Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 9, 2013 20:17:14 GMT -5
Someone posted actual numbers here a few weeks ago debunking the whole theory that attendance is up by any real margin. The only thing they are doing differently really is touring, which is basically something they could do w or w/o Hogan and Bosch? Do they help? Maybe, but maybe they're bringing out nostalgic fans who want to see Hogan, but could care less about impact which means nothing to TNA. Let's say attendance is up and it is because people are coming out to see Hogan - hypothetically. OK. Now, prove that Hogan fans want to actually watch iMPACT for reasons other than Hogan and you might have something. The ratings and PPV buys say they don't. There's a big disconnect in the audience TNA needs and the one they're targeting, because the ones they're targeting aren't interested in impact or PPVs. I'd be interested in seeing the actual numbers that show that TNA regularly drawing 3000-5000 for TV is actually less then the 950 they drew before at the Impact Zone And no, they couldn't tour without Hulk. Hulk is what is getting the TNA name out there, he's the one getting in the local media and the newspapers. An AJ Styles or Austin Aries does not have the ability to get on local TV, Local Radio, Local News in every city across the United States. Hulk Hogan does. Every body tunes in for something. You tune in for great wrestling but another poster in this thread might tune in for Hulk. Someone might tune in because they like the TNA Product as a whole. Someone might like the Knockouts. It doesn't matter why people tune in as long as they do. Who knows, A nostalgia fan may turn up for Hulk or watch for Hulk and get hooked on the product as a whole. WHY they tune is fundamental. If TNA isn't thinking about that - they're hurting themselves. The WHY is especially important for TNA. They can't just shotgun their product and hope people like it. They need to target a specific group of people and tailor their product towards (though the inverse would be ideal). Do Hogan fans like new and exciting wrestling or do they just want familiarity? If Hogan fans turn up for a live show, will they also watch Impact or are they there JUST for Hogan? Questions like these are VERY important.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Aug 9, 2013 23:06:51 GMT -5
The argument that TNA is growing under Bischoff/Hogan is so myopic. It's couched to make us believe that it is growing because of them, when in truth they had been growing steadily since the beginning. The Rock is a huge star and had an entire RAW spinoff named after him, however that doesn't mean that WWE only created Smackdown because of the Rock. Of course they are growing, but are they growing enough to keep pace with their budget? If they are growing enough that Hogan and Bischoff are worth it they shouldn't need to take money from Spike to pay for them.
Two little girl scouts are sent out to sell cookies. They both sell 20 boxes. One girl went to every door in her neighborhood. The other sat at home watching cartoons while her mom's new boyfriend bought the 20 boxes she needed to sell and the both go to camp. Next year roles around and the second girls mom just got dumped. Which girl do you think has a better shot at going to go to camp? As long as rich uncle Panda and sugar daddy Spike are funding TNA's trips I won't think they are really successful at what they do.
The fact that Hogan is the guy they have warm up markets is actually kind of a point on how bad they are at marketing. CM Punk on the C show could go on the radio whenever they were in Chicago. Zach Ryder can get Long Island hyped. Does the entire X-division live in the Impact zone? They should have people special to markets and push that hard. It's not like they don't know how, they did it quite well with Philly and the ex-ECW allumni. Now if only the people who promoted that would look on Austin Aries birth certificate.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Aug 9, 2013 23:50:09 GMT -5
Thinking more, maybe director of creative would be the best place for EB, given that TNA being more profitable now is absolutely creative.
TNA has signed bigger names and gone on the road. Both of these things cost more money, and we'd be hard pressed to find one person to say that they don't. We know that TV viewership hasn't risen drastically per ratings numbers, and while attendance by some accounts has risen, does this outweigh the cost of a heavier road schedule and bigger names on its own?
No, no way it can.
They have increased international TV marketing rights. Again, wonderful news but does it make up the higher payroll?
Again, no.
The biggest coup that EB managed to swing was to have Spike assist in picking up the tab for many of the big names. Great and wonderful, as it certainly helps the company's economic standing, but let's look at it this way.
