|
Post by jobsquad on Feb 20, 2010 18:53:01 GMT -5
I think TNA has the ability to build on ratings as they go, assuming they are on Monday night. Alot of it is that they need to use established stars to get new guys over in order to appease the new viewers.
I guess I am thinking they NEED to feature guys like Hall/Nash/Hogan/Foley etc. in order to give a new viewer a base to which they can be introduced to new talent. Even the freaking Nasty Boys were seen by more potential viewers during their time in WWF/WCW, and it gives them a place to build from.
Personally speaking, it is very intimidating from a viewer standpoint to try and watch a show based upon guys you know nothing about.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,501
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Feb 21, 2010 1:14:57 GMT -5
No, and he shouldn't. WWE is light years ahead of TNA right now. Don't believe me, go book a Dome show for TNA and see how "full" the show is. Then go watch WWE sell 55,000+ tickets for Wrestlemania.
See WWE's "bad" show constantly double the ratings of the so-called "way better" TNA show.
See WWE's products constantly outsell TNA's products by a large, large number. (T-shirts, videos, video games).
WWE, even in bad years, is making huge profits. They have a great track record with television networks and will probably always have a home.
Until TNA can start traveling the country, filling arenas constantly with 5000+ fans every show, get 10000+ fans constantly for every PPV and start having TNA products having comparable sales to WWE, it really isn;t worth Vince's time to worry about TNA.
One day TNA may pose a threat to Vince, right now, they are not.
Opinions on which show is better doesn't mean a thing because its all subjective. The main, and only, thing to look at is $$$, which WWE makes plenty of.
|
|
|
Post by nibbles on Feb 21, 2010 1:46:33 GMT -5
Ask this again in about a year or two.
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Feb 21, 2010 2:29:10 GMT -5
As Vince McMahon, I'm praying to the Lovecraftian abominations that I worship that TNA and Hogan will be a BIGGER success than they are and stumble onto a hook that genuinely manages to attract and connect to mainstream audiences the way the nWo did back in '96.
I know I'm not getting any younger and I'm hopelessly out of touch with pop culture, but I know more about running a promotion than Dixie Carter and Eric Bischoff and both their cronies combined. As soon as they come up with a successful formula, I'll emulate it and mold a WWE-branded variation of it into a viable foundation for a long-term business strategy.
From there, I'll just need to wait out TNA's mismanagement until the company self-destructs in a few years, and I'll be there on the sidelines to buy any worthwhile assets they may have left under contract.
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Feb 21, 2010 3:04:59 GMT -5
As Vince McMahon, I'm praying to the Lovecraftian abominations that I worship that TNA and Hogan will be a BIGGER success than they are and stumble onto a hook that genuinely manages to attract and connect to mainstream audiences the way the nWo did back in '96. I know I'm not getting any younger and I'm hopelessly out of touch with pop culture, but I know more about running a promotion than Dixie Carter and Eric Bischoff and both their cronies combined. As soon as they come up with a successful formula, I'll emulate it and mold a WWE-branded variation of it into a viable foundation for a long-term business strategy. From there, I'll just need to wait out TNA's mismanagement until the company self-destructs in a few years, and I'll be there on the sidelines to buy any worthwhile assets they may have left under contract. It almost sounds as if you respect the concept that McMahon has just ripped off ideas over the years and done everything in his power to copy and destroy his competition. As if this is a GOOD thing.
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Feb 21, 2010 3:13:33 GMT -5
No, and he shouldn't. WWE is light years ahead of TNA right now. Don't believe me, go book a Dome show for TNA and see how "full" the show is. Then go watch WWE sell 55,000+ tickets for Wrestlemania. See WWE's "bad" show constantly double the ratings of the so-called "way better" TNA show. See WWE's products constantly outsell TNA's products by a large, large number. (T-shirts, videos, video games). WWE, even in bad years, is making huge profits. They have a great track record with television networks and will probably always have a home. Until TNA can start traveling the country, filling arenas constantly with 5000+ fans every show, get 10000+ fans constantly for every PPV and start having TNA products having comparable sales to WWE, it really isn;t worth Vince's time to worry about TNA. One day TNA may pose a threat to Vince, right now, they are not. Opinions on which show is better doesn't mean a thing because its all subjective. The main, and only, thing to look at is $$$, which WWE makes plenty of. Once again, the money argument. By that reasoning Britney Spears is a better musician than Tom Waits. She certainly sells more, and more people buy her albums, there for she MUST be better. She sells out far bigger arenas than Tom Waits ever has. Britney Spears is OBJECTIVELY better in the entertainment arena. So why bother listening to Tom Waits. So You Think You Can Dance is a better show than BattleStar Gallictica. Dance gets far larger ratings, it must be better. Why bother watching Battlestar, when So You Think You Can Dance gets better ratings. It is just better entertainment. Beverly Hills Chihuwawa made tons more money then the Wrestler. Therefore, superior entertainment product, because it filled far more theaters. Plain and simple. IF you have a product more people like, and it's the same kind of entertainment product, then obviously a better product and you shouldn't even bother existing or competing. I love how McMahon is considered this amazing capitalist figure amongst some fans, but the guy is as communist monopolistic as it gets about the wrestling industry. How dare we get competition!
