Looks Like We're Stuck With Russo

[MGH]

What's stunning to me is that WCW, who at the time was a very successful company, laid out the blueprints on how to book an hour of television. And they did good ratings while doing it. By the beginning of 1996 they had the pattern laid out. It isn't that complicated. Something around 70% wrestling, 30% angles, 0% waste of time. You don't have to give a "PPV quality main event" away. Hell some of the main events on those shows were High Voltage vs The Steiners followed by a main angle for down the road. Point is if you book a strong enough show before hand, people will tune in. Arn Anderson vs DOD Guy would get 10 minutes. TNA doesn't even have 10 minutes TOTAL on their shows hardly anymore. You don't have to squeeze every angle on TV every single week. That's one thing I like about Smackdown. Some weeks Kennedy, Benoit, Chavo, Helms, Undertaker will be there. The next week some of them won't, but Kane, MVP, London and Kendrick will be. TNA and Russo seem to think that every single person in every single feud involved in every single angle have to be on television every week.

I haven't seen enough of a difference in any thing to say whether Russo has been a success or a failure yet. I still say the increase in ratings has for the most part been the timeslot change. Because that's the exact point when they rose, but I could be dead wrong. The only thing I do know is that the quality of the product TNA was putting on no less than 3 months ago has completely tanked. And I'm guessing with them retaining their 1.0-1.1 every week I'm in the minority on that. Hey cool, whatever. I just want them to live up to their name of total nonstop action, and quit being total nonstop talking. And no that doesn't mean bring ROH style shows to television. It just means stop being WWE-lite and try and give fans what WWE obviously doesn't in some constant in ring competition. WCW's formula worked before they jumped to two hours, there's no reason TNA couldn't be doing the same and being the alternative that they claim they are.

[I Got Heat]

What I don't understand is the way wrestling fans treat the matches like crack. I picture you guys shaking like you need a hit the way you talk about a lack of matches on the shows. Are you really gonna cry or turn violent if you don't get a 10 minute match for free on Impact?

There's like 4-5 hours of free wrestling per week on television. Impact uses its hour to build storylines to sell matches on Pay Per View. Personally, from a business standpoint, I think this is the best business model out there. McMahon could make a lot more money selling the milk if he wasn't always giving away the cow on free TV. There's pressure on TNA to provide more free TV wrestling because McMahon does it, but I still don't think it's the smart thing to do. Like I've said before, the UFC was selling PPVs based on mostly reality show interaction and one match per show, in an hour. The WWE should be envious of that business model, and I'm glad TNA is following it. Storylines are for TV, wrestling is for PPV.

[Deleted]

Some people forget ... it took Russo a full two years or so after getting the book before the WWF really took off. It doesn't happen in a few months. TNA is a slightly different story because unlike the WWF at the time, they had already been though a 'boom' period in the late '80's. Vince Russo helped the company into another 'boom' period in the late '90's.

Why did the 'boom' happen? Simply because the WWF had stars at the top that the people who didn't really watch wrestling on a regular basis cared about (Austin, Michaels, Undertaker, Foley etc.) and fast-rising stars (The Rock, Triple H and DX, Shamrock, Venis and a few others). 'Normal' people simply cared about the show and the characters enough to watch it. Do many casual viewers want to see 30-minute long matches on television? No. They'll most likely change the channel. They want excitement when they watch wrestling on television. But, putting those sort of matches on PPV after a well-booked feud makes people want to watch them.

With TNA only having one hour a week to promote their product, they need to fit as much in as they can. And that's what they're doing.

In my opinion, TNA and Vince Russo are doing nothing wrong at the moment. Just give it time.

[nostradumbass]

What, were there rumors of Russo leaving? Of course we're stuck with Russo.

[I Got Heat]

am90 said:

Some people forget ... it took Russo a full two years or so after getting the book before the WWF really took off. It doesn't happen in a few months. TNA is a slightly different story because unlike the WWF at the time, they had already been though a 'boom' period in the late '80's. Vince Russo helped the company into another 'boom' period in the late '90's.

