Heyman's thoughts on TNA (Power Slam magazine)

[donners]

Okay, I've tried several searches and looked through a few pages to see if there is a thread on this, so if I've missed one, I'm thick rather than negligent. Hang on, that's worse! Anyway...

There's a four-page interview with Heyman in the latest issue of Power Slam magazine. He speaks on a number of topics, and it's well worth a read if you can pick it up. Here's a few highlights that are of interest to us:

The approach from TNA Initially came in late 2009 (as in Russo's book), didn't take any interest until a "strong" approach in the last two months.

TNA's current vision Their plan to get to 2015 is through 1995. They should have a far greater market share than they do. You can't appeal to kids immediately; the building blocks have to be set with rewards coming years down the track

Why Hogan & Bischoff failed They agreed to work with Russo. By mixing the different approaches, they water them down. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but they cannot be mixed together. Too much time is wasted giving everyone a chance to be heard. It has to be a single, personal vision.

The wrestling industry Wrestling is not seen as cool any more, UFC is. There are no new mainstream stars.

TNA's current structure Wouldn't support even the greatest mind in wrestling. Needs to be completely overhauled with a different concept in presentation to sell the company to the public, businesses and licencors.

Is he interested in TNA He's interested in "running a franchise", and TNA is a franchise. If he believed they could take viewers from WWE and make a profit, yes.

What does he need Dana White power, to completely overhaul the company, and a team working to his vision

What he can do Make TNA successful and profitable with a standard-bearing product to make wrestling cool again.



It's a very positive interview about the possibilities with TNA. He doesn't even mention the roster - it's all from a business perspective about their position and (wasted) potential. It's just a matter of whether Spike and the Carters will give him all the power he requires.

[Grimlock]

I dont see what TNA have to loose at this point taking him on with full control.

[smokey1980]

Good thoughts from Heyman there, but this one is probably the best,

Why Hogan & Bischoff failed They agreed to work with Russo. By mixing the different approaches, they water them down. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but they cannot be mixed together. Too much time is wasted giving everyone a chance to be heard. It has to be a single, personal vision.

Having a bunch of different perspectives on the creative team sounds like a good idea, but too often makes for television that just doesn't make any sense.

[cabbageboy]

I think what Heyman means is that you can have underlings on a booking team but there needs to be one absolute head booker, not a random hodgepodge of Hogan, Bischoff, and Russo all trying to run things. Oh, and I would definitely say that Hogan and Bischoff's approach is very, very wrong for 2010.

[elryc]

Jul 31, 2010 10:17:43 GMT -5 cabbageboy said:

I think what Heyman means is that you can have underlings on a booking team but there needs to be one absolute head booker, not a random hodgepodge of Hogan, Bischoff, and Russo all trying to run things. Oh, and I would definitely say that Hogan and Bischoff's approach is very, very wrong for 2010.

Its not just that. You can have multiple viewpoints, but they have to be starting from the same base place. Hogan and Bisch like stables and feuds, and Russo has always been a crash TV kinda guy, and the two concepts REALLY don't mesh well.

[Hugh Mungus]

Jul 31, 2010 8:22:17 GMT -5 smokey1980 said:

Good thoughts from Heyman there, but this one is probably the best,

Why Hogan & Bischoff failed They agreed to work with Russo. By mixing the different approaches, they water them down. Neither approach is necessarily wrong, but they cannot be mixed together. Too much time is wasted giving everyone a chance to be heard. It has to be a single, personal vision.

Having a bunch of different perspectives on the creative team sounds like a good idea, but too often makes for television that just doesn't make any sense.

Is it a case of "too many cooks spoil the broth"?

[psychokiller]

I don't know why Heyman always thinks he can do no wrong. He's the one who was in charge of an entire company which went out of business. The guy has some great ideas, but he comes across as someone who's a know it all and can do no wrong. But I guess it would be a more positive step having Heyman over Hogan & Bischoff in charge. Bischoff definetely lost his touch creatively since the WCW days. But I guess with such limited resources in TNA he can't really do what he'd like to do, so I don't see him lasting too much longer there.

[Dave at the Movies]

Jul 31, 2010 11:54:58 GMT -5 psychokiller said:

I don't know why Heyman always thinks he can do no wrong. He's the one who was in charge of an entire company which went out of business. The guy has some great ideas, but he comes across as someone who's a know it all and can do no wrong. But I guess it would be a more positive step having Heyman over Hogan & Bischoff in charge. Bischoff definetely lost his touch creatively since the WCW days. But I guess with such limited resources in TNA he can't really do what he'd like to do, so I don't see him lasting too much longer there.

