA, such as having a reversal of a decision on the most recent impact to restart the tag team title match instead of dragging it out a week and having us watch the same match again next week under the same circumstances. I also love Jim Cornette and feel he brings an aura of authenticity to the management position. But, I've rambled enough, and while I agree money is a problem for TNA as they are competing against a company with very deep pockets who can go all out any time they want (as is proven by giving a million dollars away for a few weeks), I also believe there are other things they can do to help improve their brand.

 

[profx26]

i dont think its a huge problem because if it was they wouldnt have got nasj,angle,or even sting but the reason why impact is at orlando and the people at the impact zone get in for free is because they dont have enough money to hold the shows a diffrent venues every week or time

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

i'm going to have a field day with this post. in good faith, i'm going to let you go back and edit the grammatical and spelling errors YOU have since you'd like to make a point that I mispelled a word by one letter. lol. then i will respond. or you can leave your post as is and look like a moron.

There may or may not be grammatical errors present. I will not humor you by looking for them. But if you had a spell check on your browser as I do on mine, then you would not be seeing spelling errors. So I will just strike it up to the educational system from which you received your degree and not the smugness that had moved you to try to say there are some there. But I invite you to please point them out as I will only be enriched by the experience and will therefore learn from it. Otherwise I would just be bitter and argumentative, as someone else has clearly showed they would rather be with this debate on TNA.

Oh, and you also misspelled the word MISSPELLED. So now that's two words that you have chosen to emphasis that you have doinked on. Long live Disco, right? lol

 

[he6rt6gr6m]

I got a better question for you. How come wrestling ratings are down all over the board and yet some people continue to harp on and single out TNA's ratings?

Quote of the thread, in my opinion.

Look at RAW's rating last week! 3.0! Thats awful! Its worse than awful. Its as much as the last Nitro got!

Wrestling is quite obviously in a slump period, and I think the American Economy has a little to do with it.

People just dont want to watch it anymore, because they have bigger fish to fry, and this is why the Companies are making moves to get out of the country more.

I think currently the Wrestling World as a whole is healthy. Its just in the states where it seems to suffer.

TNA and WWE get good ratings over here, to say their programs appear on fairly expensive Premium Channels, and TNA has beaten RAW a few times in Viewing Figures. SmackDown! is more popular over here than RAW or iMPACT! which amazes me, given RAW is supposed to be a flagship program.

As has been said before. TNA has TV Deal across the globe. They are reaching a new demographic and their fan base is always rising. They are turning a profit, touring outside of the states, have a great relationship with SpikeTV and the TV Stations World Wide, and are moving forward.

The fact that silly people come onto forums and slag the Ratings off is, quite frankly, ignorant.

Ratings arent the be-all-and-end-all. They help, and they strengthen a relationship between company and the Promotion. But to say that a company is failing because it has "Low" ratings is a gross understatement.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

FINALLY. Somebody sees what I am saying. The ratings thing is wrestling has alot to do with wrestling not having a main stream outlet to tie into right now. The last thing that you say that was main stream was Cousin Sal versus Satino? Not exactly something that you would want to waste the time writing home about.

But I will tell you this. People should get on their knees right now and kiss the ass of the man who came up with the idea to sign Adam "Pacman" Jones. Now before you stone me to death, just hear me out.

Alot of die hard fans were outraged that TNA decided to spend roughly $250,000 signing the disgraced football star for only a few months work while many deserved, experienced, hard working wrestlers were not getting near that. But let's look at the math. In return for TNA signing Pacman, they got a lot of exposure for a fraction of what a superbowl ad would cost. The news of Jones signing with TNA was featured on Sportscenter, NFL Live, and reported on any news outlet nationwide during their sports report. It was also debated constantly on such shows as Rome is Burning, Around the Horn, and Pardon The Interuption as well as other ESPN, Foxsports, and local sports channel shows from the beginning to the end.

I guarantee you that it at least got a few people to tune in out of curiosity at first just off of the controversy of Jones, something that would Eric Bischoff would be thoroughly proud of.

