The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[Jaysin]

If it's not Kurt, I think Punk should take spot 2

[brashleyholland]

If they can't get the buys up around 20 K buys, they'd be better off working out a deal with Spike to do big shows every other month with some kind of bonus deal for the rating and ad revenue that 'special even't would draw.

 

I guess the only issue here would be switching back from a 'TV Special' model to a PPV model in the future. I know there was a bit of an issue a couple of years back between Spike and the UFC regarding getting the likes of Penn, Liddell, Couture, GSP etc on Fight Nights or TV specials. The problem being if people get used to seeing something for free, they will be very reluctant to pay for it in the future...especially if TNA continue to struggle ratings wise.

[Slagaholic]

Virtually no one is buying's TNA's PPVs in the first place. They need the most exposure possible to push those buyrates up.

 

If TNA was able to do both TV Specials and PPVs that would be best for them. Four big PPVs a year combined with 6-8 monthly specials. Which would mean a transition back to monthly PPVs would be much smoother.

[nucleardonkey]

I think most of you are missing the bigger picture or failing to realize a few key facts.

 

A: TNA does in terms of RAW vs. iMpact 1/3 the ratings on average. Obviously if TNA is pulling in 1/3 the audience of WWE then it is completely illogical to compare their buys to WWE's buys. I think most are so used to the numbers WWE pulls in they fail to realize TNA is a lot smaller than them and is a company that is still finding their niche. They are still finding their direction and of course along the way they will hit a rough patch or two.

 

B: Comparing wrestling to MMA is like comparing Football to Baseball. Sure they are similar in some ways but they are still 2 completely different sports and one's popularity in no way affects the other unless they were to be going head to head against each other and then it's pretty much the same as a sitcom going head to head with a cartoon.

 

C: We don't really know for sure what TNA's buys really are or how much they affect the bottom line. Fact is TNA could just be doing monthly PPV right now because that's what is expected of a company their size. It's been the norm in the wrestling business to do a big monthly PPV for as long as I can remember and unless WWE changes that or someone is able to rise above them into the number 1 spot and changes it themselves(doubtful it will ever happen WWE IS pro wrestling in the US and dethroning them will not happen as long as a McMahon is alive and in charge).

 

IF the buys are down for TNA right now then the main reason is simply that Bischoff is in charge and much like he did in WCW he's giving away major matches on TV for free. Who will pay for a dream match on PPV when it's been done 3 times on TV for free already? Bringing in RVD gave TNA atleast three dream matches/matches everyone knows will be great and they've given (IIRC) all but one of them away for free. Hell they gave two of the three big matches away in one episode of iMpact with no build up (Hardy vs. RVD then RVD vs. AJ) I can't remember if they have given away RVD vs. Mr. Anderson for free yet but I wouldn't put it past them.

[Slagaholic]

Dude TNA's buys have been awful since TNA began. Don't blame Bischoff.

 

Anyway, I skimmed through spoilers for next week and it sounds like it was another really good show. Things that stuck out to me:

Desmond Wolfe tags with Magnus on Xplosion

 

Velvet Sky was apparently kicked out of The Beautiful People in favor of Tara and Sarita

 

AJ Styles won the Global title

 

Nash and Jarrett are feuding

 

ECW guys have been given "total control" over Hard Justice. After Hard Justice the storyline is over.

 

When Abyss said "them" he didn't mean the ECW guys.

[lazorbeak]

I think most of you are missing the bigger picture or failing to realize a few key facts.

 

A: TNA does in terms of RAW vs. iMpact 1/3 the ratings on average. Obviously if TNA is pulling in 1/3 the audience of WWE then it is completely illogical to compare their buys to WWE's buys. I think most are so used to the numbers WWE pulls in they fail to realize TNA is a lot smaller than them and is a company that is still finding their niche. They are still finding their direction and of course along the way they will hit a rough patch or two.

 

 

Wait, what? It's "completely illogical" to compare TNA's buys to WWE's because WWE has 3X the audience on their flagship shows? That isn't how logic works.

