Impact Wrestling Discussion **UK SPOILERS**

[simonworden]

Couple of things bother me with the TNA storylines at the moment from the last taping results.

 

1). Call me old fashioned but I wouldnt be sticking up for Traci Brooks if a couple of weeks ago she had admitted to sleeping with Eric Bichoff if I was her husband so him defending her doesnt make sense to me

 

2). AJ Vs Daniels is a really annoying routine over the last few years of "were best mates ...." to Daniels turning on AJ and repeat 6-12 months later. Is there nothing new they can do with this?

[garynysmon]

2). AJ Vs Daniels is a really annoying routine over the last few years of "were best mates ...." to Daniels turning on AJ and repeat 6-12 months later. Is there nothing new they can do with this?

 

Does anyone actually like Chris Daniels? He annoys the hell out of me.

[Your Fight Site]

Does anyone actually like Chris Daniels? He annoys the hell out of me.

Nope. I'm not a fan either.

[Loki]

I suppose this depends on whether they are profitable now or not. I agree with you that their PPV numbers are so bad that they probably make little difference to the bottom line.

 

However, given that their payroll currently includes Bischoff, Hogan, Sting, Angle, Anderson, Flair, Steiner, Jarrett and Taz and given the size of the roster, I find it hard to believe that along with the cost of producing TV and running an arena 60-odd times a year that they would be profitable from the TV income and the marketing.

 

 

Well, I'm fairly certain that they're at least breaking even. I think the big contracts like Sting, Hogan etc are paid for by Spike rather than TNA. But on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if they've overstretched themselves this last year. You have to think they won't be re-signing Hulk and Bisch, considering they've not really improved the TV ratings as much as was hoped, although it's now stabilized a little higher than before they came.

 

I am less of a fan of Daniels with each passing year. He hasn't improved at all since coming in to TNA the first time, whereas the company has moved on from that particular style.

[iamtheman]

There is 5 Impacts before BFG, so I guess it makes more sense to tape 3+2 instead of 2+2+1.

 

their filming the 29th of september edition tonight then there filiming for TV in Knoxville Tennessee next Wednesday which will be a double taping then its on to Philly for BFG

[SSJLogan]

* Ink Inc. are backstage and they are talking to each other, when at some point they are joined by a controversial girl with a pass to ask for an autograph, Moore and Neal are happy to put their signatures on a book, which happens to be a copy of the Book of D.I.L.L.I.G.A.F.

 

I dont know about anyone else but this segment does nothing for me. Why do they keep pushing that damn book more than people like Doug Williams.

[TildeGuy~!]

I dont know about anyone else but this segment does nothing for me. Why do they keep pushing that damn book more than people like Doug Williams.

 

What's the book about?

[Loki]

Particle physics.

[King Pitcos]

"They are joined by a controversial girl"? What does that mean?

 

If they take that attitude though, they'll never make anything of it. I don't buy it personally. I know WWE's PPV business is shit too but I think it's just an excuse. If the PPV wrestling business is really dead, it didn't just happened, they crippled it.

But what's the solution? At this point, when the real fighting is doing a pay-per-view every month and no fucker's got any money, how do you persuade people to cough up every 4 weeks? WWE's current plan, having CM Punk do speeches that mean nothing to anyone except the people who already stream PPVs, isn't going to help matters.

 

I've no idea what TNA's ratings are like these days but for a long time they were getting between 800,000 and 1.2m viewers regularly and failing to convert them into PPV buys. The product didn't encourage or require people to buy PPV's. WWE have been in a similar boat for a while. I haven't watched a minor PPV for over a year and I don't feel like I've missed a thing.

You missed quite a bit with Money in the Bank in July.

[tiger_rick]

But what's the solution? At this point, when the real fighting is doing a pay-per-view every month and no fucker's got any money, how do you persuade people to cough up every 4 weeks? WWE's current plan, having CM Punk do speeches that mean nothing to anyone except the people who already stream PPVs, isn't going to help matters.

The solution is to create interesting and unique characters, create titles that mean something, create reasons for them to fight and produce TV shows that create intrigue but don't give anything away forcing the customer to pay to see the conclusion. It's pretty simple really!

 

You missed quite a bit with Money in the Bank in July.

I wouldn't say so. I watched the next TV and caught up immediately on all the developments. I still want to see the Cena/Punk match but it didn't bother me that I didn't. I found out Del Rio won the Money In the Bank which was all a bit meh. What else did I miss? There are so many PPV's and so few of them feature anything different to the TV shows (talking about both companies here) that there isn't much of a reason to buy them.

 

Both companies produce too many PPV shows for the current climate. If they produced half the number and built them properly, they'd create an event again. Something that people feel they need to see. Wrestling isn't hot anymore, people aren't going to pay for everything regardless. They need to take a step back and simplify the formula. Don't put matches between two guys on the same level on TV, don't throw out title matches for no reason, don't give away face to face encounters every 5 minutes, don't put anyone on TV who the fans don't "know" unless he's a jabroni and don't treat anyone like less of a star by throwing them out on TV without a build and a goal. That's every single week.

