Marty McFry
Don Corleone
"She was mine before she was yours.... Wooooo"
Posts: 1,657
|
Post by Marty McFry on Jan 6, 2010 14:17:09 GMT -5
Not sure if anyones mentioned it but about 5 minutes ago Nash tweeted TNA going head to head with WWE on Mondays is in the works as Spike were happy with the ratings.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jan 6, 2010 14:19:39 GMT -5
Not sure if anyones mentioned it but about 5 minutes ago Nash tweeted that it looks like TNA will be going head to head on Mondays permenently soon If this is true: ONE THOUSAND TIMES YES!!!
|
|
|
Post by Black Swagger on Jan 6, 2010 14:36:02 GMT -5
I think that the rating they was excellent. I hope they can keep the momentum up.
|
|
|
Post by jalen on Jan 6, 2010 14:54:12 GMT -5
Keep in mind their ratings were highest in hour 1 (unopposed) and their highest quarter hour ever was for Hogan's first segment. Hour 1 featured Hardy's debut/return, Flair's surprise appearance, and Hall/Waltman showing up, which eventually lead to Hogan's arrival. When the Hogan segment was over, and it was back to TNA guys wrestling, the ratings went down. Yes there was a lot of hype behind this show, but I don't think it is a coincidence that Hogan and the other stars got the higher ratings. That is what casual fans care about.
The best way TNA can move forward is combining the stars with the original talent. If Hardy avoids prison time, then give him a feud with Homicide. That will elevate Homicide and give him more exposure. Put Beer Money up against Hall and Nash. Looks like they are setting something up with Styles and Flair, which could be interesting. And so on.
To me, it's not about putting all the "young guys" against each other. That will not draw the fans in. Make people care about the young guys first by putting them in storylines with the stars. That is what Hogan was talking about in interviews. If bland wrestlers wrestling for 20 minutes was a huge draw, then ROH would be a top promotion right now. TNA has to create stars that appeal to the casual fan, otherwise they are never going to exceed what they are now.
Hogan knows a lot about the business and making money. I think, if nothing else, he'll put more emphasis on the character development of certain guys. We already know they can wrestle, but can they entertain?
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Jan 6, 2010 15:44:07 GMT -5
At it's worst, Impact still drew around it's average ratings (around a 1.18 or so) when up against Raw, and actually started getting slightly stronger towards the end. That's not blow-away numbers or anything, but, like others are saying here, all Impact has to be able to do is hold it's own against Raw, and Spike will likely be more than willing to give them a Monday night spot.
There's never been anything saying that Spike isn't satisfied with TNA's typical numbers, so if they go up against Raw consistently and draw, say, in the 1.2-1.3 range, I'm sure Spike will be happy, especially since, with Raw's audience competing, that means there'll be the possibility of the numbers growing over time.
I'm not really enamored with the idea of another "wars" era, since I got bored really quick of the last one, but, well, I guess we'll see. If TNA can at least get another show out of this (maybe Impact to Mondays and a new show on Thursdays?), it'll be worth it, to deal with their too-damn-big roster.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jan 6, 2010 15:55:49 GMT -5
A. Your discounting that an audience both watches TNA on Thursdays and Raw on Monday. B. They were running against the return of Bret Hart and didn't lose most of their audience. C. If you're correct, that means that TNA will be able to move to Monday Nights and maintain their Thursday audience, which is huge for them. It means that the WWE won't be able to kill their ratings. It means that if they decide to compete with the WWE, they know their ratings won't go under 1.0, if we're going by your set audience argument. No, what I meant by a set audience is that they have a ceiling. They have a maximum amount that they can draw with what they're doing, and that draw is made up mostly of very loyal fans. Their regular fare would be lucky to get a 1.0 up against the WWE. Which brings up another point. What they did on Monday night shouldn't be looked on as the turning of the tide, unless they can debut a bunch of guys from the 90s every week. The WWE, on the other hand, did their usual stuff on Monday, and got a boost from who the guest host was...and they did it without their biggest merchandise seller. They got a huge boost from their guest host. To gloss over that is almost comical.
