|
Post by Chris Corr on Jul 29, 2014 3:32:57 GMT -5
Yes, but if they put the show on their website, they would get to keep the advertising revenue instead of SpikeTV getting the ad revenue and paying TNA for their show. I believe ROH did something similar for a while. Ever pay attention to commercials during RAW or IMPACT? It's predominantly snacks and fast food. Pro wrestling, regardless of ratings, does not draw high-end advertisers, which is one of the reasons WWE wasn't able to convince any networks to give them the $200m minimum domestic rights deal they wanted. If WWE and TNA as polished TV products airing weekly on cable networks that are each in nearly 100m homes can't draw in advertisers past the Popeye's level, a stripped down, low budget version of TNA available only on their website won't do much better. The internet is in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes though. And it doesn't have to be "stripped down". It could be identical to what it was on television. The only difference is TNA would be selling the advertising themselves, instead of Spike selling the ads and getting the advertising revenue, and paying TNA for the show. The ads wouldn't even have to be different. They could be the same ads from the same sponsors. There are plenty of successful online-only shows. I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, but it's worth a try.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 29, 2014 11:38:06 GMT -5
Ever pay attention to commercials during RAW or IMPACT? It's predominantly snacks and fast food. Pro wrestling, regardless of ratings, does not draw high-end advertisers, which is one of the reasons WWE wasn't able to convince any networks to give them the $200m minimum domestic rights deal they wanted. If WWE and TNA as polished TV products airing weekly on cable networks that are each in nearly 100m homes can't draw in advertisers past the Popeye's level, a stripped down, low budget version of TNA available only on their website won't do much better. The internet is in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes though. The internet being in more homes than cable is only relevant if there are a significant amount of potential TNA fans who can't watch IMPACT due to the cable TV pay wall. There has never been any evidence this is the case. For the dozens of reasons people list for not watching TNA, "I have a high speed wifi but not cable" isn't a recurring theme. There is no groundswell of internet users who crave pro wrestling but can't access TNA due to not having cable. Online advertisers also do not determine rates based on how many people have access to a high speed connection, so IMPACT being online and the internet being "in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes" would not matter if only around 1.5 million people actually watch the show. TNA gets the overwhelming majority of their budget for TV predominantly from the Spike deal, and has also gotten financial assistance from them in regards to signing talent and touring in the past. Even with that support, they have downsized tremendously in the past year. How would a company losing their biggest consistent revenue stream be able to operate as status quo? Money from advertisers is not guaranteed revenue like a TV contract is, so the only other option would be Janice Carter and Bob Carter. The only way such a business model would be feasible is if TNA would earn the same or more from selling advertising themselves than the guaranteed rights fee they receive from Spike. Notice how people like Meltzer or Bauer, who most likely have access to TNA's numbers, have never really floated your idea as a viable alternative? Do you think it's because they simply haven't thought of it, or because it's not realistic? One of the most lucrative ways to monetize content via advertisements on the internet is via YouTube. Even the most popular channels, with tens of millions of subscribers and billions of views, bring in a few million annually to the content creator. To think TNA can do substantially better on their own is laughable. Even if it were the same ads from the same advertisers, there is no guarantee TNA would be given the same rate as Spike. Successful online-only shows are either DIY, self-made empires or people who were successful working within traditional media before branching out on their own terms. TNA is neither of those things. As a DIY business, they were heading towards bankruptcy before Dixie's parents saved the day. As a product within traditional media, they haven't built up the fan-base to become sustainable as an independent entity. Also, if you look at the most successful online-only shows, they either do not have the overhead TNA does, or are original programming created by multi-billion dollar corporations, behind a pay wall and exist to sell subscriptions. It's worth a try as a stopgap while shopping for a new deal as Above Average Mike Sanders said, but that's about it.
|
|
|
Post by The Pod-Father! on Jul 29, 2014 23:39:23 GMT -5
Great discussion, brothers!
