TNA PPV buyrates

Vince135792003

I think this deserves it's own thread.

A few rough estimates on TNA buy rates this year. The reason they're estimates is that the numbers are so small that they're not tracked closely:

36,000 for Destination X (Joe vs. Sting) and Bound For Glory (Sting vs. Angle)
35,000 for Turning Point (Joe vs. Angle) and Lockdown (Team Angle vs. Team Cage)
34,000 for Final Resolution (Joe vs. Angle)
27,000 for Genesis (Sting and Booker T vs. Angle and Nash)
26,000 for Hard Justice (Joe vs. Angle)
23,000 for Against All Odds (Angle vs. Cage)
22,000 for Slammiversary (King of the Mountain)
21,000 for Sacrifice (Angle vs. Sting vs. Cage)
17,000 for No Surrender (Angle vs. Abyss)
15,000 for Victory Road (Joe and Angle vs. Team 3D)

wrestling observer newsletter

A total of 327 thousand buys for 12 events. In comparison UFC may have done double that number for their ppv last night.

To compare it to WWE, No Mercy did 270 thousand buys alone this year according to pwinsider.com

Leaving aside comparisons to other companies, these numbers are brutally bad. I knew their buy rates were bad but I'm even surprised at how low some of them are.

Minto

That is just pityfull. I've kinda stopped giving out about TNA, cos it's a lost cause and not worth my time. But this just takes the biscuit. TNA have four or five names that can put on fantastic matches and have decent gimmicks, but they also have half of the people WWE released in the last 2-3 years on their books.
If WWE doesn't think a wrestler is worth their time, how are we the fans meant to think he can be a World champ, sell a PPV and carry a company? I know there are exceptions to this of course, but it true for the majority of the roster.

Mr.Nice Guy

Correct me if I'm wrong but their record buyrate was 60,000 for Angle vs Joe at Genesis in 2006. In 2007, their best buyrate was 36,000.

Some progress!

ShaneU

Angle in every main event

&

just 36,000 for Bound for Glory

Vince135792003

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

Correct me if I'm wrong but their record buyrate was 60,000 for Angle vs Joe at Genesis in 2006. In 2007, their best buyrate was 36,000.

Well see, they need another hour. 2 hours just isn't enough. THEY NEED MORE TIME.

This blows the whole one hour versus two hour bull**** argument out the window.

flahavaj

Now once and for all can all the IDIOTS I've read te past few weeks bleating about TNA and how they're a viable alternative to WWE just shut the **** up for once and for all. TNA are not even a consideration to WWE, they're working on different planets in terms of popularity.

I'd actually be REALLY interested in the PPV figures that ROH pulled as I'd find it hilarious if they were close to the TNA figures, considering they don't have TV and have had their roster raped by that very company. Now THAT would make for interesting reading.

Bubs101

This is hardly a surprise, we all knew they were doing badly but I didn't realise that Angle was in every main event. He runs the risk of turning into a Cena. Personally I think that TNA should half the number of PPV's that they do. They must realise that the current PPV system isn't working.

Vince, as for the 2 hour argument, most people assumed that with 2 hours TNA wouldn't rush everything. It wasn't a bull**** argument. If TNA was less rushed it would be better. If TNA had 2 hours one would assume that it'd be less rushed, ergo, a better show. How were we to know that TNA would have 2 rushed hours instead of 1.

As for Minto,Fair enough. How are people meant to believe that he can be a World Champ, sell PPVs and carry the company. After all, WCW never let go of Austin and he never carried the WWF or was World Champ or sold PPVs. Everything TNA do shouldn't be compared to the WWE.

It is possible to enjoy TNA without saying well Raw was better. In all fairness, even when Raw is better Smackdown is normally a pile of crap and they destroyed ECW by opening the gates to Big Daddy V,Kane and Henry. WWE have 3 shows, don't always compare Impact to the best 1. It's ridiculous the way people cherry pick the best moments of the year and use them for their arguments. Sure Impact is going through a rough patch ATM. But don't forget that only 9 months ago Raw had Snitsky and Khali on TV every week. Hell, at least Pacman Jones had good music

Fozzy

Makes for bad reading. It is sad that they've got slightly more people watching their tv show this year but they haven't got a slight increase in PPV buys

flahavaj wrote:

Now once and for all can all the IDIOTS I've read te past few weeks bleating about TNA and how they're a viable alternative to WWE just shut the **** up for once and for all. TNA are not even a consideration to WWE, they're working on different planets in terms of popularity.

Raw usually has about three times the audience of Impact. But a WWE PPV has at least ten times the audience it seems. There's something TNA should learn there

ROH haven't released any of their PPV buyrate information, but they have said that it's done better than what they were aiming for. It's not really the same situation though as ROH doesn't rely on PPV at all, whereas it's how TNA should be making most of their money. One thing that can be said though is that ROH is making money

Bubs101 wrote: »

Vince, as for the 2 hour argument, most people assumed that with 2 hours TNA wouldn't rush everything. It wasn't a bull**** argument. If TNA was less rushed it would be better. If TNA had 2 hours one would assume that it'd be less rushed, ergo, a better show. How were we to know that TNA would have 2 rushed hours instead of 1.

The sad thing is that people from TNA insisted that they'd be able to slow the show down when they moved to two hours. Why did they lie to us?!

Minto

I don't think I made it clear in my original post. I think it is very hard for TNA to sell a PPV when they use guys who WWE released.
In the fan's minds, mine at least, this sends message that the best TNA have to offer are guys who couldn't cut it in WWE. I know there are some exceptions.

