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

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

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.

Um actually, your reply did warrant that manner of reply. The debate was all fine and dandy and they you're the one who started calling my posts "delusional bullshit" and saying I was having "delusions" with my thoughts. So you brought the tone on yourself when you crossed the line. But pretty much I'm not sure whether your head is kind up your ass or all the way with what you right because you fail to read full or understand before you reply.

My t-shirt comparison was not about dissing, it was about name recognition. It was about how TNA has used such things as the signing of Pacman Jones to get their name out there while comparing them to other acclaimed companies who have not done so to see which is the more recognizable name. Obviously this analogy went right over your head as you chose to try to make is seem as if I was saying you were saying you were putting TNA down. Which I was not. If anything, you should have taken it as me agreeing with you on your point of how TNA has done a great job getting their name out. One of the ways that they did this, which I have been trying to point out, was by signing Pacman Jones at the height controversy. It would have been as if they signed OJ Simpson right during the trial instead of after.

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.

Again, I brought another company into the mix to show how TNA has gotten their name out, not to say that you like indy wrestling or were dissing TNA.

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.

To be honest, I agree with you. Pacman Jones will never be as great as Farve, Manning, or Brady. He's a pissant football player who will more than likely get himself suspended from the NFL for life one day with the stupid crap that he does. But TNA didn't sign him for anything that he did in the NFL. They didn't bill him for anything that he did in the NFL. They billed him as the most controversial man in sport. And at the time, it was very true. He was involved in so many off the field incidents that he was the first player suspended for a full season for non drug related issues. His conduct was atrocious. Is was deplorable. It was all over the media and still is. But, by TNA signing him, they were able to ride the coattails of his controversy a bit as it was yet another erratic behavior for news media to report about Pacman. Also, ratings don't make money until your contract is up. Ppv's and house shows do. And my combining the Pacman exposure along with their ability to have signed some recognizable names at the time, it helped them to make some pretty big strides over their competitors. Trust me, if Vince McMahon would have thought of it, he would have done it himself.


Now I would just like to apologize if I have upset you with this debate. This is a very heated discussion and I am very impressed by the passion and incite that you have shown throughout this discussion. And while I may use some very direct words, it is nothing personal. It is to emphasis my point. Once again, I apologize if I have upset you in any way.

 

[DrakeShadow]

To respond to the first post, TNA needs to use there home grown talent. They don't need Superstars from WWE reject island. They need to showcase their X division and now the knockouts cause that's what it getting them there ratings. AJ should be there mascot or cover guy for TNA IMO, that will bringq in ratings, not them haveong no money.

 

[jjis]

Spawn, signing Pacman did nothing for TNA. It got their name mentioned on ESPN, but it was just people either not knowing what TNA was or ESPN making fun of them for signing a thug. It was supposed to attract casual fans to TNA, based on the ratings it didn't work. Pacman simply just isn't that big of a name to people.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

To respond to the first post, TNA needs to use there home grown talent. They don't need Superstars from WWE reject island. They need to showcase their X division and now the knockouts cause that's what it getting them there ratings. AJ should be there mascot or cover guy for TNA IMO, that will bringq in ratings, not them haveong no money.

And I agree. But you have to use homegrown along with the known names. If you just toss up a homegrown guy that only long time TNA fans will know, the average wrestling fans would ask "Who is AJ Styles." I think that they are pushing AJ now after letting him blend in with the signed guys to show that they don't have to be dependent on outside talent. Also, the World X Cup will be the true test to the long time statements that the X-Division needs more showcasing. IF the ratings show that the X-Cup was a good idea, then it will justify pushing them more. If it doesn't, then hopefully it will silence those who think that is the answer all to the getting better ratings.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Spawn, signing Pacman did nothing for TNA. It got their name mentioned on ESPN, but it was just people either not knowing what TNA was or ESPN making fun of them for signing a thug. It was supposed to attract casual fans to TNA, based on the ratings it didn't work. Pacman simply just isn't that big of a name to people.

But that is the chance that you take with ALL advertising ploys. There is no guarantee of a payoff. At the time that TNA signed him, they did not know that the NFL would step in and say that he could not wrestle. They never had for Kevin Greene or other Tennessee Titans players who did so in the past. But then again the situation was with a suspended player and it was during the season, which made it better news. They figured that they would bring in Pacman, get a little buzz about it, have him wrestle a few matches, and then get their name out there in the process. Now they go their name out there surely, but noone was expecting each and every person on the planet to immediately tune in to TNA. But they did get maximum exposure through mainstream media for what they invested. And that, in itself was a bonus, even if it didn't payoff big.

