08 Predictions For Wrestling
- Thread starter Hituup
- Start date
It's the same thing. Because basically, the movie is an ad for the video game to do well just like Impact is supposedly an ad for the PPV's to sell. So by your logic, you're contesting that if fans of a movie don't go out and support the video games or any merchandise, then the movie isn't of quality.
The WWE is only doing 6% more buys than TNA. Both companies have less than 90% of their audience not buying their PPVs. And it's even more horrid on the WWE's part that they are on the same scale as TNA in terms of buys seeing as the WWE spends plenty on promotion, ads, and PPV video packaging through their 5 hours of television. But yet here they are on the same scale with a company that hasn't even had 2 years of primetime television.
Obviously, the person who wrote the column doesn't know the difference between misused and not being used to your potential. Because Motor City Machine Gunz and a main eventor like Samoa Joe are far from misused. The definition of misused is Super Crazy. And I find it funny that Victoria isn't on the list either. You shouldn't worship the opinion of others.
Most non-bias fans have rated Bound 4 Glory as the best live PPV this year better than any TNA or WWE PPV.
Here you go with this booking and buyrates thing. It's like saying that cd's don't sell due to the internet, but yet when Kanye drops an album, he sells records. You can't just pinpoint why TNA doesn't do higher buyrates on booking. It's an unanswerable question. There can be plenty of reasons why. To blame it on one thing is shallow minded.
WWE gets low buyrates as well. Does that necessarily mean that the audience is not impressed with the booking or with the quality of the tv shows, therefore choosing not to support WWE PPVs? Because that is your logic. But somehow you've managed to twist that logic when it comes to the WWE because you still claim they entertain throwing out your notion of receiving low buyrates not=good programming, while using that logic on TNA only. I find that very fanboyish and hypocritical.
ECW in late 2006 was not doing TNA numbers. Back then ECW had the stars and drawing power. It was not yet reduced to Tuesday Night Heat and made a third rate. ECW was receiving 2.6 and Smackdown numbers back then. For them to get such low buyrates is pretty bad under the WWE's umbrella.
Yes you have. You even sat up here and tried to justify Vince and Hornswoggle. And then you tried to downplay the tv time that they take up.
Exactly. And we're saying that mistakes should only be okay for TNA. WWE has less room and and less of a reason for mistakes at this point in the game. It's not acceptable. There's no reason why there PPVs should be mentioned in the same breathe as worst PPV of the year. This is the WWE we are talking about.
Yes TNA does have bad booking and makes mistakes from time to time but mistakes is something that most who follow TNA can accept because many hope they'll learn from mistakes and hopefully won't repeat them. That's how companies grow. It's through mistakes. WWE keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over. They never learn. But enough about that. The main point here is that through all the mistakes, the product has improven and that the TNA staff is working on problem areas and has improved in terms or booking and many things that have plaqued them. You on the otherhand tried to argue that TNA is not getting better and that's how your initial argument began.
Can you honestly sit here and tell me that TNA has made no growth like you initially said in your earlier arguements. Compare a current Impact show versus an Impact show from 2005 when TNA first came on Spike TV and honestly tell me that TNA hasn't improved. Compare TNA Impact to each other from each year it has been on.
Everything will fall in place after years. When WCW first came on the scene in the late 80s, it took years before they reached that height. And it all started with them focusing on their product and not sidetracking on buyrates. You and whatever column you read claimed that the tv show is an ad for people to buy the PPV. So then obviously the source to everything would actually be the product and that's what matters the most. And I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters. As long as the tv product gets better, things will fall in place. But you're not even willing to admit that TNA's product has made strides and that's what began everything.
You don't want to give them their due. You're too busy trying to beat up on them. If you take off your prenotioned criticism cap and watched Impact with a clear mind, maybe you'd enjoy it and see all the strides TNA has made in their programming, but instead you're too focused on booking, which you don't even want to admit is improving and now you're trying to sidetrack with buyrates. Well newflash: Booking won't necessarily bring buyrates. It's all about the product. TNA had proven that with time on their side, they can make a better product. And as time keeps going by, TNA will get more better, they'll get there name out there more, and then can possibly gain better numbers in both buys and ratings. But everything takes time and you don't seem to understand that concept. Rome wasn't built in one day.
The WWE is only doing 6% more buys than TNA. Both companies have less than 90% of their audience not buying their PPVs. And it's even more horrid on the WWE's part that they are on the same scale as TNA in terms of buys seeing as the WWE spends plenty on promotion, ads, and PPV video packaging through their 5 hours of television. But yet here they are on the same scale with a company that hasn't even had 2 years of primetime television.
Obviously, the person who wrote the column doesn't know the difference between misused and not being used to your potential. Because Motor City Machine Gunz and a main eventor like Samoa Joe are far from misused. The definition of misused is Super Crazy. And I find it funny that Victoria isn't on the list either. You shouldn't worship the opinion of others.
Most non-bias fans have rated Bound 4 Glory as the best live PPV this year better than any TNA or WWE PPV.
Here you go with this booking and buyrates thing. It's like saying that cd's don't sell due to the internet, but yet when Kanye drops an album, he sells records. You can't just pinpoint why TNA doesn't do higher buyrates on booking. It's an unanswerable question. There can be plenty of reasons why. To blame it on one thing is shallow minded.
WWE gets low buyrates as well. Does that necessarily mean that the audience is not impressed with the booking or with the quality of the tv shows, therefore choosing not to support WWE PPVs? Because that is your logic. But somehow you've managed to twist that logic when it comes to the WWE because you still claim they entertain throwing out your notion of receiving low buyrates not=good programming, while using that logic on TNA only. I find that very fanboyish and hypocritical.
ECW in late 2006 was not doing TNA numbers. Back then ECW had the stars and drawing power. It was not yet reduced to Tuesday Night Heat and made a third rate. ECW was receiving 2.6 and Smackdown numbers back then. For them to get such low buyrates is pretty bad under the WWE's umbrella.
Yes you have. You even sat up here and tried to justify Vince and Hornswoggle. And then you tried to downplay the tv time that they take up.
Exactly. And we're saying that mistakes should only be okay for TNA. WWE has less room and and less of a reason for mistakes at this point in the game. It's not acceptable. There's no reason why there PPVs should be mentioned in the same breathe as worst PPV of the year. This is the WWE we are talking about.
Yes TNA does have bad booking and makes mistakes from time to time but mistakes is something that most who follow TNA can accept because many hope they'll learn from mistakes and hopefully won't repeat them. That's how companies grow. It's through mistakes. WWE keeps repeating the same mistakes over and over. They never learn. But enough about that. The main point here is that through all the mistakes, the product has improven and that the TNA staff is working on problem areas and has improved in terms or booking and many things that have plaqued them. You on the otherhand tried to argue that TNA is not getting better and that's how your initial argument began.
Can you honestly sit here and tell me that TNA has made no growth like you initially said in your earlier arguements. Compare a current Impact show versus an Impact show from 2005 when TNA first came on Spike TV and honestly tell me that TNA hasn't improved. Compare TNA Impact to each other from each year it has been on.
Everything will fall in place after years. When WCW first came on the scene in the late 80s, it took years before they reached that height. And it all started with them focusing on their product and not sidetracking on buyrates. You and whatever column you read claimed that the tv show is an ad for people to buy the PPV. So then obviously the source to everything would actually be the product and that's what matters the most. And I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters. As long as the tv product gets better, things will fall in place. But you're not even willing to admit that TNA's product has made strides and that's what began everything.
You don't want to give them their due. You're too busy trying to beat up on them. If you take off your prenotioned criticism cap and watched Impact with a clear mind, maybe you'd enjoy it and see all the strides TNA has made in their programming, but instead you're too focused on booking, which you don't even want to admit is improving and now you're trying to sidetrack with buyrates. Well newflash: Booking won't necessarily bring buyrates. It's all about the product. TNA had proven that with time on their side, they can make a better product. And as time keeps going by, TNA will get more better, they'll get there name out there more, and then can possibly gain better numbers in both buys and ratings. But everything takes time and you don't seem to understand that concept. Rome wasn't built in one day.
You continue to miss the point, spectacularly. Firstly, most films aren't intended to sell video games. They make money themselves, because people go to see them. TNA iMPACT is intended to sell PPVs, because the PPVs are what make TNA money. Or they would, if more people bought them.
Secondly, if I watch a film and enjoy it, it doesn't mean I'll enjoy a video game based on the film. Movies and video games are completely different media. Good movies are often made into bad games, because they're made by completely different people. TNA iMPACT and TNA PPVs are not completely different media, they're both wrestling shows. If you watch iMPACT, enjoy the wrestling and the characters and the storylines, then you'll enjoy the PPV. It's the same people, doing the same thing they do every week.
NO wrestling company is EVER going to get ANYWHERE NEAR 90% of fans buying their PPVs. Back in 2000, RAW probably averaged about a 6.0 in the ratings. WrestleMania got a 2.35 buyrate. By today's standards, that's over 6.5 million viewers and 940,000 PPV buys. Even back then, with no competition and a very good product, that's less than 15% for the biggest show of the year. The vast majority of wrestling fans are always going to watch the free stuff and skip the stuff they have to pay for.
It's not the same scale. It's not close to the same scale. 2% is much, much, MUCH worse than 8%. Like I said above, you're never going to get 90%, 75%, 50% or even 25% of fans buying the PPV. Never. 2% might look pretty close to 8%, but when the most you can hope for is probably 15%, 8% is a LOT better than 2%.
Don't think of it as 8% and 2%. Let's say that WWE and TNA can, at most, attract 15% of their fans to buy the PPV. The way wrestling works, let's say that 85% of the people who watch your show are never going to pay $30/$40/$50 to buy your monthly supershow. For WWE to get 300,000 people to order SummerSlam, that's 57% of its potential audience. For TNA to attract 25,000 buys for its shows, that's 13%. Does that make the difference a little clearer?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "underutilized". Super Crazy is never going to hold the WWE title, he's at best a midcard act. Samoa Joe, on the other hand, SHOULD be holding the TNA title and MCMG SHOULD be holding the Tag Team titles. And they should both be in more rewarding feuds.
