Will TNA Ever Succeed?

[He's Phenomenal]

A lot has been covered here and the OP has now cleared up what he meant, so no I don't think TNA will ever likely beat WWE in the US ratings. But as for are they a success? Without a doubt. If you asked Jeff Jarrett (10 years ago) where he'd hope to see TNA in 10 years, I'm betting his answer would've been "still in business". Why does TNA's success always have to be compared to WWE's? Shouldn't we be comparing TNA's success to ROH's given they started at roughly the same time? In that comparision (a more credible one) TNA are a resounding success.

Success as a wrestling promotion is not all about getting higher numbers than WWE on some Neilson rating thing. With the WWE being around for over half century, I'd assume success for any other wrestling promotion is most likely being the 2nd biggest wrestling promotion in the World. Which is exactly what TNA are.

 

[thebrownmenace]

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.

This comment is spot on. If TNA is focusing on satisfying the IWC and the smarks, then they will NEVER become the #1 company. Even if most of these numbers related to PPV buys and ticket sales are conjectures, I would be hard pressed to believe that Bound for Glory got more than 40,000 PPV buys. I am not saying that more people did not watch the event, but streaming the PPVs is not doing TNA any favors. If all of the devoted TNA supporters who pounce at the opportunity to debate the quality of their product actually PAID for the events and BOUGHT merchandise, then TNA would be on a completely different level at the moment.

I agree with It's Damn Real!'s when he says that it is not fair to compare TNA to WCW. They are two completely different circumstances. In fact, I think TNA is much more similar to ECW. Heyman was not willing to change his product in order to attract more fans and his business ended up going belly-up due to poor business decisions.

TNA has the TALENT. People like Bobby Roode, James Storm, Crimson, and AJ Styles could be even bigger stars if Dixie Carter figured out how to use the veterans and former WWE stars in order to propel their homegrown talent. Sometimes it seems like they are heading towards the right direction, but they have yet to actually reach their destination. Ego, money, and politics have to be put aside in order to get the company to grow.

I love that the TNA fans on the forums are so passionate about what they watch on Spike every week. Unfortunately, wrestling companies do not simply run on passion alone; they need people to open their wallets to buy tickets and PPVs. I can sit through an episode of impact because I enjoy what their performers do in the ring, but I will not willingly spend money to watch the same action on a PPV.

The same goes to the WWE. Up until around 2004, I was willing to buy PPVs regularly because I still enjoyed most of the story-lines. Today, feuds are sometimes teased and then forgotten altogether. People get over, not because of what they do in the ring, but because they spend their off days doing autograph signings and connecting with fans on twitter. As a result, the product's quality has gone down.

Wrestling should always come first. Story is a necessity, but that does not mean that a show should ever have more promo time than in-ring action. True pro-wrestlers like Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Shawn Michaels, Sting, Undertaker, Stone Cold, The Rock, Ric Rude, Ricky Steamboat, Macho Man etc., knew how to build stories inside the squared-circle and with a mic. Guys like the Miz and Otunga just don't cut it in the ring, and people like Jeff Hardy and John Morrison were unable to develop any kind of talent on the mic. If TNA ever figures out how to build and push complete talents in feuds that build-up to an awesome PPV(unlike what they did with Roode/Storm), then they will be able to succeed.

 

[geroge86]

TNA is successful however it is not WWE successful. They have a decent product which yeah it can improve but then again WWE could improve on certain things as well. My overall feeling is TNA needs an official posterboy. I know people automatically assume AJ Styles is that but he's not he's in and out of the picture too frequently. They could use someone like John Cena or Miz which is someone who's in the picture even when they're injured or filming a movie or whatever. Someone who's always associated with TNA. Jeff Hardy doesn't count because he was in WWE and Sting was in WCW and so on. They need an original for that particular spot who can make them more of a household name than it currently is. Interesting enough John Cena,Randy Orton,The Miz all came from OVW and now that OVW is TNA's development territory we could see someone like that down the road. I know Miz started in The Real World but his WWE career has overshadowed that and since he always promotes WWE that helps and that's what TNA could benefit from is someone like that who's the focus of the company even when they're injured or inactive who constantly promotes them as well as being an original.

