|
|
Post by slasher911 on Sept 11, 2007 22:13:35 GMT -5
Um, the WWE was not the first profitable wrestling promotion, and they won't be the last...
|
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Sept 11, 2007 22:23:05 GMT -5
Um, the WWE was not the first profitable wrestling promotion, and they won't be the last... but expecting a company to make wwe style profit by it's first five years is a bit silly in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by slasher911 on Sept 11, 2007 22:34:24 GMT -5
Um, the WWE was not the first profitable wrestling promotion, and they won't be the last... but expecting a company to make wwe style profit by it's first five years is a bit silly in my book. I never said they should (I didn't even mention the WWE...). And you don't have to make 80 bazillion dollars to be profitable... |
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Sept 11, 2007 22:58:01 GMT -5
Weren't there reports that TNA was turning a small profit?
|
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Sept 11, 2007 23:48:46 GMT -5
but expecting a company to make wwe style profit by it's first five years is a bit silly in my book. I never said they should (I didn't even mention the WWE...). And you don't have to make 80 bazillion dollars to be profitable... i know you didn't bring up wwe. i did because i was referencing people earlier making comments about wwe. and no i don't believe you have make 80 bazillion dollars to be profitable. |
|
|
|
Post by REDUNBECK~! on Sept 12, 2007 6:08:49 GMT -5
No. You don't have to be a business expert to know that a company that doesn't make a profit is a failure.
And for the record, I don't even buy WWE PPVs (or any other PPVs for that matter). I'm just making the point that, in FACT, WWE does significantly better business. And that means they do something right.
Unless you're a TNA fanboy, in which case everything WWE does is wrong and they're in the red and in danger of closing down. And TNA is the most successful business on earth with it's negative millions in earnings.
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,483 
|
Post by dpg on Sept 12, 2007 6:49:17 GMT -5
No. You don't have to be a business expert to know that a company that doesn't make a profit is a failure. And for the record, I don't even buy WWE PPVs (or any other PPVs for that matter). I'm just making the point that, in FACT, WWE does significantly better business. And that means they do something right. Unless you're a TNA fanboy, in which case everything WWE does is wrong and they're in the red and in danger of closing down. And TNA is the most successful business on earth with it's negative millions in earnings. You know using the opinion of a TNA 'fanboy' can prove anything, as your just putting words into their mouth to validate your opinion. I am a TNA fan, I don't hate WWE, I just don't watch it. However, I never feel the need to go into WWE threads and purposefully slag off the product I don't watch and don't care about. I sometimes comment, but always about what I've read, and only in general terms. TNA made a small profit for a while, whether it does or not now I don't know (although it does sell more merch than ever before, and more live tickets). WWE is profitable, however it has been around for decades now, having all that time to gain the many fans it has. TNA has been around 5 years, thats it. WCW was around a lot longer and only made a couple of years profit, ECW never made a profit and went bust. It's taken this long for TNA to get 2 hours of prime time tv, the minimum (I feel) that is neccessary for them to progress. It's also taken them this long to get general distribution for its merchendise, which is just as important. Making a profit in the wrestling business is hard, especially when you have McMahonland taking up a huge chunk of the market. TNA has a robust rating (always above 1.0, couldn't have said that a year ago) regularly gets dvd's in the top 10 recreational sports chart sales, and has it's t-shirt and toys sold in many stores across america, and in britain. It could have done better, much better, however to do all that in 5 years is still extremely good. |
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Sept 12, 2007 6:52:29 GMT -5
No. You don't have to be a business expert to know that a company that doesn't make a profit is a failure. And for the record, I don't even buy WWE PPVs (or any other PPVs for that matter). I'm just making the point that, in FACT, WWE does significantly better business. And that means they do something right. Unless you're a TNA fanboy, in which case everything WWE does is wrong and they're in the red and in danger of closing down. And TNA is the most successful business on earth with it's negative millions in earnings. You know using the opinion of a TNA 'fanboy' can prove anything, as your just putting words into their mouth to validate your opinion. I am a TNA fan, I don't hate WWE, I just don't watch it. However, I never feel the need to go into WWE threads and purposefully slag off the product I don't watch and don't care about. I sometimes comment, but always about what I've read, and only in general terms. TNA made a small profit for a while, whether it does or not now I don't know (although it does sell more merch than ever before, and more live tickets). WWE is profitable, however it has been around for decades now, having all that time to gain the many fans it has. TNA has been around 5 years, thats it. WCW was around a lot longer and only made a couple of years profit, ECW never made a profit and went bust. It's taken this long for TNA to get 2 hours of prime time tv, the minimum (I feel) that is neccessary for them to progress. It's also taken them this long to get general distribution for its merchendise, which is just as important. Making a profit in the wrestling business is hard, especially when you have McMahonland taking up a huge chunk of the market. TNA has a robust rating (always above 1.0, couldn't have said that a year ago) regularly gets dvd's in the top 10 recreational sports chart sales, and has it's t-shirt and toys sold in many stores across america, and in britain. It could have done better, much better, however to do all that in 5 years is still extremely good. Wait for the 'Yea, but the booking sucks!' comment. |
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Sept 12, 2007 7:42:52 GMT -5
No. You don't have to be a business expert to know that a company that doesn't make a profit is a failure. And for the record, I don't even buy WWE PPVs (or any other PPVs for that matter). I'm just making the point that, in FACT, WWE does significantly better business. And that means they do something right. Unless you're a TNA fanboy, in which case everything WWE does is wrong and they're in the red and in danger of closing down. And TNA is the most successful business on earth with it's negative millions in earnings. i am simply saying that expecting tna to be competing with the wwe financially is insane. honestly if tna was so dumb financially, why couldn't someone else be in the position they are? why hasn't anyone else ever created something from scratch and then five years later have it competing with a multi generational business? |
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Sept 12, 2007 7:46:45 GMT -5
If we had the books from TNA (which we don't since it's a private company) we would truly know how it's doing.
