The Official TNA / Impact / GFW Discussion Thread

[Jaysin]

The thing that Heyman was great at was taking someone and hiding all their flaws. Like, watch the Rise and Fall of ECW dvd I think it is when they bring up Public Enemy. I mean, come on, alone neither one of those guys was anything special. Raven and Paul came up with the Public Enemy gimmick with tables and what not and the fans ate it up.

 

Raven and Heyman were a fantastic team. What's kind of frustrating is Raven doesn't ever get talked about when people talk about ECW. A good portion of the storylines and gimmicks were his handy work. On the Hardcore Homecoming dvd, pretty much everyone on there sang Raven's praise for his creativity.

[brashleyholland]

Valid point, but counter question - has TNA ever made money by using its "WWE formula" approach? By most accounts, it has yet to ever be a money making venture.

 

Honestly I have no idea...I guess they can't be bleeding that much cash if they're still around after so long, but I honestly don't know enough to say anymore than that.

 

 

Also, has any promotion but the WWE remained on TV and profitable for any length of time? WCW managed for awhile but they also failed pretty spectacularly. So I don't know that following the WWE formula is really any safer than any other approach.

 

True that. Maybe that's the harsh reality for TNA then - pro wrestling doesn't survive and make money, WWE does.

[MasterJ]

I don't follow? If people watch it, TV will show it and advertisers will buy space on it.

 

Didn't MTV have a wrestling promotion that was kinda different to WWE at one point? If you can't last with MTV behind you, then people simply ain't buying what you're selling.

 

Yea but at the time MTV wasn't even sure they wanted a wrestling show, and with the ratings and lack of effort MTV put into advertising that promotion had no chance.

[Hive]

Question: Has any wrestling promotion that has presented something markedly 'different' to what WWE does survived for a significant amount of time on TV and made money?

 

If there's no evidence to support that doing something different to WWE can make money and generate longevity, surely TNA should be doing everything in their power to be as much like WWE as possible, for the sake of their future?

 

But why would anyone want to watch a promotion *exactly* like WWE, only with lesser stars and poorer production quality?

 

They need to be like WWE in many ways, yes, but they need to differentiate them from WWE in just the right ways. Like tag team wrestling and the X Division, both of which covers areas the WWE has been neglecting for ages but which in the past has proven to be good draws.

[Fantabulous]

Valid point, but counter question - has TNA ever made money by using its "WWE formula" approach? By most accounts, it has yet to ever be a money making venture. Also, has any promotion but the WWE remained on TV and profitable for any length of time? WCW managed for awhile but they also failed pretty spectacularly. So I don't know that following the WWE formula is really any safer than any other approach.

 

WCW failed more because it had a succession of people in charge who's booking and writing managed to run people off with a product that not only didn't appeal to people but was the complete opposite of what their fanbase historically wanted.

 

WCW/NWA was always more about wrestling over the razzmatazz and showbiz aspects of the business. Not to say it didn't have a little of those things in their presentation, but the style preferred by their fans was always that of good wrestling matches that were supported by great promos and strong angles. And there were enough of those fans that, until about 1987, they were a viable alternative to the WWF. They weren't bigger than the WWF, and there can only be one top dog, but they were doing well enough that there was clearly room for two different products.

 

The problem is that, today, I think a lot of those fans have been run off, have moved on, etc, and I don't know that there are enough fans of a wrestling-based product to sustain a second national promotion. In 2005 when TNA were on the much weaker FSN and doing in the 50,000 buys range on a regular basis, it was because of simple booking leading to PPV's that were generally filled with hot matches. So there was an audience, albeit not a huge one, for a wrestling orientated product. Maybe if they were on Spike at the time it could have led to enough interest in running house shows and things could have picked up from there. Today, it's six-years later, and they've generally promoted a WWE-style product, heavy on skits and angles with short matches and endless bad finishes, and even though they've got a hardcore base of 1.1-1.2 who watch every week, they're house shows are not that good and they're PPV business is woefully bad. Even if Heyman, or anyone, came in and started doing things right and the quality of the product shot up, it would take a long time to overcome those six-years of bad writing and that's assuming they could even get those lapsed 2005 PPV buyers back or were somehow able to make brand new fans.

