eayragt

Sorry, I thought you were saying an increase or decrease in 0.5. I never considered that anyone would suggest the ratings would go as low as 0.5. Smart money's on under .5? Send that money to me, please.

Sure - depending on what your're comparing it to... it'll do neither by then.

I'm with you there. It wouldn't have been worth the hype, but I would have liked where it had left the Main Event (Hardy as a new heel, Angle to go back down to continue his way up the Top 10). I guess it's still in the same place... but with some very, very old guys taking too much of the limelight.

I'm quite happy for something like this - however, they can bring in workers who haven't worked occult gimmicks at all - for example, I'm sure that Austin Aries could pull it off. What I want to see if there is a group like this is for them to be given some form of identity tonight. I don't just want it to be a bunch of people and then we have to wait to Impact for them to justify that "they" are really a big deal. A good way to have done that would be to bloodbath RVD - but that happened only two months ago, so that's out the window.

The early TNA era is looked on fondly because it was fresh, even if Joe was boring. AJ, Daniels, Joe and a whole lot of more people were not getting national exposure, and there was an alternative. And that's one of the reasons why people who used to be into TNA are frustrated nowadays. Joe's character has gone backwards - he hasn't evolved much in the last few years - baically ever since Angle debuted and defeated him. AJ's better rounded, but he's gone through some rough phases (Prince AJ?). I think I'm unusual in that I much prefer AJ as a babyface rather than a whining heel. Daniels - well, we know what happened there. Now, it's not all bad - Beer Money and MCMG are two examples of successes (although some could argue that Roode have been given a Main Event singles run by now to see if he can handle it). At times in the last couple of years Lethal, Morgan and Hernandez have been rising up the card, but for one reason or another (not all of them TNA's fault) the rise has stalled. Are WWE any better? Not really - look back five years and there's not massive development there. However, they have the advantage of more shows that allows them to cycle through wrestlers until they find someone who sticks (Swagger, Sheamus, Bourne etc). TNA just can't do that. Given that TNA need to do there best with what they've got. Like everyone's been saying, we need to know what makes them different. Having more wrestling per show would be one, but they don't have enough. The fact that they have more wrestling per show than WWE isn't enough, as the 'E doesn't have enough wrestling - TNA would need a lot more wrestling. Or there's X-Division - I know evidence has been shown to suggest that it had little effect on ratings, but I'd give it 3-4 months focus now, and see what happens. The way that I see TNA are different now is by using semi-retired wrestlers Flair and Foley who you could have seen looking past their prime eight years ago on WWE. I know that's a little unfair on TNA, as actually the Abyss storyline is their main focus, but what I remember is the old men screaming at one another. And it's not a good memory. Flair and Foley helping youngsters is good. Flair and Foley being the focus of a feud isnt. As for "They" - we'll see on Sunday night.

You're right! I've clearly got Homicide confused with someone else... not sure who. No wonder they never pushed him as an original.

You know why I hate TNA talk about originals? Homicide. A true TNA original. Never used as such (at least not that I saw). I was crying out for him to challenge Sting for the title during the MEM. It didn't have to be a PPV - it could have headlined a TV show. And he'd have never won. But no. He went on to join to World Elite and prove that he can't escape a domed cage with a hole in the top. Boo.

So many people in a booking team - but look - there's the bosses daughter! Let's pin it on her. After all, the evidence is all there . Fiine, before you start she aint no Heyman. But that's quite irrelevant.

Erm, not a blooper, part of a storyline. Part of the Edge vs Jeff into Matt vs Jeff arc.

