Would TNA Take Advantage Of WWE's "Weakness"?

[ABMorales787]

WWE has been showing a bit of a soft spot whenever they get bad press. The SI Steroid scandal. Eddie and Benoit's death's. Linda McMahon's senate campaign. All of these things have changed the landscape of World Wrestling Entertainment. Weither it's the inception of the Wellness Policy. The PG rating. Or the backstage codes that have been seemingly implemented. We have seen that everytime something bad plagues WWE, it forces them to make a change. However what if it isn't directly WWE stirring the controversy? Lets take the recent Jeff Hardy case. There has been little attention to it due to the fact that there is basically no evidence. But recall Kurt Angle and him "stalking" his now ex-girlfriend. It caused a little bit of a buzz. TNA is pretty big at this point. Now, what if TNA did something "controversial"? Would WWE pay the price somehow? I for one believe so. For one thing, Linda's campaign would be in some serious trouble, but that's beside the point. WWE, when in legal trouble is shown to be at its weakest. The steroid scandal from the early '90's resulted in WCW raiding the talent. The Benoit family massacre influenced the PG rating as well as the Wellness Policy. Neither of which prevented immediate backlash.

Lets take something old and do it new. In 2006 WWE was not PG. This was when the ECW fan's came out of their caves to MTFO once again, DX re-united to throw shit at the boss and John Cena was basically hated by anyone over 12. In that very same year, TNA performed a rather unique angle that featured LAX threatening to burn the U.S. flag live on iMPACT! The fan's there wanted to see it, but TNA wouldn't risk it. Now, what if TNA would try it again and this time actually light the fire next to flag? Literally inches from committing the sacrilegious act? The TNA fan's would most probably dare for it, but how would the media take it? They are all used to WWE and it's PG rating. My question to you is if TNA stirred up controversy, weither it's attemting to flame the U.S. flag, put a guy in a cross or a gun angle, would WWE pay for it? Should TNA even exploit said weakness?

 

[Spidey Revivey]

They tried, and couldn't. TNA and WWE did go head-to-head on Monday Nights and the product was still the same: WWE's PG standards outshined TNA's controversial gimmicks of Orlando Jordan's bisexuality and Lacy Von Erich stripping. If they turned up the controversy volume would it have made a difference? In Jordan's case, I HIGHLY doubt it. Just about every IWC was putting a thumbs down on that. Pretty sure most people changed the channel when a Jordan segment hit. That can't be good for business.

They could have done something better, I will say that. But there was really nothing going for TNA when they went "against" WWE except the additions of Jeff Hardy and Rob Van Dam. Abyssamania? AJ Styles borrowing Flair's robes? Yeah they were okay viewing but nothing phenomenal. Not real impactful storyline to face the big E.

Now if they did something we simply would not expect from TNA then perhaps they could outshine E, but they have to do it on a week-by-week basis. We keep hearing that Dixie Carter has some "really uber knock your socks off" news for her fans but when will that pay out? Is it enough to put asses in seats? Is it enough to put TNA back on the rivalry map? I sure hope so because TNA has everything it needs to be the top wrestling show, cept really amazing ideas.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

They tried, and couldn't. TNA and WWE did go head-to-head on Monday Nights and the product was still the same: WWE's PG standards outshined TNA's controversial gimmicks of Orlando Jordan's bisexuality and Lacy Von Erich stripping. If they turned up the controversy volume would it have made a difference? In Jordan's case, I HIGHLY doubt it. Just about every IWC was putting a thumbs down on that. Pretty sure most people changed the channel when a Jordan segment hit. That can't be good for business.

I wouldn't go that far, man. I'd say the WWE's lineage and legacy out-shined TNA's controversial gimmicks in OJ, LVE stripping, etc. I don't actually think it was the fact they were using controversy to sell the product that was their downfall as much as it was simply them forcing fans to make a choice between re-hashed controversy (OJ is Golddust, Abyss is Hogan, AJ is Flair, etc.) vs. the longevity they had with RAW by going up against them from 9pm-11pm permanently right off the bat.

