Post by HMARK Center on Jan 1, 2010 21:27:02 GMT -5
Heck I remember ECW getting quite a few 1.0+ plus ratings, which was exactly what TNA gets. That is after alot of their top stars departed and was pretty much carried by RVD and Tommy Dreamer. TNA gets pretty much the same numbers and attendence with how many former WCW/WWE world champions? I think if they don't up their numbers soon they could be in serious trouble, I can't imagine Hogan came cheap. ECW only failed because Heyman had no concept of finance, if he knew how to balance books and had a strong financial backing like TNA I am sure ECW would still be around and probably a fairly sucessful #2 company.
Bad example. Ratings for wrestling were MUCH higher ten years ago when ECW was airing on what would become Spike. ECW was getting around a 1.0 for the period in late 1999 and early 2000 before the ratings tanked to a low of 0.6. Around that same time RAW was pulling in an average rating of about 6.3. Smackdown was peaking at 5.8. WCW Nitro was even doing over 3.0. Thunder was getting a solid 2.4. So ECW's 1.0 doesn't look so good.
Now judge TNA's 1.0 against RAW's 3.2-3.4 and Smackdown which is hovering around 1.7-1.9. TNA's ratings are much better than ECW's when you realize how down ratings for wrestling overall are from ten years ago.. ECW couldn't draw an audience even in the late boom period of wrestling.
Excellent point. TNA and ECW's situations really aren't comparable given the state of the wrestling business a decade ago vs. today, and given how each company has run itself.
ECW achieved a "buzz" and generated interest, definitely, nobody would ever argue the enormous creative success it was, but they did so at the expense of building up a longer term business strategy that could sustain them for the long haul.
Sad as it may be, the way to go in this current wrestling market is under the radar. WWE can too easily trample some companies, and the fact is that the fans just aren't there like they used to be from 1997-2001 or thereabouts. MMA wasn't a factor back then, and the nWo/Austin driven boom was in full effect.
TNA wasn't profitable at all for it's first however many years of existence, but all accounts for the past few years have put it in pretty good standing. Hey, you play ball and do business with a large backer like Panda, and you buy yourself some time to spend being in the red until you get your bearings.
Paul E., unfortunately, never went for that, outside of taking some money from Vince. ECW paid the price for it. The purist in me LOVES that Heyman stood true to his product, but the realist in me recognizes that ECW could still be around today if Heyman had looked more at the bigger picture sometimes.