|
|
@TenaciousBe
Hank Scorpio
Guess who's back... back again
Posts: 5,659
|
Post by @TenaciousBe on Jan 6, 2010 16:18:19 GMT -5
Let's not forget that these 2 shows ARE completely different right now. Sure they're both wrestling shows, but the feel of Impact is so much more old-school and less cartoony. Putting Impact up head-to-head against Raw permanently might not see huge dents in the numbers right off the bat, but when fans are given the option between "sports entertainment" and "wrestling," we all win. If Raw doesn't pull their head out of the dark and start putting on shows like they did, even 5 years ago, some of the audience is going to find their way to the TNA product. Just like some TNA fans are going to find their way back over to Raw full-time. And if Raw does take notice and start trying to get back to their old roots, then, again, we all win (except the people who actually really like the campy Hornswoggle stuff?).
As it's been said, sustainability is the key. Good writing in TNA, good acting, and even better wrestling. The AJ-Angle match was amazing (albeit a little long), probably the best match I've seen on free TV in years. They built up some mystery surrounding Flair, Sting, and the "masked man." I don't know how other people feel, but for my money, Bischoff is one of the best actors in wrestling in terms of being believable in his role and his attitude, and just feeling "real." That's the key, in my estimation. TNA feels more "real" (just like WCW always did), whereas WWE on a consistent basis feels like the entire thing has been scripted down to the second. If TNA can keep that feeling on every show, and keep the excitement when they're not live, that'll be the key that gets more people to come on over.
It's the same story as always, really. TNA is its own thing, and plenty more people would be watching if they knew more about it and gave it more of a chance. With the old-school WCW feel (NWO, Sting, Flair, etc), maybe more of those older casuals will finally come back and give them a chance.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 6, 2010 16:21:50 GMT -5
Source: wrestling-radio.com
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Jan 6, 2010 16:44:48 GMT -5
Let's not forget that these 2 shows ARE completely different right now. Sure they're both wrestling shows, but the feel of Impact is so much more old-school and less cartoony. Putting Impact up head-to-head against Raw permanently might not see huge dents in the numbers right off the bat, but when fans are given the option between "sports entertainment" and "wrestling," we all win. If Raw doesn't pull their head out of the dark and start putting on shows like they did, even 5 years ago, some of the audience is going to find their way to the TNA product. Just like some TNA fans are going to find their way back over to Raw full-time. And if Raw does take notice and start trying to get back to their old roots, then, again, we all win (except the people who actually really like the campy Hornswoggle stuff?). As it's been said, sustainability is the key. Good writing in TNA, good acting, and even better wrestling. The AJ-Angle match was amazing (albeit a little long), probably the best match I've seen on free TV in years. They built up some mystery surrounding Flair, Sting, and the "masked man." I don't know how other people feel, but for my money, Bischoff is one of the best actors in wrestling in terms of being believable in his role and his attitude, and just feeling "real." That's the key, in my estimation. TNA feels more "real" (just like WCW always did), whereas WWE on a consistent basis feels like the entire thing has been scripted down to the second. If TNA can keep that feeling on every show, and keep the excitement when they're not live, that'll be the key that gets more people to come on over. It's the same story as always, really. TNA is its own thing, and plenty more people would be watching if they knew more about it and gave it more of a chance. With the old-school WCW feel (NWO, Sting, Flair, etc), maybe more of those older casuals will finally come back and give them a chance. This deserves to be quoted in its entirety because it's spot-on. You've summed up why I'm personally drawn to TNA and why I've never totally embraced McMahon's product, especially after the WCW buyout. Yes, it's wrestling. There's going to be outlandish, unbelievable crap in both promotions. But WCW (and now TNA) always had this slight grittiness to it that makes it feel like a real event where anything could happen, where the wheels could become unhinged and total chaos could break out at any moment. You never get that feeling with the WWE. It's always carefully scripted, often repetitive, segments designed to build towards a PPV or shill the latest company mantra. It gets tired and condescending. Even the Bret Hart return was by-the-numbers, instead of the pants-wetting "HOLY HELL!" moment I so wanted it to be. I became a fan of wrestling because of that feeling. It's low-brow entertainment that requires few brain cells, but the unpredictable nature of a live program where anything can happen kept pulling me in. TNA rekindled that flame on Monday night.
|
|
|
Post by Drink Up Me Cider on Jan 6, 2010 16:53:20 GMT -5
Good for them. I've always enjoyed TNA but I'm glad more mainstream wrestling fans are hearing of the organization now. If they go head to head it also means wrestling fans have to make more of a choice between TNA and forty year old rebels selling t shirts with a little person.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Jan 6, 2010 17:34:34 GMT -5
Good for them.
