Is TNA the worst wrestling promotion in history?

[Indikator]

Sadly I can't find an old Supertape IV review that Vince Russo once posted on Usenet. Anybody have a link?

[kjh]

Dixie probably doesn't know what a smart mark is, and probably thinks its ok to have a wrestler run a wrestling company...maybe she needs to be told the facts.

I thought wrestlers running and booking wrestling companies was the norm (see Inoki, Baba, Choshu, Hashimoto, Misawa, Mutoh, Gagne, Watts, Lawler, the Funks, the Von Erichs, Ole Anderson, etc).

 

Really, for all the criticism Jeff Jarrett gets, I think it gets lost what a huge deal it was for him to secure such great financing and a great TV deal. Despite having a much hotter product and being a slicker wheeler dealer, Paul Heyman wasn't able to do it. Long term, the company should survive, as it runs on a shoestring budget, barring ratings going into free-fall and Spike canceling them. The chances of that happening are pretty slim though, as we've seen that a badly booked wrestling show with some star power is guaranteed to get good ratings for Spike. Really, TNA's biggest problem may be that they have little incentive to shake things up, try a new booker, push new stars, because their future is pretty much secured.

[Ditch]

No incentive other than:

 

-Angle might leave when his deal ends

-Sting might leave when his deal ends

-Foley has a very limited number of matches left in him

-Nash is more injury-prone than Chad Pennington AND is incredibly limited as far as working a match other than a one-sided squash

-Christian left

 

Plus one doesn't know how much longer Booker and Jeff have in them. Booker was talking retirement a good 5-6 years ago. Jeff is a 20+ year veteran.

 

It's not "where will this company be in 5 years?". It's "where will this company be in 18 months?"

[anarchistxx]

Judging by the way his self-written feuds have played out, Jericho would be incredible for TNA as a booker and a talent. He'll never do it though.

[Loss]

I doubt he will, just because he doesn't seem like the type to hang around, but I think booking in WWE and doing color commentary would be a good gig for Jericho when he stops wrestling.

 

While it started off shaky, what I love about Jericho's comeback is more than half the time, the writers haven't even really had anything special for him, if anything at all, and then he's created something himself which takes off and gets over huge, then they're forced to start giving it time. Happened with the Michaels feud, happened with the Legends feud, and probably will happen with the upcoming Rey feud.

[Bob Morris]

No incentive other than:

 

-Angle might leave when his deal ends

-Sting might leave when his deal ends

-Foley has a very limited number of matches left in him

-Nash is more injury-prone than Chad Pennington AND is incredibly limited as far as working a match other than a one-sided squash

-Christian left

 

Plus one doesn't know how much longer Booker and Jeff have in them. Booker was talking retirement a good 5-6 years ago. Jeff is a 20+ year veteran.

 

It's not "where will this company be in 5 years?". It's "where will this company be in 18 months?"

As long as there are veteran wrestlers who want to work a lighter schedule than WWE, younger wrestlers who aren't interested in taking WWE developmental deals (although, granted, there aren't many in that group) and wrestlers who WWE suddenly declares "we don't have anything for you to do" and thus are let go, TNA will always find a talent pool of available wrestlers. And Spike/Viacom seems more interested in a wrestling company that is willing to work with the network, rather than insist the network cater to its every demand. If Carter, Jarrett and others start getting bossy with Viacom, that's when they are most likey to lose that TV deal.

 

We already have Taz on his way to TNA and I'm certain Jeff Hardy will end up there again if he doesn't re-sign with WWE. Also, I fully expect Christian returned to WWE because it was an opportunity to come back "fresh and revived" and make some more money again. It would not surprise me to see him jump back to TNA, or possibly go to ROH, when his new WWE deal expires if he believes he's saved enough money.

[Ditch]

Taz isn't going to wrestle. WWE now has enough invested in Jeff that he might merit a Shawn/Taker-style part-time deal (which is also being talked about if they sign Sting or Angle). Going forward I'm not sure who else there is for TNA to scoop up, especially if WWE loosens up a lot about giving older wrestlers part-time deals. TNA has a knack for signing guys who were big during the Monday Night Wars, but as for stars who broke out from 2002 on? I'm not seeing it. How long can they get by on '90s guys?

 

The "Spike wants big stars" thing is I'm sure a big deal, but man, I just don't see how you can book a company the way TNA has even if Spike was nudging them a certain way. The MEM going from something to 'get the young guys over' to IMMEDIATELY focusing on inter-group squabbles... yeah. Not to mention the goofy decisions they've made about Joe.

