|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 22:03:34 GMT -5
Ratings and Earnings don't always tell you if a product is good? Its all about what people want and if you have High Ratings and you get people to spend lots of money on your product than that means there is a market. TNA does not have at least 3 star matches for every match during its PPV's. Trust me I watch all of them and half the time I have to keep myself from falling a sleep. I must admit I do this for some of WWE PPV's too. But the bottom line is The correlations are there, as posted a few replies back. TNA needs new blood running it. How can anyone explain Vince Russo still being associated with TNA??? Only in TNA can you take Jeff Hardy and ruin his character. Are you telling me there is no one else they could of put the belt on while Hardy deals with his legal issues??? Believe it or not I want TNA to be good like how WCW was good in 1996. It made for great television and wrestling. But TNA is going down the wrong path and they need to turn it around before they become nothing more than a local/regional/minor league promotion 1. vince russo has long been considered an intelligent mind in writing, however he needs a FILTER, something he did not have in wcw. this has literally been said by dozens of wrestlers. 2. i think they've completely expanded on jeff hardy's character, so i guess that is a matter of opinion. at one point you're talking about how they've destroyed his character, yet the next second you're talking about how he shouldn't have been champion..and to respond, i think hardy IS the best candidate for tna champion right now: he's the most over, EVERYONE including non-wrestling fans know who hardy is (compared at least to the rest of their roster), and he has a fresh heel turn going on that's actually a hot idea in the business right now. 3. tna's wrestling, when good, is GREAT. the product is not near as poor as many of you make it out to be.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:08:55 GMT -5
The problem is that if I don't watch it and many others don't watch it than you won't be able to watch it because they won't put it on tv anymore. You have to have a market and their market is not there. If they keep up these crappy story lines the market is going to be less and less. If you have a market than that means people like it. People don't like TNA thats why you get no ratings and the buyrates are low. ROH, TNA, WWE they are all "enjoyable". But WWE is more enjoyable, at this time, than the others. I don't take much stock in how many years and so on. If you have a good product that would supercede everything else. If TNA had a good product than it would pose a threat as a rival to WWE. And why doesnt' it have a good product??? It's not because of lack of talent..Its because the people running the show don't know what they are doing with the talent.
|
|
|
Post by tnafan17: The Total Package on Jan 22, 2011 22:12:32 GMT -5
The problem is that if I don't watch it and many others don't watch it than you won't be able to watch it because they won't put it on tv anymore. You have to have a market and their market is not there. If they keep up these crappy story lines the market is going to be less and less. If you have a market than that means people like it. People don't like TNA thats why you get no ratings and the buyrates are low. ROH, TNA, WWE they are all "enjoyable". But WWE is more enjoyable, at this time, than the others. I don't take much stock in how many years and so on. If you have a good product that would supercede everything else. If TNA had a good product than it would pose a threat as a rival to WWE. And why doesnt' it have a good product??? It's not because of lack of talent..Its because the people running the show don't know what they are doing with the talent. Not sure thats 100% true chief. All of your opinions just seem so bias. Why don't you tell us all what knocks you have on WWE, ROH as well considering you know it all.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 22:13:08 GMT -5
You're aware that not everyone counts towards ratings.... right? You have to be apart of the Nielsen "program"/"family". In other words, unless you're apart of that... you're not one of the 1.2 million viewers that watches TNA, just for the record.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:20:45 GMT -5
yes I am aware of it, sames goes for every other tv show.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 22:23:30 GMT -5
yes I am aware of it, sames goes for every other tv show. ....then you're comment of: "The problem is that if I don't watch it and many others don't watch it than you won't be able to watch it because they won't put it on tv anymore". is void. Because, not all these people who are whining about "I'm going to stop watching" aren't counting towards ratings. You would have been better have saying: "I just like to watch it to have something to complain about." But, much like half of your nonsense you have rambled off in this entire thread... that "point" stands no ground.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 22:24:08 GMT -5