OK, do you see the hypocrisy here?
But you can't give me any other explanation for the low buyrates. You can't explain to me why 98% of TNA fans don't buy the PPVs.
I haven't twisted any logic at all. 8% of fans enjoy RAW enough to buy PPVs, 92% don't. It's always going to be the case that the majority don't value the product enough to pay for it.
In December 2006, ECW on Sci-Fi averaged a 1.4 in the ratings. That's slightly higher than TNA's ratings, but nowhere near SmackDown numbers.
How does WWE have less room for mistakes? They have 5 hours of TV a week, and they can afford to make mistakes because they have a loyal fanbase and no genuine competition. And I hate to burst your bubble, but experience isn't going to eliminate all the mistakes from your product. Spielberg's been making classic films for 20 years, didn't stop him from putting out A.I. and War of the Worlds. Experience doesn't stop you from having bad ideas.
TNA's booking has not improved, as the buyrates show. Go and talk to TNA fans who watched the product religiously in 2005 and ask them how 2007's booking compares. Not favourably. Bringing in Russo was a step backwards for TNA, as every single wrestling fan knew it would be.
From a technical standpoint? Probably. The sound and camera work and stuff is still sketchy, but it has probably improved with time. That kind of stuff does improve with experience. From a booking standpoint? No. TNA's booking in 2005 was better than it was in 2007. Any knowledgeable TNA would, I'm sure, agree with me.
But a good product is a product people would pay to see, and right now TNA fans aren't paying to see the TNA product.
[quoteAnd I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters.[/quote]
Well if you've all seen the TV show improve, why haven't you all been buying the PPVs? What's stopping you from forking out $30 every month? What are you waiting for?
I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't know what booking is. Booking is a big part of the product. This is what typically happens with TNA: they book iMPACT in a way that frustrates people and stops them from caring about the storylines. Because people don't care about the storylines, they don't order the PPV. The PPV rolls around, the wrestlers put on some good matches, but nobody sees the matches because the booking leading up to the PPV was so bad. You have to bear in mind that the fans don't know if Cage and Angle are going to put on a **** match at the PPV until they see it. iMPACT's job is to convince the fans that they will, and to make the fans care about the match. iMPACT doesn't do it enough, and that's why so few people order the PPVs. You can have as many **** matches at the PPV as you want, but if only a handful of ultraloyal TNA fans see them, it's not going to do them any good.
Look at Victory Road, TNA's lowest drawing PPV of 2007. Was the in-ring action that bad? No. The main event was pretty good, the Ultimate X match was good, Cage vs. Harris was decent, etc. etc. Only 15,000 people saw those matches, though, because the bookers didn't give them an incentive to.
Secondly, if I watch a film and enjoy it, it doesn't mean I'll enjoy a video game based on the film. Movies and video games are completely different media. Good movies are often made into bad games, because they're made by completely different people. TNA iMPACT and TNA PPVs are not completely different media, they're both wrestling shows. If you watch iMPACT, enjoy the wrestling and the characters and the storylines, then you'll enjoy the PPV. It's the same people, doing the same thing they do every week.
NO wrestling company is EVER going to get ANYWHERE NEAR 90% of fans buying their PPVs. Back in 2000, RAW probably averaged about a 6.0 in the ratings. WrestleMania got a 2.35 buyrate. By today's standards, that's over 6.5 million viewers and 940,000 PPV buys. Even back then, with no competition and a very good product, that's less than 15% for the biggest show of the year. The vast majority of wrestling fans are always going to watch the free stuff and skip the stuff they have to pay for.
It's not the same scale. It's not close to the same scale. 2% is much, much, MUCH worse than 8%. Like I said above, you're never going to get 90%, 75%, 50% or even 25% of fans buying the PPV. Never. 2% might look pretty close to 8%, but when the most you can hope for is probably 15%, 8% is a LOT better than 2%.
Don't think of it as 8% and 2%. Let's say that WWE and TNA can, at most, attract 15% of their fans to buy the PPV. The way wrestling works, let's say that 85% of the people who watch your show are never going to pay $30/$40/$50 to buy your monthly supershow. For WWE to get 300,000 people to order SummerSlam, that's 57% of its potential audience. For TNA to attract 25,000 buys for its shows, that's 13%. Does that make the difference a little clearer?
I don't think you understand the meaning of the word "underutilized". Super Crazy is never going to hold the WWE title, he's at best a midcard act. Samoa Joe, on the other hand, SHOULD be holding the TNA title and MCMG SHOULD be holding the Tag Team titles. And they should both be in more rewarding feuds.
OK, do you see the hypocrisy here?
But you can't give me any other explanation for the low buyrates. You can't explain to me why 98% of TNA fans don't buy the PPVs.
I haven't twisted any logic at all. 8% of fans enjoy RAW enough to buy PPVs, 92% don't. It's always going to be the case that the majority don't value the product enough to pay for it.
In December 2006, ECW on Sci-Fi averaged a 1.4 in the ratings. That's slightly higher than TNA's ratings, but nowhere near SmackDown numbers.
How does WWE have less room for mistakes? They have 5 hours of TV a week, and they can afford to make mistakes because they have a loyal fanbase and no genuine competition. And I hate to burst your bubble, but experience isn't going to eliminate all the mistakes from your product. Spielberg's been making classic films for 20 years, didn't stop him from putting out A.I. and War of the Worlds. Experience doesn't stop you from having bad ideas.
TNA's booking has not improved, as the buyrates show. Go and talk to TNA fans who watched the product religiously in 2005 and ask them how 2007's booking compares. Not favourably. Bringing in Russo was a step backwards for TNA, as every single wrestling fan knew it would be.
From a technical standpoint? Probably. The sound and camera work and stuff is still sketchy, but it has probably improved with time. That kind of stuff does improve with experience. From a booking standpoint? No. TNA's booking in 2005 was better than it was in 2007. Any knowledgeable TNA would, I'm sure, agree with me.
But a good product is a product people would pay to see, and right now TNA fans aren't paying to see the TNA product.
[quoteAnd I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters.[/quote]
Well if you've all seen the TV show improve, why haven't you all been buying the PPVs? What's stopping you from forking out $30 every month? What are you waiting for?
I'm starting to get the feeling that you don't know what booking is. Booking is a big part of the product. This is what typically happens with TNA: they book iMPACT in a way that frustrates people and stops them from caring about the storylines. Because people don't care about the storylines, they don't order the PPV. The PPV rolls around, the wrestlers put on some good matches, but nobody sees the matches because the booking leading up to the PPV was so bad. You have to bear in mind that the fans don't know if Cage and Angle are going to put on a **** match at the PPV until they see it. iMPACT's job is to convince the fans that they will, and to make the fans care about the match. iMPACT doesn't do it enough, and that's why so few people order the PPVs. You can have as many **** matches at the PPV as you want, but if only a handful of ultraloyal TNA fans see them, it's not going to do them any good.
Look at Victory Road, TNA's lowest drawing PPV of 2007. Was the in-ring action that bad? No. The main event was pretty good, the Ultimate X match was good, Cage vs. Harris was decent, etc. etc. Only 15,000 people saw those matches, though, because the bookers didn't give them an incentive to.
Secondly, if I watch a film and enjoy it, it doesn't mean I'll enjoy a video game based on the film. Movies and video games are completely different media. Good movies are often made into bad games, because they're made by completely different people. TNA iMPACT and TNA PPVs are not completely different media, they're both wrestling shows. If you watch iMPACT, enjoy the wrestling and the characters and the storylines, then you'll enjoy the PPV. It's the same people, doing the same thing they do every week. [/QUOTE]
First of all, PPV and free tv are 2 separate entities as well. People see TNA on tv. People have to order PPVs from a Pay Per View. The point I was trying to make is that just because people enjoy one thing in one entity, doesn't mean they have to necessarily go out and purchase that same thing in another entity. You must not know how human beings work. And using numbers to try to determine that is not going to help your case.
Well then, there goes your answer.
For 25-30,000 people to order a PPV out of 1.4 million people isn't that different from less than 300,000 people on average out of an estimate of about 4 million people ordering your PPV. That's worse imo. WWE had to stop doing seperate brand PPVs to combine both shows for one PPV to stop low buyrates, but yet they barely budged in PPV numbers. WWE getting 8% of buys when they have 2i-3 world title matches per PPV and a number of midcard matches is not that great.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
Exactly. At least with the way Samoa Joe is used, you know there's gold in his future. Joe has been in top notch feuds and has held 3 titles at once all by himself and was even in a moty candidate with Cage. Saying Joe is misuesed is like saying Kennedy or Lashley have been misused because they aren't holding the world title within a year or two of their arrival. Super Crazy is misused because he can be used for so much more and can contribute so much to WWE television but he can't even get tv time. Victoria can make the current women's division so much better and isn't given the chance to shine. Those people are misused. Joe was not used to his potential. And you want MCMG to be rushed the title when they just formed as a team in TNA. You realize Motor City Machine Gunz only started teaming up in July of 20o7. Rushing them to tag team gold within 6 months would be bad booking seeing as they are the underdog team that people want to see win. Rushing them to tag gold would not bring that same satisfaction.
OK, do you see the hypocrisy here?
There's nothing to answer. It's an unanswerable question like I said. But you seem to know the answer as I pointed to you above within your very own post.
And you think 92% is acceptable to WWE standards even after they ended seperate brand PPVs? You continue to ask the same question about why TNA buyrates aren't high, but when it comes to the WWE, somehow you know the answer.
I'll have to look up that 1.4 But if they got a 1.4 rating when ECW was being pushed so hard as something under the WWE brand on primetime with crazy promotion, it is indeed pitiful. The PPV even had WWE tag titles defended on it and was basically a WWE PPV. The PPV had the fucking elimination chamber on it. The reason it didn't get WWE buyrates is because the tv product was actually worth nothing.
First of all, PPV and free tv are 2 separate entities as well. People see TNA on tv. People have to order PPVs from a Pay Per View. The point I was trying to make is that just because people enjoy one thing in one entity, doesn't mean they have to necessarily go out and purchase that same thing in another entity. You must not know how human beings work. And using numbers to try to determine that is not going to help your case.