[kjh]

Yeah, Bob's right. There will always be a fairly consistent supply of former WWE stars for TNA to pick up. Even if we suppose Angle, Sting, Foley, Nash, Steiner, Booker and Jeff all leave/retire within 18 months and they weren't able to pick up any big name replacements, they would save a ton of money on talent costs, which would offset some of the potential drops in their revenue streams from losing all of their big name stars over such a short period of time. But it's not like those big name stars are drawing significant money at the moment, as PPV business in general was better when they were on FSN several years ago and they average just over a thousand fans for their house shows.

[Ditch]

Then how is the profitability improved? Ratings / Spike revenue? If it's ratings, well, isn't that improved in the "big stars" era of TNA? In which case they risk losing a lot of the current fans if the TNA Originals aren't established enough over the next few years when the old stars retire, jump, or get too broken down to use.

 

Also, I don't think hoping for WWE table scraps is much of a business model. I mean sure they might wind up with the likes of CM Punk, Morrison, Carlito and Jack Swagger... but what they covet is talent that was seen by fans during the days of Raw and Nitro getting a combined 8-9 rating. Those guys are good talents but they don't have the sort of names that are known instantly by 99% of wrestling fans.

[Guest Kenta Batista]

I'm a TNA fan, and I can say without reserve that this company was the worst booked company(on a national level) in 2007. Is TNA the worst promtion in history? Its hard to call, but I can definitely say they are the worst post big three era. I just found out recently that TNA DOES INFACT book their shows MONTHS in advance all the way up to Bound For Glory (TNA's WrestleMania). This news depressed me even further because that means that the people who are writing the shows are PURPOSELY writing NO DIRECTION FOR THEIR WRESTLERS MONTHS IN ADVANCE. When someone is hot as hell like Kaz, Brown, Killings, and then start doing Xpolosion matches by the end of the year IT WAS PLANNED THAT WAY. So TNA plans the pushes and depushes of wrestlers and STICKS TO IT no matter if that wrestler starts getting over or not.

 

The former production manager of TNA has a lot of stories about that company on his blog that pretty much sum up the craziness that is TNA. There seems to be a lot of stuff that is done with no method to the madness. TNA doesn't like creating money draws and when they do like with Brown or Kaz or The Naturals they make sure to bury them as quickly as possible and put the screws to them. I have NEVER seen a promotion bury its own history on such a consistent basis like TNA does and they do it with GUSTO. TNA has guys like Steiner come in and shoot on how Styles and Joe and MCMG are only in TNA because WWE doesn't want them. Styles a 3 (4?) time triple crown champion and now the first ever grandslam winner in TNA was buried by Booker T months and months ago by being asked 'who did he ever beat' and Booker proceeded to bury TNA.

 

TNA admits time and time again that they are number 2 and inferior to WWE, while WWE pimps themselves as the world wide leader in sports entertainment with the grand-daddy of them all PPV WrestleMania.

 

But here is something everyone has to remember:WCW was bought out by Ted Turner in 1988, which began the WCW that we know. From 1988 to 2001 means that WCW existed for 13 years (give or take). WCW also began being televised in 1988 with Saturday Night Main Event. WCW Nitro, the flagship of the company, debuted in 1995 and lasted until 2001, or 6 years (give or take).

 

TNA came into existence in mid-2002 and is still going to this day, meaning they have existed for about 7 years. TNA Impact, the flagship of the company, debuted on Spike TV and debuted late 2005 meaning it has been around for about 3 and a half years. Impact itself has existed for around five years if you count its time on FSN.

 

Point being? TNA is far from an upstart at this point and it is really telling that every face of their company became popular elsewhere. Don't even point at Styles or Joe. Just because you're hanging with the elite doesn't mean anyone buys you as one. Styles has had the equivalent of a Boogeyman push, he beat a couple of top guys but then he became a joke and no one took him seriously anymore. Joe...I don't even know how or why they managed to ruin that, its one for the history books.

 

With all of that said TNA is the biggest joke of a promotion that has been created post 2000.

[Bob Morris]

Then how is the profitability improved? Ratings / Spike revenue? If it's ratings, well, isn't that improved in the "big stars" era of TNA? In which case they risk losing a lot of the current fans if the TNA Originals aren't established enough over the next few years when the old stars retire, jump, or get too broken down to use.

 

Also, I don't think hoping for WWE table scraps is much of a business model. I mean sure they might wind up with the likes of CM Punk, Morrison, Carlito and Jack Swagger... but what they covet is talent that was seen by fans during the days of Raw and Nitro getting a combined 8-9 rating. Those guys are good talents but they don't have the sort of names that are known instantly by 99% of wrestling fans.

There's TNA still trying to get Bobby Lashley on board, and he never drew in WWE nor ever appeared during the 8-9 ratings heyday. But I'm certain TNA and Spike will keep making the push to get him involved in some capacity.