Honestly Bischoff only had one good idea in the NWO and he drove it into the ground. I heard Terry Taylor was the one that actually came up with the NWO's image.


Heyman is horrible when it comes to running a company by himself but you have to remember that he was literally running ECW almost completely by himself. No one seems to think about that when they bring up that it went out of business. The ECW DVD really showed how much involved the wrestlers were in it and how there literally was no one working backstage hardly.

[jimsullivan]

I personally don't see what the big deal about Heyman is... ECW was a distant third during the Monday Night Wars, whoop de doo. All of his decent ideas were refined by the WWE who actually were successful.

[Michael Coello]

Jul 31, 2010 6:50:12 GMT -5 donners said:

TNA's current structure Wouldn't support even the greatest mind in wrestling. Needs to be completely overhauled with a different concept in presentation to sell the company to the public, businesses and licencors.

Yeah, cause TNA ne3eds Heyman to expand to different markets, getting sponsors for trading cards and toys and electronic media and get on the good side of their network and expand over the world.

.....

Oh, no wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

[Deleted]

He is right about UFC. TNA really needs to get out of Spyke TV and try to get their own identity rather than being a wrestling company that is on after Ultimate Fighter.

[psychokiller]

Jul 31, 2010 12:01:10 GMT -5 Dave at the Movies said:

Jul 31, 2010 11:54:58 GMT -5 psychokiller said:

I don't know why Heyman always thinks he can do no wrong. He's the one who was in charge of an entire company which went out of business. The guy has some great ideas, but he comes across as someone who's a know it all and can do no wrong. But I guess it would be a more positive step having Heyman over Hogan & Bischoff in charge. Bischoff definetely lost his touch creatively since the WCW days. But I guess with such limited resources in TNA he can't really do what he'd like to do, so I don't see him lasting too much longer there.

Honestly Bischoff only had one good idea in the NWO and he drove it into the ground. I heard Terry Taylor was the one that actually came up with the NWO's image.


Heyman is horrible when it comes to running a company by himself but you have to remember that he was literally running ECW almost completely by himself. No one seems to think about that when they bring up that it went out of business. The ECW DVD really showed how much involved the wrestlers were in it and how there literally was no one working backstage hardly.

Yeah, I kind of agree about Bischoff. But he did come up with the Goldberg character. Also, he made the cruiserweights famous in the U.S. when really no other company in the U.S. did. He gave them the chance of good exposure when no other company would have in the U.S. WWF always had such a shitty cruiserweight division compared to WCW, but since Bischoff loved the cruiserweights, they got their time on TV quite a bit.

With Heyman, I understand he had things against him while running ECW, but primarily he can't really blame noone but himself. There's really noone else at fault for him having to run the company himself. He should of had qualified people helping him out, but he never did. So he has noone to blame but himself in my opinion. I'm not even trying to bash ECW here, since I loved watching it when it was on back in the day, but realistically at the end of the day he can't blame noone but himself for why ECW went out of business.

[AndyUK]

I really, really hope he comes in just because he wants to try something new in wrestling and that is what the business needs.

[BxB]

Jul 31, 2010 12:09:49 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Jul 31, 2010 6:50:12 GMT -5 donners said:

TNA's current structure Wouldn't support even the greatest mind in wrestling. Needs to be completely overhauled with a different concept in presentation to sell the company to the public, businesses and licencors.

Yeah, cause TNA ne3eds Heyman to expand to different markets, getting sponsors for trading cards and toys and electronic media and get on the good side of their network and expand over the world.

.....

Oh, no wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

Yeah, I'm sure the TNA merchandise is flying off the shelves....

Anyway, Heyman makes a lot of sense, as always. But I don't believe he'll be TNA's savior, as a lot of people seem to think.

[Allie Kitsune]

Kind of sounds like he wants to make things ultra-sleazy (and not in the russo-esque over-the-top way) again.

I'm not sure if I'd want to watch that.

[nerdinitupagain]

Jul 31, 2010 12:09:33 GMT -5 jimsullivan said:

I personally don't see what the big deal about Heyman is... ECW was a distant third during the Monday Night Wars, whoop de doo. All of his decent ideas were refined by the WWE who actually were successful.