In related news, Marcus Vanderberg & I lead off this week's edition of the Kings Of Sport with about 25-minute worth of TNA/Spike talk. We don't give TNA's eulogy...But we are pretty realistic about their future.
|
|
|
Post by Above Average Mike Sanders on Jul 29, 2014 23:45:53 GMT -5
Ever pay attention to commercials during RAW or IMPACT? It's predominantly snacks and fast food. Pro wrestling, regardless of ratings, does not draw high-end advertisers, which is one of the reasons WWE wasn't able to convince any networks to give them the $200m minimum domestic rights deal they wanted. If WWE and TNA as polished TV products airing weekly on cable networks that are each in nearly 100m homes can't draw in advertisers past the Popeye's level, a stripped down, low budget version of TNA available only on their website won't do much better. The internet is in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes though. And it doesn't have to be "stripped down". It could be identical to what it was on television. The only difference is TNA would be selling the advertising themselves, instead of Spike selling the ads and getting the advertising revenue, and paying TNA for the show. The ads wouldn't even have to be different. They could be the same ads from the same sponsors. There are plenty of successful online-only shows. I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, but it's worth a try. I'm surprised you haven't suggested Dixie just lay some golden eggs
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Jul 30, 2014 2:41:55 GMT -5
That's a lot easier said then done Milky. You'd be asking for a crew of hundreds to move their entire lives over to Europe. They have a heel of a fan base over here in the UK but we get one taping per city once a year, I don't know how we'd be if it was a weekly or monthly thing. Just like when WWE come over, it's a nice treat once a year but too expensive for all the time. Anyways over the past few years I lost hope with TNA but I never wanted to see it go away, it was another place for guys to work and it did have it high points. Unfortunately it's not even a good place to work if you're a wrestler these days, AJ Styles has said several times that he makes a lot more on the indies then in TNA, granted he's a special case as he's IWGP Champion but many can make a living off the indies these days. I suppose we can't say TNA is dead yet as they might make it to another network using the fact they'll give them a million viewers every week. Now all we can do is wait for the "Vince Russo killed TNA" and "TNA killed Vince Russo" books to come out. I don’t think moving to Europe would be a huge problem. Most people in the wrestling business live their lives on the road anyways, so to actually have a home base anywhere is an advantage TNA have often had over feds like the WWE. And if you ask most North Americans, “Hey, would you be willing to live in Europe for a year or two?” a lot would see that as an attractive opportunity. Obviously not the ones with settled families, but I do think there would be a large enough interest. They could also hire locals on a freelance basis in a worst-case scenario. And TNA could run more than just England, they could also run the continent. 3-4 months at a time in one country for tapings is not unrealistic if done on a reasonable budget. I think the biggest problem would be the permits, actually, but it’s not impossible. I also think that with more local advertising you would generate more interest in the product than what they currently manage on their once/year tours. mrkennedy Interesting idea about Spike buying TNA. Of course, TNA would still have to be willing to sell to them and it would be pretty shady of Spike to pull a move like that. If it were me and I were forced to sell in that situation, I would sell to Vince McMahon instead, just for spite. In regards to running their show on the internet, it’s definitely not TNA’s best option but it might work as a very short stop-gap. A lucrative television deal would be better, for sure, but there are a number of e-celebs on YouTube these days who pull in upwards of $4-5 million on their own from advertising, without any backing. But they also have more subscribers than TNA have traditionally had viewers. But I do believe that TNA’s large following would find them online if TNA weren’t available on television. Unlike the WWE, I believe TNA’s main supporters are indeed hardcore fans, which is an advantage for them. The advantage of online advertising, too, is that it’s mainly about the number of hits the shows get. The demographic of the users watching is not a concern. That being said, I don't think the internet alone is a viable long-term solution. If it were, they would have left Spike long ago! At any rate, it will be TNA’s business acumen that will be tested now, and funnily enough that’s what Dixie Carter has always prided herself on. How strange would it be if TNA went under not because of their poor booking/wrestling philosophy (that they’ve held for long stretches in their history) but because of their inability to handle non-wrestling related business during a time when their wrestling product is actually quite attractive?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Jul 30, 2014 3:00:04 GMT -5
The internet is in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes though. And it doesn't have to be "stripped down". It could be identical to what it was on television. The only difference is TNA would be selling the advertising themselves, instead of Spike selling the ads and getting the advertising revenue, and paying TNA for the show. The ads wouldn't even have to be different. They could be the same ads from the same sponsors. There are plenty of successful online-only shows. I'm not saying it would necessarily be successful, but it's worth a try. I'm surprised you haven't suggested Dixie just lay some golden eggs Yes, as opposed to your brilliant ideas.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Jul 30, 2014 3:02:13 GMT -5
The internet is in a hell of a lot more than 100 milion homes though. The internet being in more homes than cable is only relevant if there are a significant amount of potential TNA fans who can't watch IMPACT due to the cable TV pay wall. You're missing the point. The point is that there is no reason why the viewership on the internet would have to be any lower than on SpikeTV. Anyone who was watching it on Spike could continue to watch it on the internet. They don't have to get more viewers. If they kept getting 1 million that would be plenty. No. TNA is a privately-held company. They absolutely do not have access to TNA's numbers.