I wouldn't spend my money on a PPV (I dunno the price they charge in the US, but its prob about $35) to see guys who used to jerk the curtain in WWE. TBH, I won't even watch it on Bravo for free.

Mr.Nice Guy

Bubs101 wrote: »

This is hardly a surprise, we all knew they were doing badly but I didn't realise that Angle was in every main event. He runs the risk of turning into a Cena.

Cena draws though. Angle at the minute runs the risk of turning into a Jarrett.

Bubs101 wrote:

Everything TNA do shouldn't be compared to the WWE.

Bubs101 wrote:

Sure Impact is going through a rough patch ATM. But don't forget that only 9 months ago Raw had Snitsky and Khali on TV every week. Hell, at least Pacman Jones had good music

I thought everything TNA do shouldn't be compared to WWE?

Bubs101 wrote:

In all fairness, even when Raw is better Smackdown is normally a pile of crap and they destroyed ECW by opening the gates to Big Daddy V,Kane and Henry.

Hold on, how is Smackdown a pile of crap? They've had a very interesting World Title feud of late and since Edge returned things have become very interesting there. MVP and Matt have had a very good feud. They tend to have quality matches as evidenced by the recent six man tag match involving Punk, Kane and Rey etc.

You can't seriously think Smackdown is in the same sorry state that Impact is. ECW has been piss-poor but worse than Impact? At least they still use logic on ECW.

The numbers speak volumes at the end of the day.

Fozzy

Minto wrote: »

I don't think I made it clear in my original post. I think it is very hard for TNA to sell a PPV when they use guys who WWE released.
In the fan's minds, mine at least, this sends message that the best TNA have to offer are guys who couldn't cut it in WWE. I know there are some exceptions.

That's something that's so easy to correct. Last year Joe looked like a legitimate star in TNA. He's never been in WWE so new fans wouldn't look at him and think that he got kicked out of WWE, unlike what many casual fans may think of the likes of Angle, Christian, Booker or Nash. They might think that Joe just isn't good enough to make it to WWE, but watching him wrestle should put those doubts aside. The same goes for AJ, Daniels and Kaz. I think that the fans care more about Kaz than they do about Booker now, but it'll be Booker who gets the title shots next year

Minto

Fozzy wrote: »

That's something that's so easy to correct. Last year Joe looked like a legitimate star in TNA. He's never been in WWE so new fans wouldn't look at him and think that he got kicked out of WWE, unlike what many casual fans may think of the likes of Angle, Christian, Booker or Nash. They might think that Joe just isn't good enough to make it to WWE, but watching him wrestle should put those doubts aside. The same goes for AJ, Daniels and Kaz. I think that the fans care more about Kaz than they do about Booker now, but it'll be Booker who gets the title shots next year

It's sad, but true. R.I.P. TNA

oneofakind32

The fact that Impact is a fast moving show for me a strong point. I don't think Id watch it if it were as slow as a WWE show. I dont watch any WWE except for the Odd PPV match on-line if it sounds good. As poor as those TNA figures are I dont think ROH could match them. TNA definitely need to work on building there PPVs and delivering on them

Fozzy

oneofakind32 wrote: »

The fact that Impact is a fast moving show for me a strong point. I don't think Id watch it if it were as slow as a WWE show. I dont watch any WWE except for the Odd PPV match on-line if it sounds good. As poor as those TNA figures are I dont think ROH could match them. TNA definitely need to work on building there PPVs and delivering on them

I think that the fast moving show is a big part of their failure in building their PPVs though. There's so much going on that it gets watered down. If there was one awesome feud on Impact, like say the Cena vs Michaels feud leading to WM, it would be very hard for it to make as much of an impact on the viewers as it actually did in WWE, because it would be competing with a dozen other promos on the same show. One single great feud will sell more PPVs than a dozen feuds being pushed equally

flahavaj

oneofakind32 wrote: »

The fact that Impact is a fast moving show for me a strong point. I don't think Id watch it if it were as slow as a WWE show.

You must've LOVED WSX then!?

Honestly if you're attention span is too short to follow a WWE show then you're a lost cause, pal. I mean you're not reading Ulysees yanno?

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

It wasn't a bull**** argument. If TNA was less rushed it would be better. If TNA had 2 hours one would assume that it'd be less rushed, ergo, a better show. How were we to know that TNA would have 2 rushed hours instead of 1.

You use the time you have to effectively do what you need to do be it an hour, 2 hours or 3 hours. No matter how much time you have, its all about making it count. That's where TNA falls down.


The All Access for Wanderlei Silva excluding commercials was 18 minutes long. It was ****ing awesome and I guarantee it persuaded people to buy their show.

Your not gonna hear Dana White complain that they needed more time for it and that they usually get 42 minutes (excluding commercials) because they effectively did what they needed to do (which was make Wanderlei look like a star) in 18 minutes.

By the way you must have really low expectations of TNA if your not surprised by some of those numbers. I always thought they did about 30000 a month which is really bad. But some of these are nearly half that number.

Bubs101

Just because I enjoy Impact and the PPVs doesn't mean I think that everything TNA does is great. I was very annoyed that they didn't slow down the pace of the show when they had two hours and it's only since two hours that TNA has been getting alot worse. I think comparing it to the UFC is harsh to say the least. For one, MMA is on a massive high ATM whereas TNA is at its lowest eb probably in its history. UFC is always going to get great PPV buys because it is the biggest MMA company and has a reality TV show which draws people in.