Why did the 'boom' happen? Simply because the WWF had stars at the top that the people who didn't really watch wrestling on a regular basis cared about (Austin, Michaels, Undertaker, Foley etc.) and fast-rising stars (The Rock, Triple H and DX, Shamrock, Venis and a few others). 'Normal' people simply cared about the show and the characters enough to watch it. Do many casual viewers want to see 30-minute long matches on television? No. They'll most likely change the channel. They want excitement when they watch wrestling on television. But, putting those sort of matches on PPV after a well-booked feud makes people want to watch them.

With TNA only having one hour a week to promote their product, they need to fit as much in as they can. And that's what they're doing.

In my opinion, TNA and Vince Russo are doing nothing wrong at the moment. Just give it time.

Oh My God, finally someone who gets it!!!! Thank you for posting this.

[REDUNBECK~!]

a2j88 said:

See now we go back to the TNA needs two hours argument. They can't compete with a one hour show. They need an undercard, just like WCW had one at their height and the WWF in the attitude era.

And I take it you don't like show burn angles? For instance Sting was in every show for about a year, but didn't wrestle. He just popped up and hit people with a bat. He took up time and became the biggest star without a match. Would you be against this? Russo provides us with match payoffs. We have the Senshi/Starr fued, Eric Young has a character transformation and seems to be going into a match soon. People don't just fight for no reason. Yes they fight for belts, but what if there is no belt in sight? They need to fight for something. Russo provides drama as reason. Sadly he's not very good at writing drama.

Re:Eric Young:

So what if he has a character? Is his stupid story convincing a single person to buy a PPV? Are there people saying "Hey, that Eric guy might buy more condoms! I gotta pay to see this!"? NO. And "he seems to be going into a match soon". Seems to be? That doesn't raise a red flag for you? If TNA expects people to pay to see a guy, the people need to see his work on TV so they know what to expect. I haven't seen Eric Young wrestle in God knows how long. What reason do I have to expect his next match will be worth paying to see? None.

Re:Guys fighting for something:

You want guys fighting for something? Their paychecks. It is, in fact, possible to have two guys fight for a non-wacky reason. And if you MUST have a story, how about this:

Week 1: They have a match just because. One guy wins clean.

Week 2: The guy who lost asks for and receives a rematch. He wins. Now they're tied 1-1.

Week 3: The first guy demands a third match for a "best two out of three" deal. They have the match but the finish isn't clean (tights pulled, ref bump, whatever).

Week 4: Cornette says the two will have the true rubber match next week on PPV.

If the guys wrestling are actually good and have good matches, the people will pay to see that rubber match because they have a reason to expect it to be good.


Re: Senshi/Starr:

They're feuding? I had seriously NO IDEA. Wow, great booking on that one.


Re: TNA can't compete:

Nitro started as a one hour show, and they kicked ass with that one hour, and eventually they EARNED a second hour. Don't tell me a one-hour show can't compete.


Re:Sting's wacky year of no wrestling:

Again, WCW was a two hour show so having Sting pop up for a segment wasn't a huge detriment. On a one hour show, having guys do stupid wacky angles for no good reason is a detriment because the show has very little time to start with.

[Jason Todd Grisham]

First of all WCW was a three hour show around that time.

Nitro didn't kick RAW's ass until NWO. And they were competing with a one hour show. Times have changed since the Attitude Era so that point is moot.

Yes if you would watch the youtube vids you would find Starr and Senshi had a confrontation. I'm guessing Russo didn't want to flood iMPACT and the Pay Per View with more fueds at this time.

Your example fued is boring, I'm sorry. I don't go "wow these people had a fairly good match. I really want to see them go at it again" That's not the way I watch wrestling. I suppose that's the way the internet thinks casual fans do it. I watch it for the angles, to be entertained and see something interesting. Wrestling is testosterone filled theatre. I want to see the acting and writing not just the blocking, if that makes sense.

Finally, from what I saw on TNA a fued seems to be brewing between Young and Roode, or at least Young and Storm is on the horizon. It doesn't make much sense to have him in random matches. Do promotions really work like that? "Well um... I think I'm going to put you in a match tonight with Shark Boy."
"Why?"
"Because we have nothing better to do that segment so... yeah random match no one will care about."

[Hiroshi Hase]

A random match with lets say Eric Young vs. a random guy, and have Roode scout him and wants to face him at the PPV, if he wins, he joins his little entourage, etc.

