|
|
Post by Mike M on Mar 15, 2006 21:43:16 GMT -5
The problem with your theory is both of those companies have niche markets, and aren't, and never will make anywhere close to the money WWE is making. The same goes for a Ring of Honor. That is TNA's eventual target, it seems. TNA has only been around for four years or so. But you have to keep in mind that WWE wasn't making WWE money in their fourth year either. While I normally don't jump to LWPD's defense, I think that you missed the point. While many companies lose money early in their history, they don't do so on as large a scale for as long a time. In fact, many smaller businesses are profitable. Huge losses are not necessary- small losses are to be expected in the short term. The real point is this: very few companies bleed cash profusely and then go on to huge success. That was the "dot com" business model that went "dot bust" in the nineties. Those "dot coms" that are still around figured out that they needed a real product and had to start operating in the black. I'd be happy to provide examples, but I doubt very much that an in-depth business discussion would be interesting to most on the board. I'd be happy to provide take this to PM if you're really interested. Ultimately, I don't think TNA is hopeless.... but they need to figure out a way to create a buzz and start making money in the near future. |
|
|
|
Post by thefamoustommyz on Mar 15, 2006 22:27:15 GMT -5
Well, they DID bring in Sting, which DID spark a record rating in a rough timeslot...but they screwed the pooch by having him retire, and had the harsh reality check that no one else in TNA can draw...=P
|
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 15, 2006 22:55:29 GMT -5
Most in the business who plan to spend _SOMEONE ELSE'S MONEY_ love the 'spend money to make money theory'...usually with a nice paid position included for themselves to 'oversee the details' (see Jeff Jarrett). That there's only one full time pro wrestling promotion in all of North America that has operated profitably in the last seven years should be telling about the success rate of those with-in the industry who subscribe to such theories. Across history on both small and large scales one can find many a dead pro wres promotion with 'money marks' spending themselves into oblivion chasing the vision of fool's gold.
No doubt. I commend them for cutting red ink.
It's true that Impact does benefit from TUF as a lead in. I'm one of those people who's 'more likely to watch it' because of TUF (which I have much more interest in than any form of pro wres these days). Yet the move to Thursday night doesn't signal a breakthrough beyond what they already had. An argument can be made TNA's new time slot will see them end up worse off after the first run lead-ins hit re-run territory.
The essential difference is the resulting power the asset of television gave to WCW. One of the justifications over the years for Turner to continue to keep WCW going at a loss was that it was a 'loss leader' which gave TBS a niche identity while filling time with original programming. Full control of the ad revenue also made it a justifiable asset. Everything from 'going live' to strategic start and end times were made possible _BECAUSE_ they were owned by a television company. The advantage to having a television company own a pro wres promotion put WCW in a much more advantageous position than TNA is in right now.
For Panda television is an uncertain entity and an outside expense that generates _ZERO_ direct return. TNA can only 'hope' to benefit from their infomercial through purchases on the PPV's and assorted merch....while receiving _ZERO_ immediate revenue from what they air and debatable support from it's 'partnership' with Spike TV.
No doubt. I wasn't saying TNA and WCW are one and the same. I was just explaining what eventually happened to WCW and 'why' it happened. The two are at heart unique entities that both repeat many of the mistakes that are historical to the business.
The difference between operations like Lucha Va Voom and Women's Extreme Wrestling and TNA is that the former are profitable projects that operate on a _REALISTIC_ scale and scope. They don't try to be anything more than what is readily attainable. Throughout it's history TNA has done the exact opposite with the Jarrett's conning first Heath Financial and now Panda Energy into spending millions of dollars in an attempt to 'one day be as big as WWE'. TNA's entire existence has been a tragic comedy of errors.
Paul Heyman's ECW promotion ran the same infomercial/sell monthly PPV-merch formula with a hotter product during the height of the pro wres boom. ECW had a larger universe of fans who 'watched wrestling' to draw from yet still never turned a profit. His 'compete with WWE' strategy lead him into bankruptcy.