TBH, I'm giving up defeding TNA. I like it and I like the fact that you'll more often then not see a great match on Impact. If it's not for you, fine

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

UFC is always going to get great PPV buys because it is the biggest MMA company and has a reality TV show which draws people in.

There's no guarantees it will always do well. It's a business built on stars (like wrestling) and ultimately they can only protect people so much.

All they can do is promote the matches that are handed to them in the best way they can. And generally they do that very well converting tv viewers to ppv buyers way more successfully than TNA. Also the 2 big fights were unrelated to their reality show due to Matt Serra pulling out.

Leaving aside MMA, my point was you use whatever time you have to do what you need to do.

And if you have 1.5 million watching your show and only 25000 ppv buys, you're failing.

Leaving aside the business side of, if people like TNA that's cool.

rizzla

To be fair if your basing how good a promotion is on how much they make then in the same terms you might aswell say The Spice Girls and Take That are the greatest bands in music, EVER!

Popularity and Quality are two very different things.

Fozzy

rizzla wrote: »

To be fair if your basing how good a promotion is on how much they make then in the same terms you might aswell say The Spice Girls and Take That are the greatest bands in music, EVER!

Popularity and Quality are two very different things.

There's a difference there. The Spice Girls and Take That have many fans, as do TNA. But one of them is unable to make their fans care enough to pay for their product. What's the problem with basing how good TNA are on how bad they are at making their audience pay for their PPVs?

Gerard.C

In all fairness now, The Spice Girls are very talented.

Machismo Fan

Impact on wrestling quality alone is much better than Smackdown, Raw or ECW. Matches like Styles/Kaz ladder match, some of the Knockout matches are good, Angle/Kaz, Christian/Kaz, LAX/Styles+Tomko, Street Fight-3D/Lethal+Dutt, Motor City Machine Guns/Styles and Tomko, Styles/Sabin/Joe to name a few from the last month. ROH will most likly do better than TNA because they don't have a TV show so their stuff is more fresh, and again on wrestling quality alone I believe that TNA has had better wrestling PPVs this year than WWE. Just that they don't make money does not mean they cannot be an alternative. Austin, HHH, Mick Foley, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Ric Flair, Big Show all went from WCW to WWE, WCW didn't consider them worth anything does that mean they don't deserve a second chance. Angle can never become a Cena because Angle can wrestle. R.I.P. TNA is a little premature as Dixie Carter seems passionate about TNA so Panda are not going to pull anytime soon. Nobody should ever mention WSX, ever. UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is REAL. Pro Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts can never be compared. Boxing also draws because it is real, there is very little story.

Vince135792003

Machismo Fan wrote: »

UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is REAL. Pro Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts can never be compared. Boxing also draws because it is real, there is very little story.

UFC was as real 5 years ago as it was today and it went nearly out of business so the whole "Real" argument for its popularity doesn't wash entirely with me.

MMA, boxing and wrestling are all very different but ultimately every month the goal of all 3 is to get people to buy their show on ppv.

And what draws people to a boxing match is often what draws people to wrestling and likewise to an MMA bout. I really believe that. Maybe less so due to the direction wrestling has gone overr the last 20 years but still to a large degree. It's all in the story and maybe MMA and boxing have an easier job because it's real but in other ways they don't because MMA and boxing get handed their stories.

Wrestling companies can come up with whatever story they want. It just so happens some come up with barbed wire Christmas tree matches.

It's all in the story and how well you promote it (the underdog versus the dominant champion, the veteran versus the guy in his prime, the 2 very best fighting to see who is number one, the guy on a comeback etc....) that draws a large majority of the people in not the actual form of combat in many instances.

Just while I'm here. Here's all the ppv buy rates for the year according to the Observer for this week:

ESTIMATED NORTH AMERICAN PPV BUYS
2,400,000 - Oscar De La Hoya vs. Floyd Mayweather
1,050,000 - UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Chuck Liddell (took place in December of last year)
850,000 - Floyd Mayweather vs. Ricky Hatton (actually took place in December of this year which we normally wouldn't count)
760,000 - WWE Wrestlemania Vince McMahon vs. Donald Trump
675,000 - UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Quinton Jackson
540,000 - UFC Tim Sylvia vs. Randy Couture
520,000 - UFC Randy Couture vs. Gabriel Gonzaga
475,000 - UFC Chuck Liddell vs. Keith Jardine
425,000 - UFC Tito Ortiz vs. Rashad Evans
400,000 - UFC Anderson Silva vs Travis Lutter
400,000 - UFC Georges St. Pierre vs. Matt Serra
350,000 - Manny Pacquiao vs. Marco Antonio Barrera
344,000 - WWE SummerSlam John Cena vs. Randy Orton
340,000 - Miguel Cotto vs. Shane Mosley
325,000 - UFC Anderson Silva vs. Rich Franklin
314,000 - WWE Royal Rumble John Cena vs. Umaga
305,000 - Bernard Hopkins vs. Winky Wright
300,000 - Fernando Vargas vs. Ricardo Mayorga
225,000 - Marco Antonio Barrera vs. Juan Manuel Marquez
225,000 - Miguel Cotto vs. Zab Judah
200,000 - Manny Pacquiao vs. Jorge Solis
200,000 - UFC Rich Franklin vs. Yushin Okami
163,000 - WWE No Mercy (no announced main event other than guaranteed WWE title change)
151,000 - WWE Vengeance John Cena vs. Mick Foley vs. Randy Orton vs. King Booker vs. Bobby Lashley
150,000 - WWE Judgment Day John Cena vs. Great Khali
147,000 - WWE Great American Bash John Cena vs. Bobby Lashley
146,000 - WWE Armageddon Batista & Cena vs. Finlay & Booker
141,000 - WWE New Year's Revolution John Cena vs. Umaga
140,000 - WWE No Way Out Cena & Michaels vs. Undertaker & Batista
134,000 - WWE Unforgiven John Cena vs. Randy Orton
120,000 - WWE Backlash Cena vs. Michaels vs. Orton vs. Edge
118,000 - WWE Cyber Sunday Undertaker vs. Batista
115,000 - WWE One Night Stand John Cena vs. Great Khali
100,000 - Erik Morales vs. David Diaz
75,000- Evander Holyfield vs. Sultan Ibragimov
70,000 - Julio Cesar Chavez Jr. vs. Ray Sanchez
55,000 - WWE December to Dismember Elimination Chamber
40,000 - Pride Second Coming Dan Henderson vs. Wanderlei Silva
36,000 - TNA Destination X Samoa Joe vs. Christian Cage
36,000 - TNA Bound for Glory Sting vs. Kurt Angle
35,000 - TNA Turning Point Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle
35,000 - TNA Lockdown Team Angle vs. Team Cage
35,000 - K-1 Dynamite Brock Lesnar vs. Kim Min-Soo
34,000 - TNA Final Resolution Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle
27,000 - TNA Genesis Kurt Angle & Kevin Nash vs. Booker T & Sting
26,000 - TNA Hard Justice Samoa Joe vs. Kurt Angle
25,000 - Roy Jones Jr. vs. Anthony Hanshaw
23,000 - TNA Against All Odds Kurt Angle vs. Christian Cage
22,000 - TNA Slammiversary Kurt Angle vs. Samoa Joe vs. A.J. Styles vs. Christian Cage vs. Chris Harris
21,000 - TNA Sacrifice Kurt Angle vs. Sting vs. Christian Cage
17,000 - TNA No Surrender Kurt Angle vs. Abyss
15,000 - TNA Victory Road Kurt Angle & Samoa Joe vs. Team 3-D
13,000 - Bodog Fight Fedor Emelianenko vs. Matt Lindland

I'm shocked at how low some of the boxing buy rates are.

Fozzy

Vince pretty much summed up the MMA and boxing vs wrestling deal. If you make people care about two fighters and an issue between them, the fans will buy into it. That is TNA's core problem

Machismo Fan wrote: »

ROH will most likly do better than TNA because they don't have a TV show so their stuff is more fresh

I really think that you're missing the point. ROH won't be making more money than TNA because they've been fresh, they'll be making more money because they make their fans want to see their shows. Feuds, wrestlers and matches which make sense, pay off and get fans emotionally involved are what make the fans willing to invest money

Anyway, ROH has produced more hours of their product this year than TNA I think. 40 ROH shows, each one at least 3 hours long = 120 hours. TNA have had 1 hour for 52 weeks, plus an extra hour for the last 12 or so, plus 12 PPVs at 3 hours, which is 100 hours in total. So again I'll say that it's nothing to do with ROH being more fresh

Machismo Fan wrote: »

R.I.P. TNA is a little premature as Dixie Carter seems passionate about TNA so Panda are not going to pull anytime soon.

Dixie is passionate, but she doesn't run Panda. Her parents do. If anything ever happened to her parents then whoever's left in charge of Panda might decide that TNA's not worth the money they spend on it. You just never know. Of course, if TNA were actually making a good bit of money then there wouldn't have to be any speculation about Panda offloading them

Minto

So let me get this straight, the worst WWE Pay-per-view EVER got 19,000 more viewers than TNA's best two PPV's in 2007?
Lets put it another way, more people will pay more(?) money to watch absolute WWE sh*test PPV than TNA's premier PPV event?
Heres another thought, WrestleMania 23 did 760,000 PPV buys, Bound for Glory 2007 did 36,000 buys. That means WrestleMania got 21.11111111111 times the PPV buys Bound for Glory got.

This may only be one area of comparison, but how can anyone still think TNA is better?

rizzla

Minto wrote: »

So let me get this straight, the worst WWE Pay-per-view EVER got 19,000 more viewers than TNA's best two PPV's in 2007?
Lets put it another way, more people will pay more(?) money to watch absolute WWE sh*test PPV than TNA's premier PPV event?
Heres another thought, WrestleMania 23 did 760,000 PPV buys, Bound for Glory 2007 did 36,000 buys. That means WrestleMania got 21.11111111111 times the PPV buys Bound for Glory got.

This may only be one area of comparison, but how can anyone still think TNA is better?

As I said earlier, popularity doesn't mean anything. I'm sure ROH PPV don't compare to WWE's either so they must not be as good either then! Driven and Man-up where worse PPV's than December to Dismember by your logic.

Gerard.C

"Impact on wrestling quality alone is much better than Smackdown, Raw or ECW. Matches like Styles/Kaz ladder match, some of the Knockout matches are good, Angle/Kaz, Christian/Kaz, LAX/Styles+Tomko, Street Fight-3D/Lethal+Dutt, Motor City Machine Guns/Styles and Tomko, Styles/Sabin/Joe to name a few from the last month."

John Cena vs Shawn Michaels from Raw this year was better than any match tna has ever had on impact. There is usually one VERY good match on WWE TV every month or so. Most TNA impact matches are generic wrestling matches with a flippy flop here or there that tell no story. And you can have all the good wrestling matches you want, you still NEED a decent storyline to go with it.

"ROH will most likly do better than TNA because they don't have a TV show so their stuff is more fresh"

So, the fact that nobdy knows who they are will help them to sell ppvs is your logic? So, promoting a show is a bad idea then?