But if you take a look at the ratings, you will notice this. TNA can't break through the ceiling in order to get on the way to the 2.0 range. But they have held steady in the .9 to 1.1 area while other wrestling shows are still slipping. So sometimes, it's not about gaining, it's about holding steady while others are sinking.

 

[gg inferno]

Spawn, signing Pacman did nothing for TNA. It got their name mentioned on ESPN, but it was just people either not knowing what TNA was or ESPN making fun of them for signing a thug. It was supposed to attract casual fans to TNA, based on the ratings it didn't work. Pacman simply just isn't that big of a name to people.

let's do a math equation. since people seem to know so much about the business side of TNA, how much does an add cost during sportscenter, cnn, fox news, local tv news, etc...? now let's add up the amount of times that the pacman tna story was on those shows for free, and then let's figure out if the implied free advertising was worth what they spent. don't even take consideration into what the ratings were, because the only thing that matters is if the money that you got out of the free ads was worth as much as you would have spent to put it on a commercial and buy the add time. not to mention the amount of times it was seen streaming on the espn news ticker.

 

[jjis]

Did those mentions on CNN, ESPN translate to anything though? Pacman is not Tyson or Rodman, he was known more for his arrests than anything he did on the field, he was not a likable guy at all. despite all of their faults Rodman/Tyson were both compelling figures, people were going to tune in to see them.

Spawn, did you know at one point TNA was getting a 1.78 rating in the 18-49 demo? Now their doing half that, that's troubling. Young fans are what you need to grow the product.

TNA has been holding steady at .8-1.2 for a few years now, there needs to be some growth at some point.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Did those mentions on CNN, ESPN translate to anything though? Pacman is not Tyson or Rodman, he was known more for his arrests than anything he did on the field, he was not a likable guy at all. despite all of their faults Rodman/Tyson were both compelling figures, people were going to tune in to see them.

And correct that both Tyson and Rodman are more notable figures. But when WCW signed Rodman, nobody really cared. When WWE signed Tyson, nobody cared. When TNA signed Pacman, everybody talked about it. That, my friend is where the distinct difference lies. They spent $250,000 for several million in exposure. Whether it paid off or not, they got more than maximum exposure for their investment. And while that may not be good wrestling, it's still good economics.

Spawn, did you know at one point TNA was getting a 1.78 rating in the 18-49 demo? Now their doing half that, that's troubling. Young fans are what you need to grow the product.

I know this very well. But in a time when programs that used to pull in 5.0's are pulling in 3.0's, shows that used to pull in 3.5's are pulling in 2.2's, and shows that pulled in 3.3's are pulling in 0.8's, TNA is showing stability. But the sheer mathematic equation, the slip of wrestling ratings should have had TNA in the .30 to .50 range. They are holding steady in the range that they are in. I understand your point about growth, and you are right. But when the industry ratings are in a recession, stability is the key to longevity and growth as well.

TNA has been holding steady at .8-1.2 for a few years now, there needs to be some growth at some point.

And you are right, they need to focus on growth in the future. But right now, they need to hold on to their stability and use it as a growth point in the future. They are not at a point at which they afford to do anything drastic and lose their stable base as they may fall right on in with the recession and end up being pulled off of tv. They are on a network where a 1.0 is considered to be a godsend. They need to hold on to that until the industry recession has subsided and then build on it. If things continue to slip all over they way they are, they will have less competition to deal with and may end up being able to slide into a new Monday Night War slot that will be beneficial for everybody.

 

[jjis]

Stability is one word for it, stagnant is another. No one cared about Tyson or Rodman when they signed with WWF/WCW? Were you not watching tv back then? The news was all over the place.

Spending a quarter of a million on a guy with multiple arrests and legal troubles at the time was not good economics. It was Jarrett being a mark for the Titans and desperate for some attention for TNA. TNA needs to concentrate on improving their WRESTLING product, establishing themselves more to fans, then maybe they can do some celebrity stuff.

 

[hollyric]

Spending a quarter of a million on a guy with multiple arrests and legal troubles at the time was not good economics. It was Jarrett being a mark for the Titans and desperate for some attention for TNA. TNA needs to concentrate on improving their WRESTLING product, establishing themselves more to fans, then maybe they can do some celebrity stuff.