The idea that TNA under much more difficult conditions can run the same formula successfully just doesn't seem very likely. That said as long as TNA has the free Spike TV slot...if not Panda than I fully expect someone else (such as Morphoplex) to keep pumping money into it and 'chase the dream' of gaining WWE level balance sheets.
Like Watching Paint Dry (who for the good of the industry would like to see TNA succeed so that wrestlers can have more places to make a living and fans can have more content to chose from...but is also realistic about where it is at this point)
|
|
shemp
Midcarder
Posts: 80
|
Post by shemp on Mar 18, 2006 9:13:20 GMT -5
will the new tna thursday night be an hour show or longer?
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Mar 20, 2006 16:39:37 GMT -5
I think it is still an hour. Too bad I say.
TNA is no where near WWE's level and they wont be for quite a few years. I highly doubt however that they will go under due to this new timeslot. Most likely they will continue to do their same numbers because the TNA fans are willing to stay up a little late to see what they want to see. Many predicted that TNA would do terribly on Saturday nights and they did better than Spike even had thought they would.
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on Mar 21, 2006 10:54:16 GMT -5
I found this:
SpikeTV has decided to move TNA Impact to Thursdays at 11PM ET, not 9PM ET, starting 4/13. TNA initially reacted to the news negatively since they had their hearts set on a "prime time" slot. However, those in the know at TNA and SpikeTV feel that the show has a better chance of success in the short term and long term with the 11PM ET timeslot.
Spike made the decision largely because "CSI," set to be Impact's lead in initially, does not have a similar demographic as Impact and would thus force Impact to draw in its entire audience without any sort of lead in. UFC's demographic is almost identical to TNA's demographic and will provide Impact with a strong lead in in addition to the audience TNA brings in. Spike views TNA as a young show which does not have a defined audience and thus feels more comfortable giving the show a good lead in. Spike's new show, "Pros vs. Joes," drew a 1.3 rating (higher than any episode of Impact) for its debut episode largely due to the lead in it got from a UFC show. "The Ultimate Fighter" will air before Impact at 10PM ET and is expected to draw a rating between 1.5 and 2.0.
The other silver lining for TNA is that "The Ultimate Fighter" is a reality show that will air for 12 weeks. If Impact performs well at 11PM ET, Spike could move the show up to 10PM ET once "The Ultimate Fighter" ends and even give TNA the second hour they need and have the show run from 10PM ET to midnightET.
And this:
"SPIKE TV MAKES “FULL CONTACT THURSDAY”
MUST SEE TV
New Block of Hard-Hitting Action Featuring “The Ultimate Fighter 3,”
“UFC Unleashed,” and “TNA: iMPACT!” Launches April 13 (9:00pm-Midnight)
New York, NY – March 20, 2006 – There are no “Friends.” No “Frasiers.” And certainly no “Joeys” on Spike TV’s “Full Contact Thursdays.” Instead, Spike TV has created the only must-see TV block for guys with the new season of The Ultimate Fighter 3, UFC Unleashed, and TNA: iMPACT! premiering Thursday, April 13 (9:00pm-Midnight ET/PT).