"and again on wrestling quality alone I believe that TNA has had better wrestling PPVs this year than WWE."

If this was the case, people would buy TNA's ppvs. You could argue that John Cena had a better match with The Great Khali than any TNA ppv match this year. What, in your opinion, was the best TNA PPV actually?

"Just that they don't make money does not mean they cannot be an alternative."

True, but the fact taht they're LOOSING money means they won't be an alternative for much longer

"Austin, HHH, Mick Foley, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Ric Flair, Big Show all went from WCW to WWE, WCW didn't consider them worth anything does that mean they don't deserve a second chance."

Benoit, Jericho, Eddie, Show and I think Flair all quit. I'm sure WCW would have loved to keep them.

"Angle can never become a Cena because Angle can wrestle."

What? Bashing Cena's wrestling abilitys is just plain stupid at this stage. He proved last year that he is a very talented wrestler. Great matches with Umaga, Michaels, Edge, Orton, Khali, Lashley etc.... will prove this.

"R.I.P. TNA is a little premature as Dixie Carter seems passionate about TNA so Panda are not going to pull anytime soon."

Fozzy pretty much covered this.

"Nobody should ever mention WSX, ever.!

Nobody should ever mention Black Reign, Rellik, Judas Mesias, Reverse Battle Royals, "Don't Fire eric", That 4 briefcases match, and so many other things too/

"UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is REAL. Pro Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts can never be compared. Boxing also draws because it is real, there is very little story."

Just because wrestling is pre-determined doesn't mean it can't sell huge numbers, as WWE will prove to you. Perhaps you mean UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is really, really good, wheras TNA is really, really ****

Minto

rizzla wrote: »

As I said earlier, popularity doesn't mean anything. I'm sure ROH PPV don't compare to WWE's either so they must not be as good either then! Driven and Man-up where worse PPV's than December to Dismember by your logic.

Sorry, who is this ROH you speak of?



I'm joking before a million ROH marks jump out of a bush and attack me! I respect a lot of what ROH have done. They are doing good business and making a name for themselves. That said I'm not a big fan, not cos I don't like them. But just haven't ever bothered to watch their product.

Anyway, I'm speaking about TNA, not ROH. Popularity does count for something, especially in PPV figures. Bound for Glory was, I assume, the highest promoted PPV by TNA. December 2 Dismember was probably the least promoted WWE PPV ever. But in terms of buyrates, it beat TNA by nearly 20,000 buys. Now you can argue popularity counts for nothing, but WWE (even at its worst) is doing what TNA (at its best) can't seem to do and that is put asses in chairs.

Vince135792003

I will say this for TNA, since I've been bashing them for about 12 months now, it's not a complete lost cause. They have:

- very talented roster
- a long term tv deal with a network whose happy with them
- patient owners
- an expanding house show schedule

So Titanic isn't sinking just yet. They just crucially can't figure out how to consistently write a show that will attract more tv viewers and ppv buyers and I don't think this creative team will ever figure it out.

Machismo Fan

Gerard.C wrote: »

"Impact on wrestling quality alone is much better than Smackdown, Raw or ECW. Matches like Styles/Kaz ladder match, some of the Knockout matches are good, Angle/Kaz, Christian/Kaz, LAX/Styles+Tomko, Street Fight-3D/Lethal+Dutt, Motor City Machine Guns/Styles and Tomko, Styles/Sabin/Joe to name a few from the last month."

John Cena vs Shawn Michaels from Raw this year was better than any match tna has ever had on impact. There is usually one VERY good match on WWE TV every month or so. Most TNA impact matches are generic wrestling matches with a flippy flop here or there that tell no story. And you can have all the good wrestling matches you want, you still NEED a decent storyline to go with it.

"ROH will most likly do better than TNA because they don't have a TV show so their stuff is more fresh"

So, the fact that nobdy knows who they are will help them to sell ppvs is your logic? So, promoting a show is a bad idea then?

"and again on wrestling quality alone I believe that TNA has had better wrestling PPVs this year than WWE."

If this was the case, people would buy TNA's ppvs. You could argue that John Cena had a better match with The Great Khali than any TNA ppv match this year. What, in your opinion, was the best TNA PPV actually?

"Just that they don't make money does not mean they cannot be an alternative."

True, but the fact taht they're LOOSING money means they won't be an alternative for much longer

"Austin, HHH, Mick Foley, Chris Benoit, Chris Jericho, Eddie Guerrero, Ric Flair, Big Show all went from WCW to WWE, WCW didn't consider them worth anything does that mean they don't deserve a second chance."

Benoit, Jericho, Eddie, Show and I think Flair all quit. I'm sure WCW would have loved to keep them.

"Angle can never become a Cena because Angle can wrestle."

What? Bashing Cena's wrestling abilitys is just plain stupid at this stage. He proved last year that he is a very talented wrestler. Great matches with Umaga, Michaels, Edge, Orton, Khali, Lashley etc.... will prove this.

"R.I.P. TNA is a little premature as Dixie Carter seems passionate about TNA so Panda are not going to pull anytime soon."

Fozzy pretty much covered this.

"Nobody should ever mention WSX, ever.!

Nobody should ever mention Black Reign, Rellik, Judas Mesias, Reverse Battle Royals, "Don't Fire eric", That 4 briefcases match, and so many other things too/

"UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is REAL. Pro Wrestling and Mixed Martial Arts can never be compared. Boxing also draws because it is real, there is very little story."