 

However, when it comes down it, and it's not so much the style, or even the quality, of the product being presented as much as whether the fans see those involved in the product as stars because stars are what sell. When stars are hot, as long as you're booking/writing isn't so bad it kills the star power of the stars, they're going to shift ratings and PPV buys no matter what. WCW was hot because it had stars who were hot; Hogan, Savage, Sting, Piper, etc. And it made sure to keep them hot so that even when the angles or booking wasn't quite up to par (remember Piper in Alcatraz?), they still brought in ratings and PPV dollars. Likewise with WWE, when Austin/Rock hit it big in the Attitude Era, they were kept hot and so they stayed hot and did big business. Yet if you go and watch and a lot of the TV from that era, it doesn't hold up well and you realize just how bad the TV actually was. But it didn't matter because at the time the company was hot and they were able to keep the stars hot.

[Bigpapa42]

The question of whether a product based on athleticism and workrate could become relatively mainstream is one I've considered quite a bit lately, due to a "WCW survives" project i'm doing (/cheap plug). I have my doubts. I don't think that type of product would ever be able to achieve the kind of mainstream fanbase that the WWE has (and WCW had, at one point). I don't believe the broad audience appeal is there.

 

That is not to say such a product could not be successful at all. Rather, I think there are limitations. Then again, almost any variation of Sports Entertainment is going to have its limitations. The current PG product that is aimed at families and kids does not seem to appeal as directly to the 18-35 male demographic like a more "adult" proudct (not necessarily full Attitude Era either) does.

 

I would like to see TNA move toward a more in-ring focus because that is what would appeal to me personally. I realize that what I like and what will help them suceed as a business are not necessarily the same thing. I also realize that we don't know all the details of what goes on backstage. Perhaps their creative direction is limited or even dictated by Spike? Without being part of the decision-making process, its hard to know all the influences.

 

My thought is simply that TNA have reached a point where they have seen no significant sustained growth for an extended period of time. The ratings they are drawing now are almost identical to what they were drawing three years ago when I first started watching. Their approach of seeking out "name value" has not seen positive gains, even if I understand the logic of it. I just wonder if a point will come where they have to do some real examination of their product and try to make a change in that regard. There is a sour irony to the fact that they talk about making such a change, as if they recognize that its time to try something at least a bit different, yet do not make any actual product change...

[Fantabulous]

I think it's been obvious for quite some time that TNA/Dixie are not going to make any real, serious changes to the way they do things. They've had coming up on five years solid of having a Russo written/influenced product and in that time, they've only had a few major spikes in their PPV business, none of which had to do with the style and presentation that TNA generally espouses. They had spikes with the first Angle/Joe match, one of the Sting PPV's did a big number (maybe the BFG with his career on the line) and Angle/Joe at Lockdown. Now, you obviously can't have another first Angle/Joe match, and the career stipulation means little in wrestling today and less than nothing in TNA who have rendered their stipulations meaningless. But what you can recreate is what they did with Angle/Joe at Lockdown; the serious, sports style presentation of building up a match where they don't overbook it, or treat it like a joke, but make it something you can take seriously, with an issue you can take seriously, and present it in a manner where the match and the outcome are important. TNA did all that and wound up doing in the range of 60,000 buys.

 

And what did TNA do in response?

 

Completely ignore the approach that gave them that spike in buys and went right back to doing the EXACT OPPOSITE and not coincidently went back to doing poorly on PPV. On their own damn show they had something that proved it could work and draw far more than what they usually do and they couldn't even bring themselves to go with that style for a few months and see what happens. Instead, they went back to the same TNA Style that wasn't doing wonders for them before, hasn't done squat for them since, and is never going to work for them in the future.

 

For whatever reason, and you can make your own guesses, TNA/Dixie are hell bent on doing things one way and way only, regardless of the results.

[justtxyank]

1998 was the last year that Southern Style wrestling still had a good fanbase in the US. By 2001, the style of WCW and the fanbase that was left supporting it were very different than it had been in 1997 and earlier. People need to realize that from 1998-2001 a lot of fans of "wrasslin" moved on and were not being replaced. As that last generation entered an age where they didn't watch wrestling anymore, the new fans that were being born were mainly watching the WWF. From 2001-present day it's almost exclusively the WWF that new fans are watching. This is what they know as wrestling.

 

When TNA says "wrestling matters here" it's a weak promotional slogan because most people who think wrestling is something different than the WWE either don't watch anymore or already watching a company like TNA or ROH.

 

Can a promotion thrive again presenting an alternate product, even a WCW type product? I don't really know that they could. Wrestling is a child and young adult's product. The audience shrinks as it ages. The overwhelming majority of the wrestling audience thinks WWE is what wrestling is supposed to be and it's all they'll ever care about. That combined with the WWE's brand power has basically strangled wrestling in America. Once WCW failed to put the stake through Vince in 1997-1998, the fate of wrestling in America was sealed.

