WWE Superstars Canceled?

[ZeroVX]

Oh for fuck's sake, are you people serious? I expected this from you, shittered, but I heard Gelgarin had a modicum of intelligence, so what in the hell is going on here?

Let me summarize for you two: Superstars got bad ratings because no one cared about it because it was one show out of FOUR the WWE has right now that only featured the undercard doing nothing of value.

Meanwhile, iMPACT ratings still cannot touch WWE's right now, despite having a large roster and being promoted by literally the most recognizable face in the history of the business. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, TNA fans have no business calling this a failure for WWE when they clearly didn't care.

It's incredibly obvious what you two are trying to do and you're failing so badly I can't believe you're even bothering. Well, I can believe shittered doing it, but Gelgarin, not so much.

 

[shattered dreams]

I don't have the time, energy or patience to argue with someone oblivious to facts or common sense.

I am glad to hear you will not be beating yourself up over your poor performance here.

 

[Gelgarin]

Way to preserve your dignity Seth.

For what it's worth, TNA's average rating last year was down from 2009.

This is technically true, no denying it. 2010 was a bad year, but it has to be looked at as slightly anomalous. If you examine the numbers, the reason TNA drew less than the previous year was the move to Monday nights. That was a complete disaster and the aftereffects drag the average rating down.

But for the Monday night fiasco the ratings pattern suggests that we'd probably have seen another minor growth in audience. By the end of 2010 the show was drawing in line with the previous year again and 2011 definitely looks like being TNA's strongest year to date.

Like I said, I'm not denying that TNA lost viewers in 2010, but you have to appreciate that it was because of poor business decisions backstage, and not due to the actual product.

Oh for fuck's sake, are you people serious? I expected this from you, shittered, but I heard Gelgarin had a modicum of intelligence, so what in the hell is going on here?

Let me summarize for you two: Superstars got bad ratings because no one cared about it because it was one show out of FOUR the WWE has right now that only featured the undercard doing nothing of value.

Meanwhile, iMPACT ratings still cannot touch WWE's right now, despite having a large roster and being promoted by literally the most recognizable face in the history of the business. You can argue semantics until you're blue in the face, but the fact is, TNA fans have no business calling this a failure for WWE when they clearly didn't care.

It's incredibly obvious what you two are trying to do and you're failing so badly I can't believe you're even bothering. Well, I can believe shittered doing it, but Gelgarin, not so much.

Lovely. You know I actually find it a little sad when people are totally incapable of appreciating the merit of an argument they disagree with. It's depressing; if I toe the public line with my posts then I get half the forum joyfully tossing me off about what a fantastic poster I am, but if my view deviates from the mainstream suddenly I just keep hearing how everyone expected better. It's little wonder the internet is such a colossal mass of sheep.

I don't recall ever saying that the WWE did care about Superstars, they evidently didn't. All I said was that Superstars was a legitimately bad wrestling broadcast, which it was. People didn't want to watch it, it lost viewers and got canceled. Superstars was a bad wrestling show and nobody, TNA fan or not, should seriously be trying to deny that.

I didn't particularly want to make this thread about TNA in the first place, it just ends with me ceaselessly repeating myself to people who don't understand how television ratings work. I will explain why TNA is not drawing the same as RAW one more time, then I'm done with it, it's dull.

With a long running weekly series you will only ever grow in relation to your existing size.
There is 'no' product that TNA could put out that would have them outdrawing the WWE in a matter of months. It's impossible.
All you can aim for is growth in relation to your existing size.
TNA has grown it's audience share 50% in the past five years.
TNA has done this during a time when every other wrestling broadcast on television has been failing to satisfy its audience.

Seriously, over the past half decade:

RAW - 0.5 decrease
Smackdwon - 1.2 decrease
ECW - 0.9 decrease - CANCELED
Superstars - CANCELED
NXT - CANCELED

TNA Impact - 0.4 increase

And this debate makes me a fanboy? Irony.

I'll repeat myself again. A television show is supposed to draw and retain an audience. A television show is not supposed to lose viewers and get taken off of TV. A television show that grows and retains it's audience in-keeping with network expectations is a good television show. A television show that loses it's audience and gets dropped by the network is a bad television show.

Superstars was a bad television show. If anyone liked it then that's fine, but you liking something doesn't inherently make it good.

TNA Impact is a good television show. If anyone doesn't like it then that's fine, but you not liking something doesn't inherently make it bad.

Oh, and just for the record, what is it incredibly obvious that I'm trying to do? Other than repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall of stupidity?