|
|
|
Post by Gee Hall on Jul 30, 2014 3:42:52 GMT -5
The internet being in more homes than cable is only relevant if there are a significant amount of potential TNA fans who can't watch IMPACT due to the cable TV pay wall. You're missing the point. The point is that there is no reason why the viewership on the internet would have to be any lower than on SpikeTV. Anyone who was watching it on Spike could continue to watch it on the internet. They don't have to get more viewers. If they kept getting 1 million that would be plenty. No. TNA is a privately-held company. They absolutely do not have access to TNA's numbers. I agree with you this week. Stop changing your name.
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on Jul 30, 2014 4:10:14 GMT -5
I believe you are way over-estimating how much money TNA could get by streaming it. As-is with Spike's and overseas broadcasts rights fees, TNA is barely staying aflot. If TNA could even get somewhere close by going online (which I highly doubt), they would be losing even more money than they are today which likely means they do not survive.
Personally, I do not see them going to Europe either as they would not make that much money without U.S. tv rights fees. Besides, Europe only sees TNA live once a year. Also, they are trying to be enthusiastic because they want big events like a WWE PPV over there. After a few months, people would not care anymore as TNA has demonstrated that they cannot create an exciting product nor a homegrown superstar.
In my opinion, Spike would not purchase TNA because the brand is not attractive at all. TNA's ratings have never improved. So, Spike would have to rebrand the company and get rid of everybody anyway. Plus, they would have to pick up any debts owed by TNA. So why bother? Either put on somebody else or start your company instead. It is not like TNA has a fanatical fanbase who would boycott Spike. A chunk of TNA's audience is derived from them leaving their tv's on the same channel after watching reruns of Cops.
|
|
|
Post by Milky on Jul 30, 2014 4:42:28 GMT -5
Personally, I do not see them going to Europe either as they would not make that much money without U.S. tv rights fees. Besides, Europe only sees TNA live once a year. Also, they are trying to be enthusiastic because they want big events like a WWE PPV over there. After a few months, people would not care anymore as TNA has demonstrated that they cannot create an exciting product nor a homegrown superstar. Europe sees TNA quite a bit more than once/year on television. Perhaps their viewing figures are modest in some markets, but in terms of wrestling TNA has a larger presence in most countries than even domestic European federations. I really believe that if TNA catered to local markets and really went on a good-will initiative, that they would have success in a number of European regions. In my opinion, Spike would not purchase TNA because the brand is not attractive at all. TNA's ratings have never improved. So, Spike would have to rebrand the company and get rid of everybody anyway. Plus, they would have to pick up any debts owed by TNA. So why bother? Either put on somebody else or start your company instead. It is not like TNA has a fanatical fanbase who would boycott Spike. A chunk of TNA's audience is derived from them leaving their tv's on the same channel after watching reruns of Cops. TNA's ratings haven't improved, but they have remained constant, which is still attractive to most cable companies. Even when TNA have changed timeslots, their ratings haven't. Impact, as a television show, is a huge asset to have. I think it's actually possible that Spike could purchase TNA, if TNA were willing to sell. Why start from scratch when you can start with a pre-existing fan base? Unless you truly believe that the TNA brand is so damaged that it's not worth salvaging, but I don't think it is. People talk trash about TNA all the time, especially in the pro-wrestling media, but I don't think many fans associate TNA with sex. Some might associate it with bad wrestling but it's actually not bad wrestling. It does take time to change minds but it can be done and I really don't think TNA are starting in a bad position if you take them at where they're at right now. They have a good roster, a good following, and a decent video library that has been severely under-utilized. Also, while I don't think TNA fans would consciously boycott Spike TV should Impact not air on their station, I do think the majority of TNA fans would stop watching simply because there's nothing else on the channel that they like. If we simply go based on the viewership numbers, then Spike TV viewers are mostly watching TNA and old episodes of Cops. Unless you can entice them with a brand new show I don't think TNA fans will just watch Spike TV from 9-11pm out of habit - but I do think they will continue to watch TNA, wherever they end up, as long as it's actually TNA and not WWETNA.