|
|
|
Post by rnrk supports BLM on Feb 21, 2010 3:17:37 GMT -5
As Vince McMahon, I'm praying to the Lovecraftian abominations that I worship that TNA and Hogan will be a BIGGER success than they are and stumble onto a hook that genuinely manages to attract and connect to mainstream audiences the way the nWo did back in '96. I know I'm not getting any younger and I'm hopelessly out of touch with pop culture, but I know more about running a promotion than Dixie Carter and Eric Bischoff and both their cronies combined. As soon as they come up with a successful formula, I'll emulate it and mold a WWE-branded variation of it into a viable foundation for a long-term business strategy. From there, I'll just need to wait out TNA's mismanagement until the company self-destructs in a few years, and I'll be there on the sidelines to buy any worthwhile assets they may have left under contract. It almost sounds as if you respect the concept that McMahon has just ripped off ideas over the years and done everything in his power to copy and destroy his competition. As if this is a GOOD thing. It keeps my wallets full. Maybe after the next boom period, I'll have another go at that football league...
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 21, 2010 3:36:10 GMT -5
No, and he shouldn't. WWE is light years ahead of TNA right now. Don't believe me, go book a Dome show for TNA and see how "full" the show is. Then go watch WWE sell 55,000+ tickets for Wrestlemania. See WWE's "bad" show constantly double the ratings of the so-called "way better" TNA show. See WWE's products constantly outsell TNA's products by a large, large number. (T-shirts, videos, video games). WWE, even in bad years, is making huge profits. They have a great track record with television networks and will probably always have a home. Until TNA can start traveling the country, filling arenas constantly with 5000+ fans every show, get 10000+ fans constantly for every PPV and start having TNA products having comparable sales to WWE, it really isn;t worth Vince's time to worry about TNA. One day TNA may pose a threat to Vince, right now, they are not. Opinions on which show is better doesn't mean a thing because its all subjective. The main, and only, thing to look at is $$$, which WWE makes plenty of. Once again, the money argument. By that reasoning Britney Spears is a better musician than Tom Waits. She certainly sells more, and more people buy her albums, there for she MUST be better. She sells out far bigger arenas than Tom Waits ever has. Britney Spears is OBJECTIVELY better in the entertainment arena. So why bother listening to Tom Waits. So You Think You Can Dance is a better show than BattleStar Gallictica. Dance gets far larger ratings, it must be better. Why bother watching Battlestar, when So You Think You Can Dance gets better ratings. It is just better entertainment. Beverly Hills Chihuwawa made tons more money then the Wrestler. Therefore, superior entertainment product, because it filled far more theaters. Plain and simple. IF you have a product more people like, and it's the same kind of entertainment product, then obviously a better product and you shouldn't even bother existing or competing. I love how McMahon is considered this amazing capitalist figure amongst some fans, but the guy is as communist monopolistic as it gets about the wrestling industry. How dare we get competition! I doubt Britany Spears worries about when Tom Waits releases an album. The makers of the nect Twilight movie won't delay their release if the most acclaimed documentary ever is scheduled for the same release date. Now if the next Dark Night is released that week maybe they will change their release date. ROH during 2006-2008 had the best wrestling in North America. Not only did Vince not sweat about ROH, TNA didn't even sweat about ROH. Hate McMahon or love him it doesn't matter, the idea that TNA is a threat to him just isn't viable if you're a realist who understands how the business side of it all works.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Feb 21, 2010 7:34:15 GMT -5
