Will TNA Ever Succeed?

[TheGreatLegend]

It has been 10 years since TNA was formed in 2002 and where is the company? what kind of ratings do they get? In 0s and 1s.I am as much of a TNA fan as I am a WWE fan and I know competition is good for both companies and wrestling fans as we will get a better wrestling product.

WCW Nitro was formed in 1995 and in 6 years they became a legit competition for WWF/WWE. WCW even became the No.1 Wrestling Company and beat WWF in the ratings for 84 weeks. What is TNA doing? They are where they started. Getting ratings in 0s and 1s isn't success all they get is negative feedback and the same fans defending them? Their fanbase stays kind of constant.

Maybe its time for TNA to stop listening to the nerds who want X-Divisions guys and "TNA Originals" to be the the "Top Guys" and bring in some new guys whom people will notice and take seriously... Its time for TNA to grow and do something cutting edge in order to be a competiton for WWE. 10 years is a lot of time for a company to grow and make a name for themselves.

What do you guys think ?

 

[Da Prophet]

TNA may not be in the position WCW was but make no mistake about it, they are succeeding. Is it on the same level as WWE? Not at this point. The company has been around for nearly 10 years and while that seems like a long time it really isn't. They have a solid fan base who are loyal to the company. It doesn't matter if some fans watch both WWE and TNA or if they are pure TNA fans, the fact remains TNA has fans. That is success for the company. They make money and entertain the fans that they have while also drawing in new fans. TNA is successful and people who think it isn't are kidding themselves. The company isn't able to compete against WWE like WCW but that doesn't make them failures. They are able to stay in business and give an alternate to wrestling fans who don't like what WWE provides.

 

[sjdigitall]

It matters what you mean by success. To me TNA is successful in that they are an indy promotion that has a TV deal, some great upcoming new talent, some great legends of the business and some pretty decent marketing. Do they want to be on WWE's level, of course they do but i think they're going pretty well growing from and indy promotion to being number 2 in the industry. I dont think competing with WWE is really something that is really on there minds at the moment. As long as they can cover there expenses and at the same time grow by touring different arenas and growing brand awareness they can become bigger. If TNA in the short term want to compete with WWE, its simple. You get a billionaire to back you and offer John Cena a contract that is unrefusable. Nash even said it , to actually compete with WWE you start with Cena and work from there but i dont think they even want to compete with them at the moment.

 

[Bischoff's Knob Slobberer]

WCW suceeded in part because of Big Daddy Ted Turner's endless pocketbook. He was able to lure in top talent for awhile with those deep pockets.

I think TNA is doing well. The product needs a bit of polishing the future outlook is bright.

I can't stand to watch WWE, too much talking/showmanship not enough wrestling.

 

[darwinbuena]

Although they're not on the same level as WWE, TNA has become known worldwide. They should not try to compete and focus more in developing their product.

I believe Brother Love can help improve the Impact Wrestling show.

 

[Dowdsy McDowds]

It has been 10 years since TNA was formed in 2002 and where is the company? what kind of ratings do they get? In 0s and 1s.I am as much of a TNA fan as I am a WWE fan and I know competition is good for both companies and wrestling fans as we will get a better wrestling product.

WCW Nitro was formed in 1995 and in 6 years they became a legit competition for WWF/WWE. WCW even became the No.1 Wrestling Company and beat WWF in the ratings for 84 weeks. What is TNA doing? They are where they started. Getting ratings in 0s and 1s isn't success all they get is negative feedback and the same fans defending them? Their fanbase stays kind of constant.

It's been said before and it'll be said again; the difference between WCW v WWF and TNA v WWE is that a lot has changed in the time inbetween. In the 90s, wrestling was riding another boom period and there were far less channels on television to divvy up the ratings. The internet wasn't a big factor back then either as nowadays you can google 'stream TNA/WWE' and get a lot of results that again take away from the TV ratings.

WCW had a large bankroll behind it as well as the owner's television channel. When people like Nash and Hall jumped, it was seen as moving sideways, or perhaps even a step up compared to the stigma that ex-WWE guys are lumped with for moving to TNA now.