 

[JJYanks121]

What is success?

I'll keep this post simple. TNA is successful at this point, but for them to be content with where they are at would make them a failure.

In any business, you should never rest on your laurels. Just because this company has grown from weekly PPVs to a 2 hour brand that tours the world does not mean they have accomplished all they want to accomplish. They've come a long way, but in no way should anyone associated with the company be sitting there saying "f the haters, we are successful!" No doubt they are sitting there trying to figure out the next way to improve themselves which is why you see hirings like Dave Lagana as stated before. There are many untapped avenues still out there and this company still needs to work at that.

As far as a television show goes, I do think they'd like to build their audience more. Despite IDR's lie (love ya buddy, but you did lie), TNA averages between 1.5-1.7 million viewers each week. That's pretty good all things considered, but should they be content? Heck no! Why not continue to try and build? I believe this is a goal for them, and as such, also build towards generating revenue through PPV buys and merchandising. Also, if they can sustain it, live shows would generate a live gate and could help the company generate more money as well. These are all things on the horizon and are NOT some pipe dreams that can never happen. They can provided the right decisions are made by the right people.

The bottom line is that yes, the company is doing just fine and to call them a failure would be short sighted. However, to say that they are an absolute success and should bask in that success would be wrong too. I'm not saying they'll ever overtake WWE in anything, nor does the company that I have no mentioned until that moment mean anything. All I'm saying is that the company should never be content and should always be looking to continue to grow. After all, that's what any great business would do.

 

[Lancer]

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.

Well obviously, as has been stated several times, TNA has failed in trying to compete with the WWE. If you were watching wrestling and paying attention to ratings in early 2010, it would be pretty easy to say that they...wait for it...FAILED. That's the end of the thread in that respect.

thats why they keep trying to start another Monday Night War with WWE but fail.

Now, as has also been stated, it appears that TNA has learned from that mistake last year, and are concentrating on themselves...building homegrown talent, taking Impact on the road, and stopping all references to WWE and competition with them at any level. Perhaps you meant to type "kept" instead of "keep" there, because I cannot recall any other attempts to battle the WWE since January 2010...and that was still just one attempt.

Now will TNA ever succeed? Perhaps in the future, but they must maintain a solid fan base and market their product more effectively to do so. Only time will tell, no one can predict when, but I think they're content where they're at for now.

 

[Dizzy]

This comment is spot on. If TNA is focusing on satisfying the IWC and the smarks, then they will NEVER become the #1 company.

That's more ROH than TNA. TNA does not focs on smarks but they are way more adult smarks that watch than casual adult fans, kids, families that watch which is why they don't draw high ratings consistently.

Despite what Neilson ratings data says TNA draws 2 million viewers per week. They draw the percentage Neilson records which is usually 1.6 million and the other percentage comes from DVR ratings which adds up.

Unfortunately, until smarks gets their heads out of their know it all asses, TNA will never see the numbers WWE does at it's worst because nobody wants to see TNA succeed besides a few real reasonable fans.

Even if most of these numbers related to PPV buys and ticket sales are conjectures, I would be hard pressed to believe that Bound for Glory got more than 40,000 PPV buys. I am not saying that more people did not watch the event, but streaming the PPVs is not doing TNA any favors. If all of the devoted TNA supporters who pounce at the opportunity to debate the quality of their product actually PAID for the events and BOUGHT merchandise, then TNA would be on a completely different level at the moment.

Don't believe in dirtsheets. TNA HAS to get a certain number of buyrates or else, no PPV networks would air their shows. TNA pays these networks 500,000 to air PPVs. How would it be possible to spend that money each month and year only to get back 10,000 or 20,000 buyrates? Makes no sense.

There is a form of business that networks and companies do that refutes all the reports these so called dirtsheets right and they will never tell you.

In order for TNA to get consistent time with PPVs they must draw atleast 80,000. Which is why ROH, Dragon Gate hardly air PPVs on TV.