 

And if we can't compare TNA to WWE, can we compare TNA against TNA 4 years ago, when their reported average was in the neighborhood of 25K buys? Obviously there may be other reasons at least partially explaining this drop but it's still a bad thing for your buy rates to go down even as you're spending more money and want to spend even more.

 

B: Comparing wrestling to MMA is like comparing Football to Baseball. Sure they are similar in some ways but they are still 2 completely different sports and one's popularity in no way affects the other unless they were to be going head to head against each other and then it's pretty much the same as a sitcom going head to head with a cartoon.

 

Yeah this isn't true either. The two markets do have substantial crossover appeal in fan-base and do compete with each other for a share of each other's pot so to argue that they are completely different sports that in no way effect each other is just false. Seriously it takes someone as out of touch as Vince McMahon to argue that they're not dealing in the same audiences.

 

Dude TNA's buys have been awful since TNA began. Don't blame Bischoff.

 

Anyway, I skimmed through spoilers for next week and it sounds like it was another really good show. Things that stuck out to me:

 

Wow your definition of "good show" must be substantially different from mine, because most of that looks absolutely awful. From guys winning belts that are below them to overbooked stable nonsense to old guys I don't want to see wrestle getting involved in programs with each other! Oh and even more rehashes of storylines more than 8 years old, done with substantially the same guys! Yessssss! TNA: We are Wrestling Re-Runs.

[Slagaholic]

You either don't watch TNA regularly or you're a silly goose.

[Self]

Those spoilers don't exactly rock my world either. Maybe I should give Impact another chance seeing as I enjoyed the PPV (despite some negative reviews elsewhere) but the results of the last couple of tapings don't sound like my cup of tea. Interested in the Beer Money/MCMG thing. Not much else.

[LiquidSwords]

It's a shame how bad the knockout division is now.

[HughBatey4]

I feel TNA is basically a lame duck company at this point. Wrestling at the local level is measured by attendance, but wrestling on the national level is measured by profit and TV ratings/PPV buyrates.

 

Has TNA ratings consistently gone up? No. Have they went up on a one-week basis and then went back to normal for months? Yes. Can TNA cause a spike in ratings for Impact? Yes. Can TNA cause a spike in ratings for Impact and keep it for an extended amount of time? Obviously not.

 

The problem with TNA is that they can get the audience to tune in; by signing Christian, bringing back Sting, et cetera; but they can't get them to come back next week, and the next, and the next. It's the bottom of the ninth, bases loaded, two strikes, three balls, two outs. TNA's up and a flyball right to the right fielder! Every time. At least in my case. TNA will get my attention and then immediately do something that makes me turn the product off. Not to say that WWE doesn't have bad booking, but this is the TNA discussion thread, not the WWE thread.

 

TNA has not established themselves as a brand. WWE has. WWE still draws, even without Shawn Michaels, The Rock, Steve Austin and many other major stars. TNA has Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Rob Van Dam, Jeff Hardy, Sting, Kevin Nash, Kurt Angle, and Jeff Jarrett; but people are not tuning in. It has nothing to do with the popularity of Hogan or the others, it's about the brand. Hogan could go to WWE tomorrow and get a hero's welcome, where on TNA, he's just another guy in the Impact Zone now. TNA hasn't established itself or wrestlers with it. They are beginning to now, with Styles, Abyss, Wolfe, Kazarian, and the other TNA guys that they are pushing, but in my opinion, it's too little, too late.

 

TV ratings and PPV buyrates don't lie. If the rumored PPV buyrates are true, then it's probably killing TNA to do PPV. TNA should drop PPVs, maybe not completely but possibly transition to a three or four shows a year model until buyrates are built to a respectable level.

[Hyde Hill]

I think most of you are missing the bigger picture or failing to realize a few key facts.

 

A: TNA does in terms of RAW vs. iMpact 1/3 the ratings on average. Obviously if TNA is pulling in 1/3 the audience of WWE then it is completely illogical to compare their buys to WWE's buys. I think most are so used to the numbers WWE pulls in they fail to realize TNA is a lot smaller than them and is a company that is still finding their niche. They are still finding their direction and of course along the way they will hit a rough patch or two.