 

[ZeroVX]

Lovely. You know I actually find it a little sad when people are totally incapable of appreciating the merit of an argument they disagree with.

I could easily appreciate the argument if it was discussion for the sake of discussion. Since it isn't, I'm having a bit more of a problem with this.

It's depressing; if I toe the public line with my posts then I get half the forum joyfully tossing me off about what a fantastic poster I am, but if my view deviates from the mainstream suddenly I just keep hearing how everyone expected better. It's little wonder the internet is such a colossal mass of sheep.

Do not turn this into yet another "us versus them" sob story. I am so beyond tired of TNA fans crying about how "oh, we deviate from the norm, so they hate us!" It just makes you come off as pretentious and whiny. You want to know why people keep arguing with you? Because the TNA product is GARBAGE. It is absolutely terrible, and we honestly cannot understand why you like it. Well, we can understand why YOU personally like it, what with your "nostalgia" and all, but for the most part, it makes no sense.

I don't recall ever saying that the WWE did care about Superstars, they evidently didn't. All I said was that Superstars was a legitimately bad wrestling broadcast, which it was. People didn't want to watch it, it lost viewers and got canceled. Superstars was a bad wrestling show and nobody, TNA fan or not, should seriously be trying to deny that.

How many people watching the show doesn't necessarily determine the quality of the product. You'd do well to realize that.

I didn't particularly want to make this thread about TNA in the first place, it just ends with me ceaselessly repeating myself to people who don't understand how television ratings work. I will explain why TNA is not drawing the same as RAW one more time, then I'm done with it, it's dull.

With a long running weekly series you will only ever grow in relation to your existing size.
There is 'no' product that TNA could put out that would have them outdrawing the WWE in a matter of months. It's impossible.
All you can aim for is growth in relation to your existing size.
TNA has grown it's audience share 50% in the past five years.
TNA has done this during a time when every other wrestling broadcast on television has been failing to satisfy its audience.

Seriously, over the past half decade:

RAW - 0.5 decrease
Smackdwon - 1.2 decrease
ECW - 0.9 decrease - CANCELED
Superstars - CANCELED
NXT - CANCELED

TNA Impact - 0.4 increase

And this debate makes me a fanboy? Irony.

1.) I would really like to know where you get this information. You've thrown this stuff around enough times but never say where you got it. For a supposed "expert" on TV ratings you could at least back up your statements.

2.) I like how you use percentage and increases/decreases instead of the actual numbers. It's a good way of covering up the fact that, despite these supposed jumps, TNA still can't touch RAW or Smackdown. And don't try and tell me that they aren't trying to, it's very clear that they are.

I'll repeat myself again. A television show is supposed to draw and retain an audience. A television show is not supposed to lose viewers and get taken off of TV. A television show that grows and retains it's audience in-keeping with network expectations is a good television show. A television show that loses it's audience and gets dropped by the network is a bad television show.

So even if the quality of the product is absolute crap, so long as enough people are watching it, it's a "good" TV show?

I hate the fact that your logic would only make sense to greedy businessmen.

Superstars was a bad television show. If anyone liked it then that's fine, but you liking something doesn't inherently make it good.

TNA Impact is a good television show. If anyone doesn't like it then that's fine, but you not liking something doesn't inherently make it bad.

You do realize that this part right here can easily contradict your own argument, right?

Oh, and just for the record, what is it incredibly obvious that I'm trying to do? Other than repeatedly bang my head against a brick wall of stupidity?

Stir the pot. As soon as something goes "wrong" for WWE, you swoop in and treat this like a failure for them, even if they still have two shows to build their product on and didn't care at all about this. Yeah, this is such a failure. I don't see how they can possibly recover from this. The company will be dead within the year. WWE is the devil, TNA is God, yadda yadda yadda.

To conclude, I fail to see how someone who views TNA as a "nostalgia" product can claim that the show is good in any way. If TNA really was a show that focused only on nostalgia, they wouldn't even try to compete with anyone. They are, so I really don't see where you can draw this conclusion.

 

[Daniel]

I am glad to hear you will not be beating yourself up over your poor performance here.

You have no say here. You are a fucking moron.

 

[Gelgarin]

I could easily appreciate the argument if it was discussion for the sake of discussion. Since it isn't, I'm having a bit more of a problem with this.

So what you are saying is that you are physically incapable of digesting the idea that another human being might hold a different opinion to you? That's really sad. I'm sorry.