Didn't Mike Tyson have some legal troubles?

Well, of course, TNA needs to get attention. How do you expect them to create new viewers?

How exactly are you going to get new WRESTLING fans? Aren't they already watching? Are new people going to start watching because TNA's wrestlers can do 2 moonsaults in row instead of one?

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Stability is one word for it, stagnant is another. No one cared about Tyson or Rodman when they signed with WWF/WCW? Were you not watching tv back then? The news was all over the place.

How can you call it stagnant, when the competitors ratings continue to decline? It's called an all around wrestling recession. And if you can hold your own in such a climate, then you are stable. Not stagnant. It's funny how many of you who point out that TNA ratings are the same and haven't risen still refuse to give recognition to the fact that wrestling ratings are slipping at an alarming pace all around. A new wrestling product would not even stand a chance in this current climate. It's so bad that McMahon is trying to pay people to tune in. TNA is not doing any of this. They just keep doing their show and their ratings stay stable rather than declining at the rate that they have been for other shows. Please, explain this to me as to how this is stagnant.

Spending a quarter of a million on a guy with multiple arrests and legal troubles at the time was not good economics. It was Jarrett being a mark for the Titans and desperate for some attention for TNA. TNA needs to concentrate on improving their WRESTLING product, establishing themselves more to fans, then maybe they can do some celebrity stuff.

Rodman and Tyson were signed during a time when wrestling was at the utmost height of mainstream popularity even though Tyson was on his way to prison as a convicted rapist and Rodman was constantly in trouble for kicking refs and hitting women.

Pacman was signed when when wrestling had not been mainstream. It was not a mark move, it was a business move. A move that turns $250,000 spent into at least $6,000,000 in exposure. You don't get odds like that in Vegas. So please, tell me how that was desperate. TNA had an established base. That doesn't bring in jack other than smarks. The average wrestling fan learns of your product from exposure. To me, TNA has done this. So I'm not sure how you can't see that.

 

[jjis]

Tyson had paid his dept to society, Pacmans legal troubles were still going on.

There are plenty of wrestling fans dissatisfied with WWE's product who are not watching TNA. They want some alternative. TNA at times is, but then they do Stone Cold SharkBoy or Machismo/Val wedding or Pacman and people get turned off. One step forward, two steps back is what TNA has been for the last two years.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Ah I see. So you are saying that it was better to sign a convicted rapist who was on the decline careerwise than to sign someone who had yet to be convicted of the crimes with which they were accused. Interesting.

But you still seem to miss my point completely. I didn't say that the people dissatisfied WWE product were tuning in to TNA. But TNA apparently is holding on to their fan base if they are weathering the storm rather than losing ground. Stone Cold Sharkboy hasn't been on tv in a month, so I'm really not sure why you people keep tossing it up. The wedding was the apex of the whole Black Machismo gimmick as you can see that Sonjay Dutt is getting a push and Jay broke character left and right to show tat he was serious right now.

I think that the only people who SAY they get turned off are smarks. And to be honest, they don't matter because you can never please them. Smarks say that Joe should get the title. Joe gets the title. Smarks bitch about it. Smarks say that TNA should showcase the X-Division. TNA is showcasing their X-Division and even adding new athletes to the division to show that they are about to do more with it. Smarks bitch and moan and bring up things that are not currently even on tv.

So I'm not sure what it takes to please smarks, but I will say this. TNA is holding their fan base while people, in general, are tuning away from wrestling. Now this could be seen as a good thing. But as usual, the smarks piss and moan because TNA isn't getting 3.0's while others are losing ratings. Go friggin figure. I guess you just can't win.

 

[hollyric]

Tyson had paid his dept to society, Pacmans legal troubles were still going on.

There are plenty of wrestling fans dissatisfied with WWE's product who are not watching TNA. They want some alternative. TNA at times is, but then they do Stone Cold SharkBoy or Machismo/Val wedding or Pacman and people get turned off. One step forward, two steps back is what TNA has been for the last two years.

A year after Tyson was in WWE, he went back in jail. Pacman, on the other hand, is innocent until proven guilty.

The question you have to ask yourself is WHY some are dissatisfied with WWE's product. The answer is because WWE is not interesting. Nothing big is happening. And this is what TNA needs to be: interesting, entertaining, fun to watch, "I want to know what's going to happen next week" kind of feel.

