Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 31, 2010 16:34:21 GMT -5
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 s*** 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. Good post. -------------------- Paul E. as usual makes good points. I doubt Paul E. himself is the savior of TNA as some people believe, however if Paul E.(or anyone for that matter) were to come in with a solid business plan, solid marketing plan, and logical booking TNA wouldn't get near the hate that it gets currently.
|
|
MasonK565
El Dandy
Biggest Damian Wayne fan on FAN.
Posts: 8,577
|
Post by MasonK565 on Jul 31, 2010 16:36:48 GMT -5
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 s*** 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. Good post. -------------------- Paul E. as usual makes good points. I doubt Paul E. himself is the savior of TNA as some people believe, however if Paul E.(or anyone for that matter) were to come in with a solid business plan, solid marketing plan, and logical booking TNA wouldn't get near the hate that it gets currently. I totally agree with both of these statements.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Jul 31, 2010 17:18:28 GMT -5
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. But that's an unfair change to the point I made. If you said WWE out of nowhere, people instantly know what's up. Same with other majorly recognized brand names. Band-Aid, Xerox, and so on. Brand recognition means...instant recognition. You shouldn't have to clarify it. TNA doesn't have that recognition, and no amount of trading cards, crappy games, or one sentence mentions in a gaming magazine, will change that. They have no identity as a company that they can sell to the general public. No one cares about them because no one knows who they are. If Hulk freakin' Hogan of all people can't change that, then nothing will.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 31, 2010 17:29:25 GMT -5
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. But that's an unfair change to the point I made. If you said WWE out of nowhere, people instantly know what's up. Same with other majorly recognized brand names. Band-Aid, Xerox, and so on. Brand recognition means...instant recognition. You shouldn't have to clarify it. TNA doesn't have that recognition, and no amount of trading cards, crappy games, or one sentence mentions in a gaming magazing, will change that. They have no identity as a company that they can sell to the general public. No one cares about them because no one knows who they are. If Hulk freakin' Hogan of all people can't change that, then nothing will. Now you're jumping topics from just hearing about the company and knowing who they are to mental branding. Yeah, WWE has the brand, cause they've been around for decades. Plus, it helps when you say "WWF" instead. However, just cause TNA isn't the first thing anyone thinks of when they mention wrestling doesn't mean that they have no public identity. Honestly, you complain about no one saying they have no idea what TNA is, when you can make the same claim about any federation outside WWE. It's not a sign of how TNA has no identity, it's a sign how ingrained WWE made themselves since they went mainstream. The fact is, even with people complaining how they have no public identity, TNA have been able to make a name for themselves in different countries as well as here, and that happened even with TNA having that name and having that lack of structure.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Jul 31, 2010 20:23:08 GMT -5
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. But is it a positive brand image, though? I have a cousin who is a huge wrestling fan - not somebody who follows online newz sites, but who goes to every WWE tour and buys every PPV. I tried to get him to come to the TNA tour when they were coming out here, and he flatly refused, saying there was no point going to see the VFL when he could see the AFL (probably doesn't translate well - the American version would be minor leagues as opposed to major leagues). On a side note, that tour was cancelled due to lack of sales, at great financial and goodwill cost. Even for those who do know of TNA, a lot of it have an image of it, rightly or wrongly, as a very watered down WWE. That people in TNA are those not good enough for WWE. Hence the need for a total brand revival. ECW got respect for making an impact with minimal resources and for putting on quality matches with good workers. TNA is derided by WWE fans for being small-time, and by indi fans for doing so little with so many resources.
|
|
|
Post by golding on Jul 31, 2010 21:26:40 GMT -5
"Initially came in late 2009 (as in Russo's book), didn't take any interest until a "strong" approach in the last two months."
This was a part I didn't understand. Is he saying he didn't watch before late 2009? I could have sworn he'd commented on their product prior to then. Maybe I'm just mistaken.
"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."
People are down on TNA for mixing their newer stars with some retro stuff, but it does fill a gap that has otherwise been abandoned by the WWE. It is one of the things that probably made TNA appeal to me. But what I agree with in particular is the last part. There is a lot of jumping around and switching tracks, when the benefits to going in a certain direction aren't really going to happen overnight. Goes along with what a lot of people seem to say, that TNA needs to make a reasonable long-term plan and see it through.
"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."
Asking "Why Hogan and Bischoff failed" is sort of contradictory to the prior point that "the building blocks have to be set with rewards coming years down the track". The shows have been quite good as of late, despite the denial of the usual suspects. But nevertheless, the point he makes is accurate, and is probably a subject he knows very well. Differing booking visions can't share time based on equity. They have to filter through as good ideas. Otherwise they're compromising and going in two directions at once. What role Hogan and Bischoff actually are playing in booking, I can't say (I suspect not a great amount). But I think he's rather making his case as to why he would want Russo gone if he were in control. It's not because LOL RUSSO SUX ON A POLE, but more because Heyman and him have two different styles.
