|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jun 1, 2010 17:22:52 GMT -5
I usually try to stay far away from any threads involving Mickie James, but since it's in the TNA section I will post my thoughts. I don't know if she will help the KO division or not at this point. But I have a feeling that if Mickie does sign with TNA and gets an automatic main event push and KO title run along with a big payday (I just don't see her coming in for cheap) that she's probably going to get some resentment from the other women in the division. The ones that are left anyway. Because to compensate for Mickie, TNA would probably let go of Daffney, Taylor Wilde, Sarita, ODB and Hamada. And given that those women are quite popular (except perhaps ODB who everyone seems sick of) it'd cause quite a bit of resentment between people on these boards too.
|
|
|
Post by poontangler on Jun 2, 2010 1:32:55 GMT -5
Okay...as disenchanted I am with TNA's product, FAILING is not the correct word right now. UNDERPERFORMING would be more correct. Facts are fact. The ratings declined a lot and their fixes haven't fixed anything. It's fairly well known that their PPV buyrates have been bad-to-awful, bad enough that they refuse to release the numbers themselves. If the ratings continue to decline, then we can start breaking out the "F" word. Using SpikeTV adding more TNA programming to prove they're not floundering doesn't work either. Most of Spike's programming gets ratings that make TNA's look like Attitude-era WWE. Now, I think it would be a good idea to sign Mickie, but I certainly don't think it will affect the ratings positively or negatively. The focus needs to be on the men's division, as that is what will make or break the company. A: it seems like ratings are getting better since the move back to Thursday. Yes it does prove that they are not floundering. Only the people involved in tna can determine what is failure. If spike is happy enough with their performance to give them another show they obviously are not a bad or struggling show in their eyes. :-\ Once again, compared to what their other shows do in the ratings, TNA is doing great for them, but that doesn't say much when all of their programming not involving UFC does abysmal ratings. If they get a .5 out of a TNA show, they've doubled or tripled their average rating, but a .5 still stinks. Of course the ratings are doing better on Thursdays...what are they up against? And regardless of their ratings improvement, it's still less than it was in the past, and in the past, they didn't have as much high priced, bigger name talent. THEY CAN'T EVEN BEAT NXT IN THE RATINGS! Simply put, they should be doing much better in theory, but they're not. This is not TNA bashing, these aren't opinions...they are facts backed up by the fine folks at Nielsen. Need proof? The 2/20/09 Impact! did a 1.9 rating (source: www.multichannel.com/article/179806-Spike_Rings_Up_Stellar_Ratings_With_Ring_Events.php) The 5/20/10 & 5/27/10 Impact! shows both did a .96 (source: www.pwinsider.com/article/47987/impact-and-superstars-ratings.html?p=1) That's half the ratings with a s***load more talent. "Only the people in TNA can determine what is failure"? What does that even mean? And if you've read my post, I said they weren't failing, they were underperforming. I think that's more than fair to say. If you feel the need to be critical of a post, you should at least get what the poster said correct. To return to the purpose of this thread, once again, Mickie will NOT help their ratings or buyrates (unless she's getting naked, which obviously won't happen...at least not on Spike).
|
|
|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Jun 2, 2010 2:11:08 GMT -5
That was 1.9 million viewers, not a 1.9 rating.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jun 2, 2010 3:27:44 GMT -5
A: it seems like ratings are getting better since the move back to Thursday. Yes it does prove that they are not floundering. Only the people involved in tna can determine what is failure. If spike is happy enough with their performance to give them another show they obviously are not a bad or struggling show in their eyes. :-\ Once again, compared to what their other shows do in the ratings, TNA is doing great for them, but that doesn't say much when all of their programming not involving UFC does abysmal ratings. If they get a .5 out of a TNA show, they've doubled or tripled their average rating, but a .5 still stinks. Of course the ratings are doing better on Thursdays...what are they up against? And regardless of their ratings improvement, it's still less than it was in the past, and in the past, they didn't have as much high priced, bigger name talent. THEY CAN'T EVEN BEAT NXT IN THE RATINGS! Simply put, they should be doing much better in theory, but they're not. This is not TNA bashing, these aren't opinions...they are facts backed up by the fine folks at Nielsen. Need proof? The 2/20/09 Impact! did a 1.9 rating (source: www.multichannel.com/article/179806-Spike_Rings_Up_Stellar_Ratings_With_Ring_Events.php) The 5/20/10 & 5/27/10 Impact! shows both did a .96 (source: www.pwinsider.com/article/47987/impact-and-superstars-ratings.html?p=1) That's half the ratings with a s***load more talent. "Only the people in TNA can determine what is failure"? What does that even mean? And if you've read my post, I said they weren't failing, they were underperforming. I think that's more than fair to say. If you feel the need to be critical of a post, you should at least get what the poster said correct. To return to the purpose of this thread, once again, Mickie will NOT help their ratings or buyrates (unless she's getting naked, which obviously won't happen...at least not on Spike). Despite you getting the number wrong, you're missing my point. Even underperforming is only determined by the people investing in tna. You have no idea what time and money is really going into the product. You don't know what type of goals tna is trying to achieve. If everyone involved seems to be ok with how the company is going, who are you to say "well it's floundering" or talk about models that don't work.