 

[Audioslave]

FINALLY. Somebody sees what I am saying. The ratings thing is wrestling has alot to do with wrestling not having a main stream outlet to tie into right now. The last thing that you say that was main stream was Cousin Sal versus Satino? Not exactly something that you would want to waste the time writing home about.

But I will tell you this. People should get on their knees right now and kiss the ass of the man who came up with the idea to sign Adam "Pacman" Jones. Now before you stone me to death, just hear me out.

Alot of die hard fans were outraged that TNA decided to spend roughly $250,000 signing the disgraced football star for only a few months work while many deserved, experienced, hard working wrestlers were not getting near that. But let's look at the math. In return for TNA signing Pacman, they got a lot of exposure for a fraction of what a superbowl ad would cost. The news of Jones signing with TNA was featured on Sportscenter, NFL Live, and reported on any news outlet nationwide during their sports report. It was also debated constantly on such shows as Rome is Burning, Around the Horn, and Pardon The Interuption as well as other ESPN, Foxsports, and local sports channel shows from the beginning to the end.

I guarantee you that it at least got a few people to tune in out of curiosity at first just off of the controversy of Jones, something that would Eric Bischoff would be thoroughly proud of.

Yeah, defend an angle that brought TNA absolutely NOTHING. $250,000 for a man that couldn't be touched, get in the ring or do ANYTHING physical in return for publicity which got them NOWHERE, etc.

Paying $1,000,000 (or however much it'd cost) for a Superbowl commercial would give TNA so much more visibility than a fifth rate football player with whom no one outside of Tennessee has heard about.

If you don't want to go for a commercial on the Superbowl, then there are many others who are actually NAMES, sports or otherwise, that could be brought in for something around the amount spent on no-name Jones.

Kevin Federline was hot off his divorce with a ton of people loathing his existence when WWE decided to bring him in. It resulted in a fun, hot program, that did some good numbers IIRC and it got a shitload of publicity.

Floyd Mayweather is probably the hottest draw in pro boxing. They (I think it was mostly Shane) court him for an angle and bring him in. It results in a good deal of publicity and got people talking. The follow up didn't turn out to be THAT great, but it turned out a pretty fun celeb match at Wrestlemania.

Pacman Jones isn't on either of their levels. Not even close. The point with this is that if you're going to bring in someone, either bring in a NAME (like the two I listed or someone equal in value) or don't do anything at all. You bring in Pacman and some other schlubs that no one's heard about and they bring in bonafied names like Mayweather, Federline and Holyfield... who the fuck do you think the fans are going to go to? The stars. And it makes TNA look bush league by comparison.

Dixie is super rich herself, so why didn't she a million and throw it at Oscar De La Hoya for a few appearances once Mayweather started working with WWE? You have two guys who were, at the time, going to throw down in a few months getting involved in wrestling promotions. The media could've had a field day with that shit and both promotions would've gotten better publicity. There was also a possibility that could've forced WWE to actually acknowledge TNA by name on their own programming. It'd of been genius. Not only do you get exposed to the mainstreams, but you'd have gotten promoted (in some way) on WWE television. That'd of had better returns than Pacman fuckin' Jones.

 

[Talon_DR]

The users on this forum have sunk so low as to correct the spelling and grammar of other users. I am a teacher and do that for a living but I wouldn't do it to people I don't know. By the way, a message to Mr. Well Versed: The word is "moot" as in moot point, not "mute"

Back on the subject, no matter how much I disagree with him, Spawn is right with the Pacman Jones thing. While I understand that at the time TNA signed Pacman, they didn't know he wouldn't be able to compete and eventually got screwed over in the whole deal, overall his signing wasn't as great for the company's budget as it could have been.

Anyone can say, "I would have done this and that" but when it came to it, TNA had an opportunity for media attention and capitalized on it. When they first signed Pacman and started heavily advertising him, they thought that he could actually wrestle for the company so at that time they were paying for Media Attention and a Wrestler for 25,000 dollars an appearance.