Do not turn this into yet another "us versus them" sob story. I am so beyond tired of TNA fans crying about how "oh, we deviate from the norm, so they hate us!" It just makes you come off as pretentious and whiny. You want to know why people keep arguing with you? Because the TNA product is GARBAGE. It is absolutely terrible, and we honestly cannot understand why you like it. Well, we can understand why YOU personally like it, what with your "nostalgia" and all, but for the most part, it makes no sense.

First; I think you should look up the word pretentious because I don't think it means what you think it means. As for you not being able to understand why people like TNA, that says far more about your personality than it does about TNA's product. There are a hundred million things in this world that I don't appreciate, but I've never found myself struggling with the idea that some people might think differently the me.

As I said, the fact that you can't do this is sad more than anything else. You honestly seem to be of the opinion that what you think is more important than what other people think. That the views of others are someway beneath you. Over two million people find enjoyment in TNA every week, but in your world every one of those people must be 'wrong'. Animosity and discussion aside, I honestly hope you get over this.

How many people watching the show doesn't necessarily determine the quality of the product. You'd do well to realize that.

What do you think a television show is for?

1.) I would really like to know where you get this information. You've thrown this stuff around enough times but never say where you got it. For a supposed "expert" on TV ratings you could at least back up your statements.

Slyfox has posted them on this forum for years, complete with an extensive list of sources. Go look it up.

2.) I like how you use percentage and increases/decreases instead of the actual numbers. It's a good way of covering up the fact that, despite these supposed jumps, TNA still can't touch RAW or Smackdown. And don't try and tell me that they aren't trying to, it's very clear that they are.

Actually according to the people running TNA they have no aspiration of becoming the number one company any time soon. In the long term I'm sure they'd love to overtake Smackdown. If current trends continue then they could potentially overtake in the next half decade. That's less to do with TNA's growth and more to do with Smackdown having driven away roughly two-million fans only five years.

Why is a television show that keeps making people not want to watch it a good show?

So even if the quality of the product is absolute crap, so long as enough people are watching it, it's a "good" TV show?

I hate the fact that your logic would only make sense to greedy businessmen.

Television shows are businesses.

You want to divide the world into good and bad, the dividing line being placed exactly according to your own personal preference. Everything you like has to be good, and everything you don't like has to be bad. That's not how the world works.

The people producing television don't care what you think of their show. They care what the viewing audience as a whole thinks. The viewing audience as a whole thinks TNA is good, that's why they keep watching every week. That's why TNA's audience keeps creeping up.
The viewing audience as a whole thinks that Superstars was a waste of time, that's why they stopped watching, and why the show got canceled.

Television shows have one major purpose. Entertaining people. TNA does that to the tune of over two million. Live with it.

Stir the pot. As soon as something goes "wrong" for WWE, you swoop in and treat this like a failure for them, even if they still have two shows to build their product on and didn't care at all about this. Yeah, this is such a failure. I don't see how they can possibly recover from this. The company will be dead within the year. WWE is the devil, TNA is God, yadda yadda yadda.

Yeah; that sounds exactly like me. Do me a favor, find me one single incidence where I said anything even remotely resembling anything there?
Seriously; this thread or any other since the forum began. If you can find one post in which I have claimed that the WWE is a bad wrestling company, or that it's going to go out of business or anything of the sort then I will make a public apology to you and leave this forum never to return.
What I remember is saying that the WWE was a hugely successful business and didn't give a shit about Superstars. How about you actually read my posts instead of throwing a tantrum over things that nobody ever said.

I had one point and one point only in this thread, which was to explain that Superstars was a bad wrestling show, which I have proven with numbers and logic to be the case. Grow up.

 

[ZeroVX]

So what you are saying is that you are physically incapable of digesting the idea that another human being might hold a different opinion to you? That's really sad. I'm sorry.

Someone seems to have reading comprehension issues. I said that I could appreciate a difference of opinion if this discussion was nothing more than just that, a discussion. This isn't, but again, I already said that.

First; I think you should look up the word pretentious because I don't think it means what you think it means.

Pretentious [pri-TEN-shuhs]

1. full of pretense or pretension
2. characterized by assumption of dignity or importance
3. making an exaggerated outward show; ostentatious

I think it applies.

As for you not being able to understand why people like TNA, that says far more about your personality than it does about TNA's product. There are a hundred million things in this world that I don't appreciate, but I've never found myself struggling with the idea that some people might think differently the me.

Forgive me for not being able to understand why a company that changes all their planned stories instantly just to give a big middle finger to the opposition is considered "good".