 

Those are somethings I'd change for a start.

[King Pitcos]

The solution is to create interesting and unique characters, create titles that mean something, create reasons for them to fight and produce TV shows that create intrigue but don't give anything away forcing the customer to pay to see the conclusion. It's pretty simple really!

They did all of that with Money in the Bank, and no cunt bought it.

 

I wouldn't say so. I watched the next TV and caught up immediately on all the developments. I still want to see the Cena/Punk match but it didn't bother me that I didn't. I found out Del Rio won the Money In the Bank which was all a bit meh. What else did I miss?

Cena-Punk was WrestleMania quality and WrestleMania atmosphere. Moreso than this year's WrestleMania main event, so you missed a lot with that.

 

Both companies produce too many PPV shows for the current climate. If they produced half the number and built them properly, they'd create an event again. Something that people feel they need to see. Wrestling isn't hot anymore, people aren't going to pay for everything regardless. They need to take a step back and simplify the formula. Don't put matches between two guys on the same level on TV, don't throw out title matches for no reason, don't give away face to face encounters every 5 minutes, don't put anyone on TV who the fans don't "know" unless he's a jabroni and don't treat anyone like less of a star by throwing them out on TV without a build and a goal. That's every single week.

 

Those are somethings I'd change for a start.

I'd agree with most of that apart from the halving the PPVs as that likely doesn't make any sense. The rest of it would all up my enjoyment of the shows greatly I expect, but I don't know that it'd make any great difference to the bottom line. I assume there is great pressure from the network to keep noteworthy stuff like "face to face encounters every 5 minutes" and "matches between two guys on the same level" on Raw. Taking that stuff away might result in more interest in pay-per-views, or it might just lead to more people not bothering with Raw at all. Wrestling is a very unique business in that respect. It relies on the same cast of characters to be pay-per-view draws, weekly TV draws and constant touring draws. And the TV is what drives the other two as well as being vitally important prime-time viewing in its own right. Raw can't and shouldn't just be an advert for other events. On-Topic: Same goes for Impact.

[Daaaaaad!]

They did all of that with Money in the Bank, and no cunt bought it.

Didn't it do 230,000 buys or something? Up more than 50,000 from the previous year? And they've increased the price too.

[ColinBollocks]

Well, I'm fairly certain that they're at least breaking even. I think the big contracts like Sting, Hogan etc are paid for by Spike rather than TNA. But on the other hand it wouldn't surprise me if they've overstretched themselves this last year. You have to think they won't be re-signing Hulk and Bisch, considering they've not really improved the TV ratings as much as was hoped, although it's now stabilized a little higher than before they came.

 

I am less of a fan of Daniels with each passing year. He hasn't improved at all since coming in to TNA the first time, whereas the company has moved on from that particular style.

Spike are also paying some coin for their shows on the road, as they're taking a loss every time they tape outside the Impact Zone.

[King Pitcos]

Didn't it do 230,000 buys or something? Up more than 50,000 from the previous year? And they've increased the price too.

 

185,000 last I heard.

[tiger_rick]

Cena-Punk was WrestleMania quality and WrestleMania atmosphere. Moreso than this year's WrestleMania main event, so you missed a lot with that.

I'll catch up with it eventually. I still didn't feel like I missed anything other than a quality match. Possibly because the first segment of Raw told us none of it mattered and a new title belt would resolve it all or possibly because Punk came back the week after. Either way, it all just went on pretty much as normal.

 

I'd agree with most of that apart from the halving the PPVs as that likely doesn't make any sense. The rest of it would all up my enjoyment of the shows greatly I expect, but I don't know that it'd make any great difference to the bottom line. I assume there is great pressure from the network to keep noteworthy stuff like "face to face encounters every 5 minutes" and "matches between two guys on the same level" on Raw. Taking that stuff away might result in more interest in pay-per-views, or it might just lead to more people not bothering with Raw at all.

I think you're possibly right about the network interference, though I'd more imagine that if ratings are strong, they wouldn't care.

 

I don't think it would take people away though. I'd still present TV matches, tag matches, a couple of squash matches and a recycled TV main event. It'd be heavy on story and character development though, more promos, skits and vignettes. I'd concentrate more on building the TV main event too. Michael Cole can mention it before every ad-break but it won't make me care anymore.

 

Wrestling is a very unique business in that respect. It relies on the same cast of characters to be pay-per-view draws, weekly TV draws and constant touring draws. And the TV is what drives the other two as well as being vitally important prime-time viewing in its own right. Raw can't and shouldn't just be an advert for other events. On-Topic: Same goes for Impact.

Completely agree but see what I've written above. You don't have to take the TV back to 1989 stuff. What they need to do is make the TV a part of the story arc again instead of having an arc that starts one week and ends the next before starting again. There's too much focus on week to week for my liking.