How could you say people get turned off if TNA gets the same rating every week? If people hate Stone Cold Shark Boy, why isn't he getting booed and why aren't you hearing "fire Russo" chants?

What you have to realise is that you and casual fans have different mentalities. You look at, for example, Eric Young looking for Elvis, and you say to yourself "this is the reason why TNA isn't doing good ratings", when in reality, you should be asking yourself "why should anybody care about the X-division". Because they can do three flips in a row? And then more people would watch if they did 4? If it was all about wrestling matches, what if a fan decided to miss one week, or maybe 2? Would they miss anything special? No, but those people may be curious to know what Shark Boy is going to do next. Or maybe Pacman will breech his contract and attack someone.

The in-ring wrestling, by itself, has never and will never draw. 36 ROH buys is proof of that.

 

[jjis]

TNA is holding onto part of their fanbase. A big part of the 18-49 demo has left and the 50+ has gained, that's really not what you want.

Pacman simply wasn't a big enough name for people to care if he breached his contract or not. Plus anyone with a brain would have realized there was no way he was going to risk losing a multi-million dollar NFL contract just for a wrestling match.

Did anyone in TNA really think SharkBoy acting like Austin, Machismo or Eric looking for Elvis was going to sell any ppvs? TNA isn't in a position yet where it should be doing those kinds of things. WWE can do stupid things, because they're an established money making company. TNA is still trying to grow, a goofball looking for Elvis isn't growing your company.

TNA needs to create their own stars. A couple weeks ago Joe, their world champ, was in one brief segment in the first quarter hour. How are fans supposed to care about Joe, if TNA doesn't?

 

[hollyric]

TNA is holding onto part of their fanbase. A big part of the 18-49 demo has left and the 50+ has gained, that's really not what you want.

Pacman simply wasn't a big enough name for people to care if he breached his contract or not. Plus anyone with a brain would have realized there was no way he was going to risk losing a multi-million dollar NFL contract just for a wrestling match.

It was for publicity and it worked. Go to google, type "pacman jones" and TNA. You'll see over 37,000 results with a lot of them not even being wrestling sites. Also, could the reason be why the 18-49 demo has left is because the matches are longer?

Did anyone in TNA really think SharkBoy acting like Austin, Machismo or Eric looking for Elvis was going to sell any ppvs? TNA isn't in a position yet where it should be doing those kinds of things. WWE can do stupid things, because they're an established money making company. TNA is still trying to grow, a goofball looking for Elvis isn't growing your company.

It may not sell PPVs, but what's the harm? A lot of people find them entertaining, fans are popping for Shark and Lethal, their t-shirts are doing good, Spike TV likes the ratings, the wrestlers like the gimmicks (which were their idea), and life is good. You can't say that those gimmicks are the reason why ratings aren't skyrocketing. It is because of lack of interest.

 

[jjis]

The whole point of wrestling tv shows is to sell ppvs, Nitro in its last year had better ratings than Impact does, but its buyrates were horrible.

Pacman didn't work, it was supposed to bring in viewers. Just having your name mentioned on ESPN does you know good if those people don't tune in to your show. Like I said before, when TNA was mentioned, the people on ESPN didn't know what it was or laughed at them for working with Pacman. Contrary to popuplar belief, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Perhaps doing gimmicks like that has helped create a lack of interest. Gimmicks like that don't make you much of an alternative to WWE.

 

[hollyric]

It isn't just to sell PPVs, it is also to sell DVDs, merchandise and get people to come to house shows, which they have done quite well. Also compared to the 2004-2005 buyrates, I'm pretty sure the current buyrates have done better.

WCW was sold because the powers that be didn't want wrestling on the their channels. They actually made money with their ratings since they owned the network.

TNA may not have ratings skyrocketed because of Pacman Jones, but nothing really bad happened either. They spend a quarter of a million dollars to get millions in advertising. Bad publicity would mean people stopped watching TNA; that didn't happen. As far as lauging at TNA, what do you think the media did with Donald Trump?

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

TNA is holding onto part of their fanbase. A big part of the 18-49 demo has left and the 50+ has gained, that's really not what you want.

It may not be what you want, but statistically, even though the majority of tv programs are aimed towards a younger demographic, the 50+ crowd is who watches television. The older crowd is who watches wrestling these days, unless you want to make it child friendly. TNA can't help who watches the program. But ratings are ratings. And if Spike attracts a certain age demographic, then so be it. Still adds up to ratings.