As things turned out, Pacman couldn't wrestle. That is when TNA made the mistake of giving him the World Tag Title, which shouldn't have happened. I would have preferred that Pacman manage Truth and Consequences to the World Title as it would have made more sense.

In the beginning it was a good deal, in the end it turned out not to be that great.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Tsk tsk tsk. Must we break this down for you again?

Yeah, defend an angle that brought TNA absolutely NOTHING. $250,000 for a man that couldn't be touched, get in the ring or do ANYTHING physical in return for publicity which got them NOWHERE, etc.

Because you are looking at it from a "talent" aspect of the angle instead of that of a businessman. Check this out. TNA invested $250,000 in the Pacman Jones name, as he was STILL inbroiled in alot of controversy and media coverage. In return, TNA got (for free) advertising worth over $5,000,000. Now even if a company pays $2,700,000 for a few second spot during the superbowl, there is no guarantee that there will be results. But it is a chance that they take. But you have to ask yourself this. If TNA got nothing in return, how is that they are turning profit, with bigger contracts than they had at the time of the Pacman signing? The ratings haven't jumped out of control, so it can't be from a fat tv contract. So where does it come from? Well glad you asked, because it comes from house shows and ppv buys. And people don't just show up to show up. They come because of name recognition. And the mention of TNA all over the place when Pacman was talked about afforded them some of that. It's a simple concept. Controversy creates cash.

Paying $1,000,000 (or however much it'd cost) for a Superbowl commercial would give TNA so much more visibility than a fifth rate football player with whom no one outside of Tennessee has heard about.

The going rate for a cheap superbowl commercial is about 2.7 mil. Not counting the cost of making said commercial. And still there would be no guarantee that the spot would gain any viewership. Which would YOU rather do, pay $2.7 mil and get 10-30 seconds or pay $250,000 and get over $5 mil for free. It's simple business. Pipe Dreams need not apply here.

If you don't want to go for a commercial on the Superbowl, then there are many others who are actually NAMES, sports or otherwise, that could be brought in for something around the amount spent on no-name Jones.

You STILL miss the point. Pacman Jones was one of the most talked about sports figures, aside from Michael Vick or Bary Bonds, at the time. Hell, he is STILL talked about. Why sign someone who nobody cares about when you can sign someone who EVERYBODY is talking about? Do the math.

Kevin Federline was hot off his divorce with a ton of people loathing his existence when WWE decided to bring him in. It resulted in a fun, hot program, that did some good numbers IIRC and it got a shitload of publicity.

So let me get this straight. Signing Kevin Federline, who got talked about for a brief minute and had to do whatever he could to try to keep the spotlight going. Pacman, however, is STILL being talked about for the same stuff that he was being talked about at the time he was signed. I think that had much more staying power if you ask me.

Floyd Mayweather is probably the hottest draw in pro boxing. They (I think it was mostly Shane) court him for an angle and bring him in. It results in a good deal of publicity and got people talking. The follow up didn't turn out to be THAT great, but it turned out a pretty fun celeb match at Wrestlemania.

Mayweather got one small slot on Sportscenter, with a laugh at that. Pacman was the topic of discussion all over any program that covered sports from the moment he signed til his last day in TNA. And for a fraction of what it cost for Mayweather's awful angle.

Pacman Jones isn't on either of their levels. Not even close. The point with this is that if you're going to bring in someone, either bring in a NAME (like the two I listed or someone equal in value) or don't do anything at all. You bring in Pacman and some other schlubs that no one's heard about and they bring in bonafied names like Mayweather, Federline and Holyfield... who the fuck do you think the fans are going to go to? The stars. And it makes TNA look bush league by comparison.

Pacman IS a name. He made an impact both on and off the field in the NFL. He was more talked about than Mayweather was in all of his years of boxing. And to even try to say that Pacman(who is STILL being talked about almost daily on ESPN) is not bigger than Federline(who) is just pure ignorance.