 

B: Comparing wrestling to MMA is like comparing Football to Baseball. Sure they are similar in some ways but they are still 2 completely different sports and one's popularity in no way affects the other unless they were to be going head to head against each other and then it's pretty much the same as a sitcom going head to head with a cartoon.

 

C: We don't really know for sure what TNA's buys really are or how much they affect the bottom line. Fact is TNA could just be doing monthly PPV right now because that's what is expected of a company their size. It's been the norm in the wrestling business to do a big monthly PPV for as long as I can remember and unless WWE changes that or someone is able to rise above them into the number 1 spot and changes it themselves(doubtful it will ever happen WWE IS pro wrestling in the US and dethroning them will not happen as long as a McMahon is alive and in charge).

 

IF the buys are down for TNA right now then the main reason is simply that Bischoff is in charge and much like he did in WCW he's giving away major matches on TV for free. Who will pay for a dream match on PPV when it's been done 3 times on TV for free already? Bringing in RVD gave TNA atleast three dream matches/matches everyone knows will be great and they've given (IIRC) all but one of them away for free. Hell they gave two of the three big matches away in one episode of iMpact with no build up (Hardy vs. RVD then RVD vs. AJ) I can't remember if they have given away RVD vs. Mr. Anderson for free yet but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

Most????? And yeah Bisch has nothing to do with this. As far as competition goes everything that is either entertainment or sports is competition, the closer the product is in terms of who they appeal to and with what they appeal to potential customers the closer the competition. While MMA competition might be overstated by some, especially fanboys like Meltzer, it is still competition.

[juggaloninjalee]

The point made about TNA's top stars being really over and how Hogan would get a hero's welcome in WWE is true. People just don't know about TNA. Most fans like us want MORE WRESTLING than old rehashed storylines.

 

I do love TNA though as it reminds me of the last good days of WCW before they completely went to crap. TNA has watchable shows and stars worth getting behind.

 

TNA has me.

[Linsolv]

TNA has not established themselves as a brand. WWE has. WWE still draws, even without Shawn Michaels, The Rock, Steve Austin and many other major stars. TNA has Ric Flair, Hulk Hogan, Rob Van Dam, Jeff Hardy, Sting, Kevin Nash, Kurt Angle, and Jeff Jarrett; but people are not tuning in. It has nothing to do with the popularity of Hogan or the others, it's about the brand. Hogan could go to WWE tomorrow and get a hero's welcome, where on TNA, he's just another guy in the Impact Zone now. TNA hasn't established itself or wrestlers with it. They are beginning to now, with Styles, Abyss, Wolfe, Kazarian, and the other TNA guys that they are pushing, but in my opinion, it's too little, too late.

 

TV ratings and PPV buyrates don't lie. If the rumored PPV buyrates are true, then it's probably killing TNA to do PPV. TNA should drop PPVs, maybe not completely but possibly transition to a three or four shows a year model until buyrates are built to a respectable level.

 

When we compare to the stars that WWE has running around, some recently made and some not, it's not much comparison again. Sorry, but people were being made while Michaels, the Rock, Austin, Lesnar, etc etc were around to hold down the fort, and having a history of viewership means that if, by percentage, the WWE stars were equally over with their crowd as the TNA stars with theirs, that would make the WWE stars insanely over and the TNA stars little-known by comparison.

 

On the other hand, the PPVs seem to me to be almost just like a really long iMPACT with more wrestling, to me. They do them in the iMPACT Zone, without a whole lot of better production values. I'd guess the cost of an episode and the cost of a PPV are comparable, and they're making money from 100,000 up. But it's just a theory.

[juggaloninjalee]

When we compare to the stars that WWE has running around, some recently made and some not, it's not much comparison again. Sorry, but people were being made while Michaels, the Rock, Austin, Lesnar, etc etc were around to hold down the fort, and having a history of viewership means that if, by percentage, the WWE stars were equally over with their crowd as the TNA stars with theirs, that would make the WWE stars insanely over and the TNA stars little-known by comparison.