Instead we get these cheesy segments with Young trying to get condoms with Borash, which are stupid and don't exactly make rush out to want to see this PPV coming up.

[REDUNBECK~!]

a2j88 said:

First of all WCW was a three hour show around that time.

Nitro didn't kick RAW's ass until NWO.

Yes if you would watch the youtube vids you would find Starr and Senshi had a confrontation. I'm guessing Russo didn't want to flood iMPACT and the Pay Per View with more fueds at this time.

Your example fued is boring, I'm sorry. I don't go "wow these people had a fairly good match. I really want to see them go at it again" That's not the way I watch wrestling. I suppose that's the way the internet thinks casual fans do it. I watch it for the angles, to be entertained and see something interesting. Wrestling is testosterone filled theatre. I want to see the acting and writing not just the blocking, if that makes sense.

Finally, from what I saw on TNA a fued seems to be brewing between Young and Roode, or at least Young and Storm is on the horizon. It doesn't make much sense to have him in random matches. Do promotions really work like that? "Well um... I think I'm going to put you in a match tonight with Shark Boy."
"Why?"
"Because we have nothing better to do that segment so... yeah random match no one will care about."

Re:Nitro:

When it debuted, Nitro was one hour. And they did very well.

Re:Senshi/Starr:

If Russo doesn't want too many feuds, why have them feud at all? And how many people are going to know to go to youtube to find out who's feuding with who? You need to tell stories on TV (your most-viewed medium), and in simple, obvious ways.

Re:The feud idea:

Obviously, we have different ideas of what wrestling is. When I think "wrestling" I envision guys...wrestling. I don't envision a guy buying condoms or a guy being accused of attempted murder. I honestly think there are lots of people who turn into wrestling shows to see wrestling and not dumb stories that have no connection to wrestling.

Re:Eric Young and "Random Matches":

If it makes no sense to have guys in random matches then why are their jobber squashes? Why are there indy shows? And for God's sake, if you expect people to buy your WRESTLING PPV, you need to give them good wrestling on TV so they'll be convinced they're money is well spent. People don't pay to watch Days of Our Lives, why would they pay to see a Eric Young/Whatsherface/Bobby Roode love triangle?

[I Got Heat]

yjc1019 said:

A random match with lets say Eric Young vs. a random guy, and have Roode scout him and wants to face him at the PPV, if he wins, he joins his little entourage, etc.

Instead we get these cheesy segments with Young trying to get condoms with Borash, which are stupid and don't exactly make rush out to want to see this PPV coming up.

That's interesting to YOU, but not to most fans. You do realize that they did try your approach for years and nothing came of it, right? They wouldn't have been knocking on Russo's door if they hadn't dug themselves a nice grave with their 20 wrestlers with no personality fighting for a title show that went nowhere and didn't draw enough money to survive.

Guy vs. Guy for title only gets over on the net and with net fans. The average person wants a little more out of wrestling than that, or they'd just watch real fights, which doesn't surprise me because your guy vs. guy scenario is nothing different than just watching the UFC. It's real, there's no gimmicks, they fight for a belt, and that's it. Wrestling sells itself on the entertainment, especially in 2007.

[BrodietheSlayer]

Good

Because Russo/TNA is a hell of a lot more interesting than "The Jarrett Show" that preceeded it. Yeah, there are some dumb segments, but that's what DVR is for.

Russo IS doing some pretty cool stuff for all of the dumb stuff he's done. People aren't giving him enough credit.......I mean, as good as Heyman was.....he had his little dumb hangups too.....every writer on every wrestling show does.

And like people have said......Russo is setting up some stuff for the future. And he knows that it takes time to build an audience.....you're not gonna go from a 1 to a 4 overnight. Look how long it took WCW to come into its own, and it also had the NWA legacy to build off of somewhat.

It takes time to build.....to get characters in their places.....storyline wise.

Because most people DO want that mix of action and segments.....Face it, that's why WWE Raw is STILL the top rated wrestling weekly.....even WITH Jacked Up Rosie O'Donald/Donald Trump.....just AUDIENCE KILLING segments, and I've rarely seen one worse than that. It's why ROH would probably never catch on for anything more than a 1-2 rating.

