DS Forums

 
 

TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2)


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 19-06-2015, 14:20
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
i rmemeber in 2003 when all the smarks said tna would die within 5 years lol

i bet they will claim 12 years as a victory lol
That's because in 2003 they were in dire financial straits. They would have been gone if not for the Carters money and that's been the case throughout their existence. It's a company that has never really drawn any money and for me, has always lacked an identity.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
Old 19-06-2015, 14:55
whedon247
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 17,297
yet in 2003 it was obvious fans still wanted an alternative big company. tna could attract investers, smarks just WANTED it to fail.
whedon247 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 16:14
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
Ratings for this week:

ROH
20:00 - 172,000 (161,000)
23:00 - 100,000 (138,000)
Total - 272,000 (299,000)

TNA:
21:00 - 347,000 (330,000)
00:00 - 102,000 (74,000)
Total - 449,000 (404,000)
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 16:16
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
yet in 2003 it was obvious fans still wanted an alternative big company. tna could attract investers, smarks just WANTED it to fail.
What is this assertion based on?

And they didn't so much attract investors as much as they lucked into Dixie asking mummy and daddy to make her into a wrestling star.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 19:23
seibu
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 966
I don't think the time to grow TNA is gone. I would suggest that the issue is more that the inclination or desire to grow TNA appears to have gone. They don't really seem to be striving to grow and compete any more. I mean for all the really terrible mistakes and decisions the company has made over the years for the most part they were born from a desire to grow and become a viable alternative to WWE. At this point they just seem content to survive and tread water (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). It just feels like there's no energy to the company or its product at this point. As bad as it might have been before the move to Destination America I at least felt like they were trying. Not so much now.
Everybody involved has realised that a sufficient US market for non-WWE wrestling, of the size TNA once aspired to be, simply doesn't exist.
seibu is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 19:31
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
Everybody involved has realised that a sufficient US market for non-WWE wrestling, of the size TNA once aspired to be, simply doesn't exist.
So TNA was an exercise in futility rather than a story of successive failures. I really find it disheartening that the final defence of TNA is basically that they had no agency in the first place.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 19:46
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
Everybody involved has realised that a sufficient US market for non-WWE wrestling, of the size TNA once aspired to be, simply doesn't exist.
I really don't buy this. And if it is true, that is partly down to TNA.

They just had to try a bit harder. They had to carve their own identity and they didn't. In fact, they BLEEPED all over their identity and unique-ness to turn TNA into a watered down WWE.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 19:50
James Frederick
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 37,008
I really don't buy this. And if it is true, that is partly down to TNA.

They just had to try a bit harder. They had to carve their own identity and they didn't. In fact, they BLEEPED all over their identity and unique-ness to turn TNA into a watered down WWE.
They spent years mocking WWE for the divas and how WWE presented womens wrestling they went on about how they are not divas but wrestlers and all WWE was about was flashing their boobs.

And they did have a much better womens division in fact a lot of weeks it was the highest rated bit.

Then one day they started doing exactly the same thing.
James Frederick is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 20:00
JackFoley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 712
That's because in 2003 they were in dire financial straits. They would have been gone if not for the Carters money and that's been the case throughout their existence. It's a company that has never really drawn any money and for me, has always lacked an identity.
They were dead in the waters after 3 months with the weekly ppv experiment, then Dixie Carter and Panda stepped in.
JackFoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 20:03
JackFoley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 712
I don't think the time to grow TNA is gone. I would suggest that the issue is more that the inclination or desire to grow TNA appears to have gone. They don't really seem to be striving to grow and compete any more. I mean for all the really terrible mistakes and decisions the company has made over the years for the most part they were born from a desire to grow and become a viable alternative to WWE. At this point they just seem content to survive and tread water (which isn't necessarily a bad thing). It just feels like there's no energy to the company or its product at this point. As bad as it might have been before the move to Destination America I at least felt like they were trying. Not so much now.
Let's face it, the brand is dead.
You can do an indy show with Jeff Hardy and you'd draw more than 1000 people.
You announce TNA is coming and you're lucky to do 300 fans (not in the UK, but you get my drift).
The brand TNA is so toxic for wrestling fans that they could probably even get John Cena and it would still fail. They'd need to totally rebrand the company and start from scratch, get rid of Dixie Carter and all the people who brought them into this mess in the first place and start over to MAYBE have a shot.
JackFoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 20:28
AlexiR
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 12,683
yet in 2003 it was obvious fans still wanted an alternative big company. tna could attract investers, smarks just WANTED it to fail.
Isn't this a touch contradictory? Fans wanted a big alternative company but they also wanted it to fail? And if it was obvious fans wanted an alternative why did they not embrace TNA?

Everybody involved has realised that a sufficient US market for non-WWE wrestling, of the size TNA once aspired to be, simply doesn't exist.
I disagree with this. I think certainly in its current form TNA is never going to be that company but I don't think that's the same as there being no space for that company.

Let's face it, the brand is dead.
You can do an indy show with Jeff Hardy and you'd draw more than 1000 people.
You announce TNA is coming and you're lucky to do 300 fans (not in the UK, but you get my drift).
The brand TNA is so toxic for wrestling fans that they could probably even get John Cena and it would still fail. They'd need to totally rebrand the company and start from scratch, get rid of Dixie Carter and all the people who brought them into this mess in the first place and start over to MAYBE have a shot.
The brand is toxic right now but a breakout angle or breakthrough star and that changes. I would suggest that the problem is that TNA no longer really seems to be chasing that particular dragon. Wrestling fans are surprisingly forgiving when you serve up something that works they'll forgive a multitude of sins past and present.
AlexiR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:16
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
I really don't buy this. And if it is true, that is partly down to TNA.