Just because wrestling is pre-determined doesn't mean it can't sell huge numbers, as WWE will prove to you. Perhaps you mean UFC cannot be compared to TNA because UFC is really, really good, wheras TNA is really, really ****

Go on then. Name more than that Cena/HBK match. All the ones I named have been since Bound for Glory.

ROH has less of their product out their so fans will be more inclined to buy the PPVs when they have the chance as they may not see ROH again for a month.

In my opinion No Surrender was TNA's best wrestling PPV this year and it got only 17000 buys.

Team Pacman (Adam Jones and Ron Killings) defeated Kurt Angle and Sting to win the TNA World Tag Team Championship (5:56)

Rhino defeated James Storm (w/Jackie Moore) (9:23)

Robert Roode (w/Ms. Brooks) defeated Kaz (13:47)

Jay Lethal defeated Kurt Angle to win the TNA X Division Championship (12:19)

Chris Harris defeated Black Reign in a No Disqualification match (5:14)(Only Bad Match)

Christian's Coalition (A.J. Styles and Tomko) won a 10-Team Gauntlet Match (25:40)

Christian Cage defeated Samoa Joe by disqualification (15:59)

Kurt Angle defeated Abyss to retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship (19:24)

They have a massive backer with a revenue of $219 million per year, the $25 million TNA have lost in 5 years is just a drop in their pocket. Most likely if something were to happen to the Carters the company would most likely fall into the hands of their son.

Cena is not a wrestler, he is a brawler. When he tries to wrestle it is ridiculous and I'll go on record to say he is a very good brawler and probably the best there is around.

Whats wrong with Rellik("Thats Killer spelled backwards"-Thank you Don West)and Judas Mesias. Fair enough Black Reign is terrible but the other two aren't that bad.

Vince135792003

ROH has less of their product out their so fans will be more inclined to buy the PPVs when they have the chance as they may not see ROH again for a month.

Fozzy already has a point on that above which pretty much counters that.

In my opinion No Surrender was TNA's best wrestling PPV this year and it got only 17000 buys.

That's the story of TNA. They can have awesome ppv shows but they're pissing in the wind due to the tv that they produce to hype up a show.

They have a massive backer with a revenue of $219 million per year, the $25 million TNA have lost in 5 years is just a drop in their pocket.

You don't accumulate 219 million dollars annually with that attitude. Entrepreneurs will spend money to make money but there comes a point when they'll expect a return.

Machismo Fan

With TNA going on the road more often(but not too often) and drawing decent crowds(apparently they drew 4000 people to house show in Canada which is good) I believe they will eventually turn a profit.

Machismo Fan

Fozzy wrote: »

Anyway, ROH has produced more hours of their product this year than TNA I think. 40 ROH shows, each one at least 3 hours long = 120 hours. TNA have had 1 hour for 52 weeks, plus an extra hour for the last 12 or so, plus 12 PPVs at 3 hours, which is 100 hours in total. So again I'll say that it's nothing to do with ROH being more fresh

But TNA has much wider exposure than ROH and I'm talking about the non-live event crowd.

Vince135792003

Machismo Fan wrote: »

With TNA going on the road more often(but not too often) and drawing decent crowds(apparently they drew 4000 people to house show in Canada which is good) I believe they will eventually turn a profit.

It is good that they have more house shows. But using one example of a good house isn't proof that it will be a success. ECW drew houses bigger than that and it didn't matter a dam when it came to pulling the plug on them.

Plus I'm pretty sure TNA cancelled a house show tour of Mexico due to poor ticket sales not so long ago aswell. It'll be interesing to see how well they do this year, particularly for the ppv shows that they are not running in Orlando.

Machismo Fan

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Plus I'm pretty sure TNA cancelled a house show tour of Mexico due to poor ticket sales not so long ago aswell. It'll be interesing to see how well they do this year, particularly for the ppv shows that they are not running in Orlando.

They should keep it within USA and Canada, and if they are going to tour come to here, UK or Japan. Though I am surprised that they didn't do well in Mexico as the Mexicans are usually desperate for the USA companies.

Gerard.C

Go on then. Name more than that Cena/HBK match. All the ones I named have been since Bound for Glory.

Off the top of my head: All of the matches involving Jimmy Wang Yang/Shannon Moore and John Morrison/Miz lately have been very good, MVP-Rey's series of single/tag matches, HHH-Flair, Edge-Batista. Those have all been in the last few weeks. BFG was months ago. Too tired to think of more right now.

ROH has less of their product out their so fans will be more inclined to buy the PPVs when they have the chance as they may not see ROH again for a month.

I assume most ROH fans buy dvds from the website. So they have a LOT of DVDs to choose from. That's poor logic for buying a PPV imo.

In my opinion No Surrender was TNA's best wrestling PPV this year and it got only 17000 buys.

Team Pacman (Adam Jones and Ron Killings) defeated Kurt Angle and Sting to win the TNA World Tag Team Championship (5:56)

Rhino defeated James Storm (w/Jackie Moore) (9:23)

Robert Roode (w/Ms. Brooks) defeated Kaz (13:47)

Jay Lethal defeated Kurt Angle to win the TNA X Division Championship (12:19)

Chris Harris defeated Black Reign in a No Disqualification match (5:14)(Only Bad Match)

Christian's Coalition (A.J. Styles and Tomko) won a 10-Team Gauntlet Match (25:40)

Christian Cage defeated Samoa Joe by disqualification (15:59)

Kurt Angle defeated Abyss to retain the TNA World Heavyweight Championship (19:24)

That was a decent PPV alright buy it, of course, had problems. The most obvious being your guy, Lethal, getting the biggest win of his life, then getting treated like a nobody within an hour. Poor booking.

