Maniac Mitch
Mephisto
Mary Droppins? ...well I thought it was funny
Posts: 669
|
Post by Maniac Mitch on Jul 4, 2010 12:13:20 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? With that business model, I'm getting horrible flashbacks of when Spike was TNN and only had two or three original programs and aired nothing but Star Trek reruns the rest of the day. I mean I dig Counsellor Troi in a catsuit as much as the next fella, but a six hour block? No thanks. Not every program has to pull in millions of viewers every week to be financially successful. If you're reaching the demographic that the advertisers want, even if it's under a million of them, they'll pay for the ad time. That's still a million eyes on their product. Well, two million eyes technically, unless it's an all pirate network. Besides, first run programming is always more sought after than reruns. Also, one thing to consider is the concept of branding the network. The last thing Spike wants after the last few years of making huge leaps in terms of developing it's own programming is to go back to being the "CSI Network" like they were only a few short years ago. Reruns are good filler for midday programming(which is what Spike does with them for the most part now) but in prime time, you want original programming if you want to stay relevant. Also, the assumption that just because you don't watch or like TNA means nobody else does is a little flawed. TNA has a core audience who have tuned in with remarkable consistantcy over the past several years. That's the kind of audience advertisers want. As much as we may make fun of the hardcore TNA fans, they are loyal to the product. And that's the kind of audience advertisers get absolutely horny over. That's all I have to say on the subject.
|
|
deeks
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 264
|
Post by deeks on Jul 4, 2010 12:30:39 GMT -5
Also, the assumption that just because you don't watch or like TNA means nobody else does is a little flawed. You mean everyone doesn't hate what I hate? That's crazy talk. Everyone should think like me!
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 4, 2010 16:14:27 GMT -5
None of this is making the point as to why Spike should continue to pay the salaries of Angle/Sting/Hogan if they don't actually provide any additional viewers to TNA's pre-existing fanbase though. At this the people who will watch TNA will watch it regardless of "star power". Spike WILL get sick of paying for "top draws" who don't actually deliver a quantifiable ratings benefit on the TNA program. A: actually the 3 you mention have all the positively affected the tna ratings at least once. The sting signing brought forth the first 1.+ rated show The second highest rated impact involved a match between rhino, Christian and angle. Hulk Hogans appearance was the best rated impact ever. B: the expense of their yearly contracts does not really cost that much when you compare how much it costs to air relevant syndicated shows .
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 4, 2010 16:33:40 GMT -5
None of this is making the point as to why Spike should continue to pay the salaries of Angle/Sting/Hogan if they don't actually provide any additional viewers to TNA's pre-existing fanbase though. At this the people who will watch TNA will watch it regardless of "star power". Spike WILL get sick of paying for "top draws" who don't actually deliver a quantifiable ratings benefit on the TNA program. A: actually the 3 you mention have all the positively affected the tna ratings at least once. The sting signing brought forth the first 1.+ rated show The second highest rated impact involved a match between rhino, Christian and angle. Hulk Hogans appearance was the best rated impact ever. B: the expense of their yearly contracts does not really cost that much when you compare how much it costs to air relevant syndicated shows . I really wish people would stop using Jan 4 as an example of Hogan's alleged "drawing power". If that drawing power was a "normal" thing rather than related to a one-time event, TNA would still be on Mondays. Hogan being signed permanently while TNA is stuck on Thursdays is a HUGE waste of money , since he was supposed to be the big point of the "Monday Night invasion". If Hogan/Angle/Sting were actually still producing PPV buyrate spikes, you'd have a good point. As it is, they offer very little bang for the buck.
|
|
SAJ Forth
Wade Wilson
Jamaican WCF Crazy!
Half Man-Half Amazing
Posts: 27,214
|
Post by SAJ Forth on Jul 4, 2010 16:39:03 GMT -5
Also, the assumption that just because you don't watch or like TNA means nobody else does is a little flawed. You mean everyone doesn't hate what I hate? That's crazy talk. Everyone should think like me! I hate that you think I hate the same things.
|
|
|
Post by chipsgravy on Jul 4, 2010 16:46:50 GMT -5
I don't like CSI.