The problem is that if I don't watch it and many others don't watch it than you won't be able to watch it because they won't put it on tv anymore. You have to have a market and their market is not there. If they keep up these crappy story lines the market is going to be less and less. If you have a market than that means people like it. People don't like TNA thats why you get no ratings and the buyrates are low. ROH, TNA, WWE they are all "enjoyable". But WWE is more enjoyable, at this time, than the others. I don't take much stock in how many years and so on. If you have a good product that would supercede everything else. If TNA had a good product than it would pose a threat as a rival to WWE. And why doesnt' it have a good product??? It's not because of lack of talent..Its because the people running the show don't know what they are doing with the talent. so under those conditions, tna is a better product than ring of honor and ring of honor is the 'least enjoyable' product of the three. i dare you to go to the other feds board and claim that. wwe appeals to more of a massive audience, non wrestling fans, five year old boys opting for cena over transformers. tna has a more niche market. would expanding their market be a good idea? yes. was that their #1 focus of 2010? yes. they're trying, give them time. i honestly think tna tries to listen to what the majority of their fans want to see, but that the average smark just craps on basically any and all ideas that they have that they don't know what ones are actually working or not...you'll just hate anything they do.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:29:35 GMT -5
My views are biased? And the TNA fans here aren't biased??? I think there are things wrong with WWE. I think they are predictable. There story lines for the most part are not really suprising. I think this whole PG rating has tamed them down. But they know how to "make" wrestlers. For example Sheamus. When I first saw him on TV and they were first starting to push him 2009 I thought he was a joke. But they have gradually made him into a star. Same with Alberto Del Rio and the Miz. On the other hand what did TNA do with AJ Styles and the Pope?
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 22:34:51 GMT -5
Nobody called you biased, dude.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:38:32 GMT -5
Can we stop trying to make ROH and TNA into the best wrestling organizations ever. They are not. I'll say it on this board and any other board. Some of you seem to forget that if you don't have ratings than your show will get cancelled!!! You need people to watch it. The problem is no one is. Give me a break with my point is void. If WWE did a 3 rating and TNA did a 1 than that means WWE had 3 millin viewers (approx.) and TNA did 1 million viewers. Are you trying to tell me that there are millions of more fans that are not being surveyed to boost TNA ratings??? If you are than that means the same can be said for the WWE.
Once Again: No Ratings=No TV=Out of Business
|
|
|
Post by cjskittles4 on Jan 22, 2011 22:39:19 GMT -5
Hogan, Bischoff, Russo, Flair, Jarrett, = WCW Hogan, Bischoff, Russo, Flair, Jarrett = TNA Evad Sullivan being a Hulkamaniac = WCW Abyss being a Hulkamaniac = TNA NWO = WCW Immortal = TNA Duggan finding a belt in the garbage = WCW Eric Young finding a belt in the garbage = TNA Giving away free matches you could have made money off of on pay per view = WCW Giving away free matches you could have made money off of on pay per view = TNA A promotion having a clueless money mark to give away millions to spend (Ted Turner) = WCW A promotion having a clueless money mark to give away millions to spend (Dixie Carter) = TNA A promotion that was profitable for a short time, but mostly lost millions = WCW A promotion that was profitable for a short time, but mostly lost millions = TNA A promotion more concerned about pushing old stars instead of developing new ones = WCW A promotion more concerned about pushing old stars instead of developing new ones = TNA A promotion more concerned about ratings instead of PPV buys and merchandise sales = WCW A promotion more concerned about ratings instead of PPV buys and merchandise sales = TNA Backstage segments being more important than in ring action = WCW Backstage segments being more important than in ring action = TNA A promotion having top talent and booking them terribly (i.e. Bret Hart) = WCW A promotion having top talent and booking them terribly (i.e. Jeff Hardy) = TNA TNA is a very frustrating promotion. Half the time they do some great things and the other half they just make idiotic decisions. I really thought Scott D'Amore did a great job booking when he was in TNA. The Hogan regime is comprised of people that live in the past. The fact that the ratings and PPV numbers are lower since the Hogan regime entered speaks volumes of how out of touch they really are. Kids don't care about washed up performers being on their screen. Nobody cares about a power struggle of Immortal vs. Dixie Carter. Jarrett and Borash do a great job of booking the house shows. You would hope they would get their heads out of their asses and use their talent to their full potential. You strike a compelling argument
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:40:04 GMT -5
Actually somone did say my views were bias, but its ok, its all about debating ;D
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 22:40:11 GMT -5
i agree that aj styles is not fully utilized, but he's also not the golden egg that everyone thinks tna needed. the guy is junk on the microphone, simply put. just comes across as green in his promos.