“We are putting two of the hottest brands together in one block that will surely be a destination for guys, said Kevin Kay, General Manager, Spike TV. “The UFC has solidified its place as guys’ new favorite sport with ratings routinely surmounting the more traditional sports. The perfect anchor for the night is TNA: iMPACT, a high action show for real wrestling fans that has tremendous potential in primetime where guys are looking for programming just for them”
The Ultimate Fighter is among cable’s top performers in drawing the hard-to-reach Men 18-34 demographic. Last fall, season 2 of The Ultimate Fighter drew a 2.7 rating with Men 18-34 out-performing such sports properties as the NBA on ESPN and TNT (Tues., Wed., and Thurs), ESPN’s Saturday Night ACC Football; and ESPN’s “World Series of Poker” (Tues).*
TNA iMPACT has been a ratings winner on Saturday nights in key male targets. Versus ratings from a year ago, TNA: iMPACT is up +54% in HH, +97% in M18-49, +153% in M18-34 and +65% in average audience. "
|
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Mar 21, 2006 23:04:45 GMT -5
That there's only one full time pro wrestling promotion in all of North America that has operated profitably in the last seven years should be telling about the success rate of those with-in the industry who subscribe to such theories. Across history on both small and large scales one can find many a dead pro wres promotion with 'money marks' spending themselves into oblivion chasing the vision of fool's gold. It's scary to think that most working people out there think the road to prosperity is paved through hard work alone realize too late that it isn't, yet prosperous people who had the smarts and luck to attain their position in life can fall for something this stupid. I have been a wrestling fan for close to 20 years now, and I'd know that I wouldn't put my money in any promotion, and hesitantly in the WWE. The McMahons are as successful as they are because they were in a good market position in 1984 (holding the New York territory) and they have been ahead of the wrestling market curve. They broke away from the territories before the regional scene no longer became viable (the emergence of Fox and later the WB and UPN as networks froze out wrestling outlets and local programming in favor of national fare). They transitioned from local syndication to cable television as their primary media vehicle before cable and satellite subscription exploded. That's why wrestling is able to dominate the small but wide cable TV universe. They then turned the company public, which has forced them to hire outside business expertise rather than handle marketing, branding and other revenue streams in-house. The next success is likely the on-demand service, which will bring old fans back into the fold and will likely persuade other sports outlets to set up their own VOD operations. They are very familiar with wrestling operations and can run a business well. This is not to say they are geniuses with consistent results, but they have the know-how beyond just throwing money at an outfit. TBS was, and probably still is, a local Atlanta station with a superstation signal. It had very little original programming. Most of TBS was movies and syndicated reruns, much like a non-network local TV station. I remembered a time when WCW Saturday Night's lead-in was a fishing show. This is why the only help TNA needs right now is from Viacom itself. Viacom needs to provide TNA with media expertise, not just money. Viacom was burned by WWE, but TNA is a growth federation. It just needs Viacom to provide the discipline to grow at a manageable pace. Paul Heyman is a good example of a great operator but a lousy businessman. He was wrestling's taste-maker in the 1990s, but he was in the TNA position, where the wrestlers had enough exposure to be poached by the big two, thereby throwing the federation's long-term planning into chaos. Or, manageable growth. Heyman was not good enough of a businessman to make his promotion national. He built name-recognition through the internet; tape traders expanded the brand but didn't yield anything tangible. The finances were always shaky; only wrestlers dedicated to the product stuck around even though Heyman wrote rubber checks. It was bound to crack. Here's what I think would help TNA be stable: 1. Only take investment help from Viacom or another media outlet. Panda Energy simply gives money to TNA, but it then is dependent on "shotgun success," where TNA has to shoot at everything in sight and hope it hits a trophy buck. Viacom's money comes with heavy strings attached, but at least it keeps the federation grounded and focused on strategy. In turn, it has access to media professionals to help market and brand the federation. 2. Differentiate. Don't compete with WWE, but be TNA. What makes TNA different than WWE? There's the six-sided ring, but there's also the X Division, a very unique style of wrestling that WWE can't meet. WWE is sports entertainment, but TNA is wrestling. The McMahons have taught wrestling fans to be ashamed of wrestling. TNA can make wrestling fans proud to be wrestling fans again. 3. Hire a taste-maker. Paul Heyman is a taste maker. ECW was successful not financially, but creatively. It defined 1990s wrestling. WCW had the "workrate revolution," WWF/E had Attitude. Hell, he got wrestlers to nearly kill themselves for free. Jim Cornette is another taste-maker. The Ring of Honor crew is the delight of the IWC right now, but they don't have the critical mass ECW did. 4. Stop counting on legends and start solidifying the homegrowns. Sting, Scott Steiner and Kevin Nash may provide a short-term pop at the expense of the company's long-term health. Meanwhile, WWE can poach AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels, Samoa Joe or any of the other young stars and this would put TNA in a deep hole. The younger guys have the most upside potential, and need to be protected. Stick to this plan, and TNA will either succeed or put off failure for a long time. |
|
|
|
Post by gwffantrav on Mar 22, 2006 1:00:15 GMT -5
Sounds good to me Wad. I agree about the VIacom statement. Easy to throw money around when there are no consequences. But if someone wants the return on the investment, you'd see smarter business decisions.