Well then, there goes your answer.
For 25-30,000 people to order a PPV out of 1.4 million people isn't that different from less than 300,000 people on average out of an estimate of about 4 million people ordering your PPV. That's worse imo. WWE had to stop doing seperate brand PPVs to combine both shows for one PPV to stop low buyrates, but yet they barely budged in PPV numbers. WWE getting 8% of buys when they have 2i-3 world title matches per PPV and a number of midcard matches is not that great.
Doesn't make a lick of sense.
Exactly. At least with the way Samoa Joe is used, you know there's gold in his future. Joe has been in top notch feuds and has held 3 titles at once all by himself and was even in a moty candidate with Cage. Saying Joe is misuesed is like saying Kennedy or Lashley have been misused because they aren't holding the world title within a year or two of their arrival. Super Crazy is misused because he can be used for so much more and can contribute so much to WWE television but he can't even get tv time. Victoria can make the current women's division so much better and isn't given the chance to shine. Those people are misused. Joe was not used to his potential. And you want MCMG to be rushed the title when they just formed as a team in TNA. You realize Motor City Machine Gunz only started teaming up in July of 20o7. Rushing them to tag team gold within 6 months would be bad booking seeing as they are the underdog team that people want to see win. Rushing them to tag gold would not bring that same satisfaction.
OK, do you see the hypocrisy here?
There's nothing to answer. It's an unanswerable question like I said. But you seem to know the answer as I pointed to you above within your very own post.
And you think 92% is acceptable to WWE standards even after they ended seperate brand PPVs? You continue to ask the same question about why TNA buyrates aren't high, but when it comes to the WWE, somehow you know the answer.
I'll have to look up that 1.4 But if they got a 1.4 rating when ECW was being pushed so hard as something under the WWE brand on primetime with crazy promotion, it is indeed pitiful. The PPV even had WWE tag titles defended on it and was basically a WWE PPV. The PPV had the fucking elimination chamber on it. The reason it didn't get WWE buyrates is because the tv product was actually worth nothing.
It's acceptible to have some mistakes, but to continually make them is not acceptable. This is the third time that the E has put out 3 main garbage storylines within 5 years. From Katie Vick, to Vince is dead, to the bastard angle. The only thing keeping the WWE product alive is the fact that they have a strong establised fanbase to lean on. There ratings have not been consistent and the USA network is applying heavy pressure on them to improve the product, but they can't. The product isn't even good for them to remain consistent with ratings. That's not the case with TNA.
So because the buyrates haven't rose to a .8, it means TNA has improved in booking? WWE has barely budged in buyrates since PPV brand mergers also. Does it mean WWE booking has not improved? This is what I talk about when you are shallow. Throw away numbers, watch TNA, and tell me booking hasn't improved. Yes, booking took a backseat when Russo came in but tell me booking has not currently improved. And stop giving me that numbers bullshit. I want real fucking talk.
Newsflash-Russo is not the only booker in TNA.
I think you're sad that you don't realize there's more to a product than booking. I asked you a question about the overall product. Typical as you always do, you dodge the parts you can't rebuttle to and focus on what you want just like how you continually bring the arguement on booking and numbers that isn't going anywhere. If you get off your pedestal, you'll see that TNA has improved in many areas as a product from character development, video packaging, personalities, storylines, feuds, match lineups, match length, etc. Compare that to TNA Impact of 2005 and 2006 and you'll see a difference.
WWE fans don't pay to see WWE either, does it mean that you can't have human judgement without numbers to see that they have still improved versus WWE a year ago.
If you don't improve your product, not only in terms of booking but in storylines, personalities, characters, how will people care about your product enough to engage in even buying a PPV. The source of everything is the product as I said earlier. TNA's concern is not with the buyrates, it's with the tv show. Right now, it's important that TNA focus on building more characters, building more personalities, pushing the right guys, putting together better feuds, bringing good matches, and storylines people care about. All of that is part of a product's growth. Booking is not the main and be all of what makes wrestling and is not the main problem plaquing current TNA as you are trying to make it out to be.
[quoteAnd I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters.[/quote]
I've been ordering TNA PPV's since they were on Wednesdays. Why others may not purchase the PPVs are on them. I'm not God. I don't know everyone's situation. I can't speak for every human in the universe. And I'm not going to play psychic and predict why a new company is getting out of the gate super buyrates.
And I'm starting to get the feeling that you know nothing about wrestling but what a column probably told you about booking. Quit second hand smoking from wrestling columns.
:
Booking is a big part of a product's success, but I'm not going to sit here and act like it's the main and only thing that'll bring a product success. You can have the greatest booking in the world, but if your wrestlers have personas people don't care for, produce boring matches, get 0 crowd reaction, push the wrong crowd, then booking can mean squat. Booking is only part of a package to wrestling's success just as how storylines is part of a package.
I didn't know you were psychic.
So because the buyrates haven't rose to a .8, it means TNA has improved in booking? WWE has barely budged in buyrates since PPV brand mergers also. Does it mean WWE booking has not improved? This is what I talk about when you are shallow. Throw away numbers, watch TNA, and tell me booking hasn't improved. Yes, booking took a backseat when Russo came in but tell me booking has not currently improved. And stop giving me that numbers bullshit. I want real fucking talk.
Newsflash-Russo is not the only booker in TNA.
I think you're sad that you don't realize there's more to a product than booking. I asked you a question about the overall product. Typical as you always do, you dodge the parts you can't rebuttle to and focus on what you want just like how you continually bring the arguement on booking and numbers that isn't going anywhere. If you get off your pedestal, you'll see that TNA has improved in many areas as a product from character development, video packaging, personalities, storylines, feuds, match lineups, match length, etc. Compare that to TNA Impact of 2005 and 2006 and you'll see a difference.
WWE fans don't pay to see WWE either, does it mean that you can't have human judgement without numbers to see that they have still improved versus WWE a year ago.
If you don't improve your product, not only in terms of booking but in storylines, personalities, characters, how will people care about your product enough to engage in even buying a PPV. The source of everything is the product as I said earlier. TNA's concern is not with the buyrates, it's with the tv show. Right now, it's important that TNA focus on building more characters, building more personalities, pushing the right guys, putting together better feuds, bringing good matches, and storylines people care about. All of that is part of a product's growth. Booking is not the main and be all of what makes wrestling and is not the main problem plaquing current TNA as you are trying to make it out to be.
[quoteAnd I and those that actually watch and or pay attention to TNA have seen the improvement in the tv show product and that's all that matters.[/quote]
I've been ordering TNA PPV's since they were on Wednesdays. Why others may not purchase the PPVs are on them. I'm not God. I don't know everyone's situation. I can't speak for every human in the universe. And I'm not going to play psychic and predict why a new company is getting out of the gate super buyrates.
And I'm starting to get the feeling that you know nothing about wrestling but what a column probably told you about booking. Quit second hand smoking from wrestling columns.
:
Booking is a big part of a product's success, but I'm not going to sit here and act like it's the main and only thing that'll bring a product success. You can have the greatest booking in the world, but if your wrestlers have personas people don't care for, produce boring matches, get 0 crowd reaction, push the wrong crowd, then booking can mean squat. Booking is only part of a package to wrestling's success just as how storylines is part of a package.
I didn't know you were psychic.
But it's the same product. It's pro wrestling on your TV. I'm not saying everybody who likes to watch iMPACT for free is going to pay for it, but TNA's job is to make sure that enough people do pay for the PPVs, so that they can make money.
But it's not worse, percentage-wise. You might expect WWE's percentage to naturally be higher, because of the size of their company, but TNA's percentage should not be that low. It's a big problem for TNA.
It makes perfect sense. Dig out a calculator and play along, if you want. I'm just trying to show you that the 6% difference between TNA and WWE is a big number.
Kennedy and Lashley aren't the most bankable performers in WWE.
I've told you what the answer is, you just refuse to admit it. You don't seem to accept the correlation between TNA's product and TNA's buyrates.
There is only one answer, and I want you to admit it. Those percentages would be higher if the booking was better, in both cases. That's the answer.
ECW is on the Sci-Fi channel. Nobody watches the Sci-Fi channel. 1.4, though low, still makes it Sci-Fi's most watched show. If ECW was getting 1.4 on USA or Spike, it wouldn't be on TV.
I think he might have finally recognised my point. The question is, can you make the leap from "WWE got a low buyrate because of a bad product" to "TNA constantly gets low buyrates because of a bad product"? I'm not going to hold my breath, because I'm sure you can find an excuse as to why that's not the case for your precious TNA.
Edge/Taker/Batista is not garbage, Orton/Hardy is not garbage, Punk/Chavo is not garbage. TNA's headline feud, in which AJ Styles (one of the company's most accomplished wrestlers) hides out at his grandmother's house because he can't decide whether he wants to be Christian Cage's goofball lackey or Kurt Angle's goofball lackey, that's garbage.
I've no doubt that Spike is very happy to see iMPACT consistently getting a million viewers. Panda Energy and Dixie Carter probably aren't so happy, since they can't attract consistently high numbers of fans to purchase the PPVs - y'know, the big shows that help wrestling companies pay the bills.
Newsflash - Dutch Mantell and Jeff Jarrett are useless with the book too.
Yeah, all of that falls under the general headline of "booking".
I'm not sure WWE has improved since last year. I certainly don't remember 2006 being dramatically worse than 2007.
The reason you put on a TV show at all is so that you can sell PPVs. You don't make money through TV shows, you make money through PPVs. And I can guarantee you that TNA is concerned with it's buyrates. They'd be idiots if they weren't.
Nothing I've said is rocket science, it's all basic wrestling knowledge. I wish there was a wrestling column that explained all this, because you could certainly stand to read it.
You don't have to be a psychic to understand the situation. iMPACT is a marketing tool. It's targeted at wrestling fans, it's getting one million impressions every week, and the product isn't selling. You don't need a marketing degree to tell you that TNA iMPACT isn't doing it's job.
Oh, so you're saying that TNA fans love the company so much that they illegally download or stream the PPVs, or watch them for free elsewhere? I'm sure TNA would be glad to hear that. Again, the bottom line is that TNA fans don't care enough about the product to spend money on it.
