Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251 
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 18:21:21 GMT -5
that they could be airing re-runs of CSI or Law And Order or whatever and probably get better ratings than TNA is getting?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mayonnaise on Jul 3, 2010 18:23:56 GMT -5
They can't. That is why they like TNA.
|
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Jul 3, 2010 18:26:16 GMT -5
They could bring back 18 wheels of Justice, and it'd get better ratings than TNA.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 3, 2010 18:27:04 GMT -5
They can't. That is why they like TNA. This, TNA Impact! is (usually) above the network average. |
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 3, 2010 18:41:24 GMT -5
Mark my words, Spike eventually WILL get sick of paying the salary of TNA's top talent, regardless of ratings.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 18:46:00 GMT -5
Mark my words, Spike eventually WILL get sick of paying the salary of TNA's top talent, regardless of ratings. I would expect them to get sick of it sooner rather than later. If I were a Spike TV exec; I'd be looking over those contracts for a way out as soon as possible. |
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jul 3, 2010 18:47:28 GMT -5
It's not just ratings, it's ad revenue and target demographics.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,224
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jul 3, 2010 18:48:40 GMT -5
You guys do know that really popular shows like CSI when played in reruns usually don't get near the ratings of what TNA is getting right? Wrestling has always gotten better ratings than most regular tv shows. There is just a higher standard for it because it is new every week and the bar was set really high in the late 90s.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 18:56:14 GMT -5
You guys do know that really popular shows like CSI when played in reruns usually don't get near the ratings of what TNA is getting right? Wrestling has always gotten better ratings than most regular tv shows. There is just a higher standard for it because it is new every week and the bar was set really high in the late 90s. But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. |
|
|
|
Post by romafan87 on Jul 3, 2010 19:08:02 GMT -5
You guys do know that really popular shows like CSI when played in reruns usually don't get near the ratings of what TNA is getting right? Wrestling has always gotten better ratings than most regular tv shows. There is just a higher standard for it because it is new every week and the bar was set really high in the late 90s. But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. Except advertisers, as said before, pay a hell of a lot more for the targeted and coveted 18-49 male demographic even if it is wrestling. I'm sure Spike is making money on TNA through ad revenue or else it would have been off the air a long time ago. |
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 19:17:34 GMT -5
But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. Except advertisers, as said before, pay a hell of a lot more for the targeted and coveted 18-49 male demographic even if it is wrestling. I'm sure Spike is making money on TNA through ad revenue or else it would have been off the air a long time ago. And how much longer will advertisers pay to reach a demograph for a show that fewer and fewer people are watching? |
|
pacino
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,504
|
Post by pacino on Jul 3, 2010 19:23:30 GMT -5
if fewer and fewer people were watching perhaps you'd have a point. as it is, they have a consistent audience that had a deviation during an experiment.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 3, 2010 19:40:01 GMT -5
Mark my words, Spike eventually WILL get sick of paying the salary of TNA's top talent, regardless of ratings. I would expect them to get sick of it sooner rather than later. If I were a Spike TV exec; I'd be looking over those contracts for a way out as soon as possible. What I'm wondering about is why Spike even bothers paying Sting and Angle's contract right now. I think I saw an estimate that TNA's "floor" is around 1 million in terms of the absolute lowest it can go on Thursdays. Its about that right now. I wonder just how much the return on investment on Angle/Sting is, ESPECIALLY Sting, who won't even do house shows. |
|
|
|
Post by Amazing Kitsune on Jul 3, 2010 19:47:38 GMT -5
You guys do know that really popular shows like CSI when played in reruns usually don't get near the ratings of what TNA is getting right? Wrestling has always gotten better ratings than most regular tv shows. There is just a higher standard for it because it is new every week and the bar was set really high in the late 90s. But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. We must not be watching the same episodes of Impact. Their TV show has been everywhere from good to great for weeks. It reeked of WCW 2000 for a few weeks back when they were on Mondays, but nothing like that since then. |
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Jul 3, 2010 20:05:10 GMT -5
^Right on
I also just want to add that when TNA had just started out and all we had was WWE everybody online griped about having another major wrestling promotion. If you are cheering on thier demise than do not complain if they ever go out of buisiness when all you have is John Cena and HHH again
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 20:06:26 GMT -5
^Right on I also just want to add that when TNA had just started out and all we had was WWE everybody online griped about having another major wrestling promotion. If you are cheering on thier demise than do not complain if they ever go out of buisiness when all you have is John Cena and HHH again I don't care if TNA makes it or not. Makes no difference to me. I think it's a sub-par product being horribly mis-managed and badly booked. |
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 3, 2010 20:10:48 GMT -5
You guys do know that really popular shows like CSI when played in reruns usually don't get near the ratings of what TNA is getting right? Wrestling has always gotten better ratings than most regular tv shows. There is just a higher standard for it because it is new every week and the bar was set really high in the late 90s. But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. No it does not... You have no idea what you are talking about. Re-runs for shows like csi are 1.5 million dollars PER EPISODE. Even if hulk hogan costs 10 million dollars for a whole year (which i doubt) he'd be more of a bargain than buying a whole season of csi (17 episodes)... |
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 3, 2010 20:17:36 GMT -5
I don't care if TNA makes it or not. Makes no difference to me. I think it's a sub-par product being horribly mis-managed and badly booked. Agreed. TNA is past redemption in the public eye at this point and only has its inner circle of pre-existing fans to draw from. |
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 3, 2010 21:09:48 GMT -5
I don't care if TNA makes it or not. Makes no difference to me. I think it's a sub-par product being horribly mis-managed and badly booked. Agreed. TNA is past redemption in the public eye at this point and only has its inner circle of pre-existing fans to draw from. I couldn't disagree with this statement more. Saying TNA is a bad product currently is one thing. But saying that the public will never give the product a second look under any circumstances, is whole other. Things are bad now, however they can get better. Remember early to mid-1990s' WWF & WCW anyone? |
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,251
|
Post by Paul on Jul 3, 2010 21:18:41 GMT -5
But TNA costs them a hell of a lot more than those CSI re-runs; which they already have the rights to air anyway. TNA is heading into WCW 2000 levels of badness. The red flags are getting really obvious. No it does not... You have no idea what you are talking about. Re-runs for shows like csi are 1.5 million dollars PER EPISODE. Even if hulk hogan costs 10 million dollars for a whole year (which i doubt) he'd be more of a bargain than buying a whole season of csi (17 episodes)... CSI is way more popular than Hulk Hogan or TNA and reaches a much braoder demographic. |
|