Agree with the pros. I wonder when we look back on this forum how many people ripped into WWE for putting Bryan with the Miz in NXT? It turns out that was the absolutely perfect thing to do, and even with the slight hitch he has was allowed to confidentally defeat someone who will hold the WWE or World Title in teh next 12 months. And it was MOTN. And very happy Kane finally got a PPV win over 'Taker, even with the inevitablility of 'Taker getting the win back at Hell in the Cell. What I didn't like about the Tag match was Bourne hitting the Airbourne against the Osu's. He would have used that to win the titles, so it was inevitable to that Drew / Cody would get the win. I'm not too disapointed witht them getting the belts as I was getting bored with their feud with Christian / Fatt Hardy. I'll accept one more title match. Divas - if the ending was botched, they covered for it well. Loved the lame Jill fighting outside. Lets wave an elbox within a foot of your face. Lets smile as one another. What? I'm happy with Punk losing - if he didn't, he wouldn't even have been on the show. And I'd rather see him in a short match and also get to see him cutting another great promo. Other love - the Kane / 'Taker promo. Now that was good. Jericho's mini-farewell. Other con - only Orton or Barrett were ever going to win the Main Event after the build up (Barrett was always a threat to win, but with Orton coming out last for the Main Event and the way they showed his interview he was definately being portrayed by the 'E as the favourite). And then when Nexus came out with four men left, that meant he wasn't going to win. Which only left Orton. Real question is though - what do you have as the Hell in the Cell match? You've got to have Barrett (as the reason for the Cell), Sheamus... means you've got to have Cena. So a fourway or fiveway without Edge (and I'm not sure you could take him out). One PPV is starting to look like another... That's Tag wrestling in the WWE (unfortunately). Very few people a brought in as tag teams - most teams are two singles workers. However, in this case they were all tag teams by the WWE standard.

A) What made you start watching Impact? First time? It was a real long time ago - back when James Storm's (I think it was him anyway) injury resulted in AJ taking his title shot to win the Championship belt of JJ. Why? I gave it a try, and I really liked the match quality. Then I stopped watching wrestling for ages. Nothing to do with TNA individually. Then when I moved I had access to TNA wrestling not WWE, and started watching it again as... something to watch. B) What kept you watching Impact? Honestly? Because it's on at a time when nothing else is on (I watch it on Saturday morning), so don't go out of my way to watch it, but rather happen to be by a TV when it's on. I miss huge large chunks of it, and remember fondly the weekly PPV days, even though the production levels were dreadful. C) If applicable why did you stop watching? Lack of matches I care about. Outside when I was really into wrestling the only time where I've made sure a kept watching a show was Velocity back around 2003, which always had at least one great match. It's too much effort sitting through several weeks worth of shows to get to a match I can really care about. Although I watched three of the Guns vs Beer Money matches, and they rocked. D) If applicable what made you start watching again? see above

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="TheEdgeOfReason" data-cite="TheEdgeOfReason" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Maybe Dave or G.O.L.D? TNA could actually struggle to get back onto TV.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> They wont struggle - DAVE would love to have TNA, but could only pay peanuts. If they want any money then it's ESPN or... bust.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What eaygrat was talking about was the (in) accuracy of Neilsen numbers. While I agree with that. It does not matter so much as they are the industry standard when it comes to determining a show's relative drawing power -> popularity.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not to worried about whether Nielsen figures are inaccurate or not, I was just pointing out that volume matters to. WWE's share may have slipped by say half (for simplicity), but if their volume of watchers has slipped by 1/10th, are they 10% or 50% worse off? The simple answer is somewhere in the middle.</p><p> </p><p> Someone like Stennick would have to confirm, as these are just my thoughts, but which demographics have increased in volume in the last ten years? I would guess females and the elderly. <em>If</em> I'm right (I may be completely off base), then the WWE isn't going to care about decreasing shares nearly as much (therefore in my example would likely by ~10% worse off) as if the increased volume came in the 18-29 yo males (where they'd be ~50% worse off).</p><p> </p><p> In the end it comes down to revenue, and WWE has shown a decreased share. However, if there aren't alternatives to invest revenue into that appeal to the same demographic that has increased to take WWE's shares then they are no worse off, assuming investment maintains overall at a status quo level (which it does not).</p><p> </p><p> Now, we know there are some alternatives that have increased (e.g. MMA), while others have shown even my significant decreases (e.g. boxing). We then also know that WWE have tried to reposition themselves to investors, confusing things even more.</p><p> </p><p> So in my opinion, what does it mean? Same as, really. WWE have lost a few viewers, and changed demographics (in reality they've lost a lot of viewers and gained a lot of viewers). As long as revenue's coming in, all power to them. And revenue is coming in, even through a period of recession. I don't think I'm in a position to knock what they're doing.</p>

But it's not all about market share. That's the quoted number as that's what Nielsen boxes measure- what proportion of those with a box are watching. Turning that to an actual volume is not an exact science, but that does not mean the volume is not important. Both share and volume have their uses.

