|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 9, 2010 12:43:41 GMT -5
Who the hell said anything about victory? I was talking about consistancy, and you're the one dragging in the Monday change. And as for WCW getting a 2.0, that was a drop from the 4.0-5.0 range. TNA, since going on Spike, never had that giant of a drop at all. So that consistancy is better off than having a bigger rating that was a faction of the original ratings. I don't know, Sinister, man. Going from a 1.1-1.2 to a .5,.6,.7 is a pretty steep drop at that level. But it never stayed like way. a week or two drop isn't reflective on an average for a year or so. A drop like WCW stayed in that area for a long time. It's not even a comparison.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jul 9, 2010 12:45:12 GMT -5
Pretty much this, but in nicer terms. TNA went up against RAW and most people chose RAW. There's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. No way anyone could ever twist it can erase that either. It is twisted around, though, to make it seem worse than it was. It got a .5 rating twice, and yet that seems to be the only rating it ever got to people, ignoring the few times it did get around 1.0. Not only that, but one rating wasn't even due to WWE. It was a playoff game. A .5 off a 1.1 is more than 50% of the audience jetting for something else to watch. That's a pretty big drop, even if it didn't happen more than twice. And while I'll give you that a playoff game might have been a reason for some bad ratings, when it got to the point where they pointed out stuff happening on WWE television being a cause for falling ratings, that's when it got ridiculous.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 9, 2010 12:51:05 GMT -5
It is twisted around, though, to make it seem worse than it was. It got a .5 rating twice, and yet that seems to be the only rating it ever got to people, ignoring the few times it did get around 1.0. Not only that, but one rating wasn't even due to WWE. It was a playoff game. A .5 off a 1.1 is more than 50% of the audience jetting for something else to watch. That's a pretty big drop, even if it didn't happen more than twice. And while I'll give you that a playoff game might have been a reason for some bad ratings, when it got to the point where they pointed out stuff happening on WWE television being a cause for falling ratings, that's when it got ridiculous. But you're missing the point. I'm talking about the overall view, when you're getting bogged down on circumstancial points. I wasn't bringing up the Monday night move at all, cause the argument was that no one was gonna take a change over how horrible TNA was doing. And that bull, not only cause it hasn't, but you can't call TNA being in a horrible position here. You wanna bring in talk of what WCw got at their worst, and ignore the whole idea of how they got their in the first place doing more damage that what they were getting at all.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Jul 9, 2010 13:03:13 GMT -5
A .5 off a 1.1 is more than 50% of the audience jetting for something else to watch. That's a pretty big drop, even if it didn't happen more than twice. And while I'll give you that a playoff game might have been a reason for some bad ratings, when it got to the point where they pointed out stuff happening on WWE television being a cause for falling ratings, that's when it got ridiculous. But you're missing the point. I'm talking about the overall view, when you're getting bogged down on circumstancial points. I wasn't bringing up the Monday night move at all, cause the argument was that no one was gonna take a change over how horrible TNA was doing. And that bull, not only cause it hasn't, but you can't call TNA being in a horrible position here. You wanna bring in talk of what WCw got at their worst, and ignore the whole idea of how they got their in the first place doing more damage that what they were getting at all. Things aren't exactly peaches and herbs there to begin with, though. They've thrown plenty of money at big names and invested in failed ventures, to which no results really have done anything to boost ratings or buyrates (to my knowledge. They're privately owned, so I can't really say anything without talking out of my ass on the subject). That alone is a sign for bad things to come if things continue to go this way. When it's come to the point where they're actively trying to get Paul Heyman of all people to come into the company to write for them, you have to admit something's up. I hate to bring up the Russo card, but with reported news (or newz) that they've given the reigns to other people as writers, this either means that: a) they've all but given up with justifying Russo's tenure on the creative team and are desperate for a quick fix or... and more likely b) they want the company to go in a new direction, hence all of the changes. Either way you slice it, they really haven't shown any huge amounts of growth despite all the efforts to jump up in the ratings, rather than slowly developing them. There's plenty of other factors in this (i.e. advertising, getting out of Orlando, more advertising), but the point being that they've tried so many quick fixes to get the company off the ground in lieu of using logic. And in turn, it's cost them a lot of money and I'm sure faith in the eyes of Spike, meaning I'm not sure if they'll let TNA change timeslots anytime soon, no matter what the cause is. The real question here is how long can they keep making boneheaded decisions before either Spike or Panda finally steps down from their positions?