Cause people obviously like Crap with their wrestling.

[Deleted]

Wrestling is absolutely fine on a wrestling show, but too much of it will bore people, including myself, and I consider myself to be a diehard fan. I think that in this day and age, for there to be successful wrestling matches, there need to be successful characters and storylines.

Some people may not like it, but it's true. People like Steve Austin, John Cena, The Rock etc. got to the top because they all had a character people enjoyed watching, not because they went out there and put on sixty-minute masterpieces every night. Hell, my three examples are not even that good in the ring themselves, but they constantly entertained because there was so many things that could be done in their matches due to their ... characters and storylines. See where I'm going with this?

This is what TNA, and also WWE, are trying to do every single day. TNA just have to reach up and climb that much higher, and that is why Russo is there - to develop the 'entertainment' side of wrestling.

[Hiroshi Hase]

lolatwwe said:

yjc1019 said:

A random match with lets say Eric Young vs. a random guy, and have Roode scout him and wants to face him at the PPV, if he wins, he joins his little entourage, etc.

Instead we get these cheesy segments with Young trying to get condoms with Borash, which are stupid and don't exactly make rush out to want to see this PPV coming up.

That's interesting to YOU, but not to most fans. You do realize that they did try your approach for years and nothing came of it, right? They wouldn't have been knocking on Russo's door if they hadn't dug themselves a nice grave with their 20 wrestlers with no personality fighting for a title show that went nowhere and didn't draw enough money to survive.

Guy vs. Guy for title only gets over on the net and with net fans. The average person wants a little more out of wrestling than that, or they'd just watch real fights, which doesn't surprise me because your guy vs. guy scenario is nothing different than just watching the UFC. It's real, there's no gimmicks, they fight for a belt, and that's it. Wrestling sells itself on the entertainment, especially in 2007.

I don't mind entertainment, hell I'm a huge Hogan, Goldberg and even a bit of a Lashley fan to a degree. Just that these segments are doing anyone such as Roode any good, and tune me out.

You're absolutely right, most fans prefer, couldn't agree more, still doesn't mean I can't put my opinion in regarding it. I think the product is horrible, I could care less how many ratings it gets, when it sells out huge arenas and PPV buyrates, let me know.l

[REDUNBECK~!]

am90 said:

Wrestling is absolutely fine on a wrestling show, but too much of it will bore people,

Then why the wax are they watching a wrestling show in the first place?

"Hey honey! That show with the content that bores us is on!"

"Oh BOY! I CAN'T WAIT TO BE BORED!"


Watch something you think is interesting, why don'tcha?

[Deleted]

csm126 said:

am90 said:

Wrestling is absolutely fine on a wrestling show, but too much of it will bore people,

Then why the wax are they watching a wrestling show in the first place?

"Hey honey! That show with the content that bores us is on!"

"Oh BOY! I CAN'T WAIT TO BE BORED!"


Watch something you think is interesting, why don'tcha?

What I'm saying is, don't put too much wrestling into the show. People want to see character and storyline development as well.

Put it this way - TNA could easily be two thirty-minute matches, but it isn't. Why? Because the vast majority of people would get bored and turn over. You have to remember that wrestling promotions don't just make the product for you, they make it for every single person who has a television set, and those people who watch enjoy different aspects of the show. For example, I personally enjoy watching the character development than long matches on the televisions shows, but I like watching longer matches that have a background and also have a reason for it to happen. But that's just me.

There were 1.1 million people who watched TNA this past week, and they all don't want to see the same thing. Same with the 4.0 or so million people who watched Raw.

[Dean-o]

lolatwwe said:

What I don't understand is the way wrestling fans treat the matches like crack. I picture you guys shaking like you need a hit the way you talk about a lack of matches on the shows. Are you really gonna cry or turn violent if you don't get a 10 minute match for free on Impact?

There's like 4-5 hours of free wrestling per week on television. Impact uses its hour to build storylines to sell matches on Pay Per View. Personally, from a business standpoint, I think this is the best business model out there. McMahon could make a lot more money selling the milk if he wasn't always giving away the cow on free TV. There's pressure on TNA to provide more free TV wrestling because McMahon does it, but I still don't think it's the smart thing to do. Like I've said before, the UFC was selling PPVs based on mostly reality show interaction and one match per show, in an hour. The WWE should be envious of that business model, and I'm glad TNA is following it. Storylines are for TV, wrestling is for PPV.