 

On the other hand, the PPVs seem to me to be almost just like a really long iMPACT with more wrestling, to me. They do them in the iMPACT Zone, without a whole lot of better production values. I'd guess the cost of an episode and the cost of a PPV are comparable, and they're making money from 100,000 up. But it's just a theory.

 

I think you are spot on in the talent comparison. Sad and very unfortunate though. Kurt Angle would be top 3 in WWE today. He would be legend status. In TNA though he goes unseen by most wrestling fans.

[PeterHilton]

Virtually no one is buying's TNA's PPVs in the first place. They need the most exposure possible to push those buyrates up.

 

If TNA was able to do both TV Specials and PPVs that would be best for them. Four big PPVs a year combined with 6-8 monthly specials. Which would mean a transition back to monthly PPVs would be much smoother.

 

Totally agree with this

 

I think most of you are missing the bigger picture or failing to realize a few key facts.

 

A: TNA does in terms of RAW vs. iMpact 1/3 the ratings on average. Obviously if TNA is pulling in 1/3 the audience of WWE then it is completely illogical to compare their buys to WWE's buys. I think most are so used to the numbers WWE pulls in they fail to realize TNA is a lot smaller than them and is a company that is still finding their niche. They are still finding their direction and of course along the way they will hit a rough patch or two.

 

B: Comparing wrestling to MMA is like comparing Football to Baseball. Sure they are similar in some ways but they are still 2 completely different sports and one's popularity in no way affects the other unless they were to be going head to head against each other and then it's pretty much the same as a sitcom going head to head with a cartoon.

 

C: We don't really know for sure what TNA's buys really are or how much they affect the bottom line. Fact is TNA could just be doing monthly PPV right now because that's what is expected of a company their size. It's been the norm in the wrestling business to do a big monthly PPV for as long as I can remember and unless WWE changes that or someone is able to rise above them into the number 1 spot and changes it themselves(doubtful it will ever happen WWE IS pro wrestling in the US and dethroning them will not happen as long as a McMahon is alive and in charge).

 

IF the buys are down for TNA right now then the main reason is simply that Bischoff is in charge and much like he did in WCW he's giving away major matches on TV for free. Who will pay for a dream match on PPV when it's been done 3 times on TV for free already? Bringing in RVD gave TNA atleast three dream matches/matches everyone knows will be great and they've given (IIRC) all but one of them away for free. Hell they gave two of the three big matches away in one episode of iMpact with no build up (Hardy vs. RVD then RVD vs. AJ) I can't remember if they have given away RVD vs. Mr. Anderson for free yet but I wouldn't put it past them.

 

A. No one was comparing the buys to WWE buy rates. They were comparing them to buy rates from the past or mentioning that their buys are low regardless of how 'big' the company is.

 

Listen..if you are getting @ a 1.0 on national TV and the best you can do is roughly 10 k buys,that's bad no matter how you slice it.

 

B. This is the kind of thing Vince spouts off. You are competing against MMA/UFC because the viewing audience is similar and because both use a PPV model which means that most fans are deciding on a monthly basis to pay for a TNA, WWE, or UFC show.

 

C. true. althugh there have been educated guesses around forever.

 

Lastly, it's not Bischoff because the buy rates have always been relatively poor. If anything, maybe Eric is smart enough to realize TNA makes more money off of TV so it's more worthwhile to fight to raise he TV ratings.

 

I think you are spot on in the talent comparison. Sad and very unfortunate though. Kurt Angle would be top 3 in WWE today. He would be legend status. In TNA though he goes unseen by most wrestling fans.

 

It's sad because by now Kurt would've had the greatest 3 disc DVD set ever.

 

His call though...Kurt is in TNA because of HIS personal issues.