[nucleardonkey]

I think either way you look at the fate of pro wrestling in America was sealed the day Nitro debuted on TNT. Once that war started everyone knew there could only be one outcome and that was one company destroying the other company. Either WCW was going to buy WWF and become what the fans see as being pro wrestling today or we get the outcome we got of WWF buying WCW.

 

TNA as it started out was a joke. You gotta remember where TNA is now is way up from the days where they'd have a midget beating off in a garbage can while The Dupps are being interviewed, a hardcore division where the matches were set up on a point system based on how many weapons shots took place, and Mark Madden. Things have been a LOT worse in TNA compared to now.

 

I don't think TNA's PPV numbers even really matter at this point because PPV as it goes for professional wrestling is a dead medium. With so many people turning to illegal feeds for PPVs these days running a profitable one is near impossible. If I were in charge I'd do away with them completely in favor of bi-monthly TV specials like WCW had with Clash of the Champions and build to those as if they were on PPV.

[Kamchatka]

Ok, I apologise as I know I'm way behind the times on this as I havent been following TNA at all in the past few months and missed their rebranding (Also big apologies as I'm sure this isn't interesting for a lot of people) but..

 

Surely this

 

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss39/Kamchatka863/impact1.jpg

 

should look like this..

 

http://i559.photobucket.com/albums/ss39/Kamchatka863/impact2.jpg

 

I know its probably an intentional alignment by the designer but when you look at their website it seems to continually put all their stuff out of whack. Everything leans to the left and leaves big black gaps down the right.

 

It just puts my teeth on edge a little bit.

[cappyboy]

You know what though, dude?I think I can safely speak for all of us when I say you're forgiven. Given your mastery of making logos and banners for us all, I think we'd be more disappointed if you weren't noticing and commenting on an issue like this. That wouldn't be like our Kamchatka

[DaMegaFish]

I don't think TNA's PPV numbers even really matter at this point because PPV as it goes for professional wrestling is a dead medium. With so many people turning to illegal feeds for PPVs these days running a profitable one is near impossible. If I were in charge I'd do away with them completely in favor of bi-monthly TV specials like WCW had with Clash of the Champions and build to those as if they were on PPV.

 

Expert opinions from experts.

 

I feel like unless anyone can see the books and see what kind of revenue is generated from PPV's, or debts for that matter, blind statements like this should be avoided.

[nucleardonkey]

Expert opinions from experts.

 

I feel like unless anyone can see the books and see what kind of revenue is generated from PPV's, or debts for that matter, blind statements like this should be avoided.

 

It's been stated numerous times from numerous sources that PPV buy-rates are way down for WWE from where they were a couple of years ago and that TNA was barely breaking even on most of their PPVs. I'll admit, I don't know how much of it is true or really how good or bad it is. I'm just saying based on the way TNA books towards PPV's and if it is true they are barely breaking even on them then it would seem to me that it would be more feasible financially to run major shows bi-monthly on Spike perhaps even build to them like they do PPV's and run them head to head with RAW or Smackdown.

[MasterJ]

My brother in law is in charge of PPV numbers for Direct TV he told me that TNA BFG 2010 had roughly 68,000 buys. I can see if he can get any more info though he told me he would most likly get fired if he was caught giving these numbers out.

[DaMegaFish]

It's been stated numerous times from numerous sources that PPV buy-rates are way down for WWE from where they were a couple of years ago and that TNA was barely breaking even on most of their PPVs. I'll admit, I don't know how much of it is true or really how good or bad it is. I'm just saying based on the way TNA books towards PPV's and if it is true they are barely breaking even on them then it would seem to me that it would be more feasible financially to run major shows bi-monthly on Spike perhaps even build to them like they do PPV's and run them head to head with RAW or Smackdown.

 

Right. And I don't want you to take my comment as a direct attack to you, it was more just a venting of peoples general know it all attitude sometimes. You may or may not be right, but without numbers, and knowing the cost that go in to the PPV's, a down time might still equal money. Lets face it, the whole industry is in a down period of sorts, so of course the PPV's are down. Didn't WWE just hit record or near record lows for one of their recent PPV's? True as that is, we don't know if at that low they are losing money like mad or not.

 

I just don't get how promoting top PPV matches on special event shows is more logical at this day an age. If you do that, then you cut under every other free show you offer by making certain ones more important.

[Slagaholic]

I just don't get how promoting top PPV matches on special event shows is more logical at this day an age. If you do that, then you cut under every other free show you offer by making certain ones more important.

 

If you take PPV out of the question we're talking about just another TV show. Think of the big shows as a season finale. Except that instead of having to wait until next year, the new season starts the following week!

