Comments that don't warrant a thread

[sek69]

In business terms, WCW was kicking WWF's ass for a while there. Didn't it actually get so bad that at one point in 96 or 97 (I think 97) that Vince actually bounced some paychecks? The company was in serious trouble. The only reason they still existed as a meaningful entity at all was that all the glory years of Hogan making money for Vince like nothing ever before gave them (apparently) just enough of a safety net to make a last stand at the Alamo. They stumbled into Austin and The Rock (whether by design or accident), and it was the Magic Bullet. Things turned around, and a lot of people just forgot how close they all came to either losing the company, or the company being something very different than what it is today.

It's been almost completely forgotten by history, but the actual event that set the Montreal Screwjob in motion was that Vince (at the time) couldn't afford to pay the contract he had just signed Bret to and actually encouraged him to go to WCW since they would be able to pay him. Ironically, the angle designed to be his swan song ended up being part of what turned them back to profitability, but I think by then there was no way certain forces were going to allow Bret to stay no matter what shape the company was in.

[BruiserBrody]

False, Big Dave has stated that WWF was fine simply by raising the monthly PPV price (In late 96 IIRC) and that Bret's contract was a BS story as far as being a big issue.

[kjh]

False, Big Dave has stated that WWF was fine simply by raising the monthly PPV price (In late 96 IIRC) and that Bret's contract was a BS story as far as being a big issue.

It wasn't BS to begin with. The WWF raised the price of their In Your House PPVs in September 1997 when they extended them to three hours. By the time the PPV buyrate information had come in and Vince realized the company was profitable, Bret had already got the contract offer from WCW and was leaning towards jumping ship.

 

I agree though that Montreal through inspiring the Mr McMahon character saved the company is a big myth. Austin and DX (and to a lesser extent The Undertaker) were already red hot acts before Montreal. The company was on the right course before Montreal even happened.

[S.L.L.]

There's a place for other wrestling than WWE, which is dull as dirt, and has been most of this decade. But TNA just isn't it, because it's shit, it's as simple as that.

I would have agreed with you at some point, but too much time has passed. It's been almost a decade since there were two established national promotions, and even longer since they were both doing big business at the same time. 1998 will never happen again, just like in 1998, we weren't going to see a return to what wrestling was in 1986. Now, arguing that WWE could have competition feels like arguing that the territories could come back. The ship has sailed.

 

"Never" is a very long time.

 

Death of the territorial system was a change brought about by technological advances, changing business practices, and a rapidly-raised standard for what it took to be a viable wrestling promotion. That was irreversible.

 

Death of competition for the WWF/E was a change brought about by exceptionally poor company management and a lack of people who were willing to give WCW more opportunities to fail after 2001.

 

Panda Energy and Spike TV seem perfectly willing to let TNA fail to their little heart's content, so they've already got that taken care of. But they're not at the level WCW was at when they started seriously failing, nor do they show any signs of approaching that level.

 

Can it be done? Not with that name, hell no. I mean, I always figured the most straightforward way to create something successful was to just make something people would want and then market the hell out of it. But I still have fond memories of an episode of Jimmy Kimmel Live from 2005 where Tito Ortiz was on, hyping up his upcoming guest ref gig at Bound For Glory. And well, Bonnie Hunt was the other guest that night, and her reaction to hearing the name "TNA" - aside from being the reaction that pretty much everyone else would have to it - killed anything Tito could've done to sell the show. It's completely unmarketable. If they changed the name...they'd still be completely unmarketable, because the show is such a mess. But if TNA were basically the exact opposite of what they are...well, to quote a villain from an episode of The Avengers, "Mission: Highly Improbable", maybe, but not impossible.

 

I'd also suggest that TNA having existed for eight years now and having been an unending, miserable failure that whole time maybe has tainted our perception as to whether or not it's even possible to be a success. It's possible for the Clippers to win the NBA Playoffs, too, but is it something anyone ever seriously thinks about happening?

[goc]

You would think Eric Bischoff, who tries to promote himself as a "marketing" guy, would have been trying to get this done. But I've never really heard anyone even talk about changing the name. I can't even see how it could be seen as a bad move. The people who watch Impact are going to watch it regardless, I think that's been proven by the way the live number and the replay usually averages out to about what they used to do on Thursdays before the move. So you are not going to lose these people by changing the name, and you have no real recognition you lose outside of your fanbase by getting rid of the name because there is nothing positive attached it.

[MikeCampbell]

There's really no reason why they couldn't drop the TNA name for something more recognizable and more 'wrestling friendly.' The WWF/WWE thing was seamless for the most part, with only a few habitual mentions of WWF slipping out on TV.

 

Hell, I recall Dames making a post on TSM way back in the early days of both TSM and then NWATNA looking for suggestions to help the promotion, and one of the things I suggested was to drop the TNA and just call themselves the NWA. That obviously won't work now with them dropping the NWA.

[Guest Slickster]

It's like starting a company called High Intensity Violence and wondering why no one wants to watch HIV Wrestling.

[Johnny Sorrow]

I agree though that Montreal through inspiring the Mr McMahon character saved the company is a big myth. Austin and DX (and to a lesser extent The Undertaker) were already red hot acts before Montreal. The company was on the right course before Montreal even happened.