I have told you that the booking hasn't improved. I've said several times that since 2005, TNA's product has gone downhill. I can tell you that again if you'd like, but you'd ignore it anyway. I can tell you that Team 3D and Black Reign are shite, I can tell you that Joe, Sabin and Shelley are being wasted. I can show you that people agree with me, but it won't make a difference. You won't agree with me, because it's all subjective. You think TNA is flawless and beyond reproach, and my opinions on TNA storylines won't change that. You've shown me how little judgement you have on the matter, so I've stopped trying to reason with you. That's why I brought up the numbers, to show you that TNA isn't "striving" as you seem to think. Incredibly, you've taken to arguing with cold hard facts as well as with opinions.
But it's not worse, percentage-wise. You might expect WWE's percentage to naturally be higher, because of the size of their company, but TNA's percentage should not be that low. It's a big problem for TNA.
It makes perfect sense. Dig out a calculator and play along, if you want. I'm just trying to show you that the 6% difference between TNA and WWE is a big number.
Kennedy and Lashley aren't the most bankable performers in WWE.
I've told you what the answer is, you just refuse to admit it. You don't seem to accept the correlation between TNA's product and TNA's buyrates.
There is only one answer, and I want you to admit it. Those percentages would be higher if the booking was better, in both cases. That's the answer.
ECW is on the Sci-Fi channel. Nobody watches the Sci-Fi channel. 1.4, though low, still makes it Sci-Fi's most watched show. If ECW was getting 1.4 on USA or Spike, it wouldn't be on TV.
I think he might have finally recognised my point. The question is, can you make the leap from "WWE got a low buyrate because of a bad product" to "TNA constantly gets low buyrates because of a bad product"? I'm not going to hold my breath, because I'm sure you can find an excuse as to why that's not the case for your precious TNA.
Edge/Taker/Batista is not garbage, Orton/Hardy is not garbage, Punk/Chavo is not garbage. TNA's headline feud, in which AJ Styles (one of the company's most accomplished wrestlers) hides out at his grandmother's house because he can't decide whether he wants to be Christian Cage's goofball lackey or Kurt Angle's goofball lackey, that's garbage.
I've no doubt that Spike is very happy to see iMPACT consistently getting a million viewers. Panda Energy and Dixie Carter probably aren't so happy, since they can't attract consistently high numbers of fans to purchase the PPVs - y'know, the big shows that help wrestling companies pay the bills.
Newsflash - Dutch Mantell and Jeff Jarrett are useless with the book too.
Yeah, all of that falls under the general headline of "booking".
I'm not sure WWE has improved since last year. I certainly don't remember 2006 being dramatically worse than 2007.
The reason you put on a TV show at all is so that you can sell PPVs. You don't make money through TV shows, you make money through PPVs. And I can guarantee you that TNA is concerned with it's buyrates. They'd be idiots if they weren't.
Nothing I've said is rocket science, it's all basic wrestling knowledge. I wish there was a wrestling column that explained all this, because you could certainly stand to read it.
You don't have to be a psychic to understand the situation. iMPACT is a marketing tool. It's targeted at wrestling fans, it's getting one million impressions every week, and the product isn't selling. You don't need a marketing degree to tell you that TNA iMPACT isn't doing it's job.
Oh, so you're saying that TNA fans love the company so much that they illegally download or stream the PPVs, or watch them for free elsewhere? I'm sure TNA would be glad to hear that. Again, the bottom line is that TNA fans don't care enough about the product to spend money on it.
I have told you that the booking hasn't improved. I've said several times that since 2005, TNA's product has gone downhill. I can tell you that again if you'd like, but you'd ignore it anyway. I can tell you that Team 3D and Black Reign are shite, I can tell you that Joe, Sabin and Shelley are being wasted. I can show you that people agree with me, but it won't make a difference. You won't agree with me, because it's all subjective. You think TNA is flawless and beyond reproach, and my opinions on TNA storylines won't change that. You've shown me how little judgement you have on the matter, so I've stopped trying to reason with you. That's why I brought up the numbers, to show you that TNA isn't "striving" as you seem to think. Incredibly, you've taken to arguing with cold hard facts as well as with opinions.
Exactly! And if TNA can't convince people with promotional packages, it just means that TNA maybe needs to do a better job in their promotional department for PPVs. It doesn't mean that the actual tv show is shit. What matters is that people tune in each week. Ratings is what matters. Because without the ratings, they could lose their tv deal and without a tv deal there is no tv show, and without the tv shows there's nothing to sell the PPVs. that's what been said to you throughout your debates.
It's not a problem for TNA because if they don't have buyrates, you or no one knows there DVD sales. We don't know where TNA is getting money from. All you know is from what you've read from a person that knows nothing about insider details like us.
Over 90% like my mans said don't order both products.
So? Are bankable performers always on top. Because Cena isn't?
Who would? You don't get good buyrates, so it means your product is shit! That's like saying if an artists doesn't decent numbers on an album and goes on tour to perform those songs that his album is crappy due to 98% of the people that bought his album didn't buy tickets to go see him. The fuck type of logic is that!!??
Like my mans said, are you Miss Cleo?
ECW's debut show on Sci fi got a 3. rating. ECW had .2-.3 ratings for some time.
The reason the ppv didn't sell is obvious. They couldn't even hold there 2-3 million viewers. They slipped to 1 million viewers. They couldn't even generate a huge percentage of the WWE audience to comeback and watch weekly.
And then from observations, the show was horrible with guys no one cared about. The whole ECW PPV was filler. You had a fresh Bobby Lashley that no one cared about debut on ECW and challenge Big Show immediately for the title. RVD was being depushed. Sabu wasn't of any use. Test and Holly were the same guys they were. And CM Punk was the only one shining. You barely had a midcard for the show because ECW barely had a roster. WWE just jumboed a bunch of their midcarders together and called it a show the last minute.
And then you want to question why others say the product was worth nothing. The ECW product was shit from a fan's perspective and a number's perspective. That's not the same in this case homie.
Yeah, but you're in a minority. Unlike you, I actually go around websites and read reviews on that particula Impact show where AJ was in his Grandma's house and the majority found it entertaining including those that claim to be WWE fans. And it's not surprising that WWE fans would find it funny seeing as a guy like yourself finds Hornswoggle funny and entertaining.
Punk/Chavo? Are you kidding me. No one cares about Chavo. He's fought Punk 3 weeks straight and people still don't care. Punk will still remain ECW champion.
Orton/Hardy is a weak feud because both guys are mostly feuding through the mic. Besides no one caring if Hardy will be champ or not, Hardy is not convincing on the mic. And Orton is dull as usual. He couldn't even make his feud with Y2J of all people interesting.
Taker/Batista/Edge is doing their damn thing. It's the only thing worth watching. Nothing else on there 5 hour programming is.
TNA hasn't improved since 2005? That right there alone just shows you're a fucking mark! You realize that last year this time there was no Johnny Devine? You realize that last year there was no Motor City Machine Gunz. You realize last year this time there was no Black Machismo, there was no super hot tag team division, there was no Awesome Kong/Gail Kim, there was no women's division, there was no future in Kaz, there was no Gure Sonjay Dutt, there was no James Storm, there was no Maple Leaf Muscle in Petey Williams. Building characters and personalities is part of a wrestling companie's success. You're honestly going to sit up here and tell me TNA hasn't improved? The show went from generic guys to full blown personalities. Everyone knows you're full of bullshit!
It's not a problem for TNA because if they don't have buyrates, you or no one knows there DVD sales. We don't know where TNA is getting money from. All you know is from what you've read from a person that knows nothing about insider details like us.
Over 90% like my mans said don't order both products.
So? Are bankable performers always on top. Because Cena isn't?
Who would? You don't get good buyrates, so it means your product is shit! That's like saying if an artists doesn't decent numbers on an album and goes on tour to perform those songs that his album is crappy due to 98% of the people that bought his album didn't buy tickets to go see him. The fuck type of logic is that!!??
Like my mans said, are you Miss Cleo?
ECW's debut show on Sci fi got a 3. rating. ECW had .2-.3 ratings for some time.
The reason the ppv didn't sell is obvious. They couldn't even hold there 2-3 million viewers. They slipped to 1 million viewers. They couldn't even generate a huge percentage of the WWE audience to comeback and watch weekly.
And then from observations, the show was horrible with guys no one cared about. The whole ECW PPV was filler. You had a fresh Bobby Lashley that no one cared about debut on ECW and challenge Big Show immediately for the title. RVD was being depushed. Sabu wasn't of any use. Test and Holly were the same guys they were. And CM Punk was the only one shining. You barely had a midcard for the show because ECW barely had a roster. WWE just jumboed a bunch of their midcarders together and called it a show the last minute.
And then you want to question why others say the product was worth nothing. The ECW product was shit from a fan's perspective and a number's perspective. That's not the same in this case homie.
Yeah, but you're in a minority. Unlike you, I actually go around websites and read reviews on that particula Impact show where AJ was in his Grandma's house and the majority found it entertaining including those that claim to be WWE fans. And it's not surprising that WWE fans would find it funny seeing as a guy like yourself finds Hornswoggle funny and entertaining.
Punk/Chavo? Are you kidding me. No one cares about Chavo. He's fought Punk 3 weeks straight and people still don't care. Punk will still remain ECW champion.
Orton/Hardy is a weak feud because both guys are mostly feuding through the mic. Besides no one caring if Hardy will be champ or not, Hardy is not convincing on the mic. And Orton is dull as usual. He couldn't even make his feud with Y2J of all people interesting.
Taker/Batista/Edge is doing their damn thing. It's the only thing worth watching. Nothing else on there 5 hour programming is.
TNA hasn't improved since 2005?
That right there alone just shows you're a fucking mark! You realize that last year this time there was no Johnny Devine? You realize that last year there was no Motor City Machine Gunz. You realize last year this time there was no Black Machismo, there was no super hot tag team division, there was no Awesome Kong/Gail Kim, there was no women's division, there was no future in Kaz, there was no Gure Sonjay Dutt, there was no James Storm, there was no Maple Leaf Muscle in Petey Williams. Building characters and personalities is part of a wrestling companie's success. You're honestly going to sit up here and tell me TNA hasn't improved? The show went from generic guys to full blown personalities. Everyone knows you're full of bullshit!
