Originally Posted by jamespondo:
“I think both Spike TV (who are partly paying for their contracts) and TNA seriously overestimate the drawing power of Hogan, Sting and Flair in the early "tens". Or Dixie is such a mark she is simply relishing having these once household names on her roster.
Hogan and Sting definitely bump the ratings slightly when used infrequently. But pushing them so strongly is nonsensical (note: all 3 take certain stage on the BFG poster). Heavily basing your company around 3 men in their 50's and 60's, whom viewers were overexposed to in 1999, is a recipe for disaster. Similar to WCW pushing Bruno Sammartino, Terry Funk and Dusty Rhodes as its posterboy(s) in '95.”
Simple fact is that if someone who hasnt watched wrestling for years/or hasnt watched TNA before saw a poster for a wrestling event called Bound For Glory with just Beer Money, Abyss, AJ Styles, Matt Morgan, Crimson etc on the poster they arent going to know any of those guys. Hogan, Sting and Flair are recognisable faces and names who will get people to have a second glance at the poster. I dont necessarily agree that those three guys should be the focus of the TV show every week but if you have legends like that then they will get people interested in the show not the likes of AJ or Beer Money.
Start watching because of Hogan, Sting and Flair and stay watching for the likes of AJ, Beer Money and the rest of the younger roster.
Originally Posted by Toffee Guy:
“True, but after 7 years on Spike, after adding Hogan, Flair, Sting, Kurt Angle, Hardys, Anderson, Dudleys, Steiner, RVD, Mickie James... plus the likes of Christian and Mick Foley in the past.... they're still doing the same rating and have the same size tv audience as they had without any of those high-priced names back in 2005.
No matter how much spin is put on it, to not grow your audience in that time, with the addition of all those names is frankly embarrassing and an indictment of the product that they put out there, in that it isn't connecting with the masses.
Sure, they're clearly something of a draw in the U.K., but they spend 11 and a half months of the year in the U.S.; they're a U.S. based company and business in the U.S. is their primary concern.
If Spike tv cancelled them, TNA would fold tomorrow as they rely on the tv revenue to exist. It's not like the company is profitable in any way.”
Ratings have grown since 2005. In 2005 the average ratings was a 0.8, the average for 2010 was 1.06, which was heavily surpressed by going against Raw for a number of weeks. The average rating so far this year is 1.19. That doesn't sound like no growth to me.
Its all very well saying TNA have had no growth or very little growth but the wrestling industry is not growing. WWE's ratings are declining most years and at best have been stagnant. The mass public no longer watch wrestling, you cant expect a company like TNA with limited finances to be able to dramatically increase their viewership in an industry that is in a deep lull. I accept that ratings should be rising considering the amount of legends and big names now on the show but to say ratings havent grown in 6 years and that they are "embarrasing" isn't right.