Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 It's an interesting debate about the star power. 17 years ago, the star power from ex-WWF stars helped WCW hit the heights. The star power, from some of the same names, has never really made much of a difference to TNA. Names like Foley, Flair, Hogan and Nash haven't particularly helped the company attract a new audience. Then again, those names have been in and out of WWE since 2002 without really helping the steady slide they've been on the past 10 years. Â I'd question these names Loki posted "RVD, Jeff Hardy, Kurt Angle, Mr Anderson, hell Bully Ray". Anderson was a flash in the pan in WWE long after the boom. Angle, Ray and Hardy were around in the glory days of 2000 but weren't ever the really big name. RVD was always popular in WWE but never a really major star and again, his run came during the slide. Â Star power is missing from wrestling in a big way full stop. There are barely any names left around from the 80's glory days. Only Hogan and Flair are regulars and guys like Piper and Snuka have been used so often for meaningless appearances that they don't have any effect. If you took the Top 10 or so names from the late 90's, they're either retired or semi-retired and they've been over-exposed that appearances don't mean a great deal. A guy like The Rock is an odd one. WrestleMania appears to have drawn a phenomenal number this year but the TV ratings were crap. Â It's not a situation I see ever changing now. I think wrestling will always be around as long as there is an audience for it. I.e. as long as reproduction continues. I just think the core audience will always be smaller. People have some many other choices, people seem to go off things so much quicker, kids learn about everything and have their fill of everything so much quicker. There's nothing you have to stick around to see these days. You see every intriguing match within 6 weeks on TV. You can watch hundreds of hours for free on the internet. Society has moved on. I'm sure kids today love it as much as we did. They just grow out of it far quicker. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 That's a fair point. They clearly think it CAN be bigger, I'm just wondering how much bigger, what the end goal is. A 2.0? EDIT: I should point out that I don't really care about ratings, more about how good the show is! 8.0!  It's already Spike's highest rated show, but I imagine they're looking at WWEs numbers and thinking they can eventually grow the numbers to something much bigger than TNA currently have - Raw's doing around 3.0. Similar to what they're doing with Bellator (MMA company); they want to grow that show, so it does similar numbers to the UFC on Spike.  I'm not sure there is an 'end goal' in TV (there is certainly a line shows can't fall below), but I'm sure they're looking at WWEs numbers and wanting a healthy slice of that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I would argue that RVD, Angle and Jeff Hardy are bigger stars than most of the active roster of WWE right now. Anderson, granted, but he was extremely popular when he was there and clearly has some cachet. Â They're not a Rock or A Lesnar, certainly, but they're more than a CM Punk, a Lord Tensai or a Sheamus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 Jeff Hardy, in particular, was a massive star for WWE. He's also the only person that seems to make a difference to TNA numbers too. Â WWE will probably throw a stupid deal at Jeff Hardy, once his TNA deal is up. I hope they do, anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Awards Moderator HarmonicGenerator Posted May 23, 2012 Awards Moderator Share Posted May 23, 2012 What's the advertising/marketing like for TNA in the real world? I wonder whether it's a case of nobody new watching it because they've never heard of it or don't know it exists. How accessible is Spike TV over there compared to Challenge(?) over here? TNA's pretty easy to find in the UK if you're channel flicking on a Saturday night in - is that equatable with the US or is Spike buried amongst the more obscure stations, where you'll only find it if you know it's there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 Jeff Hardy was WWE's second biggest star in 2008/2009. He was main eventing PPV's for the belt as well. He was a huge star for them. He was the most searched for name in wrestling, boxing and MMA in 2009. People were super into him. Especially women, kids and teenagers. Â The difference between the likes of Batista, Jeff Hardy, RVD, JBL and Kurt Angle and the current roster is that they carried themselves like stars. The audience believed in them, and that's why they liked them. The current roster are in the position they are because there is nobody else to fill the gabs and that comes across watching Raw or SmackDown. Most of them are dressed the same. The WWE champion is wearing the same outfit as most of the NXT roster. A bunch of swimmers with prison tattoos, as a great man once said. Â The roster is wafer thin at the minute. I can't remember a time when the roster has been this bad. I can't see who can break through. A lot of them are completely dead on their arse. Dolph Ziggler's pretty much fucked. Cody Rhodes is going to feud with CM Punk next, but he's been slapped about so often, who is going to stay around when these two come onscreen? Its a big eye opener when Triple H, Shawn Michaels, The Undertaker, The Rock and Brock Lesnar a few months ago. Its like TNA is a sense, where once Robbie E's match finishes and Kurt Angle is shown in the back talking to Eric Bischoff the fans go "the real stars are finally on". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Except Robbie E is a better, more defined and more entertaining character than his WWE midcard companions. Everyone in TNA has their own identity, they have different promo styles and looks and they wrestle differently. Â Incidentally, I think Robbie E is awesome - he bumps incredibly well, and is making Rob Terry actually interesting at the moment. I love a good Robbie E match. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 I like Robbie E as well. Really underrated as well. I thought he was shit when he first turned up with that lass, but since he hooked up with Big Rob Terry, they've been class. He sends most of his life on Xplosion now though. Â And your right about the TNA roster. At least they try and give everyone a character. Even the girls. Everyone gets a fair shake. They all look different as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 I would argue that RVD, Angle and Jeff Hardy are bigger stars than most of the active roster of WWE right now. Anderson, granted, but he was extremely popular when he was there and clearly has some cachet. I'd agree with you there. I'm not suggesting they weren't big stars but I don't think they are difference making stars on the level of Hogan, Savage, etc who changed WCW numbers. Â Â Jeff Hardy, in particular, was a massive star for WWE. He's also the only person that seems to make a difference to TNA numbers too. Jeff Hardy was WWE's second biggest star in 2008/2009. He was main eventing PPV's for the belt as well. He was a huge star for them. He was the most searched for name in wrestling, boxing and MMA in 2009. People were super into him. Especially women, kids and teenagers. Again, don't disagree. Hardy was massively over with that audience. But compared to a Foley or a Hogan, it was a small audience in front of which he was a star. So even if a percentage of those people are inclined to follow him elsewhere, it's quite a small number. Not sure this matters "He was the most searched for name in wrestling, boxing and MMA in 2009.". WWE have massive presence on the internet, billions of followers and facebook friends and yet no-one is watching. So I don't buy into anything like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 Nobody's watching in the US. I don't have the stats for this, but I reckon the WWE gets seen by just as many people nowadays as it did in Hogan's heyday, it's just the vast majority are overseas! It's like, Impact is a big brand now with non-US wrestling fans, but it's struggling to get audience number on US telly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 Nobody's watching in the US. I don't have the stats for this, but I reckon the WWE gets seen by just as many people nowadays as it did in Hogan's heyday, it's just the vast majority are overseas! It's like, Impact is a big brand now with non-US wrestling fans, but it's struggling to get audience number on US telly. That's probably true, wouldn't disagree. But the US is their market. It's where 90% of the product is focused, it dictates most of the events, the shows and the decisions. I've given WWE and TNA credit for a while for embracing the worldwide appeal and making money despite falling US viewership. I don't think it counts for much when it comes to super-stardom though. That comes from pop culture in the US. They're too insular for it to matter. If they're not big in the US, it comes across a bit too "Sam Fox is a massive star in Germany". Mind you, Sam Fox is massive everywhere. Â As great as Hardy, RVD, Angle and Bully Ray have been at times, if they all returned to WWE tomorrow, it would have a minimal effect on viewership. I'd love it but I'm not the audience they market to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 They are doing worse than they were a few years back internationally. The tours are very profitable, but they aren't popular in Mexico as they were a few years back. Japan is sick of wrestling at the minute. They count international buys in their buys now, and their whole PPV average isn't equal to that of what domestic was like in 2005. WWE is down in a lot of markets. And most of their areas of business