Obviously, Panda energy isn't interested in the return on their investment.
|
|
|
|
Post by pikemojo on Mar 22, 2006 3:36:06 GMT -5
I know you were only using these guys as examples but Styles and Daniels are under long term contracts for sure and I think Joe may be too but I am unsure.
I think that bringing in guys like Steiner and Sting help to bring people to TNA and then once people are there they discover Styles and Daniels and all the other great young stars. Imagine if all WWE had were the un-established younger guys. Who would people be tuning in for. You need a mix of established and future stars and that is what TNA is trying to do.
ROH is a good promotion but if you think TNA has spotfests then you would hate some of the matches ROH puts on. ROH has some really good indy guys and some that do nothing but flip, run and flip some more. And almost noone in ROH has any sort of a character. In ROH they don't really have storylines all that much or anything. Don't get me wrong I love ROH but it could never make it on tv.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Mar 22, 2006 5:08:26 GMT -5
I think that bringing in guys like Steiner and Sting help to bring people to TNA and then once people are there they discover Styles and Daniels and all the other great young stars. This is debatable at best. I think the reason federations like to bring in ex-stars is that it gives them a sense of validation, that a name is willing to take a paycheck from the organization. But you have to look at what the payoff is. I'm cool on Sting, but he has a better track record than a Nash or a Steiner. Sting, at least, stuck by WCW as a company man and has a track record of putting over other wrestlers. He can offer more than just six appearances at $500,000. He has a lot of knowledge that he can impart to today's young stars. Steiner should have a restraining order keeping him at least 500 feet away from a ring. He has a terrible attitude backstage, and despite the physique, he is muscle-bound and is in terrible shape. Did you see the Steiner Recliner he put on Steve Borden? He can't even squat anymore to execute a proper camel clutch. He was just holding Borden's cheeks! Oh, and remember his 2003 run in the WWF? His homoerotic feud with Triple H was a disaster. WWE has the modern-day Scott Steiner: Bobby Lashley. He has Steiner's physique but moves like Scott did when he was a tag superstar. That's the right idea ... bringing back Steiner is the wrong idea. Well, there is a little guy who's in the main event at WrestleMania, so there is a guy who was able to go against the grain. It depends on what the established stars do. If a WWE or WCW name is programmed strong, he sucks the air out of any viability of a TNA homegrown star. This means that the homegrowns grow restless and will likely take an offer from WWE, which ends up hurting TNA in the long run. In business, you have opportunity costs. You have to weigh spending the money on a star with what else could be done with the money. For instance, why hire Scott Steiner when you could hire a taste-maker like Paul Heyman, who never wrestled but created stars out of unknowns and revived the careers of several established ones? TNA sees little payoff in hiring a name, since it hitches its fortunes to pay-per-views and merchandising. Ring of Honor has no pretensions of being the next WWE, either. The financials may be bad but it's trying the word-of-mouth small-network marketing that worked for ECW a decade ago. And spot-fests are made for TV. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 22, 2006 9:12:48 GMT -5
Back in the day I worked for a firm that helped bring the WWF IPO to market. I built some large positions with my clients and took some major short term profits. Those who made out best got out fairly early. The cash Vince made from that has changed WWE operations forever. He now has stockpiles of surplus money to overcome the busts that follow the inevitable 'fad' booms that have always cycled in and out through the years.