Your point is valid, but Heyman established a brand that even though you claim a distance third, was well known throughout the entire wrestling market, and had some mainstream appeal. He didn't inherent a big brand as did Vince or Bischoff that people already knew the name of, he had to market his ECW brand... and he was successful at that.

By the time they were going out of business, there's a debate as to whether or not they were the #2 promotion. Their house show gates FAR surpassed WCW and their buyrates were typicaly better without a television contract.

To a company like TNA, they see this as extremely valuable. Heyman establishes a brand, is known as an extremely good booker (OVW and Smackdown in addition to ECW), and he brings a lot of connections into other markets right now. He also constantly was creating new stars in ECW, some of which still have marketability today.

[Red Impact]

Jul 31, 2010 12:09:33 GMT -5 jimsullivan said:

I personally don't see what the big deal about Heyman is... ECW was a distant third during the Monday Night Wars, whoop de doo. All of his decent ideas were refined by the WWE who actually were successful.

Less that they refined it, more that they just took them and did it themselves. His ideas worked great for the era, he just had no business sense or financial backing to get it to last. I wouldn't trust Heyman with finances, but the guy is good with ideas.

[ASYLUMHAUSEN]

Everybody always bags on Paul for being "unsuccessful" and going out of buisness but if you stop and think for a second (think? logic?? wrestling board?? Crazy I know) you realize...

*It's 2010 and people STILL chant "E-C-DUB! E-C-DUB!!" if there's a mega crazy high spot that looks like something that might possibly have happened in the Bingo Hall. That's brand recognition folks. Those people sure as shit aren't doing those chants because of WWECW and TNAECW. And, while half or 3/4 of the arena might not be doing it, enough people are IMO to valid the possibility at least that Heyman knows what the hell he's doing

*He went out of buisness and was horrible with what money they did have. Can't argue that. BUT think about this; He was constantly losing his most mainstream marketable guys to Vince and Uncle Ted...had a broken shoestring budget...and had to rely on Tommy, Bubba, Taz and god knows who else to help with the merchandise, the booking, handling venues, etc. If Paul can just sit down and use that mind of his (which IS mighty powerful) without having to answer to/worry about restrictions from the network (pardon the obvious pun) then I really really REALLY believe he can be crazy successful in 2010 and beyond.

but, what do I know.... I'm just a guy on a message board with an opinion.

[Spankymac is sick of the swiss]

Jul 31, 2010 12:09:49 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Jul 31, 2010 6:50:12 GMT -5 donners said:

TNA's current structure Wouldn't support even the greatest mind in wrestling. Needs to be completely overhauled with a different concept in presentation to sell the company to the public, businesses and licencors.

Yeah, cause TNA ne3eds Heyman to expand to different markets, getting sponsors for trading cards and toys and electronic media and get on the good side of their network and expand over the world.

.....

Oh, no wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

And you know what? I bet if you asked any random 100 people off the street what TNA meant, they'd call you a pervert and storm off. They have no brand recognition whatsoever. If you mention WWE to people, they IMMEDIATELY know what you're talking about it, even if they have a distaste for it. With TNA, most people just think you're talking about...well, ya know. That's not a good thing for an upstart company like TNA.

[Michael Coello]

Jul 31, 2010 16:23:57 GMT -5 Spankymac is sick of the swiss said:

Jul 31, 2010 12:09:49 GMT -5 Michael Coello said:

Yeah, cause TNA ne3eds Heyman to expand to different markets, getting sponsors for trading cards and toys and electronic media and get on the good side of their network and expand over the world.

.....

Oh, no wait. THEY ALREADY DO THAT!

And you know what? I bet if you asked any random 100 people off the street what TNA meant, they'd call you a pervert and storm off. They have no brand recognition whatsoever. If you mention WWE to people, they IMMEDIATELY know what you're talking about it, even if they have a distaste for it. With TNA, most people just think you're talking about...well, ya know. That's not a good thing for an upstart company like TNA.

Yeah, if you just say "TNA" outta nowhere, you might. Classify it a bit, add "wrestling" to the end of it, or even just say the whole name "Total Nonstop Action", and it might be better recieved.

It's not really as hidden away as most people like to think. Hell, I was surprised that TNA got a mention in the new Game Informer when they were talking about people who could show up in the new WWE All Starsgame, and how some guys like Hogan, Flair, and The Outsiders, were signed to TNA and thus probably won't show up here.