They have a massive backer with a revenue of $219 million per year, the $25 million TNA have lost in 5 years is just a drop in their pocket. Most likely if something were to happen to the Carters the company would most likely fall into the hands of their son.

If they like to throw away money, thats up to them. And it's not a small amount of money either, $25 million is a huge sum to loose in 5 years.

Cena is not a wrestler, he is a brawler. When he tries to wrestle it is ridiculous and I'll go on record to say he is a very good brawler and probably the best there is around.

I hate to be the one to break it to you, but yes, John Cena is a wrestler. He wrestles for a living, incase you haven't noticed

Whats wrong with Rellik("Thats Killer spelled backwards"-Thank you Don West)and Judas Mesias. Fair enough Black Reign is terrible but the other two aren't that bad.

OK then, what is good about them? All I know is that Mesias drags people TO HELL (ie, under the ring, presuably to be removed at a later stage by the ring crew) and that Rellik looses all the time.

Bubs101

Minto wrote: »

So let me get this straight, the worst WWE Pay-per-view EVER got 19,000 more viewers than TNA's best two PPV's in 2007?
Lets put it another way, more people will pay more(?) money to watch absolute WWE sh*test PPV than TNA's premier PPV event?
Heres another thought, WrestleMania 23 did 760,000 PPV buys, Bound for Glory 2007 did 36,000 buys. That means WrestleMania got 21.11111111111 times the PPV buys Bound for Glory got.

This may only be one area of comparison, but how can anyone still think TNA is better?

How does the amount of people who bought the product affect it's quality, that's nonsense. I have no problem with people who say they don't like TNA because they don't like elements of it but saying how can anyone think TNA is better because it sells less is, no offense, retarded.

If everybody thought like that Michelle McMAnus would be better than th Pogues because she got to number 1. Come on Minto, I'd expect better

Fozzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

How does the amount of people who bought the product affect it's quality, that's nonsense. I have no problem with people who say they don't like TNA because they don't like elements of it but saying how can anyone think TNA is better because it sells less is, no offense, retarded.

It doesn't matter in absolute terms. WWE has more viewers, so they're going to get bigger buyrates. But the fact that WWE's tv convinces a higher percentage of their viewers to buy PPVs than TNA's does is a reflection on the difference in quality between them

It's true that TNA have had some enjoyable PPVs this year. But they've done a terrible job in promoting those PPVs, and promoting the big matches is a huge part of what wrestling is about

Bubs101

Fozzy wrote: »

It doesn't matter in absolute terms. WWE has more viewers, so they're going to get bigger buyrates. But the fact that WWE's tv convinces a higher percentage of their viewers to buy PPVs than TNA's does is a reflection on the difference in quality between them

It's true that TNA have had some enjoyable PPVs this year. But they've done a terrible job in promoting those PPVs, and promoting the big matches is a huge part of what wrestling is about

You miss my point. Minto was suggesting that because WWE had much better PPV figures it was proof that it was better. It clearly isn't. I was surprised when I saw the figures, I always assumed they did alot better

Minto

No Bubs, you missed my point! WWE gets better PPV figures because they make the fans care about them. WWE having higher PPV buys, means they are making more fans care about their product. When WWE failed to promote their December 2 Dismember PPV last year, they still garnered enough interest among their fans to get more PPV buys than Bound for Glory this year. It may not mean the whole product is better (which I covered in my last post), but it does prove WWE promote their PPVs better. This doesn't just mean promos and ads, but also in build up on TV.

Bubs101

Minto wrote:

....How can anyone still think TNA is better

I still don't see how I miss interpreted that but it doesn't matter.

Minto wrote: »

No Bubs, you missed my point! WWE gets better PPV figures because they make the fans care about them. WWE having higher PPV buys, means they are making more fans care about their product. When WWE failed to promote their December 2 Dismember PPV last year, they still garnered enough interest among their fans to get more PPV buys than Bound for Glory this year. It may not mean the whole product is better (which I covered in my last post), but it does prove WWE promote their PPVs better. This doesn't just mean promos and ads, but also in build up on TV.

To be honest I think it can all be explained by how well Wrestlemania does. One of the main reasons it does so well is because it's been around so long. People know about it and know what they're gonna get when they buy it. Same with SummerSlam and theRumble. TNA has only been around for 5 years and has only been on TV for 2. It has much less fans and thus less PPV buys. It has 1 show, WWE has 3, thus less PPV buys. It has less Star Power, thus less PPV buys. I don't think it's a matter of building it up, it's a matter of not being established enough. Personally, I think there's also a massive problem that TNA is oversaturating the PPV market. It doesn't need 12

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

TNA has only been around for 5 years and has only been on TV for 2. It has much less fans and thus less PPV buys.

UFC and TNA are similiar in their tv infancy. One does 25000 buys a month. The other does 400000. And it's not all down to UFC being real.

It's a study in contrast how TNA and UFC promote their shows.

Fozzy

The main thing isn't that TNA has less fans than WWE and thus less PPV buys than WWE, because the relationship isn't proportional at all. A much lower percentage of TNA viewers will buy their PPVs. I saw a lot of things last year that made me want to buy PPVs (although I didn't have to as most of them were on free tv over here) but none of those things came from TNA. The figures suggest that I'm not the only person who feels like that

Bubs101

Vince135792003 wrote: »

UFC and TNA are similiar in their tv infancy. One does 25000 buys a month. The other does 400000. And it's not all down to UFC being real.