I agree with It's Damn Real!'s when he says that it is not fair to compare TNA to WCW. They are two completely different circumstances. In fact, I think TNA is much more similar to ECW. Heyman was not willing to change his product in order to attract more fans and his business ended up going belly-up due to poor business decisions.

THANK YOU. And Heyman is the same idiot people want hired to save the company...while their doing everything he said he would ? Makes no damn sense.

Also, ECW used the Hammerstein Ballroom. No problem. TNA uses the Impact Zone and it's a problem? Again, the logic is flawed and bias no matter what towards TNA in the eyes of most good or bad.

TNA has the TALENT. People like Bobby Roode, James Storm, Crimson, and AJ Styles could be even bigger stars if Dixie Carter figured out how to use the veterans and former WWE stars in order to propel their homegrown talent. Sometimes it seems like they are heading towards the right direction, but they have yet to actually reach their destination. Ego, money, and politics have to be put aside in order to get the company to grow.

Hogan, Flair, RVD, Bischoff, Sting taking a backseat certainly shows that. They aren't evil like most think they are.

TNA has been outstanding since BFG. Fresher faces is helping and the older guys taking a backseat is certainly something that SHOULD help generate interest.

I love that the TNA fans on the forums are so passionate about what they watch on Spike every week. Unfortunately, wrestling companies do not simply run on passion alone; they need people to open their wallets to buy tickets and PPVs. I can sit through an episode of impact because I enjoy what their performers do in the ring, but I will not willingly spend money to watch the same action on a PPV.

But let's be honest, some and most of those fans are buying iPPVs and WWE PPVs. The excuse is always "tna never has enjoyable ppvs" but the next PPV could be enjoyable but that isn't enough for that person to buy the next one.

How many people will buy Final Resolution despite having the best wrestling card this year?

The same goes to the WWE. Up until around 2004, I was willing to buy PPVs regularly because I still enjoyed most of the story-lines. Today, feuds are sometimes teased and then forgotten altogether. People get over, not because of what they do in the ring, but because they spend their off days doing autograph signings and connecting with fans on twitter. As a result, the product's quality has gone down.

The amazing thing is despite that, people STILL watch a extremely flawed product, still buy PPVs and still buy merchandise and WWE's only interesting angle doesn't revolve around their actual stars. Instead, it revolves around Rock and guys who should be retired.

Most fans TNA included, would watch that and support their own opinions or complains about what TNA did years ago.

Wrestling should always come first. Story is a necessity, but that does not mean that a show should ever have more promo time than in-ring action. True pro-wrestlers like Bret Hart, Mr. Perfect, Shawn Michaels, Sting, Undertaker, Stone Cold, The Rock, Ric Rude, Ricky Steamboat, Macho Man etc., knew how to build stories inside the squared-circle and with a mic. Guys like the Miz and Otunga just don't cut it in the ring, and people like Jeff Hardy and John Morrison were unable to develop any kind of talent on the mic. If TNA ever figures out how to build and push complete talents in feuds that build-up to an awesome PPV(unlike what they did with Roode/Storm), then they will be able to succeed.

I'd say they built Austin Aries extremely well besides Roode/Storm actually. Crimson as well but that's debatable.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

To be fair what do you OP constitute as success?

If you look at the big picture (and not just compare them to WWE) I would say TNA has been overwhelmingly successful.

It started over 9 years ago and now has monthly PPV's, a 2 hour timeslot on Spike TV (which reaches a lot of markets) and is considered the #2 wrestling company in North America, I would say when you look at the big picture they are VERY successful.

Sure, they aren't the juggernaut like the WWE is and sure they probably could be doing better but in all fairness everyone could be doing better, WWE sure as shit could be doing better than they are right now. I would say WWE's programming sucks quite a bit right now but you wouldn't consider them a failure would you?

I don't know how much money TNA makes a year, they are a private company and I have no clue what those numbers are, but I do know that outside WWE no wrestling company gets as much exposure and if TNA makes a few more good business decisions they could very well reach the WWE soon, all it takes is 1 big star pushed right or 1 big angle pushed right and TNA can overtake the WWE. WCW was only a 25 million dollar (that was losing millions) company when bischoff took over, 2 years later it was a 350 million dollar company (that was making multi millions).