I do like TNA.
What doess that all mean?
Nothing.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 4, 2010 16:58:16 GMT -5
A: actually the 3 you mention have all the positively affected the tna ratings at least once. The sting signing brought forth the first 1.+ rated show The second highest rated impact involved a match between rhino, Christian and angle. Hulk Hogans appearance was the best rated impact ever. B: the expense of their yearly contracts does not really cost that much when you compare how much it costs to air relevant syndicated shows . I really wish people would stop using Jan 4 as an example of Hogan's alleged "drawing power". If that drawing power was a "normal" thing rather than related to a one-time event, TNA would still be on Mondays. Hogan being signed permanently while TNA is stuck on Thursdays is a HUGE waste of money , since he was supposed to be the big point of the "Monday Night invasion". If Hogan/Angle/Sting were actually still producing PPV buyrate spikes, you'd have a good point. As it is, they offer very little bang for the buck. Lets do a little math here. One episode of CSI: NY costs 1.9 million dollars(http://www.allbusiness.com/services/motion-pictures/4905123-1.html) Angle's contract is reportedly 750,000 a year. For the fraction of the cost of one CSI episode, they have a talent that is able to perform in 52 episodes of original content. If he only effects the ratings for part of the time he is worth the investment.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 4, 2010 17:02:44 GMT -5
Yet the last quantifiable time he affected the ratings you gave was 2 years ago.
At some point, TNA really needs to cut its expenses if its "huge celebrities" really don't generate actual revenue. I honestly think the overwhelming majority of TNA fans (90%) would watch regardless of Angle's presence or not. The times when he was out injured didn't really have the ratings fall off like WWE when Cena or Taker were off their respective shows.
In terms of his actual appeal to a mass audience, Angle is just a glorified Christian--people will enjoy watching him wrestle but they won't turn on a show just because he's there. He's certainly not worth the gargantuan amount TNA pays him in relation to the rest of the cast.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 4, 2010 17:12:11 GMT -5
Yet the last quantifiable time he affected the ratings you gave was 2 years ago. At some point, TNA really needs to cut its expenses if its "huge celebrities" really don't generate actual revenue. I honestly think the overwhelming majority of TNA fans (90%) would watch regardless of Angle's presence or not. The times when he was out injured didn't really have the ratings fall off like WWE when Cena or Taker were off their respective shows. In terms of his actual appeal to a mass audience, Angle is just a glorified Christian--people will enjoy watching him wrestle but they won't turn on a show just because he's there. He's certainly not worth the gargantuan amount TNA pays him in relation to the rest of the cast. I could probably show you other times angle spiked ratings... Heck the MEM storyline had some of the best tna ratings ever. But the point is in TV terms he's not all that expensive, and it's no were near the level wcw.
|
|
BearDogg-X
Vegeta
Still lurking in the shadows....
Posts: 9,382
|
Post by BearDogg-X on Jul 4, 2010 18:15:28 GMT -5
I thought Spike TV was the CSI Network already, since they show CSI enough f***ing times in the day as it is.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave on Jul 5, 2010 4:16:20 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? With that business model, I'm getting horrible flashbacks of when Spike was TNN and only had two or three original programs and aired nothing but Star Trek reruns the rest of the day. . How far we've come now they've got 4 shows and show CSI the rest of the day
|
|
|
Post by Kris Kobain on Jul 5, 2010 6:34:25 GMT -5
Doesn't TUF have the highest Spike rating ever? What are their numbers compared to TNA?
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 5, 2010 7:12:10 GMT -5
UFC is Spike's bread and butter. The UFC brand is more important to Spike than any other show. TNA helps them keep up the average for the network since they air more newer episodes than UFC. Similar to Spike always showing CSI; people watch it and it maintain solid ratings for them. But UFC receive higher Nielson ratings than other Spike programming when aired new content.
|
|