Pacman simply wasn't a big enough name for people to care if he breached his contract or not. Plus anyone with a brain would have realized there was no way he was going to risk losing a multi-million dollar NFL contract just for a wrestling match.

Well for one, his pay was suspended for the time that he was suspended. No money coming in. Plus, it was being debated as to whether he would even be allowed back and if the Titans wanted him if he was. The trade to Dallas is proof of that. And many a football star has wrestled without getting hurt. It's safer than riding a bike, for an NFL player.

Did anyone in TNA really think SharkBoy acting like Austin, Machismo or Eric looking for Elvis was going to sell any ppvs?

Yeah, I see your point. Every time I got to the video store, I am sickedn when I see those box covers where Sharkboy, Black Machismo, and Elvis headlined ppv's. No wait, they haven't. So this is a moot point. These characters are mid to lower card wrestlers, even with their gimmicks. They aren't pushed as anything bigger either. So they are not being pushed as sellers.

TNA isn't in a position yet where it should be doing those kinds of things. WWE can do stupid things, because they're an established money making company. TNA is still trying to grow, a goofball looking for Elvis isn't growing your company.

Wait, first you criticize Spike for not trying to go for a younger demographic, and now you criticize them for trying something more fun to get a younger audience? Make up your mind kid. A realize, Smarks don't equal ratings. They piss and moan on the internet all day about what should be on tv, but they don't amount to a hill of beans when it comes to ratings. If super serious wrestling were the key, then there would be some indy promotion out there that would be top of the hill right now. But that's not the case. Even your favorite indy promotions have comedic characters who get featured. So don't even make it look like it's not something that is done in wrestling all the time.

TNA needs to create their own stars. A couple weeks ago Joe, their world champ, was in one brief segment in the first quarter hour. How are fans supposed to care about Joe, if TNA doesn't?

Actually, I'm glad you brought this up. Why don't you go back and read a synopsis of when TNA ratings slipped under a 1.0 for several weeks in a row. Look at who had major segments during those shows. It was SAMOA JOE. If anything, he is a ratings killer. Less is more with him as when he opens his mouth, people turn the channel. The hourly breakdowns don't lie. His segments lose viewers. So what does that mean? It means people don't want to see Joe that much.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

The whole point of wrestling tv shows is to sell ppvs, Nitro in its last year had better ratings than Impact does, but its buyrates were horrible.

That's like saying that the main point of Nickleback is to sell T-shirts. I mean do you really hear yourself? The point of tv is to sell the live shows. And the last time that I looked, attendance was up quite a bit and there were more house shows that in previous years. And you sound like the guy who started this thread pissing and moaning about ECW ratings almost a decade ago being more than Impact now. You are comparing a wrestling heyday to the current viewing climate. If TNA was on with the current program back then it would probably be equal to a 3.0 - 3.9 in ratings.

Pacman didn't work, it was supposed to bring in viewers. Just having your name mentioned on ESPN does you know good if those people don't tune in to your show. Like I said before, when TNA was mentioned, the people on ESPN didn't know what it was or laughed at them for working with Pacman. Contrary to popuplar belief, there is such a thing as bad publicity.

Okay, here's a GOOD exercise for you. Take out a Q-tip, wet up the tip, and clean your ears out. We have said REPEATEDLY, that the point of bringing in Pacman was NOT to bring in viewers. It was to get their name mentioned in mainstream media. It worked a bit. And contrary to your beliefs, controversy DOES create cash.

Perhaps doing gimmicks like that has helped create a lack of interest. Gimmicks like that don't make you much of an alternative to WWE.

The point is not to be EXACTLY different from the competition. That's not how you get people to come over. You are supposed to be SIMILAR YET DIFFERENT. That way people still have their comfort levels satisfied while experiencing something new. It's why the Whopper and the Big Mac are burgers, yet different. See the trend?

 

[MrOctober]

Pacman was brought in to attract viewers. WWE, WCW, TNA bring in celebrities/athletes to get mentions on CNN, ESPN, etc in hope that non-fans will see that and get intrigued enoguh to tune to see what happens. Sports fans are really tired of athletes getting into trouble off the field, Pacman was the poster boy for that. No one cared if he was in wrestling or not, they just wanted him to go away.