"Wrestling is not seen as cool any more, UFC is. There are no new mainstream stars."
Agree completely with this, and it seems like it's where a lot of the additional fans from the Attitude Era fans went. Makes sense since real fighting is a bit more badass than fake fighting. While there is the debate that goes on whether wrestling should be more like UFC, I do think there are some production and promotion ideas that pro-wrestling could benefit from lifting.
"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."
This is one of the things that concerns me, because it again goes against his prior point that "the building blocks have to be set with rewards coming years down the track". A complete overhaul is basically asking TNA to start from square one ONCE AGAIN, simply because the booker needs his presence felt. If it's a gradual transition, fine. But another "throwing out the script, we're starting over" style overhaul will be a problem.
"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."
He's said this before, and the more he says it the more he sounds like he is interested in the challenge of running a show without having to worry about his creativity being shackled. But it always follows with the caveat...
"Dana White power, to completely overhaul the company, and a team working to his vision"
That's a tall order to ask of anyone. Basically a "I'll take the credit card, you just make sure it doesn't max out" sort of deal. For as much as people trash Dixie Carter with the image of a bad businesswoman, I don't think anyone would be comfortable with the demand. The problem with wanting Dana White power, as he calls it, is that Dana White IS the boss in UFC and that's why he runs the show (unless I'm mistaken and Zuffa manages finances entirely). There is no Dana White power without the Dana White responsibility hanging over your head.
"Make TNA successful and profitable with a standard-bearing product to make wrestling cool again."
Only yet to be seen. By now, TNA has to be skeptical of hearing this time and again. I do like Heyman and his creative booking, and the attention he gives to wrestling that impresses the fans. But even if he does deliver on a product I like, I'm skeptical whether he can go so far as to make wrestling cool again. Even Vince McMahon, with the endless resources he has, is running stagnant trying to make it happen.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Aug 1, 2010 5:18:54 GMT -5
I think what Heyman suggests is the right path, but it will take years, and I just don't think TNA have the patience for that. They want a quick fix.
|
|
Toates Madhackrviper
King Koopa
Is owed an Admin life-debt.
This avatar is so far out of date I might as well stick with it forever now.
Posts: 10,727
|
Post by Toates Madhackrviper on Aug 1, 2010 5:31:38 GMT -5
I think he's saying he didn't become interested in the possibility of actually taking the offer from TNA until they started to give him a "strong" approach in 2009. He's not talking about watching the product at all.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Aug 1, 2010 11:39:45 GMT -5
The man can't balance a checkbook, but I agree with most of his takes on the creative end of things.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Aug 1, 2010 12:07:11 GMT -5
The way TNA promotes its PPV gives Heyman alot of ammo. You don't want any "regular" TNA guys on your PPV and people are still trying to make the "TNA's promoting its own guys!" argument? This doesn't promote the "TNA" name or make "TNA" look any less bush-league, it just says "Here are some old ECW guys! You used to like them! Watch them!" No company has EVER succeeded long-term treating its guys in completely seperate "tiers" like that.
|
|
|
Post by golding on Aug 1, 2010 12:14:11 GMT -5
The way TNA promotes its PPV gives Heyman alot of ammo. You don't want any "regular" TNA guys on your PPV and people are still trying to make the "TNA's promoting its own guys!" argument? This doesn't promote the "TNA" name or make "TNA" look any less bush-league, it just says "Here are some old ECW guys! You used to like them! Watch them!" No company has EVER succeeded long-term treating its guys in completely seperate "tiers" like that. The problem with this argument is that it's completely bogus. TNA wrestlers continue to highlight the weekly program, and it's emphasized that Hardcore Justice being an ECW event is a one-off. I can think of at least one company that isn't "bush-league" (a meaningless, but all too often used, phrase) that did cast their wrestlers aside for a night to promote wrestlers bred by ECW.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Aug 1, 2010 12:17:30 GMT -5
The problem with that argument is that WWE could get a buyrate with its own guys. TNA can't, which makes the "this is a celebration of ECW" argument sound like a coded "the TNA name is worthless" claim. Which it is, as far as getting people to buy PPVs (getting them to watch wrestling on noncompetitive nights for free is a different story).
|
|
jobber2thestars
Hank Scorpio
Buy the Simon System. You'll thank yourself.