As I said, the fact that you can't do this is sad more than anything else. You honestly seem to be of the opinion that what you think is more important than what other people think. That the views of others are someway beneath you. Over two million people find enjoyment in TNA every week, but in your world every one of those people must be 'wrong'. Animosity and discussion aside, I honestly hope you get over this.

If someone can give a legitimate reason as to why they like something, then I could acknowledge it. It also helps if they're willing to accept when what they like makes a mistake. It's one thing to like a product over another, but to consider it superior to another is a different story.

What do you think a television show is for?

I'm aware their job is to make money. They can typically make money by, you know, putting on a decent product.

Slyfox has posted them on this forum for years, complete with an extensive list of sources. Go look it up.

If they're supposedly on the forums, it shouldn't take long for you to find them.

Actually according to the people running TNA they have no aspiration of becoming the number one company any time soon. In the long term I'm sure they'd love to overtake Smackdown. If current trends continue then they could potentially overtake in the next half decade. That's less to do with TNA's growth and more to do with Smackdown having driven away roughly two-million fans only five years.

Didn't I just say don't bother telling me they aren't trying to? They're the only other wrestling company on a mainstream TV channel, with a weekly TV show and currently being run by two of the biggest egos in wrestling period. And you're honestly trying to tell me they don't want to become number one? Really?

And what the hell is this about Smackdown "driving away viewers"? I'd love to hear your reasoning on this one.

Why is a television show that keeps making people not want to watch it a good show?

There is a big, BIG difference between "making viewers not care about the show" and "making viewers not want to watch the show". For example, I'm sure after Victory Road, a good portion of viewers actively did not want to watch TNA anymore. I'm sure if TNA makes a screw-up like this again anytime soon, a good portion of viewers will actively not want to watch the show. With Superstars, people just didn't care, because it didn't feature any big names. There is a difference.

Television shows are businesses.

No shit, Sherlock.

You want to divide the world into good and bad, the dividing line being placed exactly according to your own personal preference. Everything you like has to be good, and everything you don't like has to be bad. That's not how the world works.

"Blah blah, I'm looking down at you, blah blah blah". You done?

The people producing television don't care what you think of their show. They care what the viewing audience as a whole thinks. The viewing audience as a whole thinks TNA is good, that's why they keep watching every week. That's why TNA's audience keeps creeping up.
The viewing audience as a whole thinks that Superstars was a waste of time, that's why they stopped watching, and why the show got canceled.

Again, I'd like to see your evidence that TNA's audience is "creeping up". Because from what I've heard, TNA's audience has been pretty stagnant as of late.

Television shows have one major purpose. Entertaining people. TNA does that to the tune of over two million. Live with it.

That's not the point I'm trying to refute. You say the show is "good", and you state numbers to prove your fact. Numbers do not automatically make a show good or bad. You could have an A+ show with excellent writing, intriguing characters, and stellar conflicts. If no one watches it, then the network will think it sucks. Numbers =/= quality.

Yeah; that sounds exactly like me. Do me a favor, find me one single incidence where I said anything even remotely resembling anything there?
Seriously; this thread or any other since the forum began. If you can find one post in which I have claimed that the WWE is a bad wrestling company, or that it's going to go out of business or anything of the sort then I will make a public apology to you and leave this forum never to return.

I think it was around where you said WWE ratings have been declining for the past 12 years. Which, by your logic of "ratings = quality", means that it's been getting worse.

I await you to tell me I'm wrong in a paragraph or more.

What I remember is saying that the WWE was a hugely successful business and didn't give a shit about Superstars. How about you actually read my posts instead of throwing a tantrum over things that nobody ever said.

I had one point and one point only in this thread, which was to explain that Superstars was a bad wrestling show, which I have proven with numbers and logic to be the case. Grow up.

And what you've failed to listen to is that ratings do not automatically mean the show was good. It means the show was successful. There. Is. A. Difference. You can say that quality is based on one's opinion and is "ethereal", etc etc, but I flat out dare you to tell me that quality doesn't affect ratings. If you can do it with a straight face, then you are just flat out delusional. Quality is a huge factor, as it determines whether or not an audience will stay with a company. WCW went out of business because people stopped watching, and people stopped watching because the quality of the product declined. That is how it works.

 

[MrHashasheen]

Seriously, over the past half decade:

RAW - 0.5 decrease
Smackdwon - 1.2 decrease
ECW - 0.9 decrease - CANCELED
Superstars - CANCELED
NXT - CANCELED

NXT and ECW were the same television contract on Syfy, and it is still shown abroad. So hardly the same. And Superstars is probably going to go online as well due to international deals. So all three of those aren't canceled.