I hope the app works for them too, but I for one won't miss seeing Impact Wrestling so much that I'm willing to pay an extra subscription for it!
TNA Wrestling on Challenge TV (Part 2)
245 of 248
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Are they doing any advertising away from official channels for this app, as I haven't seen anything.”
“Are they doing any advertising away from official channels for this app, as I haven't seen anything.”
There not any app at the moment till 5/1/17
4.99?
Good luck!
The problem is...they have no choice really. It's either that or oblivion (granted, they're probably going to oblivion anyway with that price, but at least they're trying to make some dough).
Good luck!
The problem is...they have no choice really. It's either that or oblivion (granted, they're probably going to oblivion anyway with that price, but at least they're trying to make some dough).
£4.99 is cheaper than every other streaming service there is right now - it's half of the cost of WWE Network which is about right, as it offers half the content.
I personally won't be subscribing but I think that's a reasonable amount to ask fans to pay a month.
I personally won't be subscribing but I think that's a reasonable amount to ask fans to pay a month.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Are they doing any advertising away from official channels for this app, as I haven't seen anything.”
“Are they doing any advertising away from official channels for this app, as I haven't seen anything.”
WHY would they want to do that?
They're a miniscule brand with a niche audience. The sort of people who are going to buy the app are those who watched TNA religiously anyway and will be following them on Twitter FB etc. Wider advertising wouldn't add a single extra subscription.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“WHY would they want to do that?
They're a miniscule brand with a niche audience. The sort of people who are going to buy the app are those who watched TNA religiously anyway and will be following them on Twitter FB etc. Wider advertising wouldn't add a single extra subscription.”
“WHY would they want to do that?
They're a miniscule brand with a niche audience. The sort of people who are going to buy the app are those who watched TNA religiously anyway and will be following them on Twitter FB etc. Wider advertising wouldn't add a single extra subscription.”
Why would a company want to try and advertise their new product?
You are correct, a company should not advertise, and try to tell as many people as possible about their new product, it makes no sense to so, why try and get new customers when the old ones on mass will surely keep you, not only afloat, but in profit!
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Why would a company want to try and advertise their new product?
You are correct, a company should not advertise, and try to tell as many people as possible about their new product, it makes no sense to so, why try and get new customers when the old ones on mass will surely keep you, not only afloat, but in profit!”
“Why would a company want to try and advertise their new product?
You are correct, a company should not advertise, and try to tell as many people as possible about their new product, it makes no sense to so, why try and get new customers when the old ones on mass will surely keep you, not only afloat, but in profit!”
We are talking about a very very small market.
Do you see WWE doing any major advertising? They use their own product to do it
It's highly unlikely someone will wake up one morning and think I want to watch wrestling wonder if that app I saw will be any good.
You are not talking about tech product or something like that.
If as a wrestling fan you want to know about this app you will already know of its existence, The way to advertise it is to do a tour etc and show their core product and hope it impresses the fan base enough to get them to sign up, Anything else is a waste of money.
Your not looking at it from a place in certain industry but as your normal standard product but that's not relevant
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Why would a company want to try and advertise their new product?
You are correct, a company should not advertise, and try to tell as many people as possible about their new product, it makes no sense to so, why try and get new customers when the old ones on mass will surely keep you, not only afloat, but in profit!”
“Why would a company want to try and advertise their new product?
You are correct, a company should not advertise, and try to tell as many people as possible about their new product, it makes no sense to so, why try and get new customers when the old ones on mass will surely keep you, not only afloat, but in profit!”
Even though you are blatantly wrong on this one I know from the football forum you are too stubborn to ever admit it so I'm done with this.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Even though you are blatantly wrong on this one I know from the football forum you are too stubborn to ever admit it so I'm done with this.”
“Even though you are blatantly wrong on this one I know from the football forum you are too stubborn to ever admit it so I'm done with this.”
I am not stubnon, I have admitted plenty of times where I have been wrong before, so please don't characterise myself as you are doing there.
Happy Christmas to you by the way.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“£4.99 is cheaper than every other streaming service there is right now - it's half of the cost of WWE Network which is about right, as it offers half the content.
I personally won't be subscribing but I think that's a reasonable amount to ask fans to pay a month.”
“£4.99 is cheaper than every other streaming service there is right now - it's half of the cost of WWE Network which is about right, as it offers half the content.
I personally won't be subscribing but I think that's a reasonable amount to ask fans to pay a month.”
HALF the content? WWE Network has 7000 hours of archive without even counting the "live" programming. All TNA has is Impact, archive programming and that's it. If they're lucky they'll offer 1/7th of the content WWE has for half the price, and that's not even counting the alternatives like ICW, RevPro or NJPW World who offer a similar service. It's bound for failure, pun intended, but at the same time, again, they have no choice.