TNA has all the tools in place, have made some great decisions, have exposure, have talent and do fairly well for themselves (even with 15,000 buys it only takes about 5,000 to cover your expenses for the night) and have grown tremendously in 9 years, I would say they are successful. You may not like their programming but they should get credit where credit is due.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Of course TNA will succeed. In fact, it is already successful. The problem with an assessment of this nature is that fans often equate success with being on even footing with WWE, and that's neither realistic nor achievable.

TNA has gone from being a PPV only fringe company, a glorified indy promotion, to the clear number two promotion in terms of professional wrestling. While the gap between them and #1 is huge and will never be fully closed, based upon what I have seen and heard of ROH, there's an equally huge gap between them and #3. They have expanded from one hour to two. They have stabilized their ratings, albeit a a fraction of what WWE achieves. They are beginning to branch more and more beyond the confines of the iMPACT Zone. By all acounts, they are operating in the black. And for the first time in quite some time, they are beginning to move in the right direction with their story lines and angles, pushing homegrown guys and more youthful talent over a constant inundation of nostalgia and recycled veterans from elsewhere.

TNA provides a plausible alternative to, or supplement to, the WWE. Are they a threat to them? God no. Will they ever be? I wouldn't bet the house on it. Is Vince trembling in his shoes over a reincarnation of the Monday Night Wars? Absolutely not. But none of this means that TNA is not successful. Much like the analogy I frequently draw in pro football, whereby WWE is like the NFL and TNA is like the CFL, there is room for both to succeed, with both being profitable organizations with a rabid and loyal fan base. Will the CFL ever compete with the NFL? Of course not, it would be ludicrous to suggest they could, but the CFL is still a successful league. As long as TNA and their fans remain grounded and keep their expectations realistic, they will continue to be a steady and successful organization. Clearly second place, but successful nonetheless.

 

[Flip36]

i've been watching TNA since day one, thinking and maybe hoping it succeeds. I'd like to look back 30 years from now and know that I witnessed the birth of TNA, to whatever it may be in the year 2042. Is that weird?

 

[Psykohurricane55]

Will TNA Ever Succeed? That'S the questions that every loyal TNA fans have been asking since day 1.

I've been watching TNA since the very beginning but i stop watching them back in 2010 when the product was becoming unwatchable. The fact is that for the longest time, TNA had the right formula to be a true competition to WWE. They were doing wrestling and ratings were pretty good, buyrates were really good and they had a real good shot of slowly going to the next level, then somehow probably because they decided to have market survey which represent only a small portion of their audience, they went the complete other direction and fired everybody that was making the product good. They hired Vince Russo Back and has soon as all the wrestling guys that were in the booking in 2009 then slowly but surely, booking became disastrous and nothing made sense. Then in 2010 Bischoff & Hogan came in and suddenly PPV weren'T important anymore and were just an extention of the TV show.

So Will TNA ever suceed? i really can tell you right now because everytime they pull up something that actually makes sense, they find a way to screw it up even more. Case in point the ending of the double main event of Final Resolution. First you fell stupid for paying 35$(45$ in HD) to find out that you need to tune in to IMPACT tosee who gets fired then you feel even more stupid for wasting money to see a ironman match that ends in a draw. IT's the fact that it ended in a draw that i hate, it'S the fact that fans paying for the PPV wanted to see a conclusion to the feud that was the MAIN EVENT of The PPV and now they have to wait for IMPACT to see how this end.

It'S with thinking like that, that make me thinking that they won'T ever leave the 1,0/1,4 rating section they are in since they started on Spike. Because outside the loyal TNA fans, nobody wants to watch TNA because of how confusing it is and i'm not writing this to slam TNA, it's just the way it is. Also on a side note, TNA is really bad in promoting themselves, they need to stop catering to the 10 percenters like Eric Bischoff call us and think of a way to get the casual fans come back to wrestling which with the current state of wrestling, nobody is doing.

