metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,477
|
Post by metylerca on Dec 30, 2007 16:25:19 GMT -5
Also, interesting enough: Joe v. Angle (Wrestling rivalry to determine who is the better man) gets 35,000 & 34,000 buys. Joe v. Angle (Storyline focusing on Kurt's wife "divorcing" him and wanting to help Joe win EVERY SINGLE TITLE in one match) 26,000 buys. Russo's Booking in TNA= Success, Mildly Successful, Not Successful, Bad, EPIC FAILNow all we need is Sinister1, and Thestinger to debate the validity of these numbers and the unseen success of these angles, no offense. I lol'd at that smartass comment, but it is true; the numbers don't lie and they suck. I can't find any other way to put it than just looking at how many people are buying into their product when it's crappy and how many people buy into it when it's passable. -metylerca
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 30, 2007 16:46:32 GMT -5
Also, interesting enough: Joe v. Angle (Wrestling rivalry to determine who is the better man) gets 35,000 & 34,000 buys. Joe v. Angle (Storyline focusing on Kurt's wife "divorcing" him and wanting to help Joe win EVERY SINGLE TITLE in one match) 26,000 buys. Russo's Booking in TNA= Success, Mildly Successful, Not Successful, Bad, EPIC FAILNow all we need is Sinister1, and Thestinger to debate the validity of these numbers and the unseen success of these angles, no offense. I like to thank the Academy... Not gonna debate numbers, just the situation some of you put them in, altough the numbers for No Surrender and Victory Road can be explained. You can't put the numbers of WCW or WWE or early ECW aside TNA and make that an argument like angryfan did. They're different. WCW was around for about 15 years then, and it was a big ass drop. Plus, WCW still has double the ratings TNA had. D2D was in that middle part when WWE was still pushing the new ECW and it had much better ratings than now. ECW(old one) was in the middle of the renaissance of wrestling, the 97-98 years when everything about it was cool. BTW, I find it funny that you go "Russo=EPIC FAIL" cause of the angle, yet he's been booking for the past year. Like it or not, he's as responsible for the Joe/Angle I-III as he is for IV, so you can't cut him out of that.
|
|
|
Post by godson on Dec 30, 2007 17:08:12 GMT -5
Russo is responsible for Joe vs. Angle series, that's why the number nearly drop in half by the second match and never was able to recover.
ECW never had a fanbase as big as TNA but they manage to get better ppv buys.
|
|
pacino
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by pacino on Dec 30, 2007 17:32:21 GMT -5
put the belt on joe in a couple months and make angle chase
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Dec 30, 2007 21:50:33 GMT -5
You guys realize that the buyrates were pretty much the same in 04, 05 and 06 when TNA was "much better", right?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 30, 2007 22:00:46 GMT -5
You guys realize that the buyrates were pretty much the same in 04, 05 and 06 when TNA was "much better", right? Indeed, and its not like the viewing audience is much bigger than it was in '06. The problem? Stagnation is never good. The good news? Well, word is they're still making a small profit (not enough to wipe out their debt amassed over the first few years, obviously), so I guess whatever works.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 30, 2007 22:15:49 GMT -5
You guys realize that the buyrates were pretty much the same in 04, 05 and 06 when TNA was "much better", right? You mean when they weren't paying big contracts to people like Sting, Angle, Booker, Cage, and Steiner (Who may not be in the same level of the before mentioned but is definitely making more than Sonjay)? Yeah, we do know.
|
|
Agent P
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wooo
Posts: 18,180
|
Post by Agent P on Dec 30, 2007 23:45:26 GMT -5
You guys realize that the buyrates were pretty much the same in 04, 05 and 06 when TNA was "much better", right? You mean when they weren't paying big contracts to people like Sting, Angle, Booker, Cage, and Steiner (Who may not be in the same level of the before mentioned but is definitely making more than Sonjay)? Yeah, we do know. Spike does pay off quite a bit of Sting and Angle. Not sure about the rest, but I do know Steiner isn't making as much as the rest of them.
|
|
|
Post by daveholmes on Dec 31, 2007 0:18:48 GMT -5
ECW never had a fanbase as big as TNA I take issue with this statement. ECW managed to get higher buyrates and about the same cable TV ratings as TNA does, but with *NO* advertising support from TNN (which is now Spike TV). And that was against TWO major wrestling promotions running on cable during the same timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by Hensley on Dec 31, 2007 2:09:25 GMT -5
Genesis had its buys cut by more than half from the year before. Can't imagine why!!!
|
|
|
Post by Hensley on Dec 31, 2007 2:14:01 GMT -5
Also, both Destination X and Bound For Glory featured the same match. Joe/Cage Whoa, I wander what THAT means!!!
|
|
|
Post by Mongo & Pepe: Back in Black on Dec 31, 2007 5:12:12 GMT -5
Interesting how so many people think that Sting has nothing to offer the wrestling business anymore, and yet, he and Angle popped the highest buyrate of the year.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 31, 2007 10:54:46 GMT -5
Interesting how so many people think that Sting has nothing to offer the wrestling business anymore, and yet, he and Angle popped the highest buyrate of the year. Some could argue that BFG's buyrate was naturally higher since it's typically promoted as TNA's WrestleMania, and it would've been higher anyway. They could also argue that the first Joe/Angle PPV match is comparable to that, and it was really just another PPV. I'd never say Sting has nothing to offer, though. I think he does. I really want to see a hot Sting/Joe feud. (Sadly, the closest TNA could probably come to a "hot" feud would be a strong buildup to a PPV match, then about 6 months of dull, boring, and unending s***.)
|
|
|
Post by godson on Dec 31, 2007 11:49:11 GMT -5
None of those numbers are good and 36,000 is not high.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Backlund on Dec 31, 2007 18:25:24 GMT -5
I don't get where TNA is making any money......