that doesn't equate to tna being wcw 2000.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:43:38 GMT -5
What about the Pope? I think thats a diamond in the rough. And what did they do they pushed him to the side.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 22:46:59 GMT -5
Can we stop trying to make ROH and TNA into the best wrestling organizations ever. They are not. I'll say it on this board and any other board. Some of you seem to forget that if you don't have ratings than your show will get cancelled!!! You need people to watch it. The problem is no one is. Give me a break with my point is void. If WWE did a 3 rating and TNA did a 1 than that means WWE had 3 millin viewers (approx.) and TNA did 1 million viewers. Are you trying to tell me that there are millions of more fans that are not being surveyed to boost TNA ratings??? If you are than that means the same can be said for the WWE. Once Again: No Ratings=No TV=Out of Business Not having TV doesn't put you out of business... TNA went months without a TV deal following the FSN deal, they were fine. SpikeTV isn't going to cancel their top original show especially if UFC leaves SpikeTV [which looks likely, more and more]. TNA will become the bread and butter of SpikeTV... Spike knows that too. Face it, unless something drastic happens: TNA isn't going to get canceled or go out of business anytime soon. If they didn't go out of business when their first backer backed out... they're not going anywhere anytime soon. 8 years... we've heard the same thing, enough already. Nobody how many times you say it, it's obviously not going to happen in the near future.
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 22:48:47 GMT -5
What about the Pope? I think thats a diamond in the rough. And what did they do they pushed him to the side. that's really up to debate. i couldn't really see the pope surviving in the current tna as a main player.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 22, 2011 22:52:06 GMT -5
What about the Pope? I think thats a diamond in the rough. And what did they do they pushed him to the side. that's really up to debate. i couldn't really see the pope surviving in the current tna as a main player. I have to agree, when you have the talent TNA does... Pope just isn't one of the top guys I see to "lead" TNA.
|
|
mase307
Main Eventer
Elite Trader
instagram.com/mase307 Getting Rid of Figs! Send a PM if interested
Joined on: Sept 22, 2010 7:46:37 GMT -5
Posts: 2,836
|
Post by mase307 on Jan 22, 2011 22:56:57 GMT -5
Couldn't see him as a major player in the current TNA? Thats the problem this current TNA moved in the wrong direction. In regards to TNA as a business. TNA, if it doesnt get off this track they are on now, will wind up off TV and just another minor promotion and not a Main Promotion it hoped to be. Listen ECW survived approx 10 years, WCW (when it left TNA) survived approx 10 years, TNA (as is) will probably only survive approx 10 years
|
|
|
Post by k5 on Jan 22, 2011 23:06:42 GMT -5
- ecw did not fail because of lack of market interest, they failed because of improper business dealings on heyman's part
- wcw did not fail because of lack of market interest, they failed because of the .com crash and the change of power in turner broadcasting (turner lost control, other corporate interests did not want to partake in ANY wrestling product).
as long as tna is ran intelligently behind the scenes, which as of now none of us know if they do or not, they could easily continue to survive.
|
|
|
Post by SodaGuy on Jan 23, 2011 0:59:53 GMT -5
Couldn't see him as a major player in the current TNA? Thats the problem this current TNA moved in the wrong direction. In regards to TNA as a business. TNA, if it doesnt get off this track they are on now, will wind up off TV and just another minor promotion and not a Main Promotion it hoped to be. Listen ECW survived approx 10 years, WCW (when it left TNA) survived approx 10 years, TNA (as is) will probably only survive approx 10 years WCW and ECW failed because of nothing that had to do with the product. ECW failed due to bad business management [aka Paul Heyman not knowing how to manage money] and WCW failed, despite what the world wants to think, because [mainly] of the Time Warner merger. TNA will be here until something drastic changes that which isn't likely.
|
|