If I get my landlord to pay my water bill and half of my electric bill, thereby giving me more flexible income, does it mean that I am making more money and am more financially well off?
|
|
Glitch
Grimlock
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,787
|
Post by Glitch on Aug 10, 2013 0:53:26 GMT -5
1. A successful run in WWE where he didn't hold any power and was just an on-screen talent. Discounting whatever he's been doing in TNA, he hasn't been in creative control of a wrestling company in 13 years. 2. Impact is TNA's biggest revenue source and ratings have gotten worse since he and Hogan joined the company on average, per year. That is not good. 3. WCW 1995 was good? Are you on crack? 4. And I can go even further back than January and see boredom with this angle, frustration with this angle and wanting this angle to die. 5. So? Do you honestly think Kevin Nash of all people went and sought out Master P? Hell no. It was all Bischoff. No one is saying to never have any celebrity involvement ever. But Master P has to go down as one of the worst celebrity/wrestling crossovers ever. He attracted no new fans, lost the company money, and didn't help ratings (ratings may have even went down). 6. Of course you like the Aces and Eights angle. You work for TNA. 7. Fired = removed from his position. He was fired from one role, given another. And where did I ever say he was worhtless? I think you'll find I defended him on the first page, long before you attached yourself to Bischoff's right nut. Did you just honestly accuse SOR of working for TNA? Does SOR work for TNA? Honestly though if you're accusing the people who defend TNA on here of being plants from TNA that's just ridiculous. I always assumed he was actually Hogan himself in disguise. I'll show those folks at FAN, brother!
|
|
Reflecto
Hank Scorpio
The Sorceress' Knight
Posts: 6,847
|
Post by Reflecto on Aug 10, 2013 13:04:50 GMT -5
That's basically a big problem with a TNA head of creative- whether or not Bischoff has anything left, the other question is: Who else could TNA reasonably get who'd be better? -Russo's failed at the job. -Pritchard just bombed out. -Heyman's with WWE again. -Cornette hates TNA. -Any top show runner from the entertainment business who could get fans excited is an absolute pipe dream at best [and would cost far too much, especially considering jumping to pro wrestling likely meaning they'd need more money to justify it]. -Most of the top indy feds of the last decade made their names on indy dream matches, meaning that it's not a guarantee that they'd be able to do anything when they don't have top-tier indy guys to play with (best case, a Sapolsky/Delirious/Quackenbush manage to get more up-and-coming indy talent in the door- which isn't a good fit for creative as much as it would be for talent relations.) Going completely unknown and doing something like a worldwide fantasy booking contest to pick from the message boards is a fantasy and would be TNA getting way too desperate to find anyone else.
Bischoff may not be "good", but he's the best TNA can realistically do right now- short of the guy who's been writing Raw the last few months jumping to TNA, they don't have many other options.
|
|
|
Post by The Portable Stove on Aug 10, 2013 14:33:48 GMT -5
I still think the best TNA could have done was Scott D'Amore, but, Canada.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Aug 10, 2013 15:49:47 GMT -5
To add to the "If not Bischoff then who?" argument. Regardless of who is in charge of TNA you always had the following:
Vince Russo: Everybody thought he sucked. Anything remotely silly was "LOLRUSSO" and of course there was the classic "Vince Russo killed WCW. TNA is dumb for hiring him" sound familiar?
Dutch Mantel: Everybody thought TNA didn't know how to long term book and used way too many ex WWE Wrestlers. Fans were begging for the push of young guys because the old guys weren't great.
Scott Da'More: Everybody thought TNA relied too much on ex WWE guys and felt Jeff Jarrett was pushed too much. This is the time when people HATED TNA for their constant Jeff Jarrett pushing.
Jerry Jarrett: Everybody felt TNA was way too Southern and only catered to the fans that turned up to the shows and not a national audience.
Bruce Pritchard: People thought TNA sucked, Hogan and Bischoff apparently had too much power and that he couldn't long term book properly.
Eric Bischoff: "HE KILLED WCW! WTF!"
TNA could have a creative team of Eric Bischoff, Paul Heyman, Shane McMahon and Vince Russo. People would still whine that Aries isn't on top. Daniels hasn't got a World Title run etc etc.