Yeah, I'm sure TNA viewers love the product, they're about to order the PPV but they then see the promo video for the PPV and say "Actually, I'll give it a miss". Dave Sahadi joined TNA in 2004 (I think), and since then TNA's promotional videos have been very good. It's nothing to do with the production qualities, it's to do with the booking and creative side of things. I'm not saying iMPACT is full of bad wrestling, I'm saying that - on the whole - it's not a good show because it doesn't promote the PPV. Anybody can book a wrestling show full of good matches - you just need to stick Joe, Styles, Shelley, Sabin et al in matches and give them time. The difficult part is making people care about the characters and the storylines, and TNA isn't succeeding at that.
And people do tune in each week. Around a million people. That's not a bad figure for TNA, but it's worthless unless it leads to buyrates. And it doesn't.
Well considering a number of retailers, including Target (whatever that is) stopped stocking TNA merchandise because it wasn't selling, I'll wager that they're not making a killing on their DVDs. I've seen some sales figures, and unless they're charging ten grand a pop then it's not going to make up for their poor buyrates.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Or that.
No, that's not the same thing at all. TNA is giving people a free product in the hope that a substantial number (anything above 5% would be acceptable, IMO) of them will like it enough to spend some money on it. One million people consume the free product every week, only 2% of them are convinced to buy the PPV.
Like your "mans" finally came to realise, the reason a PPV doesn't get good buyrates "...is because the tv product was actually worth nothing."
No, but I can put 2 and 2 together. Put out a good product, people will pay for it. Put out a bad product, people won't. Can you grasp that?
2.79
ECW averaged "about 2.7 million viewers" in 2006, which is around a 2.4. Recently it's been getting about half that.
They lost a million viewers because the product was awful, yes, but the one million viewers they had around the time of the PPV led to 90,000 buys. A dreadful number by WWE standards, their lowest ever. But compare that to TNA buyrates. TNA iMPACT also has a million viewers, but gets nowhere near 90,000 buys. I wouldn't expect them to hit 90,000, but it's embarassing that TNA can't even get ONE THIRD of that for the majority of it's PPVs, with a better product and two hours of television.
I've said from the beginning that the ECW product was worthless, I've never tried to claim that December 2 Dismember was a good show. What are you talking about?
I'm not going to argue with you about the WWE/TNA product, because it's pointless. If you think that most people enjoyed the January 3rd iMPACT, you're deluded. Go and read a proper review of it, by someone like Wade Keller or James Caldwell. Or just read this review, by a TNA fan who wrote in to the Torch:
"Tonight's show was a total cluster, as about half to two-thirds in, I'm climbing the walls wondering when this was going to end. [...] I feel so sorry for Alan, a/k/a A.J. Styles. He is a three-time Triple Crown champion, and this is who he is, some redneck with a trailer-like family? I know that sounds so stereotypical, but he is being so disrespectfully portrayed."
Again, not going to pointlessly argue with you about all the small details. All I will say is that AJ Styles vs. Samoa Joe vs. Christopher Daniels was more interesting than anything TNA did last year, and they didn't need to gimmick it up. Look at the three of them now; Joe is feuding with 48-year-old Kevin Nash, Christopher Daniels is "fired" and AJ Styles has spent the year playing second fiddle to ex-WWE stars.
See, slapping an OTT gimmick on someone doesn't necessarily make them better. Gabe Sapolsky could make me care about Jay Lethal, and he didn't need to give him a recycled gimmick to do it. I don't care more about Sonjay Dutt because he's now a "Guru", I don't care more about Petey Williams because he's Lex Luger 2008, and I certainly don't care more about AJ Styles because he's the redneck whipping boy of Kurt Angle or Christian Cage.
And people do tune in each week. Around a million people. That's not a bad figure for TNA, but it's worthless unless it leads to buyrates. And it doesn't.
Well considering a number of retailers, including Target (whatever that is) stopped stocking TNA merchandise because it wasn't selling, I'll wager that they're not making a killing on their DVDs. I've seen some sales figures, and unless they're charging ten grand a pop then it's not going to make up for their poor buyrates.
I don't know what you mean by that.
Or that.
No, that's not the same thing at all. TNA is giving people a free product in the hope that a substantial number (anything above 5% would be acceptable, IMO) of them will like it enough to spend some money on it. One million people consume the free product every week, only 2% of them are convinced to buy the PPV.
Like your "mans" finally came to realise, the reason a PPV doesn't get good buyrates "...is because the tv product was actually worth nothing."
No, but I can put 2 and 2 together. Put out a good product, people will pay for it. Put out a bad product, people won't. Can you grasp that?
2.79
ECW averaged "about 2.7 million viewers" in 2006, which is around a 2.4. Recently it's been getting about half that.
They lost a million viewers because the product was awful, yes, but the one million viewers they had around the time of the PPV led to 90,000 buys. A dreadful number by WWE standards, their lowest ever. But compare that to TNA buyrates. TNA iMPACT also has a million viewers, but gets nowhere near 90,000 buys. I wouldn't expect them to hit 90,000, but it's embarassing that TNA can't even get ONE THIRD of that for the majority of it's PPVs, with a better product and two hours of television.
I've said from the beginning that the ECW product was worthless, I've never tried to claim that December 2 Dismember was a good show. What are you talking about?
I'm not going to argue with you about the WWE/TNA product, because it's pointless. If you think that most people enjoyed the January 3rd iMPACT, you're deluded. Go and read a proper review of it, by someone like Wade Keller or James Caldwell. Or just read this review, by a TNA fan who wrote in to the Torch:
"Tonight's show was a total cluster, as about half to two-thirds in, I'm climbing the walls wondering when this was going to end. [...] I feel so sorry for Alan, a/k/a A.J. Styles. He is a three-time Triple Crown champion, and this is who he is, some redneck with a trailer-like family? I know that sounds so stereotypical, but he is being so disrespectfully portrayed."
TNA hasn't improved since 2005? That right there alone just shows you're a fucking mark! You realize that last year this time there was no Johnny Devine? You realize that last year there was no Motor City Machine Gunz. You realize last year this time there was no Black Machismo, there was no super hot tag team division, there was no Awesome Kong/Gail Kim, there was no women's division, there was no future in Kaz, there was no Gure Sonjay Dutt, there was no James Storm, there was no Maple Leaf Muscle in Petey Williams. Building characters and personalities is part of a wrestling companie's success.
That right there alone just shows you're a fucking mark! You realize that last year this time there was no Johnny Devine? You realize that last year there was no Motor City Machine Gunz. You realize last year this time there was no Black Machismo, there was no super hot tag team division, there was no Awesome Kong/Gail Kim, there was no women's division, there was no future in Kaz, there was no Gure Sonjay Dutt, there was no James Storm, there was no Maple Leaf Muscle in Petey Williams. Building characters and personalities is part of a wrestling companie's success.
See, slapping an OTT gimmick on someone doesn't necessarily make them better. Gabe Sapolsky could make me care about Jay Lethal, and he didn't need to give him a recycled gimmick to do it. I don't care more about Sonjay Dutt because he's now a "Guru", I don't care more about Petey Williams because he's Lex Luger 2008, and I certainly don't care more about AJ Styles because he's the redneck whipping boy of Kurt Angle or Christian Cage.
The most stupidest shit i ever heard foreal foreal. Impact is not a good show because you feel they don't spend 99.99% on promoting PPVs and or promoting it properly?? Wtf?!. You don't realize the process involve do you. You have to make people care about the television show first. By doing that you need good character development, strong feuds, good promos, etc. The product is the source of it all.
I'm sorry but what determines if a product is good or not is not about how well a tv show promotes an upcoming PPV. I've never seen a review even from those columns that you so trust ever do a review saying, "They didn't spend enough time promoting on the PPV, so Raw gets 3 thumbs down." What determines a show is the promos, backstage segments, matches, storylines, match lineup, characters on the show, the tv time characters receive, tv time matches receive. That's what determines a good show.
Debating with you is nonsense. If the same exact TNA of the past year with the same booking was getting 100,000 buyrates, you'd sit here and rate TNA as a good product because they're doing their job. Well guess what, doing your job does not always=quality product. Your whole opinion is BS!
I think plenty of people that watch TNA including the Impact Zone crowd feel a certain way about the characters of Christian Cage, Robert Roode, Samoa Joe, Motor City Machine Gunz, Jay Lethal, AJ Styles, James Storm, Robert Roode, Awesome Kong, ODB, Gail Kim and much more.
Getting consistant ratings are much more important. TNA has not been having spectacular buyrates since their weekly PPV days. You think it's going to be of concern now that they're in a much better position on a primetime slot on a national network.?
Kind of funny that you said this:
Well that's not the case with every wrestling tv product because as you can see the E with all the bad writing, weak booking, and little character development, receive "good buys"
while looking below:
And then you wonder why 90,000 was considered bad for them.
Did you just admit that TNA is a better product? So do you now understand that just because your product is good, doesn't mean it'll reflect in number
By your rationale, December 2 Dismember was a better show than anything TNA put on the past year because they did 2-3 times the buy that TNA did.
Wade Keller?? Who?? James Caldwell?? Who?? Do these guys have degrees in Wrestling Columns? Who are those clowns. No one takes one or two peoples opinions as holy. Because no matter who they are, they are just another person with an opinion. The only difference is people like that have platforms to brainwash weak minded people such as yourself. I don't judge TNA's, WWE's, or ROH's success by one man's opinion. I go on different site and listen to what the people have to say because the power lies with the people. And the people have spoken that 1/3 Impact was a good show leading up to the Turning Point PPV.
Actually he's not.
And it's paid off as AJ Styles has wound up again the center of attention in the whole company
But guess what. TNA isn't focused on a current viewer like you. TNA doesn't have to impress you. You're already an existing viewer. There focused on potential viewers to add to those potential ratings to possibly turn into those potential buyrates that you take so dear.
