|
Post by Cyno on Dec 19, 2008 15:10:47 GMT -5
ODB's Angle was pretty bad as always, but it was more than made up for by Christy Hemme looking especially f***able during it and her match.
And yeah, there was a LOT more wrestling this week. At least it felt like it.
|
|
chairshotshurthead
ALF
Gerweck reports this man as truth.
REF!!! HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!!!
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by chairshotshurthead on Dec 19, 2008 21:48:49 GMT -5
It's not much different from seeing a bad movie trailer or hearing a bad review, and the more bad press the show gets, the less likely people are to watch it. but it seems like more and more people are watching it :-\ How exactly? 'Cause they got a 1.2?
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 20, 2008 14:45:39 GMT -5
but it seems like more and more people are watching it :-\ How exactly? 'Cause they got a 1.2? cause 1.8 million people watch it. Which is more than it was a few years ago. And don't give me well, wwe makes a 2.5, or what ever. The WWE is in a legue of it's own. It's like comparing a new drink company to coca cola. WWE is just a big part of American culture, while tna is a new kid on the block.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Post by MrBRulzOK on Dec 20, 2008 16:04:21 GMT -5
The big difference between WWE and TNA is buyrates. From what I've heard, TNA's are quite pathetic. The point of a wrestling TV show is to sell people on these pay per views and convince them to buy the shows. If the TV show fails to do that, then it's a failure as a TV show, no matter how high the ratings are. After all, anyone would be willing to watch a free show, but that's not the case when money is involved. A show with eighteen minutes of wrestling IS NOT going to convince someone to buy a Pay per view. Why would they? Can they really expect that people would think that for some reason it would be any better paying for it? The Pay Per Views are great themselves, especially wrestling wise, but you would never know that if all you did was watch Impact.
Most wrestling fans criticize TNA because they want them to succeed, so that they may one day actually be able to compete with WWE. True, that may or may not happen one day, but if they don't start improving the number of buyrates they sell for each show, as well as ratings to a similiar extent, then there's little to no chance of that happening and they'll always be stuck where they are, despite a few minor ratings increases thanks to them hiring other stars that they in no way created. (Mick Foley, Booker T, Kurt Angle and such) And eventually, if they continue to stay where they are in a few years, I somehow doubt that Spike will keep them on the air.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 20, 2008 16:19:05 GMT -5
The big difference between WWE and TNA is buyrates. From what I've heard, TNA's are quite pathetic. The point of a wrestling TV show is to sell people on these pay per views and convince them to buy the shows. If the TV show fails to do that, then it's a failure as a TV show, no matter how high the ratings are. After all, anyone would be willing to watch a free show, but that's not the case when money is involved. A show with eighteen minutes of wrestling IS NOT going to convince someone to buy a Pay per view. Why would they? Can they really expect that people would think that for some reason it would be any better paying for it? The Pay Per Views are great themselves, especially wrestling wise, but you would never know that if all you did was watch Impact. Most wrestling fans criticize TNA because they want them to succeed, so that they may one day actually be able to compete with WWE. True, that may or may not happen one day, but if they don't start improving the number of buyrates they sell for each show, as well as ratings to a similiar extent, then there's little to no chance of that happening and they'll always be stuck where they are, despite a few minor ratings increases thanks to them hiring other stars that they in no way created. (Mick Foley, Booker T, Kurt Angle and such) And eventually, if they continue to stay where they are in a few years, I somehow doubt that Spike will keep them on the air. Ratings do involve money though. They determine ad rates for a show. Higher ratings means advertisers will pay more, which means higher ad revenue. A 1.0 vs. a 1.2 isn't likely to be a big jump in ad revenue, though, just wanting to say that Impact isn't devoid of generating income.
|
|
chairshotshurthead
ALF
Gerweck reports this man as truth.
REF!!! HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!!!