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Aug 10, 2013 16:04:25 GMT -5
To add to the "If not Bischoff then who?" argument. Regardless of who is in charge of TNA you always had the following: Vince Russo: Everybody thought he sucked. Anything remotely silly was "LOLRUSSO" and of course there was the classic "Vince Russo killed WCW. TNA is dumb for hiring him" sound familiar? Dutch Mantel: Everybody thought TNA didn't know how to long term book and used way too many ex WWE Wrestlers. Fans were begging for the push of young guys because the old guys weren't great. Scott Da'More: Everybody thought TNA relied too much on ex WWE guys and felt Jeff Jarrett was pushed too much. This is the time when people HATED TNA for their constant Jeff Jarrett pushing. Jerry Jarrett: Everybody felt TNA was way too Southern and only catered to the fans that turned up to the shows and not a national audience. Bruce Pritchard: People thought TNA sucked, Hogan and Bischoff apparently had too much power and that he couldn't long term book properly. Eric Bischoff: "HE KILLED WCW! WTF!" TNA could have a creative team of Eric Bischoff, Paul Heyman, Shane McMahon and Vince Russo. People would still whine that Aries isn't on top. Daniels hasn't got a World Title run etc etc. Not a lot of this makes sense. Just put someone NEW at the helm. Someone not around in 1998. Someone we have never heard of.
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Aug 10, 2013 16:12:52 GMT -5
To add to the "If not Bischoff then who?" argument. Regardless of who is in charge of TNA you always had the following: Vince Russo: Everybody thought he sucked. Anything remotely silly was "LOLRUSSO" and of course there was the classic "Vince Russo killed WCW. TNA is dumb for hiring him" sound familiar? Dutch Mantel: Everybody thought TNA didn't know how to long term book and used way too many ex WWE Wrestlers. Fans were begging for the push of young guys because the old guys weren't great. Scott Da'More: Everybody thought TNA relied too much on ex WWE guys and felt Jeff Jarrett was pushed too much. This is the time when people HATED TNA for their constant Jeff Jarrett pushing. Jerry Jarrett: Everybody felt TNA was way too Southern and only catered to the fans that turned up to the shows and not a national audience. Bruce Pritchard: People thought TNA sucked, Hogan and Bischoff apparently had too much power and that he couldn't long term book properly. Eric Bischoff: "HE KILLED WCW! WTF!" TNA could have a creative team of Eric Bischoff, Paul Heyman, Shane McMahon and Vince Russo. People would still whine that Aries isn't on top. Daniels hasn't got a World Title run etc etc. Not a lot of this makes sense. Just put someone NEW at the helm. Someone not around in 1998. Someone we have never heard of. What doesn't make sense? The entire point is people are going to complain regardless of who you put in. You could take anyone and put them in that spot and people are going to complain unless their favourite wrestler gets pushed. And once their favourite wrestler DOES get pushed they'll go back to complaining about the execution or the build (See: Sabin, Chris) It's lose-lose. TNA should stick with Eric Bischoff long term. Replacing a guy with years and years of experience for some random dude in the indies would be a "lol@TNA" moment.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 10, 2013 16:14:28 GMT -5
I think someone new should have been given the head creative. Someone who is more with the times.
Vince Russo was successful in WWE and when he was given the reigns, he had no past of being the head booker.
Give the reigns to either Dave Lagana or Matt Conway and see how they do.
|
|
|
Post by Young Game on Aug 10, 2013 16:17:21 GMT -5
Just put someone NEW at the helm. Someone not around in 1998. Someone we have never heard of. Someone new? Well, I wonder how many TNA fans have heard of this guy?: {Spoiler}
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 16:29:44 GMT -5
I'm going to start buttering up to certain people here and hope that they put in a good word for me over at TNA management.
Production assistant, coffee guy, ring crew, I'll do anything.