|
|
|
Post by celticjobber on Jun 2, 2010 4:17:16 GMT -5
I usually try to stay far away from any threads involving Mickie James, but since it's in the TNA section I will post my thoughts. I don't know if she will help the KO division or not at this point. But I have a feeling that if Mickie does sign with TNA and gets an automatic main event push and KO title run along with a big payday (I just don't see her coming in for cheap) that she's probably going to get some resentment from the other women in the division. The ones that are left anyway. Because to compensate for Mickie, TNA would probably let go of Daffney, Taylor Wilde, Sarita, ODB and Hamada. Mickie is close friends with Daffney, if Mickie had any pull I'm sure she'd get them to keep her around.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 2, 2010 8:24:00 GMT -5
It seems unlikely people are "okay" with how the company is doing when the entire strategic thrust of this year was a colossal failure and there is talk of layoffs.
|
|
|
Post by Perpetual Nirvana on Jun 2, 2010 10:23:06 GMT -5
The ones that are left anyway. Because to compensate for Mickie, TNA would probably let go of Daffney, Taylor Wilde, Sarita, ODB and Hamada. Mickie is close friends with Daffney, if Mickie had any pull I'm sure she'd get them to keep her around. Daffney's contract reportly runs out soon with no plans from TNA to renew it. So Daffney could be long gone by the time by the time Mickie's 90-day no-compete clause is up.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Jun 2, 2010 10:36:12 GMT -5
Once again, compared to what their other shows do in the ratings, TNA is doing great for them, but that doesn't say much when all of their programming not involving UFC does abysmal ratings. If they get a .5 out of a TNA show, they've doubled or tripled their average rating, but a .5 still stinks. Of course the ratings are doing better on Thursdays...what are they up against? And regardless of their ratings improvement, it's still less than it was in the past, and in the past, they didn't have as much high priced, bigger name talent. THEY CAN'T EVEN BEAT NXT IN THE RATINGS! Simply put, they should be doing much better in theory, but they're not. This is not TNA bashing, these aren't opinions...they are facts backed up by the fine folks at Nielsen. Need proof? The 2/20/09 Impact! did a 1.9 rating (source: www.multichannel.com/article/179806-Spike_Rings_Up_Stellar_Ratings_With_Ring_Events.php) The 5/20/10 & 5/27/10 Impact! shows both did a .96 (source: www.pwinsider.com/article/47987/impact-and-superstars-ratings.html?p=1) That's half the ratings with a s***load more talent. "Only the people in TNA can determine what is failure"? What does that even mean? And if you've read my post, I said they weren't failing, they were underperforming. I think that's more than fair to say. If you feel the need to be critical of a post, you should at least get what the poster said correct. To return to the purpose of this thread, once again, Mickie will NOT help their ratings or buyrates (unless she's getting naked, which obviously won't happen...at least not on Spike). Despite you getting the number wrong, you're missing my point. Even underperforming is only determined by the people investing in tna. You have no idea what time and money is really going into the product. You don't know what type of goals tna is trying to achieve. If everyone involved seems to be ok with how the company is going, who are you to say "well it's floundering" or talk about models that don't work. I know we are not the ones who TNA has to answer to its the investors and networks, but it really isn't a giant leap in logic to assume that those people would want improvements in ratings or buyrates if they sink more money into it. That obviously isn't happening. Maybe they are crazy philanthropists who want to support art-house accoustic bands and prowrestling Hulk Hogan wants to watch in which case they are doing great in the wrestling aspect. However if we judge them from a business standpoint they are failing. I didn't say they failed and their is no hope, but I do stand by the idea that the current business models are the source of their many griefs.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 2, 2010 10:43:45 GMT -5
Unless, of course, if the corporate welfare is actually a tax write-off for Panda (energy companies have done stranger things) since the company generates red ink AND Spike doesn't want a succesful wrestling league because that would mean paying big bucks to keep it (remember what happened to WWE?) Perhaps TNA's mediocrity fulfills a niche in both their plans...for now. But it won't forever and its difficult to see how Mickie will advance the company in any way.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jun 2, 2010 11:37:41 GMT -5
Despite you getting the number wrong, you're missing my point. Even underperforming is only determined by the people investing in tna. You have no idea what time and money is really going into the product. You don't know what type of goals tna is trying to achieve. If everyone involved seems to be ok with how the company is going, who are you to say "well it's floundering" or talk about models that don't work. I know we are not the ones who TNA has to answer to its the investors and networks, but it really isn't a giant leap in logic to assume that those people would want improvements in ratings or buyrates if they sink more money into it. That obviously isn't happening. Maybe they are crazy philanthropists who want to support art-house accoustic bands and prowrestling Hulk Hogan wants to watch in which case they are doing great in the wrestling aspect. However if we judge them from a business standpoint they are failing. I didn't say they failed and their is no hope, but I do stand by the idea that the current business models are the source of their many griefs. My point is they are investing more money and time into it. MAYBE thats a sign they are getting a return from it. It may be the return YOU think they should make, but if they are happy with it it's not failing. It also does not seem like they have any unusual griefs that any other growing company has not had . Mondays didn't work out. They are back to their normal time and are getting normal ratings