Dixie is super rich herself, so why didn't she a million and throw it at Oscar De La Hoya for a few appearances once Mayweather started working with WWE? You have two guys who were, at the time, going to throw down in a few months getting involved in wrestling promotions. The media could've had a field day with that shit and both promotions would've gotten better publicity. There was also a possibility that could've forced WWE to actually acknowledge TNA by name on their own programming. It'd of been genius. Not only do you get exposed to the mainstreams, but you'd have gotten promoted (in some way) on WWE television. That'd of had better returns than Pacman fuckin' Jones.

Well for one, to go out and sign De La Hoya makes people like YOU immediately start complaining about ripping off angles And for two, Mayweather decided to retire than to face De La Hoya. And three, the media would have demeaned both Mayweather and De La Hoya more than they would have elevated WWE or TNA. They would have gotten blown off and ignored. Plain and simple. And WWE would have either dropped Mayweather or completely ignored the De La Hoya situation, AS IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH MAYWEATHER vs. BIG SHOW.

In closing, I would just like to say this....

You're 13 aren't you? I mean you must be if you don't watch enough sports to know what you are talking about or if you missed damned near daily news stories about Pacman and TNA. You also seem very oblivious to business figures if you don't think that the amount of exposure TNA got wasn't worth the money spent.

Which would you rather?

Scerario 1: Two guys are walking down the street and see a TNA House show poster. One guy asks the other guy who TNA is and the other replies "I don't know. Who cares?"

Scenario 2: Two guys are walking down the street and see a TNA House show poster. One guy asks the other who TNA is. The other replies "Oh yeah, that's that wrestling company. The one that Pacman Jones was a part of. I heard of them when they did that story on ESPN. Maybe we should check them out."

Now mind you, there is no guarantee that scenario 2 would actually have them checking TNA out, but there is a damned good chance that they heard TNA mentioned if they watched an ESPN story on Jones.

 

[Audioslave]

If TNA got nothing in return, how is that they are turning profit, with bigger contracts than they had at the time of the Pacman signing?

They've been extending their brand all over the world and getting money from licensing their product outside of the states. That's how.

And man, I read your whole post and it's more deluded bullshit that I expect from some in this forum. It's all "LOL pacman's a bigger name than Mayweather is and Federline was LOL", which is a load of crap.

And to even try to say that Pacman(who is STILL being talked about almost daily on ESPN) is not bigger than Federline(who) is just pure ignorance.

At the time WWE brought him in, Federline was all over the gossip rags and on those Access Hollywood and Extra type of programs. Saying that Pacman Jones, who no one but the hardest of hardcore football fans have heard of, is a bigger name than Kevin Federline shows the depths of your pro-TNA delusions. Federline got more press for being married to, and divorcing, Britney Spears than Pacman Jones has got in his entire life.

 

[gg inferno]

slave,
you obviously don't watch sportscenter. to say that "no one but the hardest of hardcore football fans have heard of him" just simply borders on ignorance of the subject matter. why don't you turn on espn today, right now, for starters, and you'll see that the guy is newsworhty for the simple fact that he's dropping the PACMAN monicker form his name.

 

[gorsty2k7]

I am a UK based follower of the NFL, and I knew who Pacman was prior to TNA signing him. He was the first defensive player drafted in the 2005 NFL Draft. He now plays for the Dallas Cowboys following his season long suspension, so I'd expect to hear him mentioned a bit more now since the Cowboys are a better team than the Titans.

Saying that K-Fed was a bigger name because he was in gossip rags and on gossip shows don't mean shit. Remember what the key demographic for wrestling is. Males aged 18-35. How many of them do you think sit reading gossip or watching crappy gossip shows? Now, how many do you think are fans of any team in the NFL. Considering how successful Pacman was in his debut season in the NFL with the records he broke, I'd say its a pretty fair assumption that Pacman is more well known than you give him credit for.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

They've been extending their brand all over the world and getting money from licensing their product outside of the states. That's how.

Okay kid, go out on the corner and sell WWE t-shirts, TNA t-shirts, and CZW t-shirts. I guarantee you that WWE will sell like hotcakes, TNA will move, and people will ask you what in the hell CZW is. Why? Because the two that sell have had some sort of media exposure that had put their name out in the mainstream at one time or another.

