|
Post by PaperStreetBrigade on Mar 13, 2010 3:24:08 GMT -5
TV Ratings wise you have to give it to ECW. They were on a network which until a little bit of time before they signed (Or it might have changed after they signed) was known as The Nashville Network. Even after the name change to The National Network, it was still a mostly country based station that was trying to branch out (anyone remember the Adult Cartoons they tried?). ECW got one show a week, almost no replays, no similar broadcasting, no lead in, and if I remember right was the highest rated show for the network at the time.
Now that TNN is Spike "The Network For Men" you can argue that TNA should have an easier time getting ratings. Obviously part of the problem continues to be that Spike does absolutely nothing to actually promote TNA except when TNA is on.
Although there's no way to track it, I think ECW had a decent sized global appeal. They may not have left the US on tour, but given the amount of foreign talent they brought it, you would think that they would be known in Japan and Mexico.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Mar 13, 2010 3:57:19 GMT -5
I think, in perspective, if we could have the option of TNA or the real ECW, which one would we watch? ECW was a cult like movement that wrestling had never seen before. TNA has had broadband internet to use this whole time. Imagine if ECW had the marketing tools available to them? Their buyrates would take a huge hit, for starters, thanks to broadband.
|
|
|
Post by PaperStreetBrigade on Mar 13, 2010 4:00:17 GMT -5
I think, in perspective, if we could have the option of TNA or the real ECW, which one would we watch? ECW was a cult like movement that wrestling had never seen before. TNA has had broadband internet to use this whole time. Imagine if ECW had the marketing tools available to them? Their buyrates would take a huge hit, for starters, thanks to broadband. I don't know, back in the day I remember chatrooms used to be fill to overflowing as people gave a live rundown of PPVs. I think the same people who were willing to read someone else describe whats going on during a PPV are the same ones today who watch it via live streaming.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 13, 2010 4:19:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I don't remember a single ECW show (the original, not WWECW) anywhere in the South (Georgia, Tennessee, etc). Wrestlepaloza '98 was in the Cobb County Civic Center and they did quite a few shows in Louisianna.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 13, 2010 4:28:34 GMT -5
Their buyrates would take a huge hit, for starters, thanks to broadband. I don't know, back in the day I remember chatrooms used to be fill to overflowing as people gave a live rundown of PPVs. I think the same people who were willing to read someone else describe whats going on during a PPV are the same ones today who watch it via live streaming. Exactly, people act like the IWC didn't exist ten years ago. Okay free broadband streams were harder to find, but most of us went to chats with the pbp. Most ECW fans were convinced to buy the ppv to show support,TNA hasn't done that. On the same side if a company feels it can beat out the WWE we are not worried about buying their ppvs to keep them alive like ECW. The funny thing is ECW wasn't struggling, but acted like it was to make money. On the same note TNA only cares about going against the WWE. Well Jim Crockett Promotions made alot of money, and actually got better attendence figures in some areas(heck they both came to Fort Wayne in 1986, and the NWA show outsold the WWF show) and JCP WCW regularly got ratings in the 4.0 range, but when they decided their only goal was to put Vince out of business it failed and caused their demise. TNA's main focus should be to just worry about building their audience and making money. Not trying to compete with a company that by all means is atleast three times as successful as them and probably 12 times more profitable.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 13, 2010 7:40:57 GMT -5
From 1999-2001 ECW ran nationally, holding shows across the Deep South and the Midwest in addition to their one-shot in California. Remember, their final two live events were in Missouri and Arkansas.
Their PPV buyrates were also significantly better than TNA's are right now.
By contrast, their TV ratings and international coverage were significantly weaker than TNA's are right now. TNA gets better weekly TV ratings than ECW ever did and TNA's international TV deals give them penetration into 67 countries by my count.
However, ECW's cultural influence and reputation are significantly better than TNA's are right now. If TNA closed down tomorrow, I don't think we'd be seeing fan demand for TNA One Night Stand in 2014 or a reopened TNA in 2015.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 13, 2010 7:45:00 GMT -5
ECW's average live event attendance from 1999-2001:
Year, # of shows, average attendance)
1999 135 1,401 2000 87 1,834 2001 3 1,667
The lowest number they got during those years was an estimated 300 people (which last occurred June 9, 2000 in Erie, PA).
|
|
BLOODY™
AC Slater
"you forgot the Mick Foley equation - no muscles equal no muscle tears!"