[Fantabulous]

I think if TNA were doing even decent on PPV, Eric would be putting out the same BS spin he does on their ratings to try and make it seem like they're doing far better than they really are. The fact you can't even seem to find people within the PPV industry who can track the numbers is probably the most telling indicator of how well they do.

[Gabbo]

Wrestling PPV's are dead. The WWE aims their programming at kids and what kids have control of the television for 3 or 4 hours in the evening after their parents are home from work and a spare $50 every month to splash out on bigger shows?

 

That's why the 90's did big money. Adults have the money and control of the tv. Aim your shows towards kids and accept that ratings and PPV buys will drop but merch sales and live attendances will go up. Now MMA has the adult market, and men will get together; have a few beers, have some snacks and pool their money to watch a live event each month. Adult wrestling fans are then less inclined to buy to watch on their own so either ignore it or just torrent it.

 

TNA just gets the run downs of WWE. No matter how different they try to market their show.

 

TNA needs to abandon PPV's. They do nothing for the company and it just serves as some sort of perceived equal with the WWE. Do something new. Change the format. Do 3 hour tv specials at the end of each month instead. They'll be able to sell advertising for it, reach a larger audience and allow casual fans to tun into their best efforts as well as catching the conclusion of feuds and angles.

 

They don't even need a Big show. Big shows are there to draw big money. TNA neither draws large audiences or large buys so why bother? Go to weekly programming, set up a more flexible system. Nothing has to work it's way towards a monthly arc. Where all feuds reach a climax of sorts on the same show. Just do weekly tv, put the best matches on that you can, have the most absorbing feuds and just keep people coming back with no pressure to buy PPV's.

 

I dunno but I think TNA needs to change the way wrestling is watched to set themselves apart and refresh the business.

[juggaloninjalee]

Wrestling PPV's are dead. The WWE aims their programming at kids and what kids have control of the television for 3 or 4 hours in the evening after their parents are home from work and a spare $50 every month to splash out on bigger shows?

 

That's why the 90's did big money. Adults have the money and control of the tv. Aim your shows towards kids and accept that ratings and PPV buys will drop but merch sales and live attendances will go up. Now MMA has the adult market, and men will get together; have a few beers, have some snacks and pool their money to watch a live event each month. Adult wrestling fans are then less inclined to buy to watch on their own so either ignore it or just torrent it.

 

TNA just gets the run downs of WWE. No matter how different they try to market their show.

 

TNA needs to abandon PPV's. They do nothing for the company and it just serves as some sort of perceived equal with the WWE. Do something new. Change the format. Do 3 hour tv specials at the end of each month instead. They'll be able to sell advertising for it, reach a larger audience and allow casual fans to tun into their best efforts as well as catching the conclusion of feuds and angles.

 

They don't even need a Big show. Big shows are there to draw big money. TNA neither draws large audiences or large buys so why bother? Go to weekly programming, set up a more flexible system. Nothing has to work it's way towards a monthly arc. Where all feuds reach a climax of sorts on the same show. Just do weekly tv, put the best matches on that you can, have the most absorbing feuds and just keep people coming back with no pressure to buy PPV's.

 

I dunno but I think TNA needs to change the way wrestling is watched to set themselves apart and refresh the business.

 

I love the idea of bimonthly tv specials. It makes sense and then people will watch since they won't feel ripped off.

[Fantabulous]

Interesting ideas in theory, and it's not like TNA have anything to lose at this point by taking such gambles, but ultimately pointless until TNA address their real problem. They drew a big initial audience in the Monday Night Slaughter era, and there tons of new viewers among them, but the product was such that none of them stuck around or stayed with them when they retreated back to Thursday.

[DaMegaFish]

Once again, can anyone prove TNA is bleeding money on PPV's? I understand PPV buy numbers are down but show me where TNA is losing a ton of money.

 

I don't see how giving away free TV shows as larger cards really helps that problem other than getting a rating spike (hopefully) once every couple/few months or whatever.

[Fantabulous]

Well, Janice Carter, Dixie's mother, was put in charge of the financial side of TNA a few months ago because they were losing so much money.

 

Some recently posted stories on TNA that raised eyebrows a few months ago:

 

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/3/7/2035024/working-conditions-in-tna-a-detailed-analysis

 

http://www.cagesideseats.com/2011/4/21/2125160/the-sad-story-of-shannon-daffney-spruill

 

And some blog entries from someone who used to work at TNA that don't paint the most flattering picture:

 

http://nawf.com/blog/?s=janice+carter

 

I know you'll probably still be heavily sceptical, but there's an awful lot of smoke for there not to be a fire.