 

I suspect Tazz _is_ going to wrestle at some point because there's no purpose in him coming on board if he isn't, just as people should have seen Foley's role as a wrestler coming. As for Jeff Hardy, he will NEVER get the deal Shawn and Taker have because he has no evidence to show in WWE's eyes that he "drew" like they did, plus his wellness policy violations will cause him to lose some leverage with WWE, even if getting such a deal might mean he stays clean.

 

As for other talent, as long as there's wrestlers who are looking for work, they'll consider TNA, and as long as TNA thinks they have some value, they'll bring them on board.

 

I won't argue that TNA's booking is frustrating and the company hasn't done a good job of developing new talent, but as long as Dixie Carter wants to keep the cash flowing and she and Jeff Jarrett maintain a good relationship with Spike/Viacom, TNA will likely continue to operate. If TNA's relationship with Viacom sours, that's a likely nail in the coffin, and a definite nail in the coffin is if Panda Energy pulls the money away and that's only likely to happen if Carter loses her say.

[kjh]

The difference between a 0.9 (what TNA was drawing before the acquisition of more star power) and a 1.3 (their best ever) rating is pretty insignificant. They are both good ratings for Spike, but the ratings are still drawn by a pro wrestling show, so the ad revenue will be pretty poor either way. Even with the increase in ratings Spike TV would have little incentive to pay substantially more for TNA's programming unless another TV company wanted Impact and they were willing to enter into a bargaining war to keep it. And the odds of that are pretty slim even averaging a 1.3. So a small decline in ratings isn't going to break the company, just like their recent small ratings gains isn't going to make the company.

[Ditch]

To my knowledge, TNA wasn't making a profit during the weekly PPV days or the Fox days. At some point while on Spike they started making a profit despite higher payroll costs. That means they had higher revenue.

 

A. Where did said additional revenue come from

B. How confident can they be that said revenue would stick around in the absence of the old stars they're currently pushing

[Guest Kenta Batista]

TNA started having more merch and touring the world so of course they are going to have higher revnue then they did in their FSN and Asylum days. Dixie Cater constantly uses lingo like that so people can confuse TNA's business position from what it really is. The company is floating on its on now, but I am sure Cater is throwing in a little money (not as much as before) but if The Carters pull out, I would give TNA 2 years before they fold.

[kjh]

TNA lost a ton of money during the weekly PPV days because the costs of running live PPVs on such a regular basis was so high, the price of the PPVs was too low ($10) and too few fans bought them despite the cheap price. Going to three hour, monthly PPVs instantly increased revenues, while cutting costs too. But they still lost a ton of money because they were paying for their weekly TV slot on FSN. Getting on Spike TV, saved the company, as Spike covered the costs of producing Impact. I would say a significant proportion of the increased revenue comes from Spike TV, as they started on Spike TV as late night one hour filler programming that they hoped would keep UFC viewers tuned to the station, while now they have their own two hour prime time slot, so consequently their TV revenue must have at least doubled since they started on Spike TV. And as Kenta Batista points out, TNA have diversified and have a lot more revenue streams now: overseas TV deals, domestic house shows, tours of the UK, polaroid pictures with the stars, DVDs, etc. Really very little of the increased revenue is directly attributable to any of the big stars, outside the record TNA PPV buy rates they drew when Sting and Angle entered the company.

[Dylan Waco]

Without the Carter's TNA would be DOA. Forget two years, it would have two months tops and that's being generous.

 

Having said that, there is absolutely no reason to believe that this is going to happen now or any time in the near future for that matter.

 

TNA is terrible and outside of a few months in 06 it pretty much always has been. That said the ratings have gone up pretty consistently over the last year or so. People can point to the star power, that may or may not be leaving/retiring soon enough, but as I recall the TNA Knockouts were a huge part of the original ratings uptick.

 

SPIKE likes TNA for a variety of reasons, but the fact that the show fits perfectly within the "ADD entertainment for adolescent acting adult males" programming model is a big part of why.

[Jingus]

The former production manager of TNA has a lot of stories about that company on his blog that pretty much sum up the craziness that is TNA.

Link please?

 

A. Where did said additional revenue come from

Part of it came from their scummy restructuring of the talent contracts so that the TNA office now controls all their indy bookings. TNA takes a cool 25% fee off the salary of every single indy payday that all of their workers ever make. Between that and finally running some house shows and selling some more DVDs and Spike continuously throwing in money for production costs, they just barely managed to break even. Of course, that was before the economy crash, who knows if they're still making a profit now.

[Guest Kenta Batista]

http://nawf.com/blog/?p=415

 

There you got mate. Its early morning hours on this end, but I'm still going to chime on this thread and about TNA business after nice 8 hour hit.