|
|
|
Post by joeverfield on Jul 9, 2010 13:22:38 GMT -5
This thread or news story happens every so months. Sad really
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Jul 9, 2010 13:28:34 GMT -5
But you're missing the point. I'm talking about the overall view, when you're getting bogged down on circumstancial points. I wasn't bringing up the Monday night move at all, cause the argument was that no one was gonna take a change over how horrible TNA was doing. And that bull, not only cause it hasn't, but you can't call TNA being in a horrible position here. You wanna bring in talk of what WCw got at their worst, and ignore the whole idea of how they got their in the first place doing more damage that what they were getting at all. Things aren't exactly peaches and herbs there to begin with, though. They've thrown plenty of money at big names and invested in failed ventures, to which no results really have done anything to boost ratings or buyrates (to my knowledge. They're privately owned, so I can't really say anything without talking out of my ass on the subject). That alone is a sign for bad things to come if things continue to go this way. When it's come to the point where they're actively trying to get Paul Heyman of all people to come into the company to write for them, you have to admit something's up. I hate to bring up the Russo card, but with reported news (or newz) that they've given the reigns to other people as writers, this either means that: a) they've all but given up with justifying Russo's tenure on the creative team and are desperate for a quick fix or... and more likely b) they want the company to go in a new direction, hence all of the changes. Either way you slice it, they really haven't shown any huge amounts of growth despite all the efforts to jump up in the ratings, rather than slowly developing them. There's plenty of other factors in this (i.e. advertising, getting out of Orlando, more advertising), but the point being that they've tried so many quick fixes to get the company off the ground in lieu of using logic. And in turn, it's cost them a lot of money and I'm sure faith in the eyes of Spike, meaning I'm not sure if they'll let TNA change timeslots anytime soon, no matter what the cause is. The real question here is how long can they keep making boneheaded decisions before either Spike or Panda finally steps down from their positions? Compared to what? it seems that the only growth that "proves" TNA as a success is unrealistic. The fact of the matter is that there has been growth, yet it doesn't seem enough, and any kind of experimentation is seen as a death knell.
|
|
Paul
Vegeta
Posts: 9,341
|
Post by Paul on Jul 9, 2010 13:32:27 GMT -5
This thread or news story happens every so months. Sad really Not as sad as the future prospects of TNA.
|
|
deeks
Trap-Jaw
Posts: 264
|
Post by deeks on Jul 9, 2010 13:47:19 GMT -5
This thread or news story happens every so months. Sad really Not as sad as the future prospects of TNA. They look pretty rosy to me now that Impact has gotten good again. And they are actually building to PPV matches. Maybe you should watch.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Jul 9, 2010 13:50:23 GMT -5
Do you actually believe this? TNA isn't blocking anything, and the two boom periods of wrestling had plenty of rehashes and just plain bad tv. And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong UFC is the wrestling boom period. They are giving the adult male fanbase what they want to see in 2010 and with it being real, they creating new stars is an inevitability, rather than WWE sitting on a pat hand until the old stars retire.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 9, 2010 14:10:58 GMT -5
And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong UFC is the wrestling boom period. They are giving the adult male fanbase what they want to see in 2010 and with it being real, they creating new stars is an inevitability, rather than WWE sitting on a pat hand until the old stars retire. This
|
|
dpg
Samurai Cop
Posts: 2,480
|
Post by dpg on Jul 10, 2010 9:57:29 GMT -5
So other companies not growing is TNA's fault now? It's amazing what some people will make up to blame TNA for. Companies can't grow if they don't get TV time. And if people decide to not give another wrestling league a chance for fear of it being godawful as TNA...so be it. A return to the territory system might not be that bad. At least it would be better than keeping the decrepit "12 PPVs a year" model alive for a "national" promotion that can't even function as a regional. No they can't, but TNA being on TV isn't a reason for them not getting it. TNA's ratings for spike have been good, much better than all the other content apart from CSI and UFC. How would that look bad to other networks? Your dislike for the content seems to be completely blinding you to the reality of TV networks. TNA got on TV by working hard and producing a show a network would want. They needed a lot of funding for this. Even when they got on spike TNA needed cash and months of help to push themselves up onto thursday prime time. No other small wrestling company has the cash or backing to do that, and don't keep staying TNA is keeping them from getting it because that's just circular logic. You have no idea if ROH etc would get a big buyer, the fact that none of them have yet shows a distiinct lack of interest so far, how that would change after a much larger company with a backer and TV time goes under I don't know, why would a company say 'hmmmm, TNA spent millions, got on prime time TV, and still failed, I gotta get me some of that!'