They could have done something better, I will say that. But there was really nothing going for TNA when they went "against" WWE except the additions of Jeff Hardy and Rob Van Dam. Abyssamania? AJ Styles borrowing Flair's robes? Yeah they were okay viewing but nothing phenomenal. Not real impactful storyline to face the big E.

This I agree with, but even Hardy & Van Dam weren't major plots until RVD took the title from AJ on iMAPCT! following the Lethal Lockdown match at Lockdown 2010.

Now if they did something we simply would not expect from TNA then perhaps they could outshine E, but they have to do it on a week-by-week basis. We keep hearing that Dixie Carter has some "really uber knock your socks off" news for her fans but when will that pay out? Is it enough to put asses in seats? Is it enough to put TNA back on the rivalry map? I sure hope so because TNA has everything it needs to be the top wrestling show, cept really amazing ideas.

What they needed was to build their product before going to bat one-on-one with a giant, IMO. While it was an admirable effort, and a noble cause, and while hindsight is 20/20, it was a recipe for disaster all things considered.

 

[ABMorales787]

They tried, and couldn't. TNA and WWE did go head-to-head on Monday Nights and the product was still the same: WWE's PG standards outshined TNA's controversial gimmicks of Orlando Jordan's bisexuality and Lacy Von Erich stripping. If they turned up the controversy volume would it have made a difference? In Jordan's case, I HIGHLY doubt it. Just about every IWC was putting a thumbs down on that. Pretty sure most people changed the channel when a Jordan segment hit. That can't be good for business.

They could have done something better, I will say that. But there was really nothing going for TNA when they went "against" WWE except the additions of Jeff Hardy and Rob Van Dam. Abyssamania? AJ Styles borrowing Flair's robes? Yeah they were okay viewing but nothing phenomenal. Not real impactful storyline to face the big E.

Now if they did something we simply would not expect from TNA then perhaps they could outshine E, but they have to do it on a week-by-week basis. We keep hearing that Dixie Carter has some "really uber knock your socks off" news for her fans but when will that pay out? Is it enough to put asses in seats? Is it enough to put TNA back on the rivalry map? I sure hope so because TNA has everything it needs to be the top wrestling show, cept really amazing ideas.

This is a good point, but not the topic in mind. What I was inferring was if TNA were to find one angle that would really stir up the media, something that couldn't go unnoticed by the media, would it affect WWE?

Take the flag burning LAX attempted back in '06. Then have them inches from doing to the point of people going ballistic. The first time the segment was attempted Spike did not allow it. What if they did, with WWE in this PG mod. How would people look at WWE? Would it be treated in the same respect? Would people frown upon it as well as TNA? Would the consequences affect both companies? Would TNA try to exploit this?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

This is a good point, but not the topic in mind. What I was inferring was if TNA were to find one angle that would really stir up the media, something that couldn't go unnoticed by the media, would it affect WWE?

Take the flag burning LAX attempted back in '06. Then have them inches from doing to the point of people going ballistic. The first time the segment was attempted Spike did not allow it. What if they did, with WWE in this PG mod. How would people look at WWE? Would it be treated in the same respect? Would people frown upon it as well as TNA? Would the consequences affect both companies? Would TNA try to exploit this?

Didn't they come close with the run Samoa Joe had against the MEM when he jumped Steiner dressed as riot police and used that sick tribal knife to pull his cheek out? I'd say that was as close as they've come to replicating the same level of controversy, no?

To be honest, I'm not really sure just how much it matters with regard to the WWE. While I'm aware the PG rating they're running on does prevent them from gaining a lot of the same fanbase that fell in love with them for their controversy back during the AE, the WWE and TNA are different animals entirely, and quite frankly there's still a large portion of WWE fans who don't know what TNA even stands for, let alone who they are. I think if anything, the consequences of running something that controversial might minimally impact the WWE if it were compelling enough, but for the most part it would only really affect the TNA universe in the bigger picture.

 

[Spidey Revivey]

This is a good point, but not the topic in mind. What I was inferring was if TNA were to find one angle that would really stir up the media, something that couldn't go unnoticed by the media, would it affect WWE?

Take the flag burning LAX attempted back in '06. Then have them inches from doing to the point of people going ballistic. The first time the segment was attempted Spike did not allow it. What if they did, with WWE in this PG mod. How would people look at WWE? Would it be treated in the same respect? Would people frown upon it as well as TNA? Would the consequences affect both companies? Would TNA try to exploit this?