As far as the fanbases are concerned, WWE has one important thing in it's favour; history and tradition. Casual people recognise the brand of the company (even if some still refer to it as WWF which indicates how big that boom period was of the 90s) because of how long it's been around and it's mainstream exposures. TNA does not have that recognition as it missed the boom period, and just isn't quite in the mainstream despite some of the big names connected with them.

Maybe its time for TNA to stop listening to the nerds who want X-Divisions guys and "TNA Originals" to be the the "Top Guys" and bring in some new guys whom people will notice and take seriously... Its time for TNA to grow and do something cutting edge in order to be a competiton for WWE. 10 years is a lot of time for a company to grow and make a name for themselves.

The thing is, you can't just 'magic in' some new guys who will be instant hits and suddenly take TNA to the mainstream. The older guys are recognised names though not quite in their primes anymore, so if you get rid of them and their history, what are you left with? Johnny Newface V Jimmy Green up and down the card. Why would the audience care about seeing that kinda match 5 times in one night in a company that's trying to get on par with WWE?

TNA have been trying to get some fresh blood in and are using their veterans to try and pass on experience and get them over. It all takes time though, and there's no great urgency to hotshot kids to the top of the roster; like you said, they have a steady fanbase.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Your signature is the best part of this thread so far...

What is your definition of success? In my opinion, having multiple millions of people watch your product on a weekly basis is pretty successful, considering they're not on a major network and their product is extremely tunneled into a certain demographic.

It's not fair to be sighting ratings all the time if you don't actually know what they mean, or can accurately compare them up against other shows in similar time slots with similar target demographics. That's the biggest problem with sites like Wrestlezone (and I say that knowing I have posted them on the site myself) making rating info public. People really don't know what it means, and make wild statements without understand the complexities of a system that has been meticulously developed over the last few decades.

TNA is a successful company. Not only have they seen a realistic increase in ratings since their inception, but they just started building into new territories that will help them expand. They are traveling more and doing live shows, which is a great start. Remember, just a few years ago they switched to a 2-hour format! They brought on David Lagana to develop new programs outside of Impact, so there's a sign that they're doing pretty well...

You need to stop comparing them to the WWE. The McMahon family has been at this for almost 60 years, and they've built a global dynasty! They're a globally traded company, and they do almost monthly tours in other countries... It is ridiculous to expect that in a single decade TNA would be catching up, or making a stab at the biggest wrestling company in the world. Go ahead and make your WCW comparisons, but remember the money, talent, and public interest they had behind them, not to mention the help of a major television network.

Let me put something in perspective for you... Since wrestling got huge WWE has had the "Golden Age" of Hulkamania and Macho Madness. They had the Bret Hart/Shawn Michaels age. WCW and the Attitude Era. The time period that followed, and the resulting PG CeNation era. Now, TNA has had just about enough time to have a SINGLE era.... THe problem is, the first one was their starting phase when they tried to gather followers and turn into a real, noticeable promotion. They succeeded. I'd say MAYBE they're in their second real era right now, although it's still unfair to demand anything from them at this point.

Take a chill pill, get some perspective, and let TNA be TNA. I really don't care about "competition", I just want a SINGLE solid wrestling product to watch...

 

[SpecialFNK]

it might not have been long for WCW Nitro to get the ratings, but WCW itself was around for a long time. it was NWA before it became WCW.
at the time when WCW had it's main success was IMO once in a lifetime thing. you took one of the biggest names in wrestling history who had been the top face his entire career(other than AWA) and turned him heel. Hulk Hogan. that was a shocking thing to happen. so many wrestlers turn heel/face now that it's not really shocking when it happens anymore.
at the time when Hogan and the likes of Savage/Flair/Sting/Luger/ect where in WCW it wasn't then on the level of WWF. it took something big/new to happen to grab viewers.
I don't know if there is a wrestler out there today who could have the same impact. I'm not even sure someone like John Cena could help grab viewers.

I think it's unfortunate TNA gets compared to the name that is WWE, and ratings are what is used to make that comparison. that's unfair because that's not a real judge of what both companies are doing. there are many viewers of WWE who have watched their entire lifetime, so it's real easy to keep watching regardless of the quality of the product.