I can't read the source article from work, and until I can I'm going to treat it with more than an ounce of suspicion.

Wow, it made it worth sitting through the awful commentary.

The Bischoff quote is so biased. He blames the dip in "core" ratings on Youth being pushed, not on the absence of veterans? The youth is being pushed because of the absence of veteran wrestlers. They go hand in hand. Sheesh.

Quite clearly though this PPV was one of the weaker one's the year in terms of in-ring action. It was more storyline based (Nexus, 'Taker). You choose a really bad PPV (and should have known that from the booked card) to give "the E a chance". It'd be like giving TNA a chance at Lockdown.

Hang on, that seems to suggest that we shouldn't discuss things that don't hurt TNA (like the lack of buys), yes? By that same basis, we shouldn't be talking about any bad booking on WWE shows, because that doesn't hurt WWE (they still keep chugging away strongly). Man, these threads are going to die out soon.

It's the chance to put Khali in a big match. Where he doesn't have to wrestle for any more than two minutes. The real question is why they didn't involve Khali earlier, to make it make more sense. I know he's a dominating giant who you don't really want to see Nexys struggling to beat but... just have them shove him off the stage or something, knocking him out of action for a few weeks before returning with Team Cena. No? Is pushing someone off a stage onto some poorly hidden padding to extreme nowadays?

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I agree but TNA has a different set up. Spike PAYS them for their television shows. They would make it more profitable for them to run television specials than it would to pay for a live pay per view broadcast thats not being bought anyway.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> TNA have got it got with two wealthy backers - the owners and the Network. If either of them were to go they might just survive.</p><p> </p><p> Of course, put on significantly profitable PPV's and you can survive on your own merit. I like that business model.</p>

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Slagaholic" data-cite="Slagaholic" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25170" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>If I'm TNA I say **** buyrates. They aren't going to be going up any time soon. Just try to put on entertaining main events.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> But... the wrestling industry is all about selling PPV's. Not good wrestling. Not a hardcore fanbase. Not TV viewers. All of them feed into the real fundemental target - buyrates.</p>

The real reason is simply The Undertaker got injured. Would Rey vs Swagger be happening otherwise? Probably not.

It's not a Hard Justice spoiler. Not if they want the Main Event to actually sell the PPV. Sometime in the future, not as the Main Event, perhaps.

Storyline-wise I liked the PPV. Kane gets to feud with SES and then fights Punk at MITB. Then we likely find out it's not Punk, and Kane moves on... I've been dying for Mysterio to turn heel for ages as he's blaaaaand, but they'll never do it for business reasons I can only agree with. But this actually gives him a purpose, a match (which hopefully he can win clean (which never happened in his first reign) with Swagger, then a DQ win against either Kane or Drew depending on which route they go down. Suits me. Seeing Jericho vs Bourne on PPV rocked. People who worry about Jericho don't need to - he got the skills and charisma to build himself up as a legitimate threat in a couple of months. Cena gets to feud to NXT without it being about the title. Also good. Although you could argue Cole got legit injured, there was no need for all three commentators to abort their positions, leading to the likely conclusion that Cole is the king-pin. Kings sucks. Striker rocks. His colour was awesome. And Sheamus goes... Triple Threat with Orton and Edge, I guess? That makes the MITB card: Sheamus © vs Edge vs Orton Mysterio © vs Swagger Cena vs Barrett Kane vs Punk Men's cross brand MITB with possibly: Women's cross brand MITB Hart Dynasty / Samoans Looks good to me. There could be a second MITB match of some tyoe, or there are more midcard matches out there (Intercontinental / US / Drew (although all of them could be in MITB).