[Matt D]

... but if The Carters pull out, I would give TNA 2 years before they fold.

Didn't Dixie JUST debut on screen in the last month or two. Oh, somehow I can't see them pulling out anytime soon.

[Guest Kenta Batista]

I don't think the Carters will pull out anytime soon. TNA isn't a money pit like it use to be and plus The Carters are smart people, they know how business works. So if Bob,Dixie,or the board thought TNA was going to be making millions rather then losing money come 2005, then I would ask them to pass the dutch they are smoking on because it goes against all business logic. UFC and WCW TOOK YEARS to finally make money.

 

I, for some reason, have always had this 'doomsday' time frame in mind when I think of TNA. I think that JJ and company have modeled TNA SO CLOSELY to WWE, that Carter and her camp believes that if certain steps are taken then certain results should occur in the WCW timeline sort of way. I always thought (and still do) that Bound For Glory 2010 will be TNA's last show UNLESS major shit turns around for them. Their last out of town shows in the states have NOT sold out or even came close to selling out (except their UK tour which they do PHENOMNAL BUSINESS). TNA is turning a profit...but how much?

 

However, in these tough economic times you can convert a sizeable number of fence sitters with a discount. People who would normally want to purchase and attend but can not justify full price admission in their budget.

 

It's also interesting to note that while TNA generally pulls solid TV numbers in the old JCP strongholds (which went way beyond "the south" itself, but not much west of the Mississippi) Impact also gets some of their very strongest TV ratings in markets like Vegas and Los Angeles, CA.

 

Lockdown 09 drew 3+ times more PPV buys from what's floating around the Nashville crew.

 

Geez, I'm reminded again of that infamous 3rd party, unbiased and indepth study that Time Warmer funded for WCW to model themselves after that Russo tossed in the trash back when. To his and WCW's demise, I might add.

 

You either give the majority of paying customers what they want, or you go broke entertaining yourself and your few friends of the same mindset.

[1004Holds]

Geez, I'm reminded again of that infamous 3rd party, unbiased and indepth study that Time Warmer funded for WCW to model themselves after that Russo tossed in the trash back when. To his and WCW's demise, I might add.

 

You either give the majority of paying customers what they want, or you go broke entertaining yourself and your few friends of the same mindset.

That was the one where they were basically told that people wanted to see more wrestling and less shoot angles that didn't make any sense, right? I'm probably younger than the average poster here, but I remember being really confused when the New Blood vs. Millionaire's Club angle was going on. I thought the latter was a bad ripoff of the nWo at first, but as I gradually put their stuff together all I got out of it was "There's some weird ish that happens behind scenes" and "Hogan really is friends with Bischoff; that's why he almost always wins despite looking fifty years old and being a bad wrestler" I'll note that the latter stuff was when I thought that having a lot of moves or flashy moves = good wrestler. I'll also note that I hated Hogan from the day he came into WCW because as a kid Sting was my favorite and I felt he was a glory hog. I didn't read dirtsheets though; in fact the only written stuff I saw about wrestling were books like Have a Nice Day and the company magazines. If I read anything online, it was WrestleCrap.

[Ditch]

What's more, the study looked at present and PAST fans of WCW (and I think NWA). And the biggest complaint that the fans who left had was with the lack of wrestling in the post-Russo era.

[goc]

TNA definitely did not learn the lesson of WCW. You have to give the fans that ARE watching what they want to see instead of putting out a product that you HOPE will gain a different audience. I mean, the only people that were buying TNA PPVs back during the weekly days were hardcore internet wrestling fans, and they never really booked to that audience. I don't really know who the 1 million or so people who watch their show on a weekly basis are now and what they want, so I can't really speak to current day TNA, but I doubt they have a much better handle on it now. I do know that Samoa Joe was probably their hottest most popular guy for a while and they totally screwed that up by trying to "make him a star" or whatever moronic ideas they had about him, so I really don't know what audience they are attempting to book for.

[Guest Slickster]

I'm not sure that in five years, TNA has successfully executed a storyline from start to finish.

Three years later, I think this statement is still true. Look at the MEM, the Front Line, the World Elite...

[kjh]

Worth bumping as TNA comes up to its tenth anniversary and Dave in a thread entitled "The critics didn't give us 10 weeks" recently wrote:

 

People having no understanding of the time frame of tax writeoffs.

 

Bob Carter was and is desperate for something to turn it around. they aren't happily funding this thing. Why else are people late in getting paid. Finances are top priority there.

So is there any hope for the promotion outside of the Carters selling a majority share to Viacom, like what happened recently with Bellator? Because at the moment TNA seems to be in the late 2000 WCW phase where the leaders have completely ran out of ideas and are just writing TV to fill up time while they wait for the inevitable.