It's a study in contrast how TNA and UFC promote their shows.

I agree, it's due to the massive decline in boxing, particularly at heavyweight level.For me the success of the UFC is down to the fact that boxers have become to tactical which leads to slow boring fights.The figures show that the boring fights and the lack of a great American Heavyweight are what led fans to the UFC, hardly a similar scenario for TNA.In my opinion,

TNA came into the market which the WWE had a monopoly on and had destroyed all it's competitors. The fact that TNA has gotten this far in 5 years is amazing and with this much progress in 5 years Panda energy aren't going to pull out. That's beggars belief. Even if they did chances are someone would step in so I really don't see how TNA not making money is a big deal in terms of their product being poor. It's unrelated

Bubs101

Fozzy wrote: »

The main thing isn't that TNA has less fans than WWE and thus less PPV buys than WWE, because the relationship isn't proportional at all. A much lower percentage of TNA viewers will buy their PPVs. I saw a lot of things last year that made me want to buy PPVs (although I didn't have to as most of them were on free tv over here) but none of those things came from TNA. The figures suggest that I'm not the only person who feels like that

I kind of agree with you. I think the problem is that TNA have too many PPVs. They don't need 11 or 12. I would say about 8 maximum.

I really don't think it's a big problem now though. They still continue to make progress. There goal for this year was to get a two-hour deal. They did. There goal for next year should be to raise buy-rates. I think there's a big problem if it has the same figures next year, but not now

Fozzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

so I really don't see how TNA not making money is a big deal in terms of their product being poor. It's unrelated

But surely if their product was good then more than 2% of their tv viewers would feel compelled to buy the PPVs?

Vince135792003

Boxing has its 2 biggest buy rates in a long long time this year. In fact UFC did a good rating for a live special while Hatton/Mayweather was ongoing. Boxing isn't dead in anyway shape or form.

In 2008, your gonna have Pavlick/Taylor 2, Calzaghe/Hopkins, De laHoya/ somebody. All 3 will be big and Mayweather hasn't been mentioned yet. So boxing isn't back on its feet yet but 2007 showed that both boxing and UFC can prosperously exist together.

There's an audience for both I think.


There's no reason in the world why TNA shouldn't be doing better (in every way shape and form) than they are right now.

They are clueless. Bringing Pacman Jones a month after the Benoit tragedy, when every media lens was looking at wrestling as the dirtiest business on the planet. Just brain dead. Instead of doing something positive, they bring in a scumbag.

I remember watching Joe versus Styles v Daniels and wanting so much for TNA to succeed. I pestered everyone I knew to watch that match.

They had 3 stars right there. And to see how they are being portrayed on tv today is sad, especially Joe.

Bubs101

Fozzy wrote: »

But surely if their product was good then more than 2% of their tv viewers would feel compelled to buy the PPVs?

I personally think that it's more important that they build up their TV show. These figures don't spell crysis but if they were to ever get dropped or more realistically, bumped to a graveyard timeslot it would be Game Over. They aren't going to destroy the WWE in a couple of years, it's not TEW. They have to biuld it up slowly and secure there base first, then work on advancing. If they had a less secure sponser then once again this would be a major worry as they'd desperatly need the money.

I know what your saying that the figures seem to show that the fans don't think they should pay for the product or that it's not worth it. For me that's down to lack of star power. People don't have $80 to burn every month and I think that those who watch both on TV are picking the WWE when it comes to PPV. For me that's down to the matches and the Star Power. In all fairness to TNA, anyone who would have payed for the 3 man tag match would be insane

Bubs101

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Boxing has its 2 biggest buy rates in a long long time this year. In fact UFC did a good rating for a live special while Hatton/Mayweather was ongoing. Boxing isn't dead in anyway shape or form.

In 2008, your gonna have Pavlick/Taylor 2, Calzaghe/Hopkins, De laHoya/ somebody. All 3 will be big and Mayweather hasn't been mentioned yet. So boxing isn't back on its feet yet but 2007 showed that both boxing and UFC can prosperously exist together.

There's an audience for both I think.

That's because both of the Mayweather fights were monster fights but there is still nothing there at heavyweight level and boxing is nowhere near as exciting as it used to be. The Hatton Mayweather fight is a good example. The ref broke it up before it got to vicous so no if people wanna see someone get there head kicked in they're gonna watch the UFC. Also, the T.V. show is class and is a great way to get people into it but you can't do that with wrestling.

Also, boxing has very few stars. De la Hoya and Hatton are now past there peak unless they face each other and Mayweather has no oponents left. Calzaghe means nothing outside of Wales and I have no idea who the other 3 are (but considering they haven't penetrated the mass media it's not a good sign)

Vince135792003

Bubs101 wrote: »

I personally think that it's more important that they build up their TV show. These figures don't spell crysis but if they were to ever get dropped or more realistically, bumped to a graveyard timeslot it would be Game Over.

They were get .8's and .9's in the 11pm spot when they were originally on Spike. They even got a few 1.0 and 1.1's.

Put TNA on at anytime and you'll more or less draw the same rating.

Vince135792003

That's because both of the Mayweather fights were monster fights but there is still nothing there at heavyweight level and boxing is nowhere near as exciting as it used to be.

I vehemently disagree. It's more exciting. They just need to make the big fights happen. And they are doing a better job of that now.

Also, the T.V. show is class and is a great way to get people into it but you can't do that with wrestling

TNA did a "UFC countdown show" style show this year. It was good. And yet they decided not to tell anybody about it on their man show and it quietly went unnoticed.