There ya go...very well said. Wrestling is a business, and what TNA is doing sounds like a good plan to boost though buyrates up. Imagine how more epic the WWE PPV's would feel if Vince only gave us a tease during Raw & Smackdown, and saved the big name matches and feuds for only the PPVs.

am90 said:

Some people forget ... it took Russo a full two years or so after getting the book before the WWF really took off. It doesn't happen in a few months.

Who are you kidding? You know damn well you're not going to impress the IWC unless you can turn your 1.0 rating into a 4.0, book 58 minutes of 5 star wrestling with 2 minutes of commercials, squash all the hosses, push the young guys...all within a matter of weeks. If you can't do that, you are a failure.

What we need to do is give Russo time, and stop making excuses for why the ratings jump (anything but giving Russo credit of course). But most of us would rather admit we were Hogan fans growing up then admit that you like the product Russo puts out, so I guess he can't win no matter how he tries to change the product.

[Hiroshi Hase]

I can't admit to something I don't like, and TNA isn't interesting to me at the moment, if they do good, god bless them, but to me it's terrible and I don't plan on dropping any money in TNA anytime soon.

[Dean-o]

csm126 said:

am90 said:

Wrestling is absolutely fine on a wrestling show, but too much of it will bore people,

Then why the wax are they watching a wrestling show in the first place?

"Hey honey! That show with the content that bores us is on!"

"Oh BOY! I CAN'T WAIT TO BE BORED!"


Watch something you think is interesting, why don'tcha?

Because the majority of people who watch a wrestling program enjoy the storyline aspect of it. I can personally care less if Wrestler A beats Wrestler B, because it's all scripted anyways. They are just going through the motions, until out of nowhere the finisher is hit, and you got your 3 count. You gotta give me a reason to care why he won. And you have to do better then just a championship belt too.

[REDUNBECK~!]

am90 said:

There were 1.1 million people who watched TNA this past week, and they all don't want to see the same thing. Same with the 4.0 or so million people who watched Raw.

Yeah, 1.1 mil watched it. How many will buy the PPVs? On average, TNA PPVs sell 25000-35000 buys.

1,100,000 / 35,000 = approx. 31.43

So if TNA sells 35000 buys tonight that means roughly 1/32nd of their TV audience was actually convinced to buy the PPV.

So, yeah, the audience probably like variety. But (for most of them) not enough to pay for it. So that means the variety ain't doing what it's supposed to do. Which means it's no good.

[Deleted]

csm126 said:

am90 said:

There were 1.1 million people who watched TNA this past week, and they all don't want to see the same thing. Same with the 4.0 or so million people who watched Raw.

Yeah, 1.1 mil watched it. How many will buy the PPVs? On average, TNA PPVs sell 25000-35000 buys.

1,100,000 / 35,000 = approx. 31.43

So if TNA sells 35000 buys tonight that means roughly 1/32nd of their TV audience was actually convinced to buy the PPV.

So, yeah, the audience probably like variety. But (for most of them) not enough to pay for it. So that means the variety ain't doing what it's supposed to do. Which means it's no good.

When it comes to PPV, it means that people will have to put their money down for it. And even though they might watch the TV show, most people don't want to pay to watch the PPVs, especially with both WWE and TNA promoting PPVs these days. It's not often when we don't go a week without either a WWE or a TNA PPV, and some people simply don't have the money to pay for all of them. This is why TNA loses out ... WWE is an established name when it comes to broadcasting pay-per-views, TNA is not, and that is one of the reasons why TNA are not earning over 100,000 PPV buyrates or whatever. Also, it has to be taken into account that some people have different means of getting to watch a PPV, even if it means watching it illegally over the internet, or reading the results as they happen. These would all effect the buyrate, and it has NO say on the product, which has actually just produced its best rating to date.

Higher PPV buyrates will come in time, if TNA becomes an established wrestling promotion and is able to promote PPVs that appeal even the most diehard WWE fan. But until then, we can't expect the buyrates to rise overnight.