I'm sorry but what determines if a product is good or not is not about how well a tv show promotes an upcoming PPV. I've never seen a review even from those columns that you so trust ever do a review saying, "They didn't spend enough time promoting on the PPV, so Raw gets 3 thumbs down." What determines a show is the promos, backstage segments, matches, storylines, match lineup, characters on the show, the tv time characters receive, tv time matches receive. That's what determines a good show.
Debating with you is nonsense. If the same exact TNA of the past year with the same booking was getting 100,000 buyrates, you'd sit here and rate TNA as a good product because they're doing their job. Well guess what, doing your job does not always=quality product. Your whole opinion is BS!
I think plenty of people that watch TNA including the Impact Zone crowd feel a certain way about the characters of Christian Cage, Robert Roode, Samoa Joe, Motor City Machine Gunz, Jay Lethal, AJ Styles, James Storm, Robert Roode, Awesome Kong, ODB, Gail Kim and much more.
Getting consistant ratings are much more important. TNA has not been having spectacular buyrates since their weekly PPV days. You think it's going to be of concern now that they're in a much better position on a primetime slot on a national network.?
Kind of funny that you said this:
Well that's not the case with every wrestling tv product because as you can see the E with all the bad writing, weak booking, and little character development, receive "good buys"
while looking below:And then you wonder why 90,000 was considered bad for them.
Did you just admit that TNA is a better product? So do you now understand that just because your product is good, doesn't mean it'll reflect in number
By your rationale, December 2 Dismember was a better show than anything TNA put on the past year because they did 2-3 times the buy that TNA did.
Wade Keller?? Who?? James Caldwell?? Who?? Do these guys have degrees in Wrestling Columns? Who are those clowns. No one takes one or two peoples opinions as holy. Because no matter who they are, they are just another person with an opinion. The only difference is people like that have platforms to brainwash weak minded people such as yourself. I don't judge TNA's, WWE's, or ROH's success by one man's opinion. I go on different site and listen to what the people have to say because the power lies with the people. And the people have spoken that 1/3 Impact was a good show leading up to the Turning Point PPV.
Actually he's not.
And it's paid off as AJ Styles has wound up again the center of attention in the whole company
But guess what. TNA isn't focused on a current viewer like you. TNA doesn't have to impress you. You're already an existing viewer. There focused on potential viewers to add to those potential ratings to possibly turn into those potential buyrates that you take so dear.
When I say they need to promote the PPV, I don't mean iMPACT should just consist of promo videos. I mean the wrestlers should be hyping it up in their promos, the feuds should be built up so that people want to watch Angle take on Cage, or whatever. That's all part of promoting PPVs. If the characters and feuds are good, people will buy the PPVs. If they're not (and they're not) then people won't (and they don't).
From the iMPACT we were talking about:
"The problem here is the Gauntlet Matches didn't really add up to anything that had any affect on the PPV matches, and confused the notion of there being number one contenders headed into the PPV."
Yes, and all those things should build up to the PPV. The feuds should lead to big PPV matches that people will pay to see.
Well there's no danger of that.
So you don't think more people would buy the PPVs if the product was better?
Well not enough people care about them, because so few people are willing to pay to see them on PPV.
No, it's not. This is where you continue to show your ignorance about the wrestling business. TNA will ONLY grow as a company when it makes money, and it will ONLY make money when people buy its PPVs.
It should be. If you go from a shitty timeslot on FSN to a two-hour primetime spot on Spike, your buyrates should see a considerable increase. And they haven't.
Yes, the majority of people won't buy TNA PPVs. That "majority" should not be 98%. If you honestly think that TNA's buyrates have been acceptable, you know nothing.
Firstly, WWE isn't currently getting "good buys". It's getting relatively poor buyrates. 200,000, by WWE standards, is not a good buy. But WWE getting 200,000 buys for one of their shows is still much better than TNA getting 15,000 buys for one of their shows. 15,000 buys is just unthinkable.
Secondly, WWE gets 200,000 buys because it has enough well-booked storylines, enough interesting characters and enough compelling feuds to make people fork over their money every month. Despite the dross - Snitsky, Mark Henry etc. - WWE's money feuds are good enough to bring in viewers.
What the fuck are you talking about? When did I "wonder" why 90,000 was bad?
Product was probably the wrong term to use. TNA had better on-screen talent than ECW. Kurt, Christian, AJ, Joe etc. etc. compared to CM Punk, RVD and then a bunch of people nobody cared about. In terms of the talent, TNA was better. Unfortunately, that talent didn't extend to the booking team.
No, but it was promoted better. People were convinced enough to order it. The show itself was awful, but from a business perspective, it's better to have an awful PPV that people watch than a great one that people don't.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't know much about wrestling.
lol, OK. I guess you just dismiss the opinions of people who know about wrestling, and just listen to those who agree with you. If you care about the "people", and what they think, then all you need to do is look at the buyrates.
Well we'll see what the "people" thought, when the buyrate comes in and we see how many "people" actually bought the PPV. Which, by the way, Final Resolution. Not Turning Point.
Really? Because Nash turned on him at the PPV, and they had a confrontation on the following iMPACT. Still, wouldn't surprise me if they dropped the whole thing. It is TNA, after all.
:laugh:
No, he hasn't. Clearly you don't know much about monarchy, because being "prince" doesn't make you centre of attention. A smart booker would have made Styles his own man, have him leave Cage and Angle and go after the belt. Instead, he's now Kurt Angle's "bitch" (Joe's words, not mine).
TNA PPVs air for free over here. If they didn't, I certainly wouldn't be paying for any of them. TNA can try to add viewers, but that's such a backwards way to go about things. They have a million viewers, but very few of them buy the PPV. That should be their focus. It's a lot more productive to get more of their current fans to buy the PPV than to try and attract another million fans.
Just as an aside, I just read that TNA is giving iMPACT episode titles? Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
From the iMPACT we were talking about:
"The problem here is the Gauntlet Matches didn't really add up to anything that had any affect on the PPV matches, and confused the notion of there being number one contenders headed into the PPV."
Yes, and all those things should build up to the PPV. The feuds should lead to big PPV matches that people will pay to see.
Well there's no danger of that.
So you don't think more people would buy the PPVs if the product was better?
Well not enough people care about them, because so few people are willing to pay to see them on PPV.
No, it's not. This is where you continue to show your ignorance about the wrestling business. TNA will ONLY grow as a company when it makes money, and it will ONLY make money when people buy its PPVs.
It should be. If you go from a shitty timeslot on FSN to a two-hour primetime spot on Spike, your buyrates should see a considerable increase. And they haven't.
Yes, the majority of people won't buy TNA PPVs. That "majority" should not be 98%. If you honestly think that TNA's buyrates have been acceptable, you know nothing.
Firstly, WWE isn't currently getting "good buys". It's getting relatively poor buyrates. 200,000, by WWE standards, is not a good buy. But WWE getting 200,000 buys for one of their shows is still much better than TNA getting 15,000 buys for one of their shows. 15,000 buys is just unthinkable.
Secondly, WWE gets 200,000 buys because it has enough well-booked storylines, enough interesting characters and enough compelling feuds to make people fork over their money every month. Despite the dross - Snitsky, Mark Henry etc. - WWE's money feuds are good enough to bring in viewers.
What the fuck are you talking about? When did I "wonder" why 90,000 was bad?
Product was probably the wrong term to use. TNA had better on-screen talent than ECW. Kurt, Christian, AJ, Joe etc. etc. compared to CM Punk, RVD and then a bunch of people nobody cared about. In terms of the talent, TNA was better. Unfortunately, that talent didn't extend to the booking team.
No, but it was promoted better. People were convinced enough to order it. The show itself was awful, but from a business perspective, it's better to have an awful PPV that people watch than a great one that people don't.
Sorry, I keep forgetting that you don't know much about wrestling.
lol, OK. I guess you just dismiss the opinions of people who know about wrestling, and just listen to those who agree with you. If you care about the "people", and what they think, then all you need to do is look at the buyrates.
Well we'll see what the "people" thought, when the buyrate comes in and we see how many "people" actually bought the PPV. Which, by the way, Final Resolution. Not Turning Point.
Really? Because Nash turned on him at the PPV, and they had a confrontation on the following iMPACT. Still, wouldn't surprise me if they dropped the whole thing. It is TNA, after all.
:laugh:
No, he hasn't. Clearly you don't know much about monarchy, because being "prince" doesn't make you centre of attention. A smart booker would have made Styles his own man, have him leave Cage and Angle and go after the belt. Instead, he's now Kurt Angle's "bitch" (Joe's words, not mine).
TNA PPVs air for free over here. If they didn't, I certainly wouldn't be paying for any of them. TNA can try to add viewers, but that's such a backwards way to go about things. They have a million viewers, but very few of them buy the PPV. That should be their focus. It's a lot more productive to get more of their current fans to buy the PPV than to try and attract another million fans.
Just as an aside, I just read that TNA is giving iMPACT episode titles? Who the fuck thought that was a good idea?
Torch polls:
BEST SHOW OF 2007
WWE Raw (54%)
WWE Smackdown (24%)
TNA Impact (15%)
ECW on Sci-Fi (7%)
BEST PPV OF 2007
WWE WrestleMania 23 (40%)
ROH Man Up (25%)
TNA Bound for Glory (11%)
WWE Royal Rumble (10%)
WWE Backlash (6%)
ROH Respect is Earned (6%)
WWE No Mercy (3%)
MVP OF 2007
John Cena (25%)
Shawn Michaels (18%)
Edge (13%)
Randy Orton (12%)
Christian Cage (7%)
The Briscoes (6%)
Bryan Danielson (5%)
Takeshi Morishima (4%)
Undertaker (4%)
Kurt Angle (3%)
Nigel McGuinness (1%)
BEST SHOW OF 2007
WWE Raw (54%)
WWE Smackdown (24%)
TNA Impact (15%)
ECW on Sci-Fi (7%)
BEST PPV OF 2007
WWE WrestleMania 23 (40%)
ROH Man Up (25%)
TNA Bound for Glory (11%)
WWE Royal Rumble (10%)
WWE Backlash (6%)
ROH Respect is Earned (6%)
WWE No Mercy (3%)
MVP OF 2007
John Cena (25%)
Shawn Michaels (18%)
Edge (13%)
Randy Orton (12%)
Christian Cage (7%)
The Briscoes (6%)
Bryan Danielson (5%)
Takeshi Morishima (4%)
Undertaker (4%)
Kurt Angle (3%)
Nigel McGuinness (1%)
But didn't you just make a statement in this very same reply that contradicts this quote above?:
There was a bunch of people no one cared about/filler but yet the PPV still sold more than TNA in comparison to the stars that TNA has. But yet you made a statement that if people care about your characters and feuds, you'll do good numbers. WTF?! So you just basically contradicted your arguement pal.