Bischoff didn't kill WCW, but he certainly didn't keep WCW alive either, and the fact that he hasn't done anything of note since then is what makes it fair to criticize the hire.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Aug 10, 2013 16:30:07 GMT -5
I think someone new should have been given the head creative. Someone who is more with the times. Vince Russo was successful in WWE and when he was given the reigns, he had no past of being the head booker. Give the reigns to either Dave Lagana or Matt Conway and see how they do. It's not like those guys will make things worst. They already writing the show with other taking credit or making changes.
|
|
|
Post by Seth Drakin of Monster Crap on Aug 10, 2013 16:38:48 GMT -5
I think someone new should have been given the head creative. Someone who is more with the times. Vince Russo was successful in WWE and when he was given the reigns, he had no past of being the head booker. Give the reigns to either Dave Lagana or Matt Conway and see how they do. It's not like those guys will make things worst. They already writing the show with other taking credit or making changes. I mean someone who can ease in the changes. We have already seen Bischoff in 2010 (although with Hogan and Russo) just completely go off on his own thing and kill things dead before they even had a chance to begin (Daniels as a main eventer, World Elite), just so they could do there own things. Look, it is never a good idea to start from scratch and guys like Bischoff do that.
|
|
|
Post by ritt works hard fo da chickens on Aug 10, 2013 17:00:39 GMT -5
Not a lot of this makes sense. Just put someone NEW at the helm. Someone not around in 1998. Someone we have never heard of. What doesn't make sense? The entire point is people are going to complain regardless of who you put in. You could take anyone and put them in that spot and people are going to complain unless their favourite wrestler gets pushed. And once their favourite wrestler DOES get pushed they'll go back to complaining about the execution or the build (See: Sabin, Chris) It's lose-lose. TNA should stick with Eric Bischoff long term. Replacing a guy with years and years of experience for some random dude in the indies would be a "lol@TNA" moment. Of course people will complain. However the people that complain about Sapolsky won't necessarily be the same ones who complain if Jarret took the helm. There are very few real complaints anyway. Most of it is constructive criticism and there is some poking fun but few people getting all angsty complaining except the complainers about complaining. I don't like the change personally, but it won't effect me much. TNA obviously is catering to a different audience then me so I just catch the matches and segments I want to see on VOD and read the reviews. I just personally don't want to see them go under like Bischoff is capable of doing, because then I won't even have that option and a lot of great performers I do like will be out of a good job.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2013 17:21:29 GMT -5
Is there no one else in TNA they can promote from within? Was one guy writing this whole show?
Lemme put it like this, if TNA said they were hiring a former reality TV producer who hasn't headed up a wrestling company's creative department since 1999, I wouldn't be filled with confidence no matter what his name was.
|
|
dav
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 6,067
|
Post by dav on Aug 10, 2013 17:24:47 GMT -5
|
|
SOR
Unicron
Posts: 2,611
|
Post by SOR on Aug 10, 2013 17:49:48 GMT -5
To be fair House Shows are down everywhere. I remember attending a Smackdown House Show back in 2006 and there was 18,000 people in the arena setting a new record. Smackdown came back in 09-10 and I didn't go but I had a friend who did and the announced attendance figure was 10,000 and some change. TNA needs to focus more on the House Shows no doubt about it but I was mainly talking about TV and PPV attendance. I guess all these House Show figures actually show how well Impact would draw without Hulk and Sting though.
|
|
Glitch
Grimlock
Not Going To Die; Childs, we're goin' out to give Blair the test. If he tries to make it back here and we're not with him... burn him.
Watching you.
Posts: 12,787
|
Post by Glitch on Aug 10, 2013 18:01:08 GMT -5
Can't we just put Borash in that position? I'll take Don West even. We'll see more pele themed matches.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 10, 2013 18:11:54 GMT -5
Not a lot of this makes sense. Just put someone NEW at the helm. Someone not around in 1998. Someone we have never heard of. What doesn't make sense? The entire point is people are going to complain regardless of who you put in. You could take anyone and put them in that spot and people are going to complain unless their favourite wrestler gets pushed. And once their favourite wrestler DOES get pushed they'll go back to complaining about the execution or the build (See: Sabin, Chris) It's lose-lose. TNA should stick with Eric Bischoff long term. Replacing a guy with years and years of experience for some random dude in the indies would be a "lol@TNA" moment. Some of the greatest bookers were first "random dudes from the indies". I'll say for the sake of argument though that Bischoff should be allowed to succeed or fail first. But if he fails, TNA needs to definitely think outside the box. New blood is eventually needed in all forms of decision making. You can only grow when you look forward and embrace new ideas. Eventually what was once revolutionary becomes stale and old hat.
|
|