Having 50+ as your best demo is not what you want in tv, especially wrestling. How many 50 year olds do you see wearing wrestling t-shirts? You seem to think I mean kids when I said young, its the 18-34 year old demo that spends the money, that demo has fallen off for TNA.

Joe has only been on for one or two segments on Impact lately, blaming him for the ratings dip is ridiculous. Angle and Nash were probably on as much or even more than Joe was, funny how their not getting the blame that Joe is Thoe guys are supposedly stars.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

Pacman was brought in to attract viewers. WWE, WCW, TNA bring in celebrities/athletes to get mentions on CNN, ESPN, etc in hope that non-fans will see that and get intrigued enoguh to tune to see what happens. Sports fans are really tired of athletes getting into trouble off the field, Pacman was the poster boy for that. No one cared if he was in wrestling or not, they just wanted him to go away.

No no no no. Pacman was NOT brought in to attract viewers. If he was then he would NOT have been billed as being the most controversial man in sports today. He was signed to try and get the free press that came along with it. At the time, they though he would be able to wrestle as the NFL team never cared when other NFL players got in the ring in the past. It didn't backfire because he was only featured temporarily. Backfiring insinuates that there was a backlash. There was none. No harm. No foul.

Having 50+ as your best demo is not what you want in tv, especially wrestling. How many 50 year olds do you see wearing wrestling t-shirts? You seem to think I mean kids when I said young, its the 18-34 year old demo that spends the money, that demo has fallen off for TNA.

Once gain, another one of you "smarks" responds without reading. I said that STATISTICALLY, the 50+ demographic watches more tv. And that is a fact. Pretty much, Spike has shows that 50+ crowders were watching and can watch in reruns. Hell, TNA is lead in by CSI. Who in the HELL watches CSI? 50+. So is TNA attracting these 50+ demographic? No. It's Spike's lead in. When TNA was packaged with The Ultimate Fighter, it got the younger demographic. It also had lower ratings. I saw the fault lies with Spike's lineup rather than TNA's inability to attract the crowd. But hey, they are getting slightly higher ratings. But I guarantee you that the people spending the money to those increased house show numbers aren't 50+. And yet, everyone who points out this demographic ignores the house show fact when I bring that up. Hmm. I wonder why. Because you are still nitpicking even though the facts say otherwise.

Joe has only been on for one or two segments on Impact lately, blaming him for the ratings dip is ridiculous. Angle and Nash were probably on as much or even more than Joe was, funny how their not getting the blame that Joe is Thoe guys are supposedly stars.

Ratings lately are back up. They slipped after Joe won the title and while he was heavily chasing the title. And that is a fact. During the last three weeks. ratings have climbed back up a bit. Joe has been featured less. THAT is a fact.

TNA is featuring the X-Division in a big time showcase and yet you people still are not happy. You got everything you ask for and you still look for something to bitch about. I say just shut up and see if what you wanted to see actually works. If it doesn't then that means you smarks are all WRONG. But then again, that STILL won't shut you all the hell up. Sad.

 

[MrOctober]

I haven't mentioned the X division, so don't lump me in with "you people".

You still don't get the Pacman thing. How can you say he was not brought in to attract viewers? What do you think TNA expected would happen if the Pacman signing brought them mainstream publicity? They thought those people might watch Impact to see Pacman, like what they saw from TNA and keep on watching after Pacman was gone. That's the point of celebrities in pro wrestling. TNA is doing it again with some rappers appearing at Hard Justice.

 

[Afro-Ameri-Spawn]

I haven't mentioned the X division, so don't lump me in with "you people".

It's hard not to when you keep bringing up points that have been answered over and over again throughout this post.

You still don't get the Pacman thing. How can you say he was not brought in to attract viewers? What do you think TNA expected would happen if the Pacman signing brought them mainstream publicity? They thought those people might watch Impact to see Pacman, like what they saw from TNA and keep on watching after Pacman was gone. That's the point of celebrities in pro wrestling. TNA is doing it again with some rappers appearing at Hard Justice.

I can say it because you don't bring in someone who is hated and vilified that much because you think that they will have a following. You do it because you get your name mentioned in the mainstream media for free. Sure they thought that some people might tune in but it was no different than having a bus drive around with your name on it. It's the exposure you want. And they got alot of it, whether people tuned in or not. Plain and simple.

 

[MrOctober]

But what is the point of getting your name in the mainstream press? Why you want people who are NOT watching your show to know about it? After they learn about TNA, what do they then do? Hmmm?