Posts: 124
|
Post by BLOODY™ on Mar 13, 2010 9:24:05 GMT -5
ECW stayed in there little hut in Philidelphia. Hey, there was nothing wrong with that "little hut" I was being a bit sarcastic. In fact, I believe it is now the home of Ring Of Honor, so it's awesome.
|
|
|
Post by heyguesswhatidid on Mar 13, 2010 11:16:52 GMT -5
TNA should draw more based on the esposure, friendlier product and the fact that they have more big names, they spend a lot more than ECW, so they sure as hell better draw more.
They probably spend on Hogan what Paul Heyman paid his whole roster in a year (but not what he owed his whole roster)
|
|
|
Post by mediamaven on Mar 13, 2010 17:59:29 GMT -5
I remember ECW having quite a few shows in Milwaukee and Chicago. I think that they might have even run a show in St. Louis. I think when Awesome lost to Tazz, that was in Indiana.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Mar 13, 2010 18:57:20 GMT -5
I remember ECW holding combine shows in Japan with FMW. Matter of fact, ECW was quite popular in Japan. Sorta like TNA in the UK.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 13, 2010 23:35:19 GMT -5
I remember ECW having quite a few shows in Milwaukee and Chicago. I think that they might have even run a show in St. Louis. I think when Awesome lost to Tazz, that was in Indiana. It was in Indianapolis. But they didn't run any shows in the northern part of the state(that always made me mad), however I believe Evansville got a few. Ohio had quite a few shows, heck Heat Wave '98 was in Dayton and I believe had about 7,000 fans in attendence. I know they ran shows in Michigan and I believe Chicago.
|
|
|
Post by joeskvorecky on Mar 13, 2010 23:43:24 GMT -5
If it was just America, I think ECW would have TNA beat. However, TNA has much more of a global appeal. Especially in countries like the UK, Japan, and Australia. So I'd say TNA ends up beating out ECW. So popular in Australia they had to cancel a tour of the country because no one was buying.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 14, 2010 0:06:00 GMT -5
heck Heat Wave '98 was in Dayton and I believe had about 7,000 fans in attendence. Actually, Heat Wave 98 only drew 4,392. The original ECW never drew more than 6,000 people (Anarchy Rulz 99 in Chicago).
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 14, 2010 1:23:26 GMT -5
Oh really? It looked like it was nearly sold out.
|
|
|
Post by badnewsbrownfan on Mar 14, 2010 2:28:48 GMT -5
its close i think
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,477
|
Post by dpg on Mar 14, 2010 4:33:07 GMT -5
TNA has more tv distribution around the world than ECW ever did (mainly because of the violent content) and makes a small profit. ECW always made a loss, despite drawing more PPV buys. I'd say TNA is more of a draw, outside of the US anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Mar 14, 2010 5:35:19 GMT -5
They're really not that comparable. ECW existed during the wrestling boom of the '90s, making it more culturally relevant, whereas TNA is ostensibly larger but more under-the-radar. ECW drew in the fans but was a financial quagmire while TNA, despite not having impressive buyrates, still turns a profit.
|
|
|
Post by slickster on Mar 14, 2010 7:54:43 GMT -5
This is a bit like asking if Creed drew more than The Ramones. Financially, perhaps, but which had the greater cultural influence?
|
|
|
Post by PaperStreetBrigade on Mar 14, 2010 9:49:07 GMT -5
They're really not that comparable. ECW existed during the wrestling boom of the '90s, making it more culturally relevant, whereas TNA is ostensibly larger but more under-the-radar. ECW drew in the fans but was a financial quagmire while TNA, despite not having impressive buyrates, still turns a profit. Yet, TNA is much more Mainstream then ECW was back then. So is it better to be Mainstream during a bust cycle, or to be outside the mainstream during a boom period? I think this all just becomes a circle argument. I always got the feeling that with Dixie, TNA is in the same place as WCW, although not a Turner level billionaire, they obviously have the money to attract big names.
|
|