|
|
|
Post by The Dark Order Inferno on Jul 10, 2010 10:36:46 GMT -5
You have no idea if ROH etc would get a big buyer, the fact that none of them have yet shows a distiinct lack of interest so far, how that would change after a much larger company with a backer and TV time goes under I don't know, why would a company say 'hmmmm, TNA spent millions, got on prime time TV, and still failed, I gotta get me some of that!' Yeah, TNA tanking would cement wrestling as a completely unappealing venture for any backer. WCW and ECW tanked in a boom period with one being backed by one of America's richest men and the other getting handouts from Vince to keep it afloat, Smoky Mountain went under despite the backing of Rick Rubin, the WWA went under despite backing from a concert promoter and a roster loaded with talent, touring in areas that were hot for wrestling like Oz and Europe... And so on. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the death of TNA would benefit other companies or wrestling in general, while it's success will show others that it's possible to build a company in a down period and will encourage others to try.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Jul 10, 2010 11:23:37 GMT -5
You have no idea if ROH etc would get a big buyer, the fact that none of them have yet shows a distiinct lack of interest so far, how that would change after a much larger company with a backer and TV time goes under I don't know, why would a company say 'hmmmm, TNA spent millions, got on prime time TV, and still failed, I gotta get me some of that!' Yeah, TNA tanking would cement wrestling as a completely unappealing venture for any backer. WCW and ECW tanked in a boom period with one being backed by one of America's richest men and the other getting handouts from Vince to keep it afloat, Smoky Mountain went under despite the backing of Rick Rubin, the WWA went under despite backing from a concert promoter and a roster loaded with talent, touring in areas that were hot for wrestling like Oz and Europe... And so on. There is absolutely no way whatsoever that the death of TNA would benefit other companies or wrestling in general, while it's success will show others that it's possible to build a company in a down period and will encourage others to try. Indeed, some people act like if TNA goes under another promotion like say ROH will automatically get their number 2 spot. Which is just ridiculous imo.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 10, 2010 12:15:45 GMT -5
And the booms created a time where it was considered "cool" to like wrestling (specifically during the Attitude Era, where everybody loved wrestling). Fast forward to 2010, and the current cool thing to like is... Not that there's anything wrong with MMA, but it is in the same position wrestling was in in 1998. It is my opinion that there will never be another wrestling boom period, although I would love to be wrong UFC is the wrestling boom period. They are giving the adult male fanbase what they want to see in 2010 and with it being real, they creating new stars is an inevitability, rather than WWE sitting on a pat hand until the old stars retire. Mehh UFC and wrestling are two different things. One major thing is that UFC doesn't make the stars, the stars make themselves.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 10, 2010 13:21:53 GMT -5
UFC is the wrestling boom period. They are giving the adult male fanbase what they want to see in 2010 and with it being real, they creating new stars is an inevitability, rather than WWE sitting on a pat hand until the old stars retire. Mehh UFC and wrestling are two different things. One major thing is that UFC doesn't make the stars, the stars make themselves. Not true. UFC does just as much marketing, pushing, and all of that as any wrestling company does. Look at Brock getting hotshotted to a title shot.
|
|
|
Post by dh03grad on Jul 10, 2010 17:20:31 GMT -5
UFC is the wrestling boom period. They are giving the adult male fanbase what they want to see in 2010 and with it being real, they creating new stars is an inevitability, rather than WWE sitting on a pat hand until the old stars retire. Mehh UFC and wrestling are two different things. One major thing is that UFC doesn't make the stars, the stars make themselves. UFC made it a win-win situation even when the "right guy" doesnt win. Rampage Jackson was brought in as the last stop as their top guy Chuck was avenging his losses. When Rampage knocked him out, Rampage became a main eventer. The same thing with Lesnar and Mir. Its a law of diminishing returns when you have the exact same guys headline PPVs 12-14 times a year, UFC has the ability to make a host of guys appear as important.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Jul 10, 2010 17:46:12 GMT -5
Not as sad as the future prospects of TNA. They look pretty rosy to me now that Impact has gotten good again. And they are actually building to PPV matches. Maybe you should watch. The creative prospects may have improved (and I don't see much evidence of that myself), but there is no connection between that and finances or popularity. I think if you said to anyone last year when TNA was pulling in 1.2-1.3 that they could add Flair, Hogan, Anderson, RVD and Hardy and rate LOWER, they would regard that as an outright disaster and a terrible sign for the company.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Jul 10, 2010 17:52:59 GMT -5
They look pretty rosy to me now that Impact has gotten good again. And they are actually building to PPV matches. Maybe you should watch. The creative prospects may have improved (and I don't see much evidence of that myself), but there is no connection between that and finances or popularity. I think if you said to anyone last year when TNA was pulling in 1.2-1.3 that they could add Flair, Hogan, Anderson, RVD and Hardy and rate LOWER, they would regard that as an outright disaster and a terrible sign for the company. But then if you explained it was after a failed move to Monday Nights and the ratings now aren't drastically lower and are very consistent they'd probably understand a little better.
|
|
|
Post by joeiscool on Jul 10, 2010 19:58:29 GMT -5
Mehh UFC and wrestling are two different things. One major thing is that UFC doesn't make the stars, the stars make themselves. Not true. UFC does just as much marketing, pushing, and all of that as any wrestling company does. Look at Brock getting hotshotted to a title shot. but even then he has to win to make him a star. If brock continually lost he would not be a ufc star, no matter how much ufc promoted him.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Jul 10, 2010 19:59:15 GMT -5
Not true. UFC does just as much marketing, pushing, and all of that as any wrestling company does. Look at Brock getting hotshotted to a title shot. but even then he has to win to make him a star. If brock continually lost he would not be a ufc star, no matter how much ufc promoted him. Cough KIMBO SLICE Cough
|
|