Until then, we're running on rumors. Some hear that they're still doing horrible. Some hear that they're making a small profit this year. Some hear that they are making a profit.
I don't really know why someone would want to compare the profits of WWE and TNA since that is a major one-sided battle.
Now, if we had info on ROH, then you could make a case about how TNA is or isn't profitable.
That's just my look at this...
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,483
|
Post by dpg on Sept 12, 2007 7:48:00 GMT -5
If we had the books from TNA (which we don't since it's a private company) we would truly know how it's doing. Until then, we're running on rumors. Some hear that they're still doing horrible. Some hear that they're making a small profit this year. Some hear that they are making a profit. I don't really know why someone would want to compare the profits of WWE and TNA since that is a major one-sided battle. Now, if we had info on ROH, then you could make a case about how TNA is or isn't profitable. That's just my look at this... I agree with all that. |
|
|
|
Post by REDUNBECK~! on Sept 12, 2007 8:17:52 GMT -5
No. You don't have to be a business expert to know that a company that doesn't make a profit is a failure. And for the record, I don't even buy WWE PPVs (or any other PPVs for that matter). I'm just making the point that, in FACT, WWE does significantly better business. And that means they do something right. Unless you're a TNA fanboy, in which case everything WWE does is wrong and they're in the red and in danger of closing down. And TNA is the most successful business on earth with it's negative millions in earnings. i am simply saying that expecting tna to be competing with the wwe financially is insane. honestly if tna was so dumb financially, why couldn't someone else be in the position they are? why hasn't anyone else ever created something from scratch and then five years later have it competing with a multi generational business? I never said they had to compete with WWE. WWE is an example of a company that GETS IT. They give the people what they want... and make money! TNA gives the people what TNA wants, the people be damned because WE NEED BS, and that alienates the audience so much that almost all of the audience refuses to buy the TNA product. TNA is in no way competing with any multi-generational business. There's no competition between TNA and WWE. WWE probably gives less than one shit about TNA, and rightly so. TNA is so self-defeating the chances of them making it to a level anywhere comparable to WWE are slim. |
|
|
|
Post by poi zen rana on Sept 12, 2007 9:56:56 GMT -5
i am simply saying that expecting tna to be competing with the wwe financially is insane. honestly if tna was so dumb financially, why couldn't someone else be in the position they are? why hasn't anyone else ever created something from scratch and then five years later have it competing with a multi generational business? I never said they had to compete with WWE. WWE is an example of a company that GETS IT. They give the people what they want... and make money! TNA gives the people what TNA wants, the people be damned because WE NEED BS, and that alienates the audience so much that almost all of the audience refuses to buy the TNA product. TNA is in no way competing with any multi-generational business. There's no competition between TNA and WWE. WWE probably gives less than one crap about TNA, and rightly so. TNA is so self-defeating the chances of them making it to a level anywhere comparable to WWE are slim. i am sorry but the thought of wwe actually giving people what they want makes me laugh. you want to know a BIG reason wwe has so many fans? because they have no competition. not because they are so good to their fans. if you seriously think the wwe would still be booking like they do now ("for the people") if they had actual competition i think you are wrong. wwe gets slack because the majority of wrestling fans don't even know about tna. and as far as your second paragraph goes, yes i know tna isn't competing with any multigenerational company. that is what i was saying as well. it's not like vince got as big as he is today in five years. add to the fact that when wwe cemented it's position, wrestling wasn't in such a poor light as it is now. |
|