Another psychic prediction?
And the source of making money is to attain their tv deal and part of attaining your tv deal is to be consistent with ratings and to bring in more. Or else you won't have a tv show to promote any PPVs.
Says what column?
Why is it not acceptable? Do you know the buyrates they were receiving weekly when they were putting on weekly PPVs. The numbers they receive are fine. And it doesn't stop the fact that they are the fastest rising company. I don't know any other promotion that has received a tv deal within 2 years of existance. I don't know any other promotion that has gotten on national tv within 3 years. I don't know any other promotion that has gotten a primtime slot within 4 years. At this rate, they are going, they are doing fine. I don't know too many 5 year promotions going on 6 years that have monthly PPVs, yet alone a primtime television slot on a national network. What TNA has done is acceptable.
Again. Just because TNA is a fast rising promotion doesn't mean they'll be getting WWE numbers. For the scale, TNA is on, it's not that big of a deal.
Interesting characters like who on WWE TV?
Money feuds like Taker/Henry that headlined Unforgiven?? You're delusional. This is exactly why you're a WWE mark. You bash TNA and leave the WWE free to go based on PPV buys. WWE gets buys because of their name not their product. You can't sit up here and tell me Hornswoggle/Khali is good booking.
So 90,000 is acceptable for a product that was being pushed hard by the WWE brand and getting promotional time on Raw, which gets 3.-4. ratings?
So you don't think ECW got the ratings they got because they were WWE affiliated. Or was it the great WWE/ECW booking that caused those numbers because it sure as hell wasn't the writing, feuds, talent, etc.
Indeed it's worse. Because the more people that are tuning into crap PPVs, the more people are going to be turned away from purchasing. Especially with all the word of mouth spreading around through the internet media. As long as TNA continues to put on good PPVs whether people buy it or not and as long as enough people like Impact to watch it weekly, then that word of mouth will also spread. So keep talking about business. When you use dirty tactics in business, it comes back to you. When you're a business and you don't produce quality for some time it comes back to you. Hence why the WCW started to beat the WWE.
This coming from a guy who has to read columns from some glorified internet marks with a platform or else wouldn't have an idea about any wrestling terminology.
This coming from the same psychic that wrote below:
The vast majority of wrestling fans are always going to watch the free stuff and skip the stuff they have to pay for.
All I'll say is that with the horrible writing that your beloved WWE gets, they still gets numbers, so that throws away your numbers theory. Sorry.:sad:
I don't think it was ever really planned to be an angle. It's just a leading angle.
No that would've been obvious booking, genious. That's something we wrestling fans don't want. Well at least real wrestling fans. We don't want predictability.
I don't think so. The more viewers you have, the better chances of more revenue you receive. TNA could be getting surplus income from merchandise, DVD sales, toys, video games, more money on tv renewal deals, a better shot at attracting other networks, etc. So yeah, start reading business columns because as much as you think you know how to run a wrestling company, you don't. It's more profitable for TNA to focus on attracting newer viewers.
I asked the same question about the writer in the WWE that decided to kill Vince off in a limo and then make a bastard angle.
There was a bunch of people no one cared about/filler but yet the PPV still sold more than TNA in comparison to the stars that TNA has. But yet you made a statement that if people care about your characters and feuds, you'll do good numbers. WTF?! So you just basically contradicted your arguement pal.
Another psychic prediction?
And the source of making money is to attain their tv deal and part of attaining your tv deal is to be consistent with ratings and to bring in more. Or else you won't have a tv show to promote any PPVs.
Says what column?
Why is it not acceptable? Do you know the buyrates they were receiving weekly when they were putting on weekly PPVs. The numbers they receive are fine. And it doesn't stop the fact that they are the fastest rising company. I don't know any other promotion that has received a tv deal within 2 years of existance. I don't know any other promotion that has gotten on national tv within 3 years. I don't know any other promotion that has gotten a primtime slot within 4 years. At this rate, they are going, they are doing fine. I don't know too many 5 year promotions going on 6 years that have monthly PPVs, yet alone a primtime television slot on a national network. What TNA has done is acceptable.
Again. Just because TNA is a fast rising promotion doesn't mean they'll be getting WWE numbers. For the scale, TNA is on, it's not that big of a deal.
Interesting characters like who on WWE TV?
Money feuds like Taker/Henry that headlined Unforgiven?? You're delusional. This is exactly why you're a WWE mark. You bash TNA and leave the WWE free to go based on PPV buys. WWE gets buys because of their name not their product. You can't sit up here and tell me Hornswoggle/Khali is good booking.
So 90,000 is acceptable for a product that was being pushed hard by the WWE brand and getting promotional time on Raw, which gets 3.-4. ratings?
So you don't think ECW got the ratings they got because they were WWE affiliated. Or was it the great WWE/ECW booking that caused those numbers because it sure as hell wasn't the writing, feuds, talent, etc.
Indeed it's worse. Because the more people that are tuning into crap PPVs, the more people are going to be turned away from purchasing. Especially with all the word of mouth spreading around through the internet media. As long as TNA continues to put on good PPVs whether people buy it or not and as long as enough people like Impact to watch it weekly, then that word of mouth will also spread. So keep talking about business. When you use dirty tactics in business, it comes back to you. When you're a business and you don't produce quality for some time it comes back to you. Hence why the WCW started to beat the WWE.
This coming from a guy who has to read columns from some glorified internet marks with a platform or else wouldn't have an idea about any wrestling terminology.
This coming from the same psychic that wrote below:
The vast majority of wrestling fans are always going to watch the free stuff and skip the stuff they have to pay for.
All I'll say is that with the horrible writing that your beloved WWE gets, they still gets numbers, so that throws away your numbers theory. Sorry.:sad:
I don't think it was ever really planned to be an angle. It's just a leading angle.
No that would've been obvious booking, genious. That's something we wrestling fans don't want. Well at least real wrestling fans. We don't want predictability.
I don't think so. The more viewers you have, the better chances of more revenue you receive. TNA could be getting surplus income from merchandise, DVD sales, toys, video games, more money on tv renewal deals, a better shot at attracting other networks, etc. So yeah, start reading business columns because as much as you think you know how to run a wrestling company, you don't. It's more profitable for TNA to focus on attracting newer viewers.
I asked the same question about the writer in the WWE that decided to kill Vince off in a limo and then make a bastard angle.
No, you just misunderstood my argument. Pal. The reason people bought D2D was because CM Punk and RVD were in the main event, and people expected them to put in a good showing. The whole show was sold on that one match (which is why it got less than half as many draws as most WWE shows). Nobody knew how awful that match would be, otherwise nobody would have ordered it. The point is, even with a limited roster, WWE did a good enough job of making people care about THAT ONE MATCH, that some people ordered it. TNA fails to do that with its matches, all of which are better than the Chamber match at D2D.
What? Firstly, you do realise I didn't write that? It's from a Torch review of the show. Secondly, it didn't make any predictions, psychic or otherwise.
I can't remember how many times I've said this, but TNA iMPACT already has a relatively consistent viewership. They need to keep that up, but not at the expense of PPV buyrates. One of WCW's many mistakes was putting too much stock in TV ratings, and not enough stock in buyrates. TNA needs to chase PPV buys, not TV ratings. The former will make them money, the latter won't.
Says common sense! If your TV viewership goes up 500%, from 200,000 to 1,000,000, your PPV buyrates should see a substantial increase too.
Yes, I do know their weekly buyrates. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up, since you can't really compare a weekly PPV costing $10, to a monthly PPV costing $30.
I'm not sure what more I can do to explain to you that 25,000 buys is not a good figure for TNA. Show those figures to most wrestling fans, and they'll just burst into laughter.
Just look at the reactions to those figures from wrestling fans here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and I could go on.
Look at this article from 411 Mania, that does a good job of explaining what you don't seem capable of grasping.
"Overall—although off their peak—TNA has improved iMPACT's rating by over 18% and had reached at high as 27%.
That said, how much of that additional audience became PPV buyers? The answer, according to the chart below, is none:"
Find me somebody out there, someone with a little credibility, that thinks TNA's buyrates have been good.
Compared to who? Who are they competing with? What other indy promotion has Panda Energy's money?
For fuck's sake, nobody is saying they should be getting WWE numbers. Nobody is saying they should be getting 250,000 buys. What I'm saying is, they should be AT LEAST breaking 50,000 regularly. They've done it before, so don't pretend it's not possible for a company of their size.
Edge, Punk, Flair, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, MVP, Santino, Orton, Jericho, Kennedy, Regal, Finlay, HBK, Undertaker, Mysterio etc. etc.
Christ almighty. Stop trying to change the subject. I've agreed with you countless times that Mark Henry, Khali et al are not good. I haven't defended them, so why do you keep bringing them up?
First you say I "wondered why 90,000 buys was bad", now you're saying that I think it's acceptable? I don't think it's acceptable, and I know exactly why WWE got such a bad buyrate. If you can't understand that, I give up.
And why hasn't that happened up to this point? Why didn't the word of mouth from TNA's 2006 PPVs lead to better buyrates in 2007? You can't just sit around and wait for "word-of-mouth" to suddenly kick in and for buyrates to go up.
Yeah, that's why it happened. It wasn't that WCW stole the WWF's big names, it wasn't that WCW stole ECW's best workers. I guess Hulk Hogan and Lex Luger put on better matches than Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart? I can't believe you managed to talk about "dirty tactics" and praise WCW in the same sentence.
Yeah, that's the spirit. Everyone on the Internet is a mark, you're the only one who really knows what's going on.