My apologies.

If TNA were to do something radical, something so unexpected that it could make a lasting impression on wrestling and the media itself, then I would say they have a fighting chance now more than any other time in competition to WWE. It's just a very fickle thing to find. I threw in names like Orlando Jordan because I was thinking you had that kind of controversy in mind. But on a much more stellar scale...possible.

Burning an American Flag screams media attention in all negative ways, but in the interest of getting viewers...well hell I'm an American and if I could I would tune in to see how they would make that work. The original ECW had a cult following with things almost up that same alley; they had Sandman tied to a cross after all. Icon usage draws people in, but ECW didn't have a big enough fan-base as TNA does. And I don't think TNA would risk another stunt like that Because of the media and FCC. So like I said, that's a very fickle dilemna.

In a world without censors, I think TNA would reign supreme. But what they have done that they have gotten away with so far has been met with negative views.

 

[Tastycles]

Doing something outlandish would be far too risky for TNA right now. What they, and I feel about 90% of the IWC failed to notice is that television isn't exactly the same in 2010 as it was in 1999 and shock TV is dead. There's a chance that something shocking would make people care about TNA, but it's unlikely and the potential risks is that they'll get kicked off their network or they will totally alienate some of their fan base.

As much as people love to attack the WWE for their policy of being child friendly, it doesn't stop the fact that children form a large part of the core audience of wrestling and that going too far could lose them some of that. Successful television and popular television today is reality shows and high concept episodic dramas, not pointless shockery. The 90s are over, an wrestling needs to accept that. One of the reasons that NXT, a programme featuring total nobodies is able to draw an audience better than the show it replaced and better than TNA is quite simply the fact that it is consistent to what a modern televisual audience wants. Both the WWE and TNA need to leave the 90s behind.

 

[TheAnimal]

I dont think that they are on the radar enough to make an impact on WWE. Even if they managed to get publicity, it would most likely backfire on them. They need to not be obsessed with WWE and do their own thing.

TNA are doing it in a way but they are doing it too often so it loses all impact. They have flair blading every other week and Abyss' thumbtacks etc so it all loses impact. The extreme angles wouldn't gain too much attention like that, it needs to be outside the box, like the Billy and Chuck wedding thing.

If TNA took advantage of it by having a more competitive hard hitting ROH style product but in the mainstream style then that would be of greater benefit to them i think. They could use some blood, use some weapons and extreme angles/spots. But it must not ever be in the Russo car crash style because it loses meaning/impact then.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I know that both Spike and TNA Wrestling advertise themselves as edgier television, and many of the IWC desperately cling to that notion, but the truth of the matter is that they're not. It's a smokescreen for the most part.

The idea of "shocking" or "controversial" or "pushing the envelope", as Hulk Hogan called it, involved having wrestlers get cut open every other episode, women running around in revealing outfits and Lacey Von Erich doing some sort of striptease. TNA has attempted stunts played off as being edgy but they've fallen flat.

As Tastycles said, shock TV is pretty much dead in the United States. Back when I was in high school, the coolest thing on tv was Jerry Springer. Whenever we were in homeroom and the teacher stepped out, someone would get up and turn on the tv and we'd watch Springer for about 5 or 10 minutes. It was trashy, it was controversial, it had people talking. Fast forward to 2010 and Springer doesn't get nearly the attention that he once did. Even though the show still features pretty much the same format, it doesn't garner record ratings anymore because people just aren't impressed by it. The mid to late 1990s featured a number of tv shows that generated controversy. That time was about pushing the boundaries of tv but the 90s are over. What worked 12-15 years ago simply doesn't work nearly as well as it did.

The WWE has accepted that things have changed and acknowledges that the 90s are over. TNA would be wise to do the same thing.

 

[adrenaline24]

I feel like any kind of attempts at shock value television would just blow up in their faces, like a lot of their attempted storylines have already. It might stir up some controversy which may equal ratings, but in the end it'd just be a flash in the pan. I mean, the original ECW folded and went bankrupt, why would it work again 10 years later after the whole shock tv fad has passed?