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Jul 30, 2014 6:05:09 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The point is that there is no reason why the viewership on the internet would have to be any lower than on SpikeTV. Anyone who was watching it on Spike could continue to watch it on the internet. They don't have to get more viewers. If they kept getting 1 million that would be plenty. No. TNA is a privately-held company. They absolutely do not have access to TNA's numbers. I agree with you this week. Stop changing your name. Huh? Changing my name?
|
|
|
Post by Chris Corr on Jul 30, 2014 6:05:34 GMT -5
You're missing the point. The point is that there is no reason why the viewership on the internet would have to be any lower than on SpikeTV. Anyone who was watching it on Spike could continue to watch it on the internet. They don't have to get more viewers. If they kept getting 1 million that would be plenty. No. TNA is a privately-held company. They absolutely do not have access to TNA's numbers. I agree with you this week. Stop changing your name. Huh? Changing my name?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 30, 2014 14:28:33 GMT -5
The internet being in more homes than cable is only relevant if there are a significant amount of potential TNA fans who can't watch IMPACT due to the cable TV pay wall. You're missing the point. The point is that there is no reason why the viewership on the internet would have to be any lower than on SpikeTV. Anyone who was watching it on Spike could continue to watch it on the internet. They don't have to get more viewers. If they kept getting 1 million that would be plenty. Advertisers have different rates and pricing structures for internet based advertising as opposed to television advertising. Just because they pay one rate to advertise on Spike, it does not mean they would pay the same rate to advertise online. Also, ad rates for web based content which gets millions of views per episode amounts to a few million a year, and such shows typically do not have the overhead that a pro wrestling company does. How would TNA, with approx 1.5 million views per episode, be able to bring in more than the rumored $10m+ that Spike TV pays in rights fees? Numbers as it pertains to their broadcast fees and advertising rates would be easily accessible via Spike. Meltzer has been in the game over 30 years and Spike TV has been in the pro wrestling business for around 15 years...you really don't think he has stooges at cable companies? Also, this is TNA, not the NSA. It's hilariously naive to think that details about a private company, financial or otherwise, can't be uncovered. If TNA being a privately-held company meant sensitive information was inaccessible to the public, Russo being on the payroll would not have been exposed months ago. And that is just one example (of dozens) where private info from a private company became public knowledge because info was leaked.
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on Jul 30, 2014 17:01:39 GMT -5
Maybe TNA has a new chance with Spike as Russo has said he is done with TNA. Of course, Spike might not even trust TNA anymore.
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on Jul 30, 2014 17:12:47 GMT -5
I don't think TNA fans will just watch Spike TV from 9-11pm out of habit - but I do think they will continue to watch TNA, wherever they end up, as long as it's actually TNA and not WWETNA. It is probably debatable whether TNA has that many loyal fans. Maybe the majority of Impact viewers consists of people who just watched Cops & people who just want to watch any sort of wrestling even if they do not think much of the promotion. Maybe TNA's only loyal fans are the 8000 or so who buy the ppv's.
|
|