Once again, the money argument. By that reasoning Britney Spears is a better musician than Tom Waits. She certainly sells more, and more people buy her albums, there for she MUST be better. She sells out far bigger arenas than Tom Waits ever has. Britney Spears is OBJECTIVELY better in the entertainment arena. So why bother listening to Tom Waits. So You Think You Can Dance is a better show than BattleStar Gallictica. Dance gets far larger ratings, it must be better. Why bother watching Battlestar, when So You Think You Can Dance gets better ratings. It is just better entertainment. Beverly Hills Chihuwawa made tons more money then the Wrestler. Therefore, superior entertainment product, because it filled far more theaters. Plain and simple. IF you have a product more people like, and it's the same kind of entertainment product, then obviously a better product and you shouldn't even bother existing or competing. I love how McMahon is considered this amazing capitalist figure amongst some fans, but the guy is as communist monopolistic as it gets about the wrestling industry. How dare we get competition! I doubt Britany Spears worries about when Tom Waits releases an album. The makers of the nect Twilight movie won't delay their release if the most acclaimed documentary ever is scheduled for the same release date. Now if the next Dark Night is released that week maybe they will change their release date. ROH during 2006-2008 had the best wrestling in North America. Not only did Vince not sweat about ROH, TNA didn't even sweat about ROH. Hate McMahon or love him it doesn't matter, the idea that TNA is a threat to him just isn't viable if you're a realist who understands how the business side of it all works. Exactly. You can't have a discussion about how much of a threat TNA is to the WWE without money being a major factor. Why? Because the audience votes with their wallets. It doesn't matter how good your promotion is. If you can't put a dent in the WWE's finances, you will never, ever be a threat to them. And toodark, who taught you about the different economic systems? Because you need to ask for your money back.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Feb 21, 2010 7:51:26 GMT -5
This thread isn't about the quality of the shows, per se; it's strictly about business.
You can feel that TNA puts on a much better show than WWE does, but that's not what this thread is about.
|
|
Johnny Flamingo
Hank Scorpio
Killing the business one post at a time
Posts: 6,501
|
Post by Johnny Flamingo on Feb 21, 2010 14:24:09 GMT -5
The $$$ does matter. I have friends in a band named "Junior". I think the band is amazing, but in the grand scheme of things, there release just doesn't "matter".
If you want to get ahead and have major businesses take notice you need to be able to back up your product with the bottom line, which is $$$.
Until TNA can make the type of $$$ that is comparable to WWE they can not possibly be a worry to Vinnie Mac.
Quality of product is simply a manner of opinion. In the reality of business $$$ is and always be the bottom line.
|
|
|
Post by Pounder on Feb 21, 2010 15:53:11 GMT -5
You can't ignore competition until it reaches a level where it can compete. That's crazy. That's like telling a track athlete at the Olympics not to bother looking over his shoulder until he can feel the breath of the other guy on his neck.
WWE have hardly been doing great business either. Wrestlemania ppv buyrates, whilst still huge compared to TNA standards, are less than half of what they were nine years ago if we're going by domestic buys.
Whilst the gulf that is in existence is undeniable, what we have is one company who is growing in reputation and support and another which is in decline.
It's all relative. WWE is substantially ahead of TNA but the gap is closing rather than being sustained or going the other way.
I think it shows you the method and mindset of WWE that they seem to think bringing in a 'name' each week will help them.