 

[Lancer]

it was NWA before it became WCW.

Well said. WCW already had an established fan base from the NWA era. With such NWA mainstays as Ric Flair, the 4 Horsemen, the Funks, and others maintaining a hold on that fan base....and the new additions of former WWE superstars like Nash, Hall, Luger, Savage, and of course Hogan...it was hard not to tune in and watch WCW (on an established network, nonetheless). It's surprising they even took six or so years to beat WWE in the ratings.

TNA, on the other hand, pretty much started from scratch...with a collection of indy stars, and former WCW midcarders and cruiserweights. You had to have that obscure PPV channel they aired their weekly PPVs on. Now they have some big names, some "TNA originals" and some from other areas...and they're on a mid-level network that reaches millions of people, and Spike loves having TNA on their channel. They are doing well at the present time, considering where they started.

Plus, there are other factors. With WWE's 90-day no compete clause and the rise of the internet, a wrestler "jumping ship" from WWE to TNA is not as shocking and unexpected as it was then. You could argue that their pockets are not deep enough, or that their marketing department sucks, etc. etc.

It all depends on what your definition of success is. Everyone seems to think that competing with and possibly beating WWE in the ratings is success. Well, they tried that and they failed. I think TNA management learned from that, and now they are focusing on establishing homegrown stars and touring Impact more and more. Perhaps they are going with the slow build. It's not fast enough for some, but they are making money and taking their product to whomever wants to see it. That's success of another form and that's good enough.

 

[Azane]

TNAs set goal on Jan 4 2010 was to compete with WWE, they had a Monday time slot, went head to head, and had an amazing Asylum match that pretty much set the tone for this goal. I liked the live feed because they didn't bleep the crowd.

They've blew their bankroll on hiring LEGENDS, LEEEEEGENDS. Hulk Freaking Hogan! But that hasn't raised their stock at all, at least not in comparison to his contract. The people telling them to keep pushing originals, and to try and reignite the x-division? those are the people still watching. You want to succeed in the market of people watching your show.

TNA is doing great, doing good, making money, and making a name. They've succeeded at everything that doesn't involve competing with Vince. They've stopped making references to WWE, they've quit saying "That other company" they've quit saying things that make me want to watch RAW, so in my eyes, they're succeeding right now.

If you want Success to be an overnight billionaire company, well Ted Turner isn't backing TNA, so I guess they're doomed to failure in your eyes.

 

[rokuma]

WCW Nitro was formed in 1995 and in 6 years they became a legit competition for WWF/WWE.

WCW was around a lot longer than 1995. They were originally part of the NWA and separated off into World Championship Wrestling. Remember, WCW was NOT well recognized before 1994 when Hulk Hogan came aboard. He gave them some notoriety, but they only boomed with the NWO angle. Also, in 6 years, WCW was finished and they were drawing 2.0's in arguably the biggest time period in wrestling. I think if you compare to those to the 1.0's TNA is getting in this time period (less fans, less popular as evidenced by WWE's 3.0's every week)...TNA is doing fairly well.

These things take time. We all know the creative disasters TNA has had and drawing in old WWE guys or legends past their prime to build their company, but overall I enjoy their product moreso than the WWE product. IMO the matches are higher quality, but they spend too much time talking and not enough time wrestling. If they went with the WCW formula of 1996 and utilized their undercard talent (X division mostly) and stop with all the long, drawn-out talking segments, guys would get more over and they would consistently put on better shows than WWE IMO. Overall though, I think TNA is a good position and are just waiting to take that next step.

 

[obamartins]

WCW was originally Jim Crockett Promotions which was founded in 1931...JCP in the 1980's either through purchase or working agreements gained control of Ole Anderson's CWG, St. Louis Wrestling Club, Heart of America Sports Attractions (Bob Geigel's Central States brand), Championship Wrestling from Florida and Bill Watts's Mid-South/UWF.

In November 1988 Ted Turner bought JCP & renmamed it WCW.

WCW was simply a TV show they created in 1995. WCW all ready had a very loyal audience, resources & the talent to compete with WWF even before they created Nitro.

In 2002...TNA started a wrestling promotion from scratch.