[sebsplex]

Once again, can anyone prove TNA is bleeding money on PPV's? I understand PPV buy numbers are down but show me where TNA is losing a ton of money.

 

I don't see how giving away free TV shows as larger cards really helps that problem other than getting a rating spike (hopefully) once every couple/few months or whatever.

 

Yeah, this is pretty much the scepticism that I hold.

 

From a quality perspective, TNA should cut down the number of ppvs. They don't have the amount of hours per week the WWE have to build to such short event cycles, nor the depth in roster/talent (despite TNA's roster arguably being more bloated than it really should be). Bi-monthly or even simply hold four big events per year would be my preference. Maybe the odd TV special thrown into the mix to keep interest up (and throw in matches that end with dubious finishes, fall apart for storyline purposes, etc), but even then, without sorting out their other issues, at best you'd just have the same solid IMPACT veiwership tuning in and occasionally spiking before dropping off again.

 

However, from a financial perspective... who knows outside of TNA? Without any confirmed figures, I couldn't say for certain whether TNA hold ppvs just for er... poop and giggles or because they're bringing in significant income. I don't really care what their numbers are compared to the WWE's, because that's not a level playing field whatsoever, but unless there's some mystery obligation or some deluded view that the WWE's model of churning out lack-lustre sub-ppvs amongst the bigger events is the only way to go, I'm not sure outside of blind ignorance/stupidity why TNA couldn't just stop if the shows were bleeding money out of them. Half of them are aired from the IMPACT! Zone anyway, so they're not even sustaining costs associated with taking the operation to different venues *shrugs*.

 

Overall though, no tampering with the ppv schedule will address TNA's wider problems, such as their identity crisis as a promotion, their inconsistent and long-term booking failings, their much reported/speculated and criticised handling of talent outside of the ring (e.g. Daffney, their lesser lights on crap money, forgetting to fly wrestlers in for shows they're supposed to be on, etc) and stagnent growth, irrespective of money being thrown out, blah, blah.

 

Someone mentioned Paul Heyman being wrongly perceived as a genius, but as he touched in his interview piece, TNA is a company that really needs to get back to basics and work out what sort of product they're actually putting forward and build some sort of strategy to convey and successfully sell it. That was pretty much all Heyman really said. In his case, he'd build a product around younger talent, try and differentiate the wrestlers and concepts that TNA offers and market it. That's not outside-the-box thinking.

 

If TNA can't define what they're pushing, then how the hell is anyone else supposed to?

[BHK1978]

This is from Jeff Jarrett (I read it on another site):

 

On critics of TNA's creative:

"Keep being as critical as possible because it is absolute proof that you are watching in some shape, form or fashion. We're never gonna please everybody and I know that. When I say that I speak from experience, and I literally mean that, I can remember as a kid going to matches when I broke into the Tennessee territory. Instead of online chats and the internet and that kind of stuff, there used to be a group of anywhere from 50 fans to 150 fans to who knows at times hanging out at the back gate. They would be raising hell bitching, complaining and saying "How come this guy didn't do this? How come this guy didn't do that?" Back in that day professional wrestling was perceived on a different level, but there have always been very vocal critics of professional wrestling and one thing that I learned and I learned it from my grandmother was the most vocal critic is the one that never ever missed a Monday night or a Tuesday night in Louisville or a Wednesday - they never missed. Well I know that we're not gonna always bat one thousand not even close but we're gonna keep attempting and keep trying to hit the home run, keep trying to keep the ball in play and know going in that we're always gonna make mistakes. But at the end of the day, we're gonna stay focused and do the very best we can and when you're on the top rated show on your network, which we are at Spike you're doing something right."

 

You know he is right on what he is saying about the vocal critics. That seems to always be the case. I remember in the movie Private Parts when they were talking about Howard Stern's show. They were saying that the average Stern fan listens to his show for an hour and twenty minutes. While the average Stern hater will listen to him for two and a half hours.

 

I never understood that concept, why would you watch, read, or listen to something you hate and then complain about it. If you do not like it that much then do not bother with it.

[Jaysin]

This is from Jeff Jarrett (I read it on another site):

 

 

 

You know he is right on what he is saying about the vocal critics. That seems to always be the case. I remember in the movie Private Parts when they were talking about Howard Stern's show. They were saying that the average Stern fan listens to his show for an hour and twenty minutes. While the average Stern hater will listen to him for two and a half hours.

 

I never understood that concept, why would you watch, read, or listen to something you hate and then complain about it. If you do not like it that much then do not bother with it.

 

Totally agree