Originally Posted by JackFoley:
“HALF the content? WWE Network has 7000 hours of archive without even counting the "live" programming. All TNA has is Impact, archive programming and that's it. If they're lucky they'll offer 1/7th of the content WWE has for half the price, and that's not even counting the alternatives like ICW, RevPro or NJPW World who offer a similar service. It's bound for failure, pun intended, but at the same time, again, they have no choice.”
“HALF the content? WWE Network has 7000 hours of archive without even counting the "live" programming. All TNA has is Impact, archive programming and that's it. If they're lucky they'll offer 1/7th of the content WWE has for half the price, and that's not even counting the alternatives like ICW, RevPro or NJPW World who offer a similar service. It's bound for failure, pun intended, but at the same time, again, they have no choice.”
It's still a costly process to run a streaming site also much lower and your devaluing your product. Offer it for something like £2.99 (or the £1.99) and it brands itself as a cheap product. They had to find the middle ground
Originally Posted by The_don1:
“It's still a costly process to run a streaming site also much lower and your devaluing your product. Offer it for something like £2.99 (or the £1.99) and it brands itself as a cheap product. They had to find the middle ground”
“It's still a costly process to run a streaming site also much lower and your devaluing your product. Offer it for something like £2.99 (or the £1.99) and it brands itself as a cheap product. They had to find the middle ground”
You can't brand it cheap even at 1.99, because you got it for FREE before, and that's the issue. No one is going to buy it when they got the same content for free, PPV included, before. Plus it doesn't cost that much to run a streaming service, if ICW can do it and turn a profit TNA should have zero issues (and I'm not knocking ICW, on the contrary, but I doubt ICW is swimming in money, that's all).
Originally Posted by JackFoley:
“You can't brand it cheap even at 1.99, because you got it for FREE before, and that's the issue. No one is going to buy it when they got the same content for free, PPV included, before. Plus it doesn't cost that much to run a streaming service, if ICW can do it and turn a profit TNA should have zero issues (and I'm not knocking ICW, on the contrary, but I doubt ICW is swimming in money, that's all).”
“You can't brand it cheap even at 1.99, because you got it for FREE before, and that's the issue. No one is going to buy it when they got the same content for free, PPV included, before. Plus it doesn't cost that much to run a streaming service, if ICW can do it and turn a profit TNA should have zero issues (and I'm not knocking ICW, on the contrary, but I doubt ICW is swimming in money, that's all).”
Just because you got something for free in the past is not a reason to get it for free forever. As entertainment changes our mindset as consumers has to change.
The TV deal ended so they needed to put a new deal in place, A TV deal on a free channel was never going to happen so you was always going have to pay for access going forward, Paying a premium for our entertainment is slowly going to happen in this country more then we do at the moment, This is just one more to add to the list, ICW will not have the costs TNA has. Two very different sizes of businesses TNA will need to bring more money in.
People can chose to pay for it or not, They are likely to go out of business anyway but if people don't pay for it then it will 100%, If people enjoy something they have to pay for it regardless of them getting it for free in the past
Originally Posted by JackFoley:
“You can't brand it cheap even at 1.99, because you got it for FREE before, and that's the issue. No one is going to buy it when they got the same content for free, PPV included, before. Plus it doesn't cost that much to run a streaming service, if ICW can do it and turn a profit TNA should have zero issues (and I'm not knocking ICW, on the contrary, but I doubt ICW is swimming in money, that's all).”
“You can't brand it cheap even at 1.99, because you got it for FREE before, and that's the issue. No one is going to buy it when they got the same content for free, PPV included, before. Plus it doesn't cost that much to run a streaming service, if ICW can do it and turn a profit TNA should have zero issues (and I'm not knocking ICW, on the contrary, but I doubt ICW is swimming in money, that's all).”
I take it everybody stopped watching WWE when they moved behind a UK paywall as well then?
TNA fans have been very lucky to have a Freeview TV deal the last five years. But nothing lasts forever.
I'd also note that while they got impact and ppvs free before, they did not have an on demand service.
Uptake will be low but if I were a hardcore TNA fan I would happily pay a fiver a month.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“I take it everybody stopped watching WWE when they moved behind a UK paywall as well then?”
“I take it everybody stopped watching WWE when they moved behind a UK paywall as well then?”
Which year are you referring to? I know we got charged for the odd UK PPV which I didnt mind paying. I wasent overly keen on the Sky Box Office for most PPVs and quite a few buddies hated it as they preferred it on Sky Sports.
But WWE has never been free on Sky because the Sports channels have always been premium channels so effectively you paid for the PPVs anyway.
Originally Posted by dave_windows:
“Which year are you referring to? I know we got charged for the odd UK PPV which I didnt mind paying. I wasent overly keen on the Sky Box Office for most PPVs and quite a few buddies hated it as they preferred it on Sky Sports.