 

[TUFFY54]

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.

This statement is simply wrong. I get so sick to people throwing around "private company". All that means is they don't have stock holders to report earning to. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding out about ticket sales. BFG was held in the Liacouras Center, which holds about 10,000 people. Numerous reports from fans and news sites claimed that the event was less than half sold out. How the hell does a company being private mean that someone cant walk into a building and realize that its half full!

As far as PPV goes, its the same thing. I'm pretty sure that Panda Energy doesnt own Cox Cable, AT&T, Dish Network, or Direct TV. Basically, the main servers for its PPV ordering service. All of these companies release the numbers of buys their PPV programming gets.

P.S. The UFC PPV numbers are always reported, and they are a privately owned company same as TNA.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

This statement is simply wrong. I get so sick to people throwing around "private company". All that means is they don't have stock holders to report earning to. It has absolutely nothing to do with finding out about ticket sales. BFG was held in the Liacouras Center, which holds about 10,000 people. Numerous reports from fans and news sites claimed that the event was less than half sold out. How the hell does a company being private mean that someone cant walk into a building and realize that its half full!

As far as PPV goes, its the same thing. I'm pretty sure that Panda Energy doesnt own Cox Cable, AT&T, Dish Network, or Direct TV. Basically, the main servers for its PPV ordering service. All of these companies release the numbers of buys their PPV programming gets.

P.S. The UFC PPV numbers are always reported, and they are a privately owned company same as TNA.

Be sick of it all you like, genius. It doesn't change the fact it's true.

The fact you are giving credence to the unfounded opinions of fucking fans and DIRT SHEETS (not "news" sites) as to the what the literal head-count was regarding ticket sales (something again, they couldn't possibly know) is all that needs to be said to negate everything you are writing as factually based.

Private company means their financial records are NOT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, which means it is IMPOSSIBLE for you or any other private citizen to know anything about TNA's ticket sales, Pay-Per-View buys, contractual details, etc.

You refusing to accept reality does not make reality not exist.

 

[Rayne]

Be sick of it all you like, genius. It doesn't change the fact it's true.

The fact you are giving credence to the unfounded opinions of fucking fans and DIRT SHEETS (not "news" sites) as to the what the literal head-count was regarding ticket sales (something again, they couldn't possibly know) is all that needs to be said to negate everything you are writing as factually based.

Private company means their financial records are NOT RELEASED TO THE PUBLIC, which means it is IMPOSSIBLE for you or any other private citizen to know anything about TNA's ticket sales, Pay-Per-View buys, contractual details, etc.

You refusing to accept reality does not make reality not exist.

God knows we have enough of a rep love fest, but I have to disagree with this statement. In the sense that it is impossible to know TNA/IW's specific numbers without being privy to inside information, this is true. If you happen to know that the break even point for gate receipts is 800 at an arena, you're not going to be able to walk in the door and see how much you're above or below water on the night.

However, you can make conjecture as to the most likely position of TNA/IW by taking information we do have and seeing what's most likely from that. For instance, based on Hulk Hogan's history and current activity, it would be reasonable to assume he's being paid $800k-$1.5m a year. I don't know what it is inside of that range, but I'd wager 90% it's in that range. I don't know what PPV numbers are, but I do know that television ratings are up 10% over two years, and that TNA/IW has never promoted their PPV numbers, so it's unlikely that PPV buys have risen significantly. I don't know their merchandising numbers, but I do know that there aren't many more people watching than a couple of years ago, and that there are approximately 1.5x (very rough, if I had time I'd research) more tour dates than there were in arenas of the same size, so merchandising is likely up by that same proportion.

I can't know exactly how TNA/IW is doing financially, but being blindfolded in that fashion I could still throw a dart at it and hit the right wall.

For what it's worth, TNA/IW seems to be doing alright in a down market, especially considering its target demographic is doing the worst in the economic 'recovery'. I wouldn't want to be running a professional wrestling company right now, but the folks over at TNA/IW seem to have their shit together now as well as anyone else.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

God knows we have enough of a rep love fest, but I have to disagree with this statement. In the sense that it is impossible to know TNA/IW's specific numbers without being privy to inside information, this is true. If you happen to know that the break even point for gate receipts is 800 at an arena, you're not going to be able to walk in the door and see how much you're above or below water on the night.

