|
Post by darlotto99 on May 25, 2015 21:40:56 GMT -5
Jeff can start his own company again. TNA might have been around for a decade, but its got a taint. Its still a name, but even the name has a taint on it since its TNA. I know I'm the juvinille here bringing it up, but its always been a sticking point for me having a kid. If Jarrett bought TNA, people would tune in a week and then tune out. It would still be the same people and even if he started a new company that new company might have a lot of TNA's people if it collapses. I have a feeling Jarrett will fill any new company with new local guys. I'm not objecting to that. I've seen TNA 10 years. I can't keep watching the same guys going no where. . I don't think Jeff would want the TNA brand just some talent he could use and would also eliminate TNA as a potential competition because let's face it TNA will be GFW competition. Jeff helped build TNA so who knows how he feels about the company if he feels he wants to keep it alive in a small way instead of it ending up on Vince's mantel next to WCW. Jeff would get TNA Talent contracts, the video library among some of the other assists that GFW could use.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on May 25, 2015 22:23:40 GMT -5
What stops any wrestling company from just sending TV tapings to a Netflix, Hulu, Shomi, Crave streaming channel and add new tapings every quarter?
|
|
|
Post by Gee Hall on May 26, 2015 0:20:47 GMT -5
What stops any wrestling company from just sending TV tapings to a Netflix, Hulu, Shomi, Crave streaming channel and add new tapings every quarter? Probably interest and money.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on May 26, 2015 0:28:43 GMT -5
If there's no interest in TV, streaming is the next best option. If people can make a decent living off being "Youtube stars", why couldn't a smart wrestling company make a decent wage from these types of platforms? Just cut out that exclusivity shit and book cheap and tour your hotbeds. Whose to say you can't generate interest that way? Just because no one has done it yet, doesn't make it couldn't work.
|
|
|
Post by thelaw on May 26, 2015 2:11:43 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Christian Small on May 26, 2015 3:39:41 GMT -5
If there's no interest in TV, streaming is the next best option. If people can make a decent living off being "Youtube stars", why couldn't a smart wrestling company make a decent wage from these types of platforms? Just cut out that exclusivity shit and book cheap and tour your hotbeds. Whose to say you can't generate interest that way? Just because no one has done it yet, doesn't make it couldn't work. The difference there is that you're talking about 1 person or a very small group who do everything themselves. Even then you need hundreds of thousands of hits to make money on Youtube. I think in order for TNA to make money of something like this they would have to create their own version of the WWE network but as history has shown it's a very small audience who are actually willing to pay for anything TNA. Just look at their PPV numbers.
|
|
|
Post by john casey on May 26, 2015 5:54:22 GMT -5
One thing about businesses not wanting to be advertised on Impact I don't get is, If Impact is one of the highest (if not the highest)rated programme on Destination America, why wouldn't you want to advertise on that show. If I was buying advertising space I would want it on the show with the most viewers. Granted I'm not sure if D.A. were charging more for advertising on Impact but still it is not as if D.A. were showing top of the range programming.
I know that Impact has been a bit risqué recently (Dollhouse, MVP's wording and Chris Melendez incident) but it's content you would find in XPW.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 10:29:18 GMT -5
One thing about businesses not wanting to be advertised on Impact I don't get is, If Impact is one of the highest (if not the highest)rated programme on Destination America, why wouldn't you want to advertise on that show. WWE RAW gets 3.5 to 4.5 million viewers weekly on average in the US alone, yet their ad rates aren't much better. The problem is that pro wrestling has had a stigma associated with it for decades now that it's a low-brow form of entertainment and the fanbase is stupid, cheap and poor. WWE has coined their own term for the industry, made the company publicly traded and do all that charity work and celebrity shoulder rubbing to try and change that perception, yet the average person in the US will NEVER see pro wrestling as more than "that fake wrestling shit" or "rassling". Even if WWE cut out all the toilet humor and made it a serious sports show ala ROH, it's doubtful any change would be reflected in their advertisers. This is why TNA, despite respectable numbers on Spike, was struggling for months to find a new home and WWE, even with their big ratings, weren't able to come close to meeting their projections with rights fees. Pro wrestling has a lot of viewers, but those viewers aren't perceived too highly by advertisers and one of the main ways networks make money off of programming is to sell ad space. Buying ad space isn't that black and white, though. If you are selling a product and believe, justified or not, that the audience of a show is nowhere near your target demographic, then it makes little sense to buy ad space on that show regardless of how many people are watching. An overly simplified comparison, but Rolex would never sign a deal to sell their watches at Wal-Mart, despite the massive foot traffic the stores get daily, because of the belief that the typical Wal-Mart customer does not fit into the criteria of a potential Rolex owner. Going by what has been reported, some advertisers told DA week one that they were not going to be associated with TNA. And yeah, objectively speaking you can't really say TNA is much more low rent than "Hillbilly Blood", but that is just one of the unfair uphill battles pro wrestling has to deal with. XPW is a bad example, since they never had to deal with a broadcaster trying to sell 2 hours of ad space a week, 52 weeks a year. A better example is that nothing on TNA is more risqué than what you'd find on a typical reality show on cable.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on May 26, 2015 13:09:46 GMT -5
It's not the wrestling product advertisers are wary off, it's the notion that most wrestling fans are slack jawed hillbillies and 30 year old neckbeard virgins who have no money.