is down as well. The audience in the late 80s and late 90s was massive compared to now. I remember WWF being massive over here in 1999 and 2000. It was like that all over the world as well. They aren't catching the imagination of people anymore. Vince even admitted this a few weeks back, before promising to turn the ship around. His quote was "there are three things certain next year - death, taxes and the WWE will be better off". Obviously he's hoping the Network and this three hour Raw idea takes off. Â Wrestling has always been a business based on selling attractions to the audience. If you treat your belts like shit and you dont protect your stars, business always suffers. Its always been the same. You need to have a reason to care. And thats what Rock, Cena, Lesnar, Undertaker and Triple H give you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted May 23, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted May 23, 2012 They are doing worse than they were a few years back internationally. The tours are very profitable, but they aren't popular in Mexico as they were a few years back. Japan is sick of wrestling at the minute. They count international buys in their buys now, and their whole PPV average isn't equal to that of what domestic was like in 2005. WWE is down in a lot of markets. And most of their areas of business is down as well. The audience in the late 80s and late 90s was massive compared to now. I remember WWF being massive over here in 1999 and 2000. It was like that all over the world as well. They aren't catching the imagination of people anymore. Vince even admitted this a few weeks back, before promising to turn the ship around. His quote was "there are three things certain next year - death, taxes and the WWE will be better off". Obviously he's hoping the Network and this three hour Raw idea takes off. Wrestling has always been a business based on selling attractions to the audience. If you treat your belts like shit and you dont protect your stars, business always suffers. Its always been the same. You need to have a reason to care. And thats what Rock, Cena, Lesnar, Undertaker and Triple H give you. I was thinking about this the other day, part of the reason the rest of the roster feels a bit 'Poundland' is because WWE seem to be terrified of having one of the newer guys mixing it up with any of those people. It's hard to create a genuine top talent, when he's clearly booked below the first team and mixing it up with dullards like Alberto Del Rio or Sheamus. They need to start taking more calculated risks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 They need to let Ryback beat Lesnar, basically. Try making a new star whilst he's around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirty Eddie Posted May 23, 2012 Share Posted May 23, 2012 I was thinking about this the other day, part of the reason the rest of the roster feels a bit 'Poundland' is because WWE seem to be terrified of having one of the newer guys mixing it up with any of those people. It's hard to create a genuine top talent, when he's clearly booked below the first team and mixing it up with dullards like Alberto Del Rio or Sheamus. They need to start taking more calculated risks. Â Absolutely right. The annoying thing is that it's actually a really obvious point that WWE seem to not "get". Â Having Cena Vrs Rock, then Lesnar, then Ace and now (most likely) Big Show in the "proper" main events, while the WWE and World Titles are defended on the undercard sends a strong and clear message that "this lot are the real superstars, those guys - not so much". I completely understand that Rock/Cena absolutely had to be the main match of Mania, only an idiot would complain about that, but it shouldn't be an ongoing situation where Cena gets the main event regardless of who the Champs are. I said the other day that the WWE and World titles are now being treated like the old IC and US titles should have been; i.e. the top matches given away on TV and the semi-mains on PPV. Not a solid way to build new superstar talent. Â One thing that rarely gets mentioned on here is the lack of stars that have been created off the back of Cena. Triple H used to get loads of stick but ultimately he put over Batista super-strong and solidified him at the top, he also did clean jobs for Benoit, Cena himself and probably others I am forgetting. The only person who really got main-event rub from Cena was probably Punk last Summer and even then any victories were dubious/unclean ones. Â Obviously he doesn't book his own feuds so I'm not blaming him, just an observation that's all. Most heels that work with Cena end up dropping down the card after, much like Hogan's opponents in the 80s, rather than getting top line rub and becoming attractions themselves. Mark Henry and Bryan came on leaps and bounds being kept away from Cena. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.