I agree with that completely. RAW was a show full of motivated, for the most part, guys who seemed to have an attitude of "We're gonna show them" re: the former WWF Big Stars who were in WCW. There were two cliques back then, and Taker's clique stuck around for the big win. Austin vs McMahon was totally what finalized the WWF being back on top, but "Mr. McMahon" didn't start because of Montreal. They had been toying with the character since they debuted it in Memphis. It would have happened without Bret Hart, I'd guess. (Although the fact that Bret was part of the Memphis Mr. McMahon" deal is kinda cool.

[Sean Liska]

Mania was down to around 885,000 buys this year. Pretty surprising since they had such a good lineup, but the general interest in WWE right now just feels down compared to previous years.

[kjh]

Wow, going against UFC 111 (Lesnar vs. Mir, GSP vs. Hardy) on the same weekend must have cost them a minimum of 100,000 buys in North America.

[Sean Liska]

The Torch's math has North American buys for Mania in the 350,000-400,000 range. That would be catastrophic.

[kjh]

Are you sure that's not the number of buys for Mania outside North America? Otherwise, this would be the first WWE PPV in history where more people bought the PPV outside of North America.

[Bix]

Lesnar vs. Mir

Carwin, not Lesnar.

 

The Torch's math has North American buys for Mania in the 350,000-400,000 range. That would be catastrophic.

Is that in a paysite article? It's not in anything I saw there. Someone PM me the stuff plz.

[Sean Liska]

Are you sure that's not the number of buys for Mania outside North America? Otherwise, this would be the first WWE PPV in history where more people bought the PPV outside of North America.

This quote is from a Torch article on the main site from Caldwell. I just did the math.

 

"WrestleMania 26 made $19 million in PPV revenue. Dividing that number by the 885,000 buys, WWE only made $21.47 in revenue per PPV buy. Considering the domestic price was $54.99 and cable/satellite companies receive about half of their cut, WWE only received 39.1 percent of the domestic price per buy."

[Bix]

Yeah...that's not what that means.

 

WWE getting about 40% of the PPV price is standard. That doesn't mean that 40% of the PPV buys were in the US.

[rovert]

Cornette's reaction to Bubbas firing and the Thursday move just coz:

http://whosslammingwho.podomatic.com/entry...T13_11_37-07_00

[Boondocks Kernoodle]

That's just calculating the percentage of the PPV money that goes to WWE, not what percentage of buys were in North America.

 

EDIT: Bix beat me to it.

[Sean Liska]

Wow, I'm an idiot. Can I get a mulligan for speeding through this stuff while at work?

 

Sounds like the domestic will be a bit below the 560,000 that WM19 did, then. Not as disastrous but they certainly didn't take advantage of Bret's return and HBK's retiremment.

[goodhelmet]

It's like starting a company called High Intensity Violence and wondering why no one wants to watch HIV Wrestling.

This is such an awesome line.

[Strummer]

Wrestling is tons more popular than 1992-95.

 

It's more popular than 2002-2005.

Meltzer from the Board while talking about the Mania buyrate

 

Not around here but some people just don't want to accept this

 

The Mania buyrate was disappointing but you have to give Vince at least some credit for taking a dead company from 02-05 and turning it into at least a moderate success

 

The WWE main event scene is obviously stale but I've liked their programming for the most part since 05. And the business trends indciate a greater interest in the product

 

again not around here but the talk of WWE "dying" is hilarious

[artDDP]

I found WWE pretty much unwatchable in 2004. I think the Paul Bearer buried in concrete angle was what pushed me over the edge. I didn't think the product was that bad in 2002-03. 2005 wasn't awful, what I remember of it.

[Death From Above]

The Paul Bearer being buried in oatmeal show was literally the first WWE PPV I'd watched since they blew the Invasion.

 

Needless to say, it was also the last.

[Guest Slickster]

Wrestling is tons more popular than 1992-95.

 

It's more popular than 2002-2005.

Meltzer from the Board while talking about the Mania buyrate

 

Not around here but some people just don't want to accept this

 

The Mania buyrate was disappointing but you have to give Vince at least some credit for taking a dead company from 02-05 and turning it into at least a moderate success

 

The WWE main event scene is obviously stale but I've liked their programming for the most part since 05. And the business trends indciate a greater interest in the product

 

again not around here but the talk of WWE "dying" is hilarious

 

I really think the people who say 'WWE is dying' haven't been fans for longer than five years.

 

WWE isn't taping 3 weeks of Raw from a college gym in Struthers, OH like they were in 1994.

 

They aren't doing all fundraiser shows like the AWA in 1990.

 

They aren't taping Raw and SD back-to-back every week like WCW in 2000.

 

They aren't even stuck in one building like TNA is today.

 

WWE has a LONG way to go before they 'die.'

[El-P]

The WWE may not die before long, but I feel like dying out of boredom every time I tried to watch one of their shows in the last 3 or 4 years.

[kjh]

It's an arguable point that WWE is more popular today than 2002-2005. Certainly arena attendance is much healthier than it was in the dark days of 2003 and 2004. However, TV ratings and domestic PPV business are significantly down from that period. Recent market research is evidence against Dave's sweeping assertion too. From the Apr. 5 2010 Observer Newsletter:

 

Global Research group TNS just released its annual survey on the mainstream popularity of pro wrestling, and found that with the exception of 2005, that 2009 was the year with the least popularity since the surveys started in 2000.