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by chairshotshurthead on Dec 20, 2008 18:32:55 GMT -5
How exactly? 'Cause they got a 1.2? cause 1.8 million people watched it for one week, about halfway through before the viewership dropped back down again. Fixed.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 21, 2008 2:02:57 GMT -5
How exactly? 'Cause they got a 1.2? cause 1.8 million people watch it. Which is more than it was a few years ago. And don't give me well, wwe makes a 2.5, or what ever. The WWE is in a legue of it's own. It's like comparing a new drink company to coca cola. WWE is just a big part of American culture, while tna is a new kid on the block. TNA's really more like the nerdy guy who hands out outside the comic book shops trying to recruit people in Magic tournaments.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Dec 22, 2008 12:44:37 GMT -5
(Mick Foley, Booker T, Kurt Angle and such) And eventually, if they continue to stay where they are in a few years, I somehow doubt that Spike will keep them on the air. except they seem to be ok with it. Wasn't the "danger zone" for tna like below a 0.8? I'm not going to pretend I know the in's and outs of tv ratings, but tna isn't doing bad... tna is making a profit, and people seem to be enjoying it. So, what ever
|
|
|
Post by markdown474 on Dec 22, 2008 13:33:47 GMT -5
I love when people attack Lance Storm for voicing his opinion regarding TNA or anything else in wrestling. Look at Lance Storm's website and you will fine numerous Q&A's where he answers emails from fans regarding any topic in wrestling. I don't know of any other wrestler who made it in the big time (and regardless of what anyone thinks, he did make it in the big time) that has consistantly answered fans questions as Lance Storm has (with the exception for Earthquake RIP). Personally I agree with most of what Lance says, but do disagree at times. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Lance's opinions...everyone has a right to their own opinion. But too often instead of countering his opinions with valid arguments against them, his opinions are dismissed with "Lance is a bitter never-was". If you disagree with something he says, attack the argument, not the person making it. Bashing Lance for having a voice and speaking to fans is just plain ridiculous when Lance's behavior should be what we would like from all our favorite wrestlers (i.e. speaking out to fans and also answering fans' comments and questions as well).
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 22, 2008 13:58:07 GMT -5
If you disagree with something he says, attack the argument, not the person making it. Unless that person is Disco Inferno.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 22, 2008 14:03:41 GMT -5
If you disagree with something he says, attack the argument, not the person making it. Unless that person is Disco Inferno. To be fair, we're still not entirely certain that Disco Inferno is, in fact, a person.
|
|
chairshotshurthead
ALF
Gerweck reports this man as truth.
REF!!! HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!!!
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by chairshotshurthead on Dec 22, 2008 18:04:39 GMT -5
Unless that person is Disco Inferno. To be fair, we're still not entirely certain that Disco Inferno is, in fact, a person. Nor does he have any actual arguments. ;D
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Dec 22, 2008 22:34:30 GMT -5
I'm sorry, and I don't mean this as a total insult, since I know what you're trying to say, but that may be the single silliest argument I have ever read. If we were talking about a subject that had quantifiable quantities, or something that involved facts and figures, then you can say "Your side has no justification". But whether or not you enjoy TNA is a completely subjective matter, and there are no facts or figures that can quantify how enjoyable the show is. Here, you just essentially said "The people who like it and defend it are wrong." That's not going to get you very far in a debate. No, having an actual basis of argument is what gets you far in a debate, and the argument over TNA has never been whether or not people can enjoy it, it's over whether or not there are things wrong with the show that prevent it from being both a program casual fans will want to watch and also a show that can be successful. There's countless arguments to support that TNA does not produce a product that falls into that criteria, and little to no arguments to support that it does. It's not about whether you like the show or not, it's about giving a reason why anyone outside the regular 1.1 fanbase would want to watch this show and keep watching it from week to week. That's an argument I have never heard made, which is why I say the justifications for TNA as a product by and large just aren't there. And for the record, I have watched the show. And I have followed the show regularly for weeks through reports as well. And from the times I have watched the show and the reports I get about the show, I have had no insentive to continue watching it. It's not much different from seeing a bad movie trailer or hearing a bad review, and the more bad press the show gets, the less likely people are to watch it. So for those of you who say 'well your opinion doesn't matter 'cause you don't watch it', I say give me a decent reason why I should. That's my 2 cents anyway. Again, the problem isn't whether you watch it or not; the problem is that you tried to make an argument of fact based on a completely subjective matter. Nobody argues against the notion that TNA is far from perfect, but it's absurd to argue that any people attempting to "justify" things TNA does are wrong based on pure fact. It's opinion, and you're not going to get the responses you're looking for unless you treat it as such. Maybe there are some fine reasons why people outside of the normal 1.0-1.2 fanbase should watch, and maybe there aren't, but there's no way of knowing what the "right" answer would be in that case. Christ, the highest rated segment in wrestling history was a "This Is Your Life" promo, so who the hell knows what the real answer is? I'll agree on this: if TNA is really attempting to expand their audience, then the formula they're sticking to now isn't doing the job for some reason or another. I think arguments could be made about why in many different ways (TNA not presenting itself the right way, lack of advertising on Spike, whatever the hell it might be), but, again, you don't go expecting a quantifiable answer on a subjective issue.
|
|
chairshotshurthead
ALF
Gerweck reports this man as truth.
REF!!! HE'S USING HYPNOSIS!!!