However, you can make conjecture as to the most likely position of TNA/IW by taking information we do have and seeing what's most likely from that. For instance, based on Hulk Hogan's history and current activity, it would be reasonable to assume he's being paid $800k-$1.5m a year. I don't know what it is inside of that range, but I'd wager 90% it's in that range. I don't know what PPV numbers are, but I do know that television ratings are up 10% over two years, and that TNA/IW has never promoted their PPV numbers, so it's unlikely that PPV buys have risen significantly. I don't know their merchandising numbers, but I do know that there aren't many more people watching than a couple of years ago, and that there are approximately 1.5x (very rough, if I had time I'd research) more tour dates than there were in arenas of the same size, so merchandising is likely up by that same proportion.

I can't know exactly how TNA/IW is doing financially, but being blindfolded in that fashion I could still throw a dart at it and hit the right wall.

For what it's worth, TNA/IW seems to be doing alright in a down market, especially considering its target demographic is doing the worst in the economic 'recovery'. I wouldn't want to be running a professional wrestling company right now, but the folks over at TNA/IW seem to have their shit together now as well as anyone else.

Yes, but we're debating two different things here — the literal exactitudes of publicly released figures and figurative estimates based on conjecture of privately kept records.

Yes, you can make informed estimates and guesses, including ideological ranges, but none of them are irrefutable fact.

TUFFY's entire post was based off the reports of fans and "news sites" (dirt sheets) that at best do what you are doing with regard to reporting on conjecture, but I find it incredibly difficult to believe any are even half as informed or impartial as you in that respect, so I take everything from either source with a very large grain of salt.

 

[Fenris]

First let me preface this by saying I am a TNA fan and want nothing more than for them to become #1. I'd love that.

To echo others, TNA already is a success. Primetime TV slot, millions of fans all over the world, PPV, able to attract big names to work there ect. They're successful.

Now onto what the OP actually mean. Will they compete with the WWE ratings and attendance wise. The short answer is probably not, no. That isn't an attempt to knock them, that's just looking at the reality of it.

The in depth answer? To compete and get as big as the WWE takes alot of work. For them to grow that big in this era they would need to be THE BEST at 9/10 things the WWE does to bring over the casual fans. Inside and outside of the ring they would have to better the WWE at almost everything. Likewise from ownership on down to the guys setting up and breaking down the set everyone would need to invest every last drop of sweat in long, tiring days working towards that goal. TNA in a sense would need to become many peoples lives as opposed to hobbies. There is also the obvious to many people, clearing out at least half the roster with pink slips. I'm NOT just talking legends and ex-WWE talent.

The unfortunate reality I have come to realize as a rabid TNA fan is the Carters live in this fantasy world where they believe some booker can just walk into the Shitpact Zone and instantly transform TNA into a WWE sized promotion. They seem to also be clutching to this fantasy that eventually one of these bookers they hire will somehow wave that magic wand again and turn AJ, Kaz, Daniels, Joe ect into this massively huge superstars that 4+ million people will want to tune in to see each week.

Unfortunately it doesn't work like that and isn't ever going to happen that way. Could they one day decide to get serious about stepping up and competing? Certainly and I hope they do BUT I wouldn't hold my breath on it. TNA is a hobby to Dixie and that's the bottomline to the situation.

 

[Monkey_Mania]

I'd say that they are already a success. When they first started they were a nothing company not making any money. In fact, they were losing money at such a rate that they feared they would have to shut down TNA. Fast-forward 10 years later, they are now making a profit, have 12 ppv's a year, lucrative TV deal, and another brand that has started over in India.

Putting it into perspective TNA is actually a huge success compared to where they started. They don't need to be competing with WWE to be successful they just need to keep doing what they're doing.

 

[MB1025]

As far as a television show goes, I do think they'd like to build their audience more. Despite IDR's lie (love ya buddy, but you did lie), TNA averages between 1.5-1.7 million viewers each week.