For the record TNA is a success look how far it has come not just domestically but internationally since the weekly PPV which attracted less then 10 thousand people to watch & buy & where it was a very real danger that they could go out of business.

Why in order for TNA to be a success does it have to beat WWE in ratings?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

As has been mentioned, this all depends on what your definition of "success" entails.

Apparently being the #1 rated show with roughly 2 million or more dedicated viewers every week on your nationally telecasted US broadcasting station is failure...

If you are simply defining success as being able to "compete" with WWE, you have a lot to learn about the evolution of the business since those days.

1. TNA is not an open-ended checkbook the way WCW was. The reason WCW was such an overnight succcess (of sorts) was because that checkbook was opened and used as a means to lure numerous WWF superstars over, starting with Hulk Hogan. It was the familiarity of those stars that gained them such an "immediate" impact.

2. We live in the era of the "90-Day No Compete Clause", a clause set up specifically to counter the tactic WCW used in the first place to lure ex-talents away from the company. Talents can still leave, but because most (if not all) are required to fulfill the clause that was likely included in their contract that prevents them from showing face on a nationally broadcast/televised wrestling promotion for 90 days following their release. In the business, 90 days is more than enough to kill most of if not all of the momentum and buzz around whether or not X wrestler will now join Y company.

3. Wrestling is not nearly as popular now as it was then. Even the WWE struggles to maintain consistent ratings and only see's spikes for major game-changing events, same as TNA.

 

[Lowdown]

TNA is doing better than it did in its early years, back when it was weekly PPV. Again it depends on how on looks at what a success is. It can always imrpove of course, but TNA didn't exactly crash and burn like other wrestling promotions down through the years. Times change and with that people's interests. Wrestling IMO wasn't all that spectacular on the whole in the early 90's (there were bright spots with Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels, etc), but it became the hot ticket when the Monday Night Wars hit its fever pitch in the latter part of the decade. My point is that TNA might not be the greatest form of entertainment to some, they're still making money with house shows, TV, and PPV's. That in itself says its a moderate success. The business is constantly changing, but if the heads of TNA are smart, they can avoid some of the mistakes that WCW made towards the end of their run.

 

[marklouis]

This question is ridiculous, because TNA is a success. They've gone from weekly PPVs to a syndicated TV show to a weekly TV show on cable network most people with cable get. They have also been able to attract talent well known to wrestling fans-Kurt Angle, Jeff Hardy, Sting, Ric Flair, & possibly the most famous wrestler in history, Hulk Hogan. TNA is becoming well known in international markets, & they actually get better ratings in the UK than WWE. And as for their ratings here, they get over 1 million viewers for each episode of Impact. That is a number that many cable networks would love to have.

The problem is that people compare TNA to WWE or WCW in its heyday. WWE has been around for how long? They are a well-established brand in the wrestling and television industries, & no matter how bad the product is, they will get a minimum number of viewers. And, as others said, WCW had a billionaire bankrolling them, & that billionaire also happened to own the TV channels WCW appeared on. Just because TNA doesn't fit your definition of success doesn't mean they aren't successful. Maybe your standards are unreasonable.

 

[Davi323]

I don't post in the TNA section very often, as I do not care for TNA very much...however IDR is absolutely correct. It really all depends on how you define success. Is Pepsi not successful because lags behind Coca Cola in global sales? Are Burger King and Wendy's not successful businesses because there are more McDonalds out there?

IF the only measure to judge TNA was how it relates to the WWE ratings wise, then no, it probably will not ever be "successful". But if you measure it by the fact that's still around, that it's in the black financially, they have a loyal fanbase, etc. then they are already successful. Just because you lack the resources to be #1 doesn't make you a failure.

If TNA is viewed only as competition to the WWE, it fails. If TNA is viewed as a standalone wrestling company regardless of comparisons to the WWE, it is a success.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Who is to say that TNA hasn't succeeded? Looking at things from a realistic and business like pespective, TNA has been a success.

If you measure the success of a wrestling company as it compares to the WWE in terms of audience size, money generated and overall brand recognition; then TNA has failed. But, the thing is, you have to look at what TNA has accomplished to see that it's successful.