From the outside looking in...when you combine a commission based payout structure where labor costs rise only with prosperity along with a belief that the market is 'open' (with near monopoly conditions with 2 companies 'appearing' to have been profitable not too long ago) it's easy to see why pro wres can 'appear' to be a great industry to break into for a money man. The reality that only one company in the entire country has really been able to operate profitably for much of the last 20 years is what escapes most of the pitches made to potential front men.
It's a shame close feasibility studies of why changes in the structure of production has made trying to operate (let alone build from scratch) a full time pro wres company has proven financially suicidal in recent times aren't run before these projects get started.
If you look back to how things were run before Vince took over from his father the number of innovations he brought to the industry are staggering. He not only adapted to the changes that were coming...but he thrived and mastered many of the emerging aspects on levels beyond anyone's most outlandish expectations. The corporate structure that's been adopted after going public has been both a blessing (residual sales are burgeoning, new markets and growth avenues have materialized) and a curse due to the creative rigidity that has seeped into the product. Much of what got the product to the heights it attained seems to be stifled.
Once they get adequate clearance for WWE 24/7 I think they'll be home free. The plan is also to develop more web based content and profit through online ad revenue. They've experimented with this through the 'WWE Unlimited' they run during Raw commercials and the Heat/Velocity shows. The Bret Hart 'Byte This' did over 1 million hits. With all the content they have stockpiled it's really a license to print money. It's just a matter of finding a way to most effectively market/distribute it.
That is what would be most beneficial...the question is if they'll ever get adequate support. I wonder how much 'spite' had to do with Spike giving TNA a gratis time slot almost immediately after WWE left...as opposed to belief in the potential of the product.
They're already in bed with Morphoplex (which actually offered to buy out Panda...which turned them down). So far the link there seems to end with TNA 'Superstars' doing commercial endorsements for their supplements.
I honestly don't think there's much of a market for what TNA is 'good at'. At least not one that justifies the expense of operating full time. I also don't think a WWE copy cat would be successful. Hopefully for the sake of the entire industry they'll succeed in some form and prove me wrong.
Even among hardcore fans on a smaller scale there really hasn't been an emergence of a true 'taste maker' since ECW died. Domestically pro wres has been in a state of creative free fall with little 'new' or even 'retread hot' in recent years.
This is where Spike TV having a voice in the creative rears it's head. The goal from their perspective is gaining more eyeballs so ratings go up along with the ad revenue. Structuring a show with 'guys people know' or on some level 'were/are perceived as stars' makes sense from their perspective. Execs will look at Sting being on the show...see ratings went up...and conclude 'we need more of that'! It's a logical conclusion based on their goals.
That it does nothing to maximize the upside of the TNA roster or product long term is irrelevant to Spike. It would be great if a show built around AJ Styles, Christopher Daniels and Samoa Joe equaled high ratings, sold branded merch and equaled PPV Buys. The truth is it doesn't. Other than hopes, dreams and wishful thinking it probably never will. Yet that's a painful truth that with $20 million in the hole and counting has yet to be accepted among those footing the bill!