|
|
|
Post by poontangler on Jun 2, 2010 12:42:19 GMT -5
That was 1.9 million viewers, not a 1.9 rating. That's what happens when you post late night...sorry for the mistake. My overall point remains the same. They had 1.9 million viewers then, now they have 1,338,000, and that number was up from the prior week with the same .96 rating (using the same sources). That means in a little over a year's time, they lost over half a million viewers, despite spending a lot more money on very recognizable name talent. If that's not underperforming, I don't know what is. Joe, you said: Now, given my correction, how can you possibly say TNA is okay with losing half a million viewers in a year? I don't know what goals they're trying to achieve? I think I can fairly say they don't want to drop more than a quarter of their viewership. That certainly can't make them very happy. No, I don't have exact numbers for how much cash they're spending. But I can say this: 1-Hogan does NOTHING cheaply. 2-Rob Van Dam said repeatedly he wouldn't come back full time unless it was worth his while (ie money). 3-Jeff Hardy is not a cheap talent to sign. If they didn't pay him quite well, he'd be sitting home, waiting to find out if he'll be going to prison and working on his god awful band. And that's just three of them! That doesn't take into account Christy Hemme, Eric Bischoff and a lot of their more recent signings. You also said: As pointed out above, they are NOT getting normal ratings. There is no disputing that. This "growing company" has been around now for 8 years (the same length of time ECW survived). They formed on May 10, 2002. They broke off from the albatross of the NWA on May 14, 2007. And in that time, their ratings grew for a while. Now, that's not the case. And I get your point, I just don't agree with it. The only difference is that you're arguing speculation while I'm offering some cold hard facts. I do not want TNA to fail, but the way they're going, I wouldn't be surprised if the plug got pulled. It might not be this year, might not be next year, but if things continue like this, it may become an inevitability. This isn't about their Monday night mistake. It's about the state of the company today.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 2, 2010 12:47:13 GMT -5
TNA doesn't seem to realize that the "lesser" names (Daniels, Kong, even Steiner) are more a part of their product than the "big names" they keep bringing in to supposedly make them into a mighty empire. Even "vanilla midgets" inspire brand loyalty if people associate them with the product. Nobody associates half the expensive TNA assignees with anything right now other than a poorly reviewed product.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Jun 2, 2010 13:50:36 GMT -5
They are going to sign Mickie James, pay her more than their established Knockouts and have to cut Samoa Joe, Desmond Wolfe, the Pope and AJ Styles to get her. Then they will officially be the new WCW, by letting go young talent they established to get WWF/E hasbeens(remember the hiatus of Jericho, Benoit, Guerrero, Malenko, and Saturn which ended up killing the company because the old guys couldn't do it anymore). Also I am betting WWE wouldn't mind getting some of their young talent, since they have a main event scene that will need to be refilled soon.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Jun 2, 2010 14:08:48 GMT -5
I find it weird that the signing of these guys and news about financial troubles, I think about how only last year did they start turning a profit.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 2, 2010 14:10:09 GMT -5
Didn't they make a minor profit in '08 as well?
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Jun 2, 2010 14:17:09 GMT -5
Didn't they make a minor profit in '08 as well? They did?
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jun 2, 2010 14:24:44 GMT -5
Didn't they make a minor profit in '08 as well? They did? A number of people have sighted '08 and '09 as the only profitable years that TNA had, although I don't know if anybody knows for sure.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Jun 2, 2010 14:28:09 GMT -5
A number of people have sighted '08 and '09 as the only profitable years that TNA had, although I don't know if anybody knows for sure. Cool.
|
|
Steveweiser
Dalek
Mickie Mickie You're So Fine... Hey Mickie!
THE GRAPS
Posts: 50,249
|
Post by Steveweiser on Jun 2, 2010 15:34:13 GMT -5
Meltzer says that the main appeal of TNA for Mickie is the ability to promote her album, which would take priority for her over the wrestling.
|
|
|
Post by renzino on Jun 3, 2010 3:58:01 GMT -5
I read on another site that TNA does want Mickie James to be the face of the Knockout division and have it built around her.
That sounds familar.
Honestly I wish TNA would try to build up their own talent and utilize the women they have to their fullest potential instead of constantly relying on ex WWE talent (yes I am aware that Mickie was in TNA before but she made her name in the WWE). It just makes them look desperate.
I thought they wanted Angelina Love to be the face of the KO divsion. I guess they don't believe that she can do it.
Also I guess they feel that Sarita cannot feel that role either. Because I have read that they wanted to start using her more.
|
|