TNA is the only other wrestling company in the United States to have a television deal that broadcasts their program to a nationwide audience on a major cable network. TNA is obviously generating revenue from their live shows, ppvs & merchendise to keep things running. TNA also has a hardcore audience that watches their stuff every week. Most of the time, TNA draws anywhere from 1.4 to 1.6 million viewers in the United States. Not breaking any viewership records, but it shows that they've got people out there that prefer to watch what they've got instead of anything else on Thursdays from 9 to 11 pm.

It's true that TNA isn't WCW. WCW already had a massive wrestling legacy built into it right from the beginning. Ted Turner bought Jim Crockett Promotions in November 1988. Before that, Jim Crockett, Jr. had been expanding his own territory for several years in an attempt to compete with Vince McMahon. Like Vince, Crockett had bought out other wrestling companies, including their tape libraries. He had the libraries from Bob Geigel's Central States Wrestling, Eddie Graham's Championship Wrestling from Florida, Georgia Championship Wrestling and some others. When Turner took over the company, it already had a large fanbase built in that'd been watching for a very long time. TNA has started directly from scratch and during a time when it's considerably harder for a wrestling company to get over with a national audience.

Will TNA ever succeed in terms of being as large as WWE? In my opinion, probably not. If it does, I'll probably be several decades past my prime. Even if they don't get that big, as long as they keep making money and keep pulling in the same number of viewers, then they'll probably have a presence on television. So the fact that TNA is where they're at can be looked at as a success.

 

[TheGreatLegend]

No No No You guys don't Understand what I was saying in my original post.Since 2002 TNA wanted to challenge WWE,they wanted to compete with WWE as they have shown time and time again.TNA wants to be the No.1 Wrestling company even if its for a short time,thats why they keep trying to start another Monday Night War with WWE but fail. I was referring to them being "Successful" in that.

 

[xavyer]

Well,if TNA is a success or not it's debatible depending on people standards, ok, so they had a rocky start when Jeff Jarret was in charge when he only hired people to job for him so he could always be the champion, because let's face it, that's the only way he could actually be the champion, the smart thing that he did was to let someone else run things, that's a step in the right direction, after that the company started to grow and bring more viewers, but the thing about TNA is like a lot of you said,WCW was owned by a millionaire that owns that tv station, not to mention the Atlanta Braves, so that guy had the money to compete with McMahon,and like someone said, had the money to bring guys like Hogan and the Macho Man,at this moment TNA has not, ok,they brought Hogan and Flair, that's another step in the right direction, but all those guys bring to the table right now is the names, let's face it, Hogan and Flair are way past their primes, Hogan was still big in the early 90's with WCW, what TNA needs to do is bring guys that are big names now not in the 80's, they need to push talent that they have now, bring big names of today and create talent to grow with TNA, they always struggle with writters and creative people, what they need to do is bring someone like Paul Heyman, creative,innovator and cutting edge like him, give him time to develop characters,feuds and storylines that make sense and i guaranty that TNA will get better every week, and that way they won't depend on the Hogan/Flair/Sting ride, TNA will only depend on TNA........

 

[Mr. Wrestling 513]

TGL, to simply answer you...it remains to be seen. They have made strides recently to move to a better product, and stop looking like a WCW retirement home. As far as competing with WWE on a regular basis, I think they can, but only if they continue to push the originals they have (eg. Storm/Roode/Styles/S.Joe) and move to more fully developed storylines. For example, the way the BFG Roode/Angle/Storm thing was handled seemed to be very haphazard, but this was due to injury. They need to find ways to make changes on the fly and continue to follow their storylines without having to say, "Now Storm is the #1 contender, no...now AJ is the #1 contender". If you give people something they can follow, with competitors that can wrestle, and work the mic, they stick with the product. When you get away from that (David Arquette holding the WCW huge gold belt for a while = Ronnie from Jersey Shore) and start going off the rails, people lose interest.

Do I think TNA will ever be producing movies, and Ice Cream bars? Not sure, do I think they can provide a wrestling product that can compete with WWE's...yes I do.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

No No No You guys don't Understand what I was saying in my original post.Since 2002 TNA wanted to challenge WWE,they wanted to compete with WWE as they have shown time and time again.TNA wants to be the No.1 Wrestling company even if its for a short time,thats why they keep trying to start another Monday Night War with WWE but fail. I was referring to them being "Successful" in that.