On the downside, from the quarter hours it looks as if Hogan and the nWo drew, but the likes of the Pope, Wolfe, AJ and Angle didn't. I hope they don't put massive stock in that going forward.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Jan 6, 2010 18:08:19 GMT -5
I'll all for a Monday night Impact every week, but I think they should go 8pm to 10pm. That way they would have one hour unopposed, and if people like what they see, they can hang with Impact. If not, they can switch over to Raw.
For those who don't remember, Raw used to air 8pm to 10pm in the mid 90's. Then when Nitro started, it went head-to-head at 8pm to 10pm. Then Raw moved back to 9pm to 11pm, so Raw would be unopposed for an hour. WCW didn't want everyone to switch over to Raw after Nitro was over, so that how they ended up with a 3 hour Nitro.
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Jan 6, 2010 18:28:25 GMT -5
Let's not forget that these 2 shows ARE completely different right now. Sure they're both wrestling shows, but the feel of Impact is so much more old-school and less cartoony. Putting Impact up head-to-head against Raw permanently might not see huge dents in the numbers right off the bat, but when fans are given the option between "sports entertainment" and "wrestling," we all win. To me, "sports entertainment" is a blanket term that describes pro wrestling as a whole (alongside stuff like American Gladiators), not a style of wrestling show. In fact, Hogan did say on Impact that TNA was about to become the #1 sports entertainment company in the world. Ring of Honor and AJPW are far less about showmanship than WWE and the defunct HUSTLE, but technically they're all in the business of sports entertainment (or wrestling, same thing). WWE, or at least Raw, is focused on anyone who hasn't seen a wrestling show before- so what TNA ought to do is try to appeal to both old school fans AND newer fans with both straight-up wrestling and well thought out entertainment segments. That's the same business approach that helped both WWF and WCW in the first war. I love AJ Styles too, but if TNA doesn't try to market itself outside the niche audience, they won't grow.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 6, 2010 18:48:35 GMT -5
Let's not forget that these 2 shows ARE completely different right now. Sure they're both wrestling shows, but the feel of Impact is so much more old-school and less cartoony. Putting Impact up head-to-head against Raw permanently might not see huge dents in the numbers right off the bat, but when fans are given the option between "sports entertainment" and "wrestling," we all win. If Raw doesn't pull their head out of the dark and start putting on shows like they did, even 5 years ago, some of the audience is going to find their way to the TNA product. Just like some TNA fans are going to find their way back over to Raw full-time. And if Raw does take notice and start trying to get back to their old roots, then, again, we all win (except the people who actually really like the campy Hornswoggle stuff?). As it's been said, sustainability is the key. Good writing in TNA, good acting, and even better wrestling. The AJ-Angle match was amazing (albeit a little long), probably the best match I've seen on free TV in years. They built up some mystery surrounding Flair, Sting, and the "masked man." I don't know how other people feel, but for my money, Bischoff is one of the best actors in wrestling in terms of being believable in his role and his attitude, and just feeling "real." That's the key, in my estimation. TNA feels more "real" (just like WCW always did), whereas WWE on a consistent basis feels like the entire thing has been scripted down to the second. If TNA can keep that feeling on every show, and keep the excitement when they're not live, that'll be the key that gets more people to come on over. It's the same story as always, really. TNA is its own thing, and plenty more people would be watching if they knew more about it and gave it more of a chance. With the old-school WCW feel (NWO, Sting, Flair, etc), maybe more of those older casuals will finally come back and give them a chance. This deserves to be quoted in its entirety because it's spot-on. You've summed up why I'm personally drawn to TNA and why I've never totally embraced McMahon's product, especially after the WCW buyout. Yes, it's wrestling. There's going to be outlandish, unbelievable crap in both promotions. But WCW (and now TNA) always had this slight grittiness to it that makes it feel like a real event where anything could happen, where the wheels could become unhinged and total chaos could break out at any