There was a reason why at WWF's peak that their biggest advertisers were Stridex and 1-800-collect or Skittles/KFC/Sonic/Popeyes.
Go look at their biggest forums and see for yourself as to why researchers could look down at us and see that we offer nothing to their product.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on May 26, 2015 13:12:38 GMT -5
If there's no interest in TV, streaming is the next best option. If people can make a decent living off being "Youtube stars", why couldn't a smart wrestling company make a decent wage from these types of platforms? Just cut out that exclusivity shit and book cheap and tour your hotbeds. Whose to say you can't generate interest that way? Just because no one has done it yet, doesn't make it couldn't work. The difference there is that you're talking about 1 person or a very small group who do everything themselves. Even then you need hundreds of thousands of hits to make money on Youtube. I think in order for TNA to make money of something like this they would have to create their own version of the WWE network but as history has shown it's a very small audience who are actually willing to pay for anything TNA. Just look at their PPV numbers. They'd go broke just on bandwidth if they tried launching their own streaming service. Much easier to partner up with an established brand.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 15:17:31 GMT -5
The very top-tier YouTube stars earn in the low to mid seven figures annually. And that is for literally several billion views and what is ultimately a revenue stream with a ton of variables and constantly moving parts.
Hell of a salary for a single person or a typical YouTube skeleton crew, but hardly enough to sustain any wrestling promotion past indie level, esp. when a promotion like TNA would get a fraction of the views that top earners get.
And it's not like Netflix or Hulu would ever pay out significant money for pro wrestling, either.
If TNA tried to broadcast exclusively on YouTube, they'd end up just another indie.
Which may be for the best, actually.
|
|
deezy
Misawa
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by deezy on May 26, 2015 15:25:40 GMT -5
TNA was always an Indie company anyone saying anything different were living in a fantasy world for the past 10 years.
Whose to say Netflix, Shomi, Crave or a Yahoo wouldn't pay for exclusive content for their streaming network? Not like WWE or UFC have provided them with anything that wasn't old stock documentaries and old events.
If TV isn't there for them, it's the best alternative imo. Can't do weekly PPVs or hold shitty iPPVs on rinky dink websites that crash when more than a thousand people go to it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 15:48:57 GMT -5
TNA in 2015 may be considered indie by perception (which would only increase tenfold if they didn't have any TV), but by definition they are not as TNA is a subsidiary of a corporation for the past 10 years. And even perception wise IMO 4-5 years ago they came across as a legit #2 promotion when they were on Spike with Hogan, Flair, Hardy, Angle, etc. on the show every week.
Streaming/VOD companies would absolutely pay TNA for exclusive content, but they wouldn't pay them that much money.
For starters, the ROI is very low for adding TNA to their lineup. What incentive would a company like Netflix have of spending any real cash on TNA over the dozens of other original programming contracts they are constantly negotiating?
If it's for hits on a site that isn't behind a paywall, what makes website hits valuable? Hmmmmm....
In the past few years, Yahoo and YouTube had original programming deals with WWE, and neither were really for a lot of money. It's unrealistic to think TNA would get close to what WWE got which wasn't very much to begin with.
WWE and UFC don't bother trying to put exclusive, original programming on third party streaming sites because 1) they have other, more profitable options including their own in-house networks 2) Those sites don't want to pay what the UFC and WWE feel their content is worth.
TNA, if off of DA and with no other home on cable, would have no other domestic options. They'd have zero leverage, so why would any streaming site offer them more than chump change? While these services are always hungry for more programming, it would make no sense to write a big check for TNA programming when there are so many other options available.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 26, 2015 15:56:24 GMT -5
This talk is depressing.
Deezy brings up the best points as always.
I remember when Jarrett said they are an indie and answered to no one. Now they answer to a Panda and TV networks.
WWE has exclusives on Youtube, but its all crap. They had all those web series at some point.
Time for TNA to go to Patreon.
|
|
|
Post by Above Average Mike Sanders on May 26, 2015 15:57:32 GMT -5
I think streaming is an option, but I'm not sure how much interest there is for it. Between all the hours of TV WWE pumps out a week and all the other stuff out there for free online I don't know what a Netflix would be able to reap in new subscribers from adding TNA (judging from their PPV numbers there aren't many willing to pay to watch them at the best of times)... add to that TNA has no leverage as it doesn't seem anyone wants them.
Wrestling used to be attractive to networks as it yielded two hours of fresh programming each week and drew decent ratings for a fraction the price of what it costs to produce regular scripted stuff. But now everything is much more niche, and even if you pull in better than average viewership, wrestling fans aren't staying around to watch other shows and advertisers want nothing to do with wrestling in general (and seeing a name as sophomoric as TNA certainly doesn't help).
At this point anything is possible as to where they'll end up... but I think we're sadly rapidly approaching the end of TNA. They may have one more desperate gasp left in them when they try something, but it probably won't end any differently than the Destination America experiment.
|
|