He is not lying. PWTorch has put out DVR numbers several times that put the overall number over 2 Million. Now you may not take that number serious, but companies do.

 

[Reflection]

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.[/B]

Just take a look at the TNA Roster-
Brian Kendrick
D'Angelo Dinero
Devon
Hulk Hogan
Kurt Angle
Mr. Anderson
Rob Van Dam
Scott Steiner
Mickie James
Tara
Eric Bischoff
Christy Hemme
Taz
All these guys, among others, are former WWE Employees.
If that didn't help fetch them good ratings, then its about time to listen to those "nerds" who want X-Divisions guys and "TNA Originals" to be the the "Top Guys"

 

[Reflection]

Just take a look at the TNA Roster-
Brian Kendrick
D'Angelo Dinero
Devon
Hulk Hogan
Kurt Angle
Mr. Anderson
Rob Van Dam
Scott Steiner
Mickie James
Tara
Eric Bischoff
Christy Hemme
Taz
All these guys, among others, are former WWE Employees.
If that didn't help fetch them good ratings, then its about time to listen to those "nerds" who want X-Divisions guys and "TNA Originals" to be the the "Top Guys"

 

[OptimusReim]

They succeeded based on their standards, obviously not WWE standards, no company will ever be that big, or even close, but i will say this, in my opinion, The day AJ Styles leaves/retires, will be the death of TNA.

 

[Police Penis Sucking Goat Fucker]

The only way TNA will succeed is without Hulk Hogan Eric Bischoff or Vince Russo. Those guy are disaterous to any company and They are slowly doing to TNA what they did to WCW. TNA was seriously in a great direction in 2006 but it seems like ever since Hogan joined the bandwagon things have gone down hill

 

[Rayne]

He is not lying. PWTorch has put out DVR numbers several times that put the overall number over 2 Million. Now you may not take that number serious, but companies do.

Eh, that's kind of on the mark, but not quite. There are three standards for ratings:

Live: Self-explanatory. The amount of people who watch a show as it's being broadcast.
Live+3: The live viewers, plus however many people watch the show on DVR within 72 hours of it airing. This is the current standard that is used to set advertising rates, although the +3 number is considered slightly less valuable as the increased watchers are viewing fewer of the ads on their DVR.
Live+7: Live viewers plus however many people view the program in one week. This number isn't used very frequently but networks are eager to make this the new standard for advertising rates. Advertisers, substantially less eager.

Outside of these numbers, companies will promote all kinds of bullshit to the public, so it's important to view the audience number in context with the method that was used to sample it. It's a pretty common tactic to say "five million people watched this show" for publicity (not ratings) purposes, but that number might include everything from DVD buys to a rough estimate of how many people used BitTorrent to watch the show.

TNA's Live numbers are usually 1.1-1.2, and their Live+3 number is usually within a couple hundreths of 1.5. (Which does mean about 2 million for the Live+3.)

As far as companies taking that number seriously, they do, but there is a large amount of discussion as to which number should be taken more seriously, and when you're talking about how many people are watching TNA/IW, it's important to keep the method under consideration.

 

[DirtyD79]

I'd say that they are already a success. When they first started they were a nothing company not making any money. In fact, they were losing money at such a rate that they feared they would have to shut down TNA. Fast-forward 10 years later, they are now making a profit, have 12 ppv's a year, lucrative TV deal, and another brand that has started over in India.

Putting it into perspective TNA is actually a huge success compared to where they started. They don't need to be competing with WWE to be successful they just need to keep doing what they're doing.

Exactly we're not gonna see another Monday Night Wars anytime soon. That boom period was a result of wrestling becoming a fad. And quite frankly I hope that both Bischoff and McMahon have grown beyond the self-destructive "we gotta put the other guys out of business" mentality of the 90s. You can't eat all the candy in the store.