Like Watching Paint Dry (who gives TNA credit for _NOT_ burning additional cash on a touring house show circuit...although the market overseas may be strategically with-in their reach due to surplus demand)
|
|
|
|
Post by canadianpittbull on Mar 22, 2006 14:31:20 GMT -5
Who Knows with Ken Shamrock on Ultimate Fighter there could be a cross over since Ken Shamrock was a TNA-NWA World Champion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Wad on Mar 28, 2006 6:04:01 GMT -5
Back in the day I worked for a firm that helped bring the WWF IPO to market. I built some large positions with my clients and took some major short term profits. Those who made out best got out fairly early. The cash Vince made from that has changed WWE operations forever. He now has stockpiles of surplus money to overcome the busts that follow the inevitable 'fad' booms that have always cycled in and out through the years. He used that money wisely. He attracted people who knew how to extract more revenue from its lines, and he was able to attract professionals in the field, rather than do it all in-house. Think of all the passive revenue streams WWE has, versus other federations who live by gates and pay-per-view revenues. It (rightly) shatters the myth of The Market as a perfect function. Fact is, investors and analysts are all lazy. Investing is a safer form of gambling in the sense that not everything is all-or-nothing and there are indicators to show which direction a company is heading. But, few wish to take advantage of the resources. Analysts, who are professional market-watchers, are also methods-bound. By this I mean they act like Vince McMahon: they hit upon a formula that works and stick with it despite all losses until they learn that there's a better tool available. Wrestling is a tough business to start. WWE has an "economic moat" that no upstart can match, except with patience and a willingness to stick with large losses to stay even. In this sense, Vince McMahon is actually a media taste-maker, though his creative product is a laggard. That is the fault of management. Despite being named World Wrestling Entertainment, the wrestling itself is a four-letter word. It's all framing. "Sports entertainment" means Vince is a business genius. "Wrestling" means he's the world's most famous carnie. The McMahons have to get even beyond that. Once on-demand becomes a household standard, the next best move would be to move back on the supply chain and go for a WWE-controlled network. Once passive income outgrows the revenues from live events, set up a network to fill up time with classic WWE programming and lease out other time to rival wrestling federations. WWE can fleece the other federations by not only being a poaching threat, but collecting air fees from this federation. They can also sell consulting and production expertise. It's not as ridiculous as it sounds. Comcast is becoming an important media player, not only because it provides cable television to a third of American households, but it has been funding programming and purchasing equities in media companies. It has front- and back-end leverage. If spite was the primary motivation, the network ought to be shut down. No one with such idiocy should be employed as a decision-maker. Viacom got burned on WWE, getting it at its peak and walking out with a loss. TNA has growth potential, because it starts with the bar very low. It's at zero right now, so there's only bankruptcy or growth. I saw the Jackie Gayda commercial and it made me go out and buy Breck shampoo.  It's money, helps pay down debt, but it doesn't help the company's business. A WWE copycat will not be successful. It has to find a way to set it apart from WWE and every other wrestling federation while still making money. You cannot look to WWE to be a taste-maker. It never was. It just dominates at whatever innovative idea ever comes along and co-opts it. This is where the creative end needs to tell TNA that there's a limit to this strategy, and that it hurts long-term prospects. TNA's main creative asset is the X Division. This has the homegrown stars and guys on the bubble. Chances are that cuts will be made to this division, or where WWE will look to poach stars. To bring in a past name at the expense of these younger guys will hurt the company, especially when WWE is looking to lock in the nostalgia market. But it may for WWE. Then again, remember the AWA raid? Sometimes raids are done to hurt federations. Yet, as you mentioned, why bring in older stars when shows are run on an infomercial model? Kevin Nash and Scott Steiner are not going to save a pay-per-view, especially when TNA's fan base is smarkier than WWE's and know the wrestlers' limitations. Names are lucky if they can carry TNA through the next pay-per-view. TNA needs guys that can carry it through the next year, or three, or five. |
|
|
|
Post by LWPD on Mar 29, 2006 10:23:10 GMT -5