[MasterJ]

But people are just speculating here because no one knows how many people are buy ing PPVs they have never released buy rate so there is no way at all the best way imo would be to compare what WWE's buyrates are, and they have less than 5% of there TV Audience buy their PPV's based on the last PPV numbers I read yesterday so with the TNA I would say TNA gets 65K PPV that imo would be they best way of doing it Im sure its not exact and too high but none of us can do anything but guess.

[PeterHilton]

But people are just speculating here because no one knows how many people are buy ing PPVs they have never released buy rate so there is no way at all the best way imo would be to compare what WWE's buyrates are, and they have less than 5% of there TV Audience buy their PPV's based on the last PPV numbers I read yesterday so with the TNA I would say TNA gets 65K PPV that imo would be they best way of doing it Im sure its not exact and too high but none of us can do anything but guess.

 

THEY haven't released numbers but there have been estimates for years. And those estimates come from people who know enough about the industry that you can't just dismiss them entirely. They aren't "guessing" any more than any other journalist or writer could be described as guessing.

 

You make a good analogy though. And that's the problem for TNA: around 5% of the E's TV audience buys PPVs.

 

So if you use that as a basis, TNA should be around 65 K buys

 

They've NEVER sniffed that. Ever. Never come close. No estimated buy rate has been in that neighborhood.

 

Even if you say that sites like Wrestling Observer are WAAAAAY off when they say there were 10 K buys...how off could they be? Off by half? a third? That'd still be only 20-30 K.

 

but again..TNA is built on TV so maybe it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't, then maybe it's time to move to TV specials.

[MasterJ]

THEY haven't released numbers but there have been estimates for years. And those estimates come from people who know enough about the industry that you can't just dismiss them entirely. They aren't "guessing" any more than any other journalist or writer could be described as guessing.

 

You make a good analogy though. And that's the problem for TNA: around 5% of the E's TV audience buys PPVs.

 

So if you use that as a basis, TNA should be around 65 K buys

 

They've NEVER sniffed that. Ever. Never come close. No estimated buy rate has been in that neighborhood.

 

Even if you say that sites like Wrestling Observer are WAAAAAY off when they say there were 10 K buys...how off could they be? Off by half? a third? That'd still be only 20-30 K.

 

but again..TNA is built on TV so maybe it doesn't matter. And if it doesn't, then maybe it's time to move to TV specials.

 

I understand what your saying and yea I knew the number I came out with was pretty big I dont however believe that TNA only draws 10k. I think 25-35K could be a estimate but I do think they should do TV Specials once they are steady getting 1.5 and up it they are not losing too much money on PPV. I would love to see Clash of the Champion type stuff for TNA and if they could but the specials on like their PPVs have been lately they will imo gain alot of fans the thing with the specials is when they are scheduled for TV. I think they should put them on Tuesdays or Sundays since those two days don't have any top drawing shows on that i know of, but knowing TNA they would but it up against Raw and it would defeat any reason to have the shows in the first place.

[ampulator]

I want to point out that PPV is pretty much a dying medium for anything that's pre-recorded (movies, film, etc), because the internet has trumped it.

 

However, for live events, this isn't really the case (except in the case of PPV mass-viewings, either a PPV party or a live internet feed).

 

However, because Wrestling is scripted, it's at half-way point. It's no way going to make as much money as a true live event (MMA), but it's not going to do as much as pre-recorded stuff either.

 

In any case, even UFC is expanding onto TV these days. There might come a time when PPV's are no longer money-makers, so even they might have to transition out of PPV's.

 

I think the quality of the PPV's are an issue in the low buyrates, but it's not the long term issue. The long term issue is PPV's aren't exactly the strongest medium these days.

 

Oh, and MasterJ? Your arguments are full of faults, and lack facts to back it up. Just because you BELIEVE something is one way, doesn't mean it is. You have to have good arguments and/or evidence.

 

Besides, I can't read your run-on paragraphs.

[MasterJ]

I want to point out that PPV is pretty much a dying medium for anything that's pre-recorded (movies, film, etc), because the internet has trumped it.

 

However, for live events, this isn't really the case (except in the case of PPV mass-viewings, either a PPV party or a live internet feed).