They just had to try a bit harder. They had to carve their own identity and they didn't. In fact, they BLEEPED all over their identity and unique-ness to turn TNA into a watered down WWE.
I don't think TNA's failure is because of lack of effort, it's down to lack of intelligence.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:26
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
I don't think TNA's failure is because of lack of effort, it's down to lack of intelligence.
I think they kept trying the wrong thing to be honest. I don't doubt the have tried, they've just for a long time IMO focused on the exact opposite of what they should have been doing.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:27
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
The brand is toxic right now but a breakout angle or breakthrough star and that changes. I would suggest that the problem is that TNA no longer really seems to be chasing that particular dragon. Wrestling fans are surprisingly forgiving when you serve up something that works they'll forgive a multitude of sins past and present.
I honestly think that the brand is beyond saving. They have over ten years of majority poor programming, a lack of identity and historical moments and the vast majority of their biggest stars are remembered much better for their work elsewhere. Fans have been forgiving of WWE (to an extent but with qualifications) because they have had a long term memory of identifying with the company and being part of 'glory days' that they hope will return. I don't think that exists for TNA. I think their brand value is essentially negative. And they've promised this massive growth for so long were reaching for the supposed next game changer only to have gotten nowhere. What's left on the horizon for them to grab for?
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:35
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
I think they kept trying the wrong thing to be honest. I don't doubt the have tried, they've just for a long time IMO focused on the exact opposite of what they should have been doing.
Yeah. The tactic has always been to reach for the supposed next magic bullet on the horizon that would suddenly send them neck and neck with WWE. First it was TV, then Angle, then live, then Hogan, then Monday nights, then tapings on the road etc. The obsession has always been with hot-shots rather than intelligently building their identity.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:37
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
A better, more creative show so that at least if they are going out, they can do so knowing they gave it one last push?

I'd be interested to know if TNA has ever made money for Panda Energy or if it purely has been a vanity project to keep Dixie away from the big money?
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:39
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
There's no way that TNA has made money for Panda.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:44
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
Yeah. The tactic has always been to reach for the supposed next magic bullet on the horizon that would suddenly send them neck and neck with WWE. First it was TV, then Angle, then live, then Hogan, then Monday nights, then tapings on the road etc. The obsession has always been with hot-shots rather than intelligently building their identity.
I think they have done in the past what WCW (well Bisch) did way too much, they focused on WWE far too much. Too many of its stars have been WWE stars (mainly in the upper to midcard so it gives the impression of "watch TNA, the home of the guys WWE didn't want to an extent) and in 2015, their world champion is literally an ex-WWE guy WWE had no interest in bringing back.

Too many opportunities squandered. And I know Seibu will get upset at this, a complete lack of responsibility over their own disappointing history, seemingly both from fans and management. Dixie deluding herself that WWE consider TNA competition. TNA, or its president, seems completely delusional in so many aspects IMO.

Man up, take some responsibility, you might even get somewhere if you're not constantly looking for the next person to blame your shortcomings on.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:47
Steveaustin316
Inactive Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 15,746
TNA should have focused on putting on the best show possible with the resources at their disposal rather than trying to compete with WWE.
Steveaustin316 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:49
hazydayz
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 4,700
It appears TNA once again outdraw ROH.
hazydayz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:50
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
There's no way that TNA has made money for Panda.
It must have done at some point surely? A decade is a long time funnelling good money into a failing (financially) company.

A question ive wondered, has there even been a point when TNA has looked like it was on the edge of breaking through that barrier? I can't think of a moment where ive thought "this could be turning point". Genuine question btw, not a dig
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 22:53
Hollie_Louise
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 31,653
It appears TNA once again outdraw ROH.
Let's just put this into perspective. They've been on national television for a decade, they've had some of this industry's biggest stars walk through their doors, and it has to air TWICE in one night to outdraw ROH by 177,000 viewers. They have to air twice to get less half the viewers they were getting on Spike.

They should be trouncing Ring Of Honor and they aren't.
Hollie_Louise is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 19-06-2015, 23:41
DejaVoodoo
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Earth
Posts: 5,669
The ROH show isn't even a first run show. It's the third time it's been shown on USTV.
DejaVoodoo is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2015, 00:39
JackFoley
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 712
And once again the issue is not viewership. ROH is produced entirely by Sinclair, it's almost free for Destination America. Impact is heavily funded by Destination America, so ROH is a much better proposition for DA even with half of the audience.
JackFoley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20-06-2015, 00:41
FMKK
Forum Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 26,167
Let's just put this into perspective. They've been on national television for a decade, they've had some of this industry's biggest stars walk through their doors, and it has to air TWICE in one night to outdraw ROH by 177,000 viewers. They have to air twice to get less half the viewers they were getting on Spike.

They should be trouncing Ring Of Honor and they aren't.
And lots of people will have already watched the ROH show on the Sinclair channels before it aired on DA so it probably has more viewers than TNA overall.
FMKK is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply



Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:42.