But WWE has never been free on Sky because the Sports channels have always been premium channels so effectively you paid for the PPVs anyway.”
“Which year are you referring to? I know we got charged for the odd UK PPV which I didnt mind paying. I wasent overly keen on the Sky Box Office for most PPVs and quite a few buddies hated it as they preferred it on Sky Sports.
But WWE has never been free on Sky because the Sports channels have always been premium channels so effectively you paid for the PPVs anyway.”
Smackdown used to be on Sky One, which while behind a paywall, was not behind a £40 a month one.
Heat and a select number of PPVs a year were on Channel 4.
Sky Sports used to show all the PPVs on the sports channels for free, and then put them behind an additional Box Office paywall when they realised suckers would keep buying them anyway.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Smackdown used to be on Sky One, which while behind a paywall, was not behind a £40 a month one.
Heat and a select number of PPVs a year were on Channel 4.
Sky Sports used to show all the PPVs on the sports channels for free, and then put them behind an additional Box Office paywall when they realised suckers would keep buying them anyway.”
“Smackdown used to be on Sky One, which while behind a paywall, was not behind a £40 a month one.
Heat and a select number of PPVs a year were on Channel 4.
Sky Sports used to show all the PPVs on the sports channels for free, and then put them behind an additional Box Office paywall when they realised suckers would keep buying them anyway.”
Channel 5 also use to show wcw for free.
Originally Posted by tomee:
“Channel 5 also use to show wcw for free.”
“Channel 5 also use to show wcw for free.”
Let's not remember that period, as it was a disaster.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“Let's not remember that period, as it was a disaster.”
“Let's not remember that period, as it was a disaster.”
But it must be good as it all now on the wwe network.
Originally Posted by tomee:
“But it must be good as it all now on the wwe network.”
“But it must be good as it all now on the wwe network.
”
It is?? Last time I looked at the WCW footage on there, there were no outrageously large, 1966 Batman style graphics.
I could just be looking at the wrong bits to be fair though, if you have seen this style of footage, please by all means, point me into right direction.
S
So you both use to watch then at least the late night Friday channel5 sex movie was unbatnanfired.
Tna need a tv deal in the UK sure wwe has the network but they also have a tv deal come on Dixie get a deal nowwwww.
Originally Posted by batdude_uk1:
“It is?? Last time I looked at the WCW footage on there, there were no outrageously large, 1966 Batman style graphics.
I could just be looking at the wrong bits to be fair though, if you have seen this style of footage, please by all means, point me into right direction.”
“It is?? Last time I looked at the WCW footage on there, there were no outrageously large, 1966 Batman style graphics.
I could just be looking at the wrong bits to be fair though, if you have seen this style of footage, please by all means, point me into right direction.”
So you both use to watch then at least the late night Friday channel5 sex movie was unbatnanfired.
Tna need a tv deal in the UK sure wwe has the network but they also have a tv deal come on Dixie get a deal nowwwww.
I can't see the app doing well viewing figs were way down when it was free to watch who the hell is going to pay to watch.
If it was any good yes if it was good I'd be willing I pay for the WWE Network -ROH-NJPW-What Culture Extra/WCPW because they are all more than worth the money I wouldn't watch TNA if they paid me.
If it was any good yes if it was good I'd be willing I pay for the WWE Network -ROH-NJPW-What Culture Extra/WCPW because they are all more than worth the money I wouldn't watch TNA if they paid me.
Originally Posted by ags_rule:
“Smackdown used to be on Sky One, which while behind a paywall, was not behind a £40 a month one.
Heat and a select number of PPVs a year were on Channel 4.
Sky Sports used to show all the PPVs on the sports channels for free, and then put them behind an additional Box Office paywall when they realised suckers would keep buying them anyway.”
“Smackdown used to be on Sky One, which while behind a paywall, was not behind a £40 a month one.
Heat and a select number of PPVs a year were on Channel 4.
Sky Sports used to show all the PPVs on the sports channels for free, and then put them behind an additional Box Office paywall when they realised suckers would keep buying them anyway.”
Smackdown isnt a PPV though. Once Channel 4 lost the deal I think everything went on Box Office barring a few PPVs on Sports.
All the PPVs went to Box Office under the most recent deal, which also removed NXT and WWE Vintage Collection from Sky completely.
I presume this was to make the WWE Network more attractive to join in the UK once it finally became available here.
As an aside, I've never understood why the WWE commentators endless bang on about the PPVs being available "only on the WWE Network" when you can obviously watch them perfectly legally (although at a price) elsewhere, even in the States!
I presume this was to make the WWE Network more attractive to join in the UK once it finally became available here.
As an aside, I've never understood why the WWE commentators endless bang on about the PPVs being available "only on the WWE Network" when you can obviously watch them perfectly legally (although at a price) elsewhere, even in the States!
245 of 248