And man, I read your whole post and it's more deluded bullshit that I expect from some in this forum. It's all "LOL pacman's a bigger name than Mayweather is and Federline was LOL", which is a load of crap.

You seriously have your head thoroughly entrenched in your ass the way that you only hear what you want to hear. I said that the story surrounding Pacman is bigger than the stories surrounding Mayweather and Federline. Mayweather's retirement got a brief mention for one day while Pacman's name change is the hottest story on every sports channel on this week.

At the time WWE brought him in, Federline was all over the gossip rags and on those Access Hollywood and Extra type of programs. Saying that Pacman Jones, who no one but the hardest of hardcore football fans have heard of, is a bigger name than Kevin Federline shows the depths of your pro-TNA delusions. Federline got more press for being married to, and divorcing, Brittney Spears than Pacman Jones has got in his entire life.

Um, let's see. Federline was doing everything he could to get some of the spotlight when Britney had her meltdown. Desperate. Pacman has pretty much had countless new stories and even had news on his when he ISN'T doing anything. You don't HAVE to be a hardcore NFL fan to have heard of him. Shut of your computer, get off your ass, and go down the street and ask 5 people if they have heard of Pacman Jones. I guarantee you that all of them have singley heard of him and know him because of his own fame and controversy. Ask 5 more people who Kevin Federline is. If all 5 know him, I guarantee you that all 5 know him because he's BRITTNEY SPEARS HUSBAND. He has no fame of his own! Controversy creates cash. Not never was, wannabe rappers who mooch off of their wives and nobody could care less about. Pacman's name has been in the news for almost 2 years now. Has K-Fed's been in the news that long....on his own.... ever? Nope.

 

[Audioslave]

Okay kid, go out on the corner and sell WWE t-shirts, TNA t-shirts, and CZW t-shirts. I guarantee you that WWE will sell like hotcakes, TNA will move, and people will ask you what in the hell CZW is. Why? Because the two that sell have had some sort of media exposure that had put their name out in the mainstream at one time or another.

The comment you replied to didn't warrant that manner of reply. I never put TNA down in that part of my reply, I was stating that extending their brand around the world and the money they receive from licensing rights (games and being broadcast in other countries, etc) is where, from what I have heard, they're getting the bulk of their profits from.

Secondly, I don't give a shit about CZW, ROH or what-the-fuck ever and I don't generally care about indy wrestling outside of what little of it that I have caught online. It's stupid to even bring that into the equation when it had nothing to do with my reply in the first place. I wasn't saying "LOL TNA SUCKS ROH RULES FUCK YOU" or anything, I was simply stating a fact: TNA has, much like WWE, extended their brand across the world. And, also much like WWE, has apparently made profits from doing so.

Anyways. Regardless of how he got his fame, every single person you could talk to around the time he split from Brit would know who he is or have an idea of who he is. Pacman Jones is known in sports circles, but he's hardly of the level of a Brett Favre, Tom Brady or Peyton Manning. That's what I'm fucking talking about, the names that transcend the actual sport. Adam Jones ain't gonna bring in the mainstreams. Maybe he's being talked about, but does his name have any value? The answer is: No. And it's been shown. Ratings didn't go up at all during his stay and I would assume the buyrates didn't go up either, but TNA's been too chickenshit to release that info.

 

[jjis]

Disco, RAW was was not live every week at the time you signed with WCW. WCW may have been doing shows at a them park, but they had been doing Clash Of Champions for years, a couple of them did well against WWF ppvs.

The Pacman thing was TNAs attempt at Mike Tyson. There's a huge difference between the two. Tyson had fans, despite all of his troubles. Not even football fans thought much of Pacman, he was the best example to many of what was wrong with today's athletes.

TNA has tried unsuccessfully to bring back the old fans with old WWF/WCW names. Not even Austin or Hogan have brought those old fans back when they returned to WWE, what makes TNA think Sting or Nash would. That money would have been better spent on a all out marketing campaign to attract new, young fans. Instead TNA has brought in the 50+ crowd.