This isn't a slam TNA-fest or a bad attempt to provoke those that take up TNA's cause, but I can't understand how they're even in business anymore. Revenue streams for a wrestling company are typically PPV, product placement/sold airtime and pushing their own products.
Looking at the PPVs, they're not making much of anything, if anything at all after everyone gets paid. The PPV providers are going to swoop in and take a nice percentage of that small number (likely even higher than what the WWE is turning over, as they have a history and proven track record and TNA may be costing them potential sales of a more profitable PPV event). They don't have a gate to collect in Orlando, so all of that money's going to pay to be in the soundstage in the first place, along with production costs and everything else associated with even putting on the show. Add in the few events where they do travel, and you basically put them in the red for that event (and then some), as we've read numerous times they have issues selling at the gates for higher priced tickets and all the associated costs with even leaving Orlando in the first place skyrocket.
They also have 2 hours a week to promote and sell air time on their show, which isn't always easy with a show that's highly focused on a specific demographic with no trend of growth, only stagnation. I'm assuming TNA now has the benefit of profiting from ads and the like shown during their timeslot on Spike, as they hadn't prior. Regardless, this isn't going to be much and would likely be used to offset costs like their own advertisement (which is likely why we never see any).
Finally, there's products, and while the DVDs do seem to move well for the company, I don't think they own their own production studio and likely have to accept a cut as apposed to make all associated profit off of their discs. On top of that, they don't have the machine the WWE does, with 4 shirts for nearly every person on the roster, an autobiography for all of the Knockouts and a "History of...." DVD for the guy wrestling with the company for 2 years. No numbers to look at, but I can't think they're making a fortune off of that.
I'm not claiming to be TNA's accountant, but am I missing anything here? With the big contracts they've handed out and inability to grow organically (only throw money at things and hope it happens overnight), where is their income coming from? I knew the PPV numbers were low, but these are obscenely low (there may be skin flicks that have higher sales than Victory Road). Unless they have the talent out washing Ecto1 and the DeLorean for change in Universal Theme Park, I can't wrap my head around them boasting about "profit". Anyone else?
|
|
|
Post by sexualvanilla on Dec 31, 2007 18:57:36 GMT -5
I don't get where TNA is making any money...... This isn't a slam TNA-fest or a bad attempt to provoke those that take up TNA's cause, but I can't understand how they're even in business anymore. Revenue streams for a wrestling company are typically PPV, product placement/sold airtime and pushing their own products. Looking at the PPVs, they're not making much of anything, if anything at all after everyone gets paid. The PPV providers are going to swoop in and take a nice percentage of that small number (likely even higher than what the WWE is turning over, as they have a history and proven track record and TNA may be costing them potential sales of a more profitable PPV event). They don't have a gate to collect in Orlando, so all of that money's going to pay to be in the soundstage in the first place, along with production costs and everything else associated with even putting on the show. Add in the few events where they do travel, and you basically put them in the red for that event (and then some), as we've read numerous times they have issues selling at the gates for higher priced tickets and all the associated costs with even leaving Orlando in the first place skyrocket. They also have 2 hours a week to promote and sell air time on their show, which isn't always easy with a show that's highly focused on a specific demographic with no trend of growth, only stagnation. I'm assuming TNA now has the benefit of profiting from ads and the like shown during their timeslot on Spike, as they hadn't prior. Regardless, this isn't going to be much and would likely be used to offset costs like their own advertisement (which is likely why we never see any). Finally, there's products, and while the DVDs do seem to move well for the company, I don't think they own their own production studio and likely have to accept a cut as apposed to make all associated profit off of their discs. On top of that, they don't have the machine the WWE does, with 4 shirts for nearly every person on the roster, an autobiography for all of the Knockouts and a "History of...." DVD for the guy wrestling with the company for 2 years. No numbers to look at, but I can't think they're making a fortune off of that. I'm not claiming to be TNA's accountant, but am I missing anything here? With the big contracts they've handed out and inability to grow organically (only throw money at things and hope it happens overnight), where is their income coming from? I knew the PPV numbers were low, but these are obscenely low (there may be skin flicks that have higher sales than Victory Road). Unless they have the talent out washing Ecto1 and the DeLorean for change in Universal Theme Park, I can't wrap my head around them boasting about "profit". Anyone else? I'm in the same boat. I've never claimed to be good with numbers, but with some of the big contracts handed out but low buyrates, no money at the gate for the Impact Zone, and issues with house show sales, I don't see how they're making money. I can sorta understand how ROH makes money since they have a lot less overhead and have a large, loyal fanbase, but TNA's a mystery to me. The fact that they hire many big name guys from the past but don't really release anyone means more money spent and not always making a difference in revenue
|
|