moment. You never get that feeling with the WWE. It's always carefully scripted, often repetitive, segments designed to build towards a PPV or shill the latest company mantra. It gets tired and condescending. Even the Bret Hart return was by-the-numbers, instead of the pants-wetting "HOLY HELL!" moment I so wanted it to be. I became a fan of wrestling because of that feeling. It's low-brow entertainment that requires few brain cells, but the unpredictable nature of a live program where anything can happen kept pulling me in. TNA rekindled that flame on Monday night. I think this is the key, if there are enough people like yourself that simply need to be made aware of TNA, because they like the 'anything can happen' vibe that comes from it, then TNA will do well - if there are enough people out there. And not just enough people, but with attention spans that mean they stick with a 100 mph show for a sustainable length of time. Personally, I like the fact that WWE is careful not to blow their load too often. Then when something does happen, it means something. I like knowing who is a face and who is a heel. I've also been thinking a lot lately about how WWE gets flack for it's 'boring WWE style' match ups, and people say TNA wrestlers would be stifled there. To an extent that's true, but I think the reason why WWE converts their viewers to PPV buys better than TNA, and why Wrestlemania feels special for example, is because they hold something back. They don't let their wrestlers go all out, constantly on any show like TNA do. BFG won't ever be a match for Wrestlemania (even in relative terms) if they keep going that way because there's nothing different about those matches on PPV. With TNA, I occasionally read spoilers and will watch a segment if it sounded interesting, because I don't feel like I need to watch a 'good match' every week, as strange as that sounds. I have no doubt that they can put on a good match whenever they want, but if there's the same good match every time - why is it good anymore? Why is it worth catching this match over every other? As much as I like good wrestling, I feel that it needs to be different, and I think that's where WWE hooks me. Even something like Jackson vs Kozlov on ECW...they've wrestled a few times and I found myself drawn to the fact that it's a slightly different story because Regal is officially in Jackson's corner for example. Are many people going to shell out for Angle/AJ at Genesis now they've seen it? It was a great match, and by all accounts they held nothing back, so what else is there? It's that fact that TNA seem to try and do too much, and ironically in my opinion, end up losing their impact that makes me think they aren't worth watching as much as WWE. If people like the TNA style though, then fair enough. It's funny, I never really put my finger on why TNA couldn't quite hook me until I had this realisation.
|
|
|
Post by slaughterama on Jan 6, 2010 18:57:27 GMT -5
If they go head to head it also means wrestling fans have to make more of a choice between TNA and forty year old rebels selling t shirts with a little person. I'm confused. Do you mean DX and Hornswoggle? Or Hall/Nash and Waltman?
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jan 6, 2010 19:13:37 GMT -5
If they go head to head it also means wrestling fans have to make more of a choice between TNA and forty year old rebels selling t shirts with a little person. I'm confused. Do you mean DX and Hornswoggle? Or Hall/Nash and Waltman? Nice
|
|
|
Post by SHAKEMASTER TV9 is Don Knotts on Jan 6, 2010 20:02:15 GMT -5
At exactly 9 p.m. Monday night, there were 3.3 million people watching Impact.
-Wrestling Observer
One detail from the night.
|
|
domrep
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,461
|
Post by domrep on Jan 6, 2010 20:06:12 GMT -5
That's truly remarkable when you think about it. For their show I mean.
And I think moving it to Mondays on a permanent is a mistake. I mean, they could move it, but it should be from 8-10, not 9-11. That's just suicide.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Jan 6, 2010 20:12:39 GMT -5
That's truly remarkable when you think about it. For their show I mean. And I think moving it to Mondays on a permanent is a mistake. I mean, they could move it, but it should be from 8-10, not 9-11. That's just suicide. No,this is Suicide
|
|
Rick Mad
Grimlock
Rick Mad Champion
Posts: 14,613
|
Post by Rick Mad on Jan 6, 2010 21:14:50 GMT -5
The only way I'd support them moving to Monday permanently is if its with a second show. I really don't want to lose wrestling on Thursday nights just so I have to switch between shows every Monday..
|
|