OK, well congratulations on pointing out the obvious. They failed to successfully usurp WWE as the largest wrestling promotion in the US/World.

What would you like for this crowning achievement, a cookie?

Success was probably the wrong term to use here, or at the very least your OP wasn't worded as well as it should have been to direct the discussion to focus primarily on whether or not TNA would ever actually make good on their promise to be the #1 company. Problem is, you asked a generic question like "Will TNA Ever Succeed?", which despite your OP remarks, guides users to question the concept of success since you don't define it well enough.

The real question you should have asked was "Will TNA Ever Be the #1 Company?"

 

[TUFFY54]

1. TNA is not an open-ended checkbook the way WCW was. The reason WCW was such an overnight succcess (of sorts) was because that checkbook was opened and used as a means to lure numerous WWF superstars over, starting with Hulk Hogan. It was the familiarity of those stars that gained them such an "immediate" impact.

2. We live in the era of the "90-Day No Compete Clause", a clause set up specifically to counter the tactic WCW used in the first place to lure ex-talents away from the company. Talents can still leave, but because most (if not all) are required to fulfill the clause that was likely included in their contract that prevents them from showing face on a nationally broadcast/televised wrestling promotion for 90 days following their release. In the business, 90 days is more than enough to kill most of if not all of the momentum and buzz around whether or not X wrestler will now join Y company.

I have to disagree with your first point. People want to look at TNA as this little company trying to compete with the monster that is the WWE. Everyone likes to point out that WCW had Ted Turner. TNA has Bob Carter. TNA is a subsidy of Panda Energy just like WCW was a subsidy of Turners company. Bottom line: Bob Carter is richer than Vince McMahon. McMahons wealth is estimated at 400-600 million. Bob Carter, the ultimate owner of TNA, is a BILLIONAIRE. In addition to Carters vast fortune, Spike TV also helps pay the contracts of top stars like Hogan, Angle, and Sting.

Your second point is dead on. The 90 day clauses and internet have hurt wrestling more than anything else. The most exciting thing about the Monday Night Wars was knowing that anything can happen. A top star would be on Nitro one week and Raw the next, and vice versa. It really made wrestling must see.

TNA seems like they have all the pieces to a puzzle and they cant figure out how to put them together. However, they are getting a little better. Taking shows on the road is a great start, and will get a lot better if they ever go live.

I want to call TNA a success, but events like Bound for Glory make it look like a total failure. BFG is their Wrestlemania. Mania gets 1 million PPV buys, BFG got an estimated 20-30 thousand. Mania sells 60 thousand tickets, BFG sold about 3000. This simply doesn't make sense when you look at their ratings. TNA gets about a quarter of RAWs ratings. Usually around a 1.0 compared to Raws 4.0 on a good night. This comes out to around 1.5 million viewers compared to RAWS 4-5 million. Seeing as how they have a quarter of the fans, BFG should of had at LEAST 200 thousand buys. Theres no excuse for them not being able to sell 8-10 thousand tickets for their biggest PPV of the year.

I think it all comes down to fans. TNA fans typically believe themselves to be much more rabid than WWE fans. In a sense they probably are. I'd say a much larger percentage of TNA fans are on the dirt sheets and chat rooms talking about backstage issues and ratings than WWE fans. However, these fans are horrible for a wrestling company. How many TNA fans on these forums actually pay for PPV's instead of streaming them? How many buy toys and dvds? I'm guessing not a whole hell of a lot. TNA likes to cater to the older internet fans. These people CAN NOT help you build your company into a juggernaut like the WWE. I'm a WWE fan and guilty of it too. I don't order many PPVs and never buy toys or other merch. Im usually only good for DVDs. However, the WWE has millions of kids that buy everything with John Cena's face on it. They make more money off shirts, toys, and video games than they ever could on ticket sales. Hell, their shows are a commercial for their products. Thats how you become a billion dollar company.

In the basic sense of the word, TNA is probably successful. However, they are nothing compared to what they should be.