 

However, because Wrestling is scripted, it's at half-way point. It's no way going to make as much money as a true live event (MMA), but it's not going to do as much as pre-recorded stuff either.

 

In any case, even UFC is expanding onto TV these days. There might come a time when PPV's are no longer money-makers, so even they might have to transition out of PPV's.

 

I think the quality of the PPV's are an issue in the low buyrates, but it's not the long term issue. The long term issue is PPV's aren't exactly the strongest medium these days.

 

Oh, and MasterJ? Your arguments are full of faults, and lack facts to back it up. Just because you BELIEVE something is one way, doesn't mean it is. You have to have good arguments and/or evidence.

 

Besides, I can't read your run-on paragraphs.

 

Please tell me how? I didnt say that they were TNA's PPV Buyrates I said that if you wanted to have some kind of logic thats what you could do If you are disagreeing with the WWE numbers I use I could give you the proof or do you want me to show you the math I did? Please explain

[Jaysin]

Please tell me how? I didnt say that they were TNA's PPV Buyrates I said that if you wanted to have some kind of logic thats what you could do If you are disagreeing with the WWE numbers I use I could give you the proof or do you want me to show you the math I did? Please explain

 

It's pretty hard to understand what you're saying when you don't use punctuation. I'm not even a stickler for that sort of thing, but your previous post was just atrocious.

[MasterJ]

It's pretty hard to understand what you're saying when you don't use punctuation. I'm not even a stickler for that sort of thing, but your previous post was just atrocious.

 

There you go its edited:rolleyes:

[nucleardonkey]

In all honesty this just sounds like a lot of the same thing that's been said about TNA since the beginning and look at how far they've come.

 

Obviously if the buys were as dismal as everyone is making them out to be then something would have been done already to save the company from death. I think a lot of people like to jump to worst case scenario and not see the bigger picture.

 

The entire wrestling industry is down at the moment and nothing is really going to change that until the audience is ready to come back or something happens to get mass attention in a positive way. Sadly I think Chris Benoit may have made the prospect of wrestling doing anything good to get some mass attention nearly impossible but even the smallest mistake made by a wrestler outside the ring just pushes the entire industry even further down.

[PeterHilton]

In all honesty this just sounds like a lot of the same thing that's been said about TNA since the beginning and look at how far they've come.

 

Obviously if the buys were as dismal as everyone is making them out to be then something would have been done already to save the company from death. I think a lot of people like to jump to worst case scenario and not see the bigger picture.

 

The entire wrestling industry is down at the moment and nothing is really going to change that until the audience is ready to come back or something happens to get mass attention in a positive way. Sadly I think Chris Benoit may have made the prospect of wrestling doing anything good to get some mass attention nearly impossible but even the smallest mistake made by a wrestler outside the ring just pushes the entire industry even further down.

 

You know what...i don't even think you're reading what people are saying.

 

Seriously...NO ONE IN THE LAST FEW PAGES HAS SAID THAT TNA NEEDS TO BE SAVED. NO ONE IS TALKING ABOUT A WORST CASE SCENARIO.

 

Read through the thread. There's not many people on this board jumping on the 'TNA is dying' internet bullsh*t bandwagon.

 

They can't die anytime soon because they have a great TV deal and good revenue coming in internationally. TNA has done a wonderful jump of getting themselves rightside up financially, even with the mistakes they made early on in their existence. And their ratings have bounced back on Thursday despite the debacle that was the first few months of the Bischoff/Hogan era.

 

This isn't about piling on TNA. This is a perfectly legitimate back-and-forth about TNA's buy rates (which are and always have been relatively low) and whether or not it even makes sense to continue doing PPVs considering how much money they make with their Spike deal.

 

Forchsissakes...you make one little comment about low buy rates and all of a sudden the wrestling industry is low because of Benoit blahblahblah...

[PeterHilton]

It IS possible to be critical of a company without wishing death on that company or being a hater.

 

It IS also possible to be a fan of a company while still admitting they make a mistake.

 

It's cool.