|
|
|
Post by DrewVonAwesome on Feb 21, 2010 15:55:25 GMT -5
No if I was Vince I'd suddenly be obsessed with that hot new movie that came out.... what was it called again? Oh yeah Dumb and Dumber.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Feb 21, 2010 19:08:07 GMT -5
You can't ignore competition until it reaches a level where it can compete. That's crazy. That's like telling a track athlete at the Olympics not to bother looking over his shoulder until he can feel the breath of the other guy on his neck. WWE have hardly been doing great business either. Wrestlemania ppv buyrates, whilst still huge compared to TNA standards, are less than half of what they were nine years ago if we're going by domestic buys. Whilst the gulf that is in existence is undeniable, what we have is one company who is growing in reputation and support and another which is in decline. It's all relative. WWE is substantially ahead of TNA but the gap is closing rather than being sustained or going the other way. I think it shows you the method and mindset of WWE that they seem to think bringing in a 'name' each week will help them. I don't think they ignore TNA, I just don't think they are worried. Many behind the scenes people have commented on stand out performers and they have taken people from TNA that they wanted and sent offers to others that didn't take them. So obviously Vince isn't oblivious to TNA he just isn't too worried and I see no reason for him to be. WWE's problems and loss of ratings have virtually nothing to do with the existence of TNA. Everytime they have gone head to head, WWE didn't lose any numbers that they had been getting. Again the idea seems solid but it just doesn't relate to the reality. From 2004-2008 ROH was a faster growing company gaining a lot of reputation. Still TNA did not sweat them. They took who they wanted when they wanted them. Sure some stayed ROH but it still didn't make to much of a difference. TNA is doing the vast majority of their filming from one location. WWE does 6 hours each week usually in 2 different cities. That's on top of the house show circuit and PPVs. Heck even if TNA does manage to get some mainstream press usually one of the idiot commentators from the news or sports anchors still end up talking about Wrestlemania or WWF. People just associate wrestling with the stuff Vince has branded. WCW had a chance because A) Turner controlled a lot of media B) Hogan,Savage and Flair were 3 of the biggest names associated with wrestling and were on Turner programming. They may be on TNA now but they are in the Bruno Sammartino role during the start of the 80s boom. Now the names that people remember from the last boom are Austin, Rock, and Undertaker. Despite what Hogan tries to hint at those guys probably won't be showing up in TNA anytime soon.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 21, 2010 19:13:50 GMT -5
No way. Vince dosn't run a wrestling company and TNA is a wrestling company.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 21, 2010 19:14:55 GMT -5
Ask this again in about a year or two. If they are still around in a year or two...I kid I kid
|
|
Square
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Official Ambassador
Grand Poobah of Scavenger Hunts 2011
Square-Because he looks good at all the right angles.
Posts: 18,700
|
Post by Square on Feb 21, 2010 19:18:51 GMT -5
Ask this again in about a year or two. If they are still around in a year or two...I kid I kid There could be a lot of truth to that statement. I honestly believe that if TNA does not in the next 6 months set alight and skyrocket then they will start to lose money and Spike's interest and then Vinnie Mac will walk over to Mr Carter with the cashbook and offer him something he couldn't say no too.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Feb 21, 2010 21:13:03 GMT -5
If they are still around in a year or two...I kid I kid There could be a lot of truth to that statement. I honestly believe that if TNA does not in the next 6 months set alight and skyrocket then they will start to lose money and Spike's interest and then Vinnie Mac will walk over to Mr Carter with the cashbook and offer him something he couldn't say no too. He could buy the trademarks and video library for a few hundred thousand. They have the elements they need to succeed. They have a few million fans, but unless Bischoff and Hogan can get more fans to watch pro wrestling again in general than TNA may have made a fatal error in going to mondays
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Feb 21, 2010 22:28:51 GMT -5
Exactly. You can't have a discussion about how much of a threat TNA is to the WWE without money being a major factor. Why? Because the audience votes with their wallets. It doesn't matter how good your promotion is. If you can't put a dent in the WWE's finances, you will never, ever be a threat to them. And toodark, who taught you about the different economic systems? Because you need to ask for your money back. This country is based on competition. Obviously TNA has resources in a parent company, money they have made so far, and the backing of a cable network that has a stake in their success. Combine that with a general boredom of WWE by many fans, which is exhibited in them having HALF the ratings they once did. So let's put this in simpler terms so you don't mock my economic sense again. Heinz Ketchup is in a supermarket isle. It's the only Ketchup people know. Suddenly there's Hunts ketchup. Some people just dont care for how Heinz tastes. So they try Hunts. Some people might start using Hunts, suddenly Hunts has more income, and less people buy Heinz, and Heinz does what it can to get it's purchasers back. It happens all the time in a capitalist system. Sure you have to make money to make money, but you can also make money having SOME money and providing an alternative. Now I know you LOVE you some Heinz, Brock Ness, but some people are going to like Hunts more. And believe me, Heinz will start caring.
|
|
|
Post by Christian Troy MD on Feb 21, 2010 23:41:20 GMT -5
What feuds in wwe are remotely interesting? Randy Orton is destroying Sheamus, and Sheamus is playing honky tonk man with the heavyweight title. CM Punk is an awesome heel, and HHH destoyed his whole character by a few humorous one liners, then blowing heel momentum by pitching him out just as CM was getting over. WWE tournaments are crap. You get Carlito vs HHH first round. In TNA you get Anderson vs Angle. You never know who wins that match. The E has got to improve or Vince will start getting concerned. So getting kicked out of the rumble killed Punk completely and tournaments are extremely important. Did I miss something?
|
|