Why do you keep bringing up a quote you don't understand?
Most wrestling fans won't buy the PPVs, so it's important that the ones who MIGHT buy it, DO buy it. TNA doesn't do that.
Obvious booking that makes sense > unpredictable booking that doesn't. The latter is Vince Russo's trademark.
And the word is "genius", genius.
I already showed you that TNA DVDs and TNA merchandise wasn't selling well. They're not going to make a profit selling t-shirts and action figures.
From the 411 article I linked to above:
"On an average basis, it costs more to gain a customer than it does to keep an existing one. So if it costs $1 to keep an existing audience member, it may cost TNA $3 to get a new customer. And how are they supposed to gain back that cost for the new audience member? They do not get additional revenue from Spike and have a set-deal contract with how much they are being paid for their show. [...] That said, TNA may benefit from concentrating on their existing audience and turn them into PPV buyers."
Look: I've shown you a million times that TNA's buyrates are terrible. If you can't accept that simple fact, then I'm at a complete loss. If you're thinking about replying to this post telling me that TNA is getting acceptable buyrates, after everything I've shown you, don't bother. It's pointless.
And if you just want to bitch about WWE's booking and call me a mark, then send me a PM.
What? Firstly, you do realise I didn't write that? It's from a Torch review of the show. Secondly, it didn't make any predictions, psychic or otherwise.
I can't remember how many times I've said this, but TNA iMPACT already has a relatively consistent viewership. They need to keep that up, but not at the expense of PPV buyrates. One of WCW's many mistakes was putting too much stock in TV ratings, and not enough stock in buyrates. TNA needs to chase PPV buys, not TV ratings. The former will make them money, the latter won't.
Says common sense! If your TV viewership goes up 500%, from 200,000 to 1,000,000, your PPV buyrates should see a substantial increase too.
Yes, I do know their weekly buyrates. I'm not sure why you're bringing them up, since you can't really compare a weekly PPV costing $10, to a monthly PPV costing $30.
I'm not sure what more I can do to explain to you that 25,000 buys is not a good figure for TNA. Show those figures to most wrestling fans, and they'll just burst into laughter.
Just look at the reactions to those figures from wrestling fans here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, and I could go on.
Look at this article from 411 Mania, that does a good job of explaining what you don't seem capable of grasping.
"Overall—although off their peak—TNA has improved iMPACT's rating by over 18% and had reached at high as 27%.
That said, how much of that additional audience became PPV buyers? The answer, according to the chart below, is none:"
Find me somebody out there, someone with a little credibility, that thinks TNA's buyrates have been good.
Compared to who? Who are they competing with? What other indy promotion has Panda Energy's money?
For fuck's sake, nobody is saying they should be getting WWE numbers. Nobody is saying they should be getting 250,000 buys. What I'm saying is, they should be AT LEAST breaking 50,000 regularly. They've done it before, so don't pretend it's not possible for a company of their size.
Edge, Punk, Flair, Jeff Hardy, Matt Hardy, MVP, Santino, Orton, Jericho, Kennedy, Regal, Finlay, HBK, Undertaker, Mysterio etc. etc.
Christ almighty. Stop trying to change the subject. I've agreed with you countless times that Mark Henry, Khali et al are not good. I haven't defended them, so why do you keep bringing them up?
First you say I "wondered why 90,000 buys was bad", now you're saying that I think it's acceptable? I don't think it's acceptable, and I know exactly why WWE got such a bad buyrate. If you can't understand that, I give up.
And why hasn't that happened up to this point? Why didn't the word of mouth from TNA's 2006 PPVs lead to better buyrates in 2007? You can't just sit around and wait for "word-of-mouth" to suddenly kick in and for buyrates to go up.
Yeah, that's why it happened. It wasn't that WCW stole the WWF's big names, it wasn't that WCW stole ECW's best workers. I guess Hulk Hogan and Lex Luger put on better matches than Shawn Michaels and Bret Hart? I can't believe you managed to talk about "dirty tactics" and praise WCW in the same sentence.
Yeah, that's the spirit. Everyone on the Internet is a mark, you're the only one who really knows what's going on.
Why do you keep bringing up a quote you don't understand?
Most wrestling fans won't buy the PPVs, so it's important that the ones who MIGHT buy it, DO buy it. TNA doesn't do that.
Obvious booking that makes sense > unpredictable booking that doesn't. The latter is Vince Russo's trademark.
And the word is "genius", genius.
I already showed you that TNA DVDs and TNA merchandise wasn't selling well. They're not going to make a profit selling t-shirts and action figures.
From the 411 article I linked to above:
"On an average basis, it costs more to gain a customer than it does to keep an existing one. So if it costs $1 to keep an existing audience member, it may cost TNA $3 to get a new customer. And how are they supposed to gain back that cost for the new audience member? They do not get additional revenue from Spike and have a set-deal contract with how much they are being paid for their show. [...] That said, TNA may benefit from concentrating on their existing audience and turn them into PPV buyers."
Look: I've shown you a million times that TNA's buyrates are terrible. If you can't accept that simple fact, then I'm at a complete loss. If you're thinking about replying to this post telling me that TNA is getting acceptable buyrates, after everything I've shown you, don't bother. It's pointless.
And if you just want to bitch about WWE's booking and call me a mark, then send me a PM.
Give it up Illuminattle. Your whole arguement is not based on reality. Unless TNA released those numbers themselves, then they don't have to be taken for gospel. Because no one knows the real buys. The guy who posted these buys on the net, only put up an estimate from a source we don't know. And he didn't get it from TNA because TNA is privately owned and won't put their info out like that. No one knows there situation. It's not a FACT. So NO, you are not arguing with facts. So yeah. keep praying for their downfall.
You go by the logic that if you get good numbers, you are better than the guy that doesn't. I guess P.Diddy, MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice>>>>>
So put it through your head:
-Low buyrates does not have to equal a shoddy product.
-High buyrates does not have to equal a superb product.
You go by the logic that if you get good numbers, you are better than the guy that doesn't. I guess P.Diddy, MC Hammer, Vanilla Ice>>>>>
So put it through your head:
-Low buyrates does not have to equal a shoddy product.
-High buyrates does not have to equal a superb product.
"The guy who posted these buys" is Dave Meltzer. He knows what he's talking about, he doesn't just pluck numbers out of thin air. If TNA's buyrates were considerably higher than those estimates, TNA would make a big song and dance about it. Just like they do about their TV ratings.
Besides, you were trying to argue that those estimates were good figures. They're not, hopefully you've realised that now.
Like I said before, I want TNA to succeed. Everybody does. The difference is, most people are smart enough to realise that they're not succeeding.
Besides, you were trying to argue that those estimates were good figures. They're not, hopefully you've realised that now.
Like I said before, I want TNA to succeed. Everybody does. The difference is, most people are smart enough to realise that they're not succeeding.
Are you still putting faith in shrinks?:laugh: Unless God, put the numbers out, I'll take it with a grain of salt. He didn't get those numbers from TNA.
Like I said, this is an estimate. And it's from a source we don't know. No one knows TNA's real situation as much as internet fans think they do. The source of the buyrates came from someone with very rough estimates who bunched up a variety of sources, came to a conclusion, stamped it as fact, and made the gullable such as you run with it as fact.
They aren't valid! POINT BLANK!
I said the numbers were not that much of a big deal. For a company like TNA to be out 5 years and to even have PPV, let alone TV is enough of an accomplishment. TNA could be doing much worse. Those numbers, if fact or not should be the least of TNA's concerns right now, imo. They have a long way to go and can focus on more things that'll can be more productive.
Anymore predictions, Cleo?
Even if those estimates were to be dead on, there's more to success than just buyrates. Only a week ago, TNA scored their highest rating ever. Apart from numbers, just like how it's been pointed to you a number of times in one thread, any normal human being can compare the quality of TNA programming from each year it's been on SpikeTV and compare it to now and you'll see the growth the company has made.
Like I said, this is an estimate. And it's from a source we don't know. No one knows TNA's real situation as much as internet fans think they do. The source of the buyrates came from someone with very rough estimates who bunched up a variety of sources, came to a conclusion, stamped it as fact, and made the gullable such as you run with it as fact.
They aren't valid! POINT BLANK!
I said the numbers were not that much of a big deal. For a company like TNA to be out 5 years and to even have PPV, let alone TV is enough of an accomplishment. TNA could be doing much worse. Those numbers, if fact or not should be the least of TNA's concerns right now, imo. They have a long way to go and can focus on more things that'll can be more productive.
Anymore predictions, Cleo?
Even if those estimates were to be dead on, there's more to success than just buyrates. Only a week ago, TNA scored their highest rating ever. Apart from numbers, just like how it's been pointed to you a number of times in one thread, any normal human being can compare the quality of TNA programming from each year it's been on SpikeTV and compare it to now and you'll see the growth the company has made.
Honestly, it's pointless to even discuss this with you. You just blindly defend everything TNA does. It's like I'm arguing with someone who thinks the world is flat. I shouldn't have to tell you that TNA's booking is bad. If you're a wrestling fan you should be able to recognise that. I try to show you that everybody disagrees, but you dismiss everyone else's opinions. I try to show you that TNA's buyrates are in the gutter, but you claim they don't matter. Is there anything TNA could do that would force you to open your eyes? If they booked a 60-minute blindfold Iron Man match between Black Reign and Kip James, would you admit that it was bad?
If you just want to get behind an underdog promotion because you think WWE "sux", then stick to watching Ring of Honor. Stop trying to convince yourself that TNA is somehow better than WWE. It's not, it's a pale imitation. Don't try to convince yourself that the product has improved, either. If you think it's better now than in 2005, you either weren't watching in 2005 or you don't know what you're talking about.
If you have anything else to say to me, PM me. And don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
If you just want to get behind an underdog promotion because you think WWE "sux", then stick to watching Ring of Honor. Stop trying to convince yourself that TNA is somehow better than WWE. It's not, it's a pale imitation. Don't try to convince yourself that the product has improved, either. If you think it's better now than in 2005, you either weren't watching in 2005 or you don't know what you're talking about.
If you have anything else to say to me, PM me. And don't hold your breath waiting for a response.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.