 

[JJYanks121]

Eh, that's kind of on the mark, but not quite. There are three standards for ratings:

Live: Self-explanatory. The amount of people who watch a show as it's being broadcast.
Live+3: The live viewers, plus however many people watch the show on DVR within 72 hours of it airing. This is the current standard that is used to set advertising rates, although the +3 number is considered slightly less valuable as the increased watchers are viewing fewer of the ads on their DVR.
Live+7: Live viewers plus however many people view the program in one week. This number isn't used very frequently but networks are eager to make this the new standard for advertising rates. Advertisers, substantially less eager.

Outside of these numbers, companies will promote all kinds of bullshit to the public, so it's important to view the audience number in context with the method that was used to sample it. It's a pretty common tactic to say "five million people watched this show" for publicity (not ratings) purposes, but that number might include everything from DVD buys to a rough estimate of how many people used BitTorrent to watch the show.

TNA's Live numbers are usually 1.1-1.2, and their Live+3 number is usually within a couple hundreths of 1.5. (Which does mean about 2 million for the Live+3.)

As far as companies taking that number seriously, they do, but there is a large amount of discussion as to which number should be taken more seriously, and when you're talking about how many people are watching TNA/IW, it's important to keep the method under consideration.

While I agree with you completely that the Live+3 number is important, that's not the reason you see it around here. The reason you see posters using it is because it gets TNA's number closer to WWE's since I don't think I've ever seen it posted anywhere what WWE's Live+3 numbers are. Therefore, since WWE's number is their live viewership number, the Live+3 number from TNA makes them seem closer to WWE. That's the one and only reason you see that number floated around. It sound a lot better to say "well WWE got less than 5 million in a given week and TNA hit that 2 million mark with DVR viewers so they really are at almost 50 percent of WWE's viewership". Problem is, that's not true. Live viewership suggests WWE/TNA viewership is at about 3/1 if not more but since I don't know anyone who has WWE's DVR viewership numbers, TNA can only get closer by using that number to compare to only WWE live numbers.

The thing is, I have NO idea why fans harp on this stuff. So what if DVR views get TNA over 2 million viewers? So what if the company makes money and who cares how much they actually make? It is a television show. I don't care how much money How I Met Your Mother makes but I watch it every week because I enjoy it. If this is a program that wrestling fans enjoy, cool. Keep enjoying it but who cares whether they are a financial success? If it's on the air then it's doing ok. Just be happy with that, that you have your alternative and you have one more wrestling show on TV.

 

[MB1025]

Eh, that's kind of on the mark, but not quite. There are three standards for ratings:

Live: Self-explanatory. The amount of people who watch a show as it's being broadcast.
Live+3: The live viewers, plus however many people watch the show on DVR within 72 hours of it airing. This is the current standard that is used to set advertising rates, although the +3 number is considered slightly less valuable as the increased watchers are viewing fewer of the ads on their DVR.
Live+7: Live viewers plus however many people view the program in one week. This number isn't used very frequently but networks are eager to make this the new standard for advertising rates. Advertisers, substantially less eager.

Outside of these numbers, companies will promote all kinds of bullshit to the public, so it's important to view the audience number in context with the method that was used to sample it. It's a pretty common tactic to say "five million people watched this show" for publicity (not ratings) purposes, but that number might include everything from DVD buys to a rough estimate of how many people used BitTorrent to watch the show.

TNA's Live numbers are usually 1.1-1.2, and their Live+3 number is usually within a couple hundreths of 1.5. (Which does mean about 2 million for the Live+3.)

As far as companies taking that number seriously, they do, but there is a large amount of discussion as to which number should be taken more seriously, and when you're talking about how many people are watching TNA/IW, it's important to keep the method under consideration.

However it isn't Spike TV or TNA Wrestling giving these numbers out. PWTorch gets them from the Nielsen ratings.

TNA's Live numbers are usually 1.1-1.2, and their Live+3 number is usually within a couple hundreths of 1.5. (Which does mean about 2 million for the Live+3.)

The bold part above this however doesn't give the entire story. A 1.1 and a 1.2 can have a large varying amount of people who watch the show. One week 1.6 million people could equal a 1.2 and the next week the same viewers could give you a 1.15. It depends on how many people are watching TV.