Posts: 7,097
|
Post by jobber2thestars on Aug 1, 2010 15:09:00 GMT -5
Heyman taking over TNA would be great, as long as he is kept away from the money and financial stuff. If I were him, I'd release a lot of the current roster, namely Nash, and focus on the younger guys (obviously all the older guys can't be gotten rid of, as they are some of the top money makers). Second, the name needs to be changed. TNA is a terrible name for a wrestling company, and it seems like a joke.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Aug 1, 2010 15:11:04 GMT -5
Heyman taking over TNA would be great, as long as he is kept away from the money and financial stuff. If I were him, I'd release a lot of the current roster, namely Nash, and focus on the younger guys (obviously all the older guys can't be gotten rid of, as they are some of the top money makers). Second, the name needs to be changed. TNA is a terrible name for a wrestling company, and it seems like a joke. How about TNW (total nonstop wrestling)? That way they wouldn't have to call it "TNA Wrestling", as if "wrestling" was a foreign clarifier to TNA.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 1, 2010 15:54:24 GMT -5
The problem with that argument is that WWE could get a buyrate with its own guys. TNA can't, which makes the "this is a celebration of ECW" argument sound like a coded "the TNA name is worthless" claim. Which it is, as far as getting people to buy PPVs (getting them to watch wrestling on noncompetitive nights for free is a different story). One PPV says all that? TNA has several other shows to do stuff, and it hasn't taken away any time of theirs from iMPACT. They still have TNA guys doign their things, still hype TNA DVDs and TNA PPVs, hype TNA house shows, and advertise TNA as a whole. At the end of the day, before the PPV it's about TNA. After the PPV, it's still about TNA. TNA is even having the big Fn' Show special, and I can guarantee that more people are going to be watching that than Hardcore Justice. Just having a remembrance show doesn't mean they're calling TNA worthless, because they're doing A LOT to hype the name too.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Aug 1, 2010 16:02:22 GMT -5
Heyman has every right to be picky and choosy and want his ass kissed.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Aug 1, 2010 16:02:43 GMT -5
One PPV says all that? TNA has several other shows to do stuff, and it hasn't taken away any time of theirs from iMPACT. They still have TNA guys doign their things, still hype TNA DVDs and TNA PPVs, hype TNA house shows, and advertise TNA as a whole. At the end of the day, before the PPV it's about TNA. After the PPV, it's still about TNA. TNA is even having the big Fn' Show special, and I can guarantee that more people are going to be watching that than Hardcore Justice. Just having a remembrance show doesn't mean they're calling TNA worthless, because they're doing A LOT to hype the name too. Its not about one PPV. Its about the fact that TNA got LESS PPV buys even as it grew from its initial 0.8 to the 1.1-1.3 it usually gets on Thursdays now. Fact is the TNA name and roster doesn't have PPV value to even TNA fans. I'm happy they decided to do the big F'N show. Their TV contracts make them the most money and its best they emphasize that revenue stream. But acting like most people who watch TNA actually want to buy their PPVs isn't being truthful. Maybe the entire PPV model (including WWE's) is doomed in time, but its certainly dead for TNA no matter how many big names they hire.
|
|
|
Post by golding on Aug 1, 2010 16:08:31 GMT -5
The problem with that argument is that WWE could get a buyrate with its own guys. TNA can't, which makes the "this is a celebration of ECW" argument sound like a coded "the TNA name is worthless" claim. Which it is, as far as getting people to buy PPVs (getting them to watch wrestling on noncompetitive nights for free is a different story). Seems like you're trying to create a no-win argument for TNA. You're critical of the TNA roster because they can't draw (debatable), while you're critical of TNA for centering a PPV around people who can. Personally, I think you're reading too much into the "this is a celebration of ECW". Nowadays I hear (even beyond the scope of wrestling) people talking about how "___ is code for ___" a bit too often. Condemning remarks need a little more substantiation than the sign language you think you might have seen. Realistically speaking, judging the alleged PPV buys relies on financial information about a private company reported from sources that are notoriously down on TNA. The rumors about their PPV buys are questionable at best without an actual source beyond "I have it on good authority".
|
|
Welfare Willis
Crow T. Robot
Pornomancer 555-BONE FDIC Bonsured
Game Center CX Kacho on!
Posts: 44,259
|
Post by Welfare Willis on Aug 1, 2010 20:30:00 GMT -5
I think what Heyman suggests is the right path, but it will take years, and I just don't think TNA have the patience for that. They want a quick fix. Exactly. I don't think network and TNA executives know what long term planning means.
|
|
|
Post by wcw on Aug 1, 2010 20:59:19 GMT -5
Basically Heyman is not burning his bridge with TNA and is basically saying what we all have been saying about TNA for a long time (About a general change in direction and philosophy).
I think that Heyman would oust Bischoff Nash and Hogan probably oust Hardy and possibly Mr.Anderson. Would use RVD, Team 3-D, and Kurt Angle as the vets to lend the younger newer guys some credibility much like he did Terry Funk.
All in all I think that Heyman would be worth a shot for TNA but it isn't going to happen (Even if the money is right and they give him the control he wants) unless Heyman really wants to get back into the business again. Basically how much does Paul love pro-wrestling or being Brock Lesnars agent sound better?
|
|