The one red flag I see inherit in going public is 'departments' with-in the Corporate structure seeking to justify themselves (along with accompanying budget increases) via inane side projects outside of the core 'pro wres' product. That a problem inherent in any Corporate structure...where departments themselves have 'growth agendas' with the goal of increasing their importance in the hierarchy (along with compensation packages) that may run counter to the best interests of the company as a whole. It can become a real problem if not put in check. Both WWE Films projects (the Kane and Cena movies) reportedly came with 8 figure price tags. Will it ever make that money back? Kane's movie comes out this summer and will soon be tested. The finished product of Cena's was said to be so poor that not even 'straight to video' is on the table at this point. More films are in the 'planning stage' for the Tripster, Stone Cold and even a Kurt Angle/Big Show 'buddy comedy'. Produce four or five of these at $15-$20 million a pop and you're talking about some serious potential damage. The music initiatives have met with limited success...but nothing too damaging has occurred so far. They survived the XFL venture (partnering with NBC really saved them there) but the tainting of the company's image took a real blow that exists to this day. There's always the potential run at MMA which may be the one 'outside' project I'd give them the best chance at succeeding with. If anything does eventually bring down Vince it would likely be 'side projects' going awry during a time when the core business is weak. Other than WCW for a brief period of time...I can't recall too much gate revenue carrying any domestic pro wres venture over the last 10 years. I know friends in the business who have run the ticket seller/4 hour show/sell tapes and DVDs (and hide the money) scheme. With the insurance and venue costs just breaking even on your costs at the gate is a real challenge these days. Due diligence doesn't give omniscience. The best one can do is make calculated risks and educated decisions in the face of complexity and uncertainty. Market choices aren't really any different than any other life decision. Then again I've always been somewhat of a Praxeologist.  The only possible scenario where I could see a viable long term competitor to Vince would be a pro wres project that was owned by a media conglomerate ala Turner with WCW. If the programming in and of itself could somehow be converted into a positive asset (through ad revenue)...and if they forgo touring domestically (international may be OK) and run PPV's at a 'break even' level then I could see it lasting. I'm not talking about making money...but being able to do enough to justify it's existence. Even this scenario is pretty far fetched...and a far cry from where TNA is at right now. That would be a _HUGE_ financial risk and one I don't think is ever worth taking. VOD and cyber revenue are much more cost effective...at least at this stage. If in the course of his life time Vince was able to benefit more from passive income that would undoubtedly be his greatest achievement. That said I don't view other pro wres content as an asset worth pursuing. Domestically I see pro wres as a dying folk art that from an industry standpoint is at a similar stage to where roller derby was at during it's dying days. While overseas is another story (particularly the European and Asian markets) the costs to produce wrestling and the scale of the alternative entertainment choices it now competes against just doesn't make it viable. I honestly believe that relative to production costs alternative forms of pro wres appeals to a market so small it's really not worth pursuing. Sad but true. In the NY market even prime time Friday night Smackdown gets some of the weakest ad buys. Everything from Christian religious music to some obscure soap commercial for men. I honestly wonder what would happen if Morphoplex weren't propping TNA up by buying so much ad time every week. That's not necessarily true. Vince's 'sports entertainment' content has been a trend setter with-in itself. Throughout the Jim Herd era WCW copied almost all of Vince's marketing gimmicks. Russo's breaking of the once unbreakable 'Fourth Wall' during Attitude Era Raw has become staple of pro wres television on all levels. Internationally 'WWE sports entertainment' elements have made their way into Japan and Mexico. For better or worse...as much as WWE has taken from others creatively...it's also exported. While it serves the purpose of differentiation I don't see the X Division as much of a 'productive' asset. There's no evidence that there's any money to be made through featuring it. Entire PPVs built around the X Division with the FSN slot to promote and they still drew the same low numbers. I also don't see Vince having much interest in guys like Austin Aires or Chris Sabin (other than to use them as Velocity fodder). The TNA talent roster is a far cry from what Vince got from the AWA in the 80's. That's ultimately the real problem. The 'young guys' aren't draws. Get rid of the 'names' and position all of your creative around X Division talent and you still won't make money. Belief in the fallacy that 'the names will get the others over through osmosis and then we'll have money drawing homegrown stars' theory is the only thing really keeping TNA going. Giving up on that theory brings them closer to the realization that 'shutting down' is the most productive and logical choice of all.
Like Watching Paint Dry (who has never seen the pro wres industry as a whole weaker than it is right now) |
|