 

[SMKM]

It is entirely possible for TNA to succeed, they just have to stop with all their BS. They need to start traveling a little more. I realize their budget isnt the best, and it's hard for them to really draw crowds, but no one said they need to draw crowds as big as WWE. As for comparisons with WCW, you gotta remember, WCW had been around since 1988, back when everyone and their mother watched wrestling. And they were being backed by the NWA,so they already had support, then they went out on their own and well the rest is history. TNA on the other hand hasnt really had major support. But in 10 years time, even with ratings as abysmal as they have, I would say they have had some success, but not the kind they should have. So can TNA be successful? Yes, but not anytime soon if they keep the company direction the way its been going, but with Roode as their champion and the deal with OVW, hopefully things will start turning around for the good.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

I have to disagree with your first point. People want to look at TNA as this little company trying to compete with the monster that is the WWE. Everyone likes to point out that WCW had Ted Turner. TNA has Bob Carter. TNA is a subsidy of Panda Energy just like WCW was a subsidy of Turners company. Bottom line: Bob Carter is richer than Vince McMahon. McMahons wealth is estimated at 400-600 million. Bob Carter, the ultimate owner of TNA, is a BILLIONAIRE. In addition to Carters vast fortune, Spike TV also helps pay the contracts of top stars like Hogan, Angle, and Sting.

It doesn't matter. There has been no indication that Carter is open to spending millions and millions on attracting free agents (not that he could, anyway, with the 90-day no compete clause playing such a huge role now), so my point still stands. TNA in all likelihood does not have an open check book, which means they likely still have to be fiscally responsible and because of that they can't be compared to WCW.

I want to call TNA a success, but events like Bound for Glory make it look like a total failure. BFG is their Wrestlemania. Mania gets 1 million PPV buys, BFG got an estimated 20-30 thousand. Mania sells 60 thousand tickets, BFG sold about 3000. This simply doesn't make sense when you look at their ratings. TNA gets about a quarter of RAWs ratings. Usually around a 1.0 compared to Raws 4.0 on a good night. This comes out to around 1.5 million viewers compared to RAWS 4-5 million. Seeing as how they have a quarter of the fans, BFG should of had at LEAST 200 thousand buys. Theres no excuse for them not being able to sell 8-10 thousand tickets for their biggest PPV of the year.

Again, this is all determined on what you define "success" as. You are using specific examples, like PPV events and trying to determine whether or not a company is a success because of it. I'm not even going to touch on the report of ticket sales, because as it's been noted a hundred times here, TNA is a privately owned company that do not share financial information with the public, so at best every report of ticket sales, PPV buys, etc. are conjecture. Nothing more.

 

[ABMorales787]

It is entirely possible for TNA to succeed, they just have to stop with all their BS.

As in...?

They need to start traveling a little more. I realize their budget isnt the best, and it's hard for them to really draw crowds, but no one said they need to draw crowds as big as WWE.

They can't help being under contract with Universal Studios and going for something more economic.

As for comparisons with WCW, you gotta remember, WCW had been around since 1988, back when everyone and their mother watched wrestling. And they were being backed by the NWA,so they already had support, then they went out on their own and well the rest is history.

Umm... TNA did the same exact thing. Right down to the NWA support. I think you forgot Ted Turner though.

TNA on the other hand hasnt really had major support.

Nope. Only worldwide support. They need to tap into the cosmic source now.

But in 10 years time, even with ratings as abysmal as they have,

You clearly don't grasp how the ratings system works, do you?

I would say they have had some success, but not the kind they should have.

WCW had the backing of one of the wealthiest TV companies in the world, ECW didn't. By comparison to ECW, which was also born of NWA support and cult fanbase, TNA has far surpassed ECW. It has 2 more years than ECW did. For a company that was built from the ground up, they've done a hell of a lot more than ECW or ROH have ever come close to reaching. So I'm sure "some success" is inaccurate.

So can TNA be successful? Yes, but not anytime soon if they keep the company direction the way its been going, but with Roode as their champion and the deal with OVW, hopefully things will start turning around for the good.

No it won't. Because things are already going great. You might wanna rethink your analysis because I see no reason why TNA isn't a major success already.