Posts: 1,100
|
Post by chairshotshurthead on Dec 23, 2008 1:36:55 GMT -5
No, having an actual basis of argument is what gets you far in a debate, and the argument over TNA has never been whether or not people can enjoy it, it's over whether or not there are things wrong with the show that prevent it from being both a program casual fans will want to watch and also a show that can be successful. There's countless arguments to support that TNA does not produce a product that falls into that criteria, and little to no arguments to support that it does. It's not about whether you like the show or not, it's about giving a reason why anyone outside the regular 1.1 fanbase would want to watch this show and keep watching it from week to week. That's an argument I have never heard made, which is why I say the justifications for TNA as a product by and large just aren't there. And for the record, I have watched the show. And I have followed the show regularly for weeks through reports as well. And from the times I have watched the show and the reports I get about the show, I have had no insentive to continue watching it. It's not much different from seeing a bad movie trailer or hearing a bad review, and the more bad press the show gets, the less likely people are to watch it. So for those of you who say 'well your opinion doesn't matter 'cause you don't watch it', I say give me a decent reason why I should. That's my 2 cents anyway. Again, the problem isn't whether you watch it or not; the problem is that you tried to make an argument of fact based on a completely subjective matter. Nobody argues against the notion that TNA is far from perfect, but it's absurd to argue that any people attempting to "justify" things TNA does are wrong based on pure fact. It's opinion, and you're not going to get the responses you're looking for unless you treat it as such. Maybe there are some fine reasons why people outside of the normal 1.0-1.2 fanbase should watch, and maybe there aren't, but there's no way of knowing what the "right" answer would be in that case. Christ, the highest rated segment in wrestling history was a "This Is Your Life" promo, so who the hell knows what the real answer is? I'll agree on this: if TNA is really attempting to expand their audience, then the formula they're sticking to now isn't doing the job for some reason or another. I think arguments could be made about why in many different ways (TNA not presenting itself the right way, lack of advertising on Spike, whatever the hell it might be), but, again, you don't go expecting a quantifiable answer on a subjective issue. You're quoting a post from 4 days ago to make your argument. I can barely even remember WTF it was about, and TBH, I really don't care anymore. People want to make the argument that TNA currently produces a product that is able to grow, bring in more viewers and produce bigger buyrates, making the company more successful. Personal tastes aside, there has been no evidence of consistent growth for TNA evidenced in the ratings numbers or buyrates, so there's no real basis for that argument until there's consistent evidence of growth. That means ratings that go above 1.2 and stay above that rating over a period of weeks and months and continuing to go up. That means getting more people watching the product and staying with it. And that means increasing the number of buyrates for PPVs. Those are signs of growth. Going crazy over a single week's rating where they drew a higher audience and heralding it as a great accomplishment when it's not is not only short-sighted, but setting yourself up for a fall. At any rate, I'm tired of this argument and I'm tired of banging my head against a wall to try and validate my argument/opinion, so I'm washing my hands of it. [/]
|
|
bretclark
Bubba Ho-Tep
Scrutinize this...
Posts: 503
|
Post by bretclark on Dec 25, 2008 6:14:28 GMT -5
Welcome, to WCW.
- bretclark
|
|
bretclark
Bubba Ho-Tep
Scrutinize this...
Posts: 503
|
Post by bretclark on Dec 25, 2008 6:24:11 GMT -5
I love when people attack Lance Storm for voicing his opinion regarding TNA or anything else in wrestling. Look at Lance Storm's website and you will fine numerous Q&A's where he answers emails from fans regarding any topic in wrestling. I don't know of any other wrestler who made it in the big time (and regardless of what anyone thinks, he did make it in the big time) that has consistantly answered fans questions as Lance Storm has (with the exception for Earthquake RIP). Personally I agree with most of what Lance says, but do disagree at times. I have no problem with people disagreeing with Lance's opinions...everyone has a right to their own opinion. But too often instead of countering his opinions with valid arguments against them, his opinions are dismissed with "Lance is a bitter never-was". If you disagree with something he says, attack the argument, not the person making it. Bashing Lance for having a voice and speaking to fans is just plain ridiculous when Lance's behavior should be what we would like from all our favorite wrestlers (i.e. speaking out to fans and also answering fans' comments and questions as well). I happen to be a Lance Storm fan and if there's one thing above all that Lance Storm has accomplished is the kind of person he is. He tells it as is, with no politiking here and there. I'll be the first to admit that I WANT TNA TO SUCCEED, cuz let's face it, we as wrestling fans want to see something new, something reenergized, and as RD Reynolds said it best, the wrestling industry is an industry that can reinvent itself. I know I slam both WWE and TNA, but there comes a point when a company does something that brings back the fans like they had in their glory years (80's Golden Era, Monday Night Wars, etc.). - bretclark
|
|