411mania.com: Wrestling - The Hamilton Ave Journal 03.11.10: Volume 2

The Editorials section is designed for you, the readers, to respond to the views presented in the Journal, send an important news item, or talk about another overlooked business related item in wrestling. Just beware: the Journal reserves the right to respond back.

From the commentary section last week, many were impressed with the Miz's sales capabilities, including the ROH Commish:

Miz is slowly becoming a money maker for WWE.

Going more mainstream, Jimmy let us know what he is up to on this front:

I for one plan to purchase the Miz tshirt for when I attend a WWE event in April. The Miz could well be the future for WWE and they are apparently realising this!

Speaking of merchandise, the recently unemployed H. Helms clearly misunderstands the critiques the Journal has concerning TNA not updating their top selling list:

Re: TNA not updating their merchandise chart.

It's almost like Hogan & Bischoff don't care about your column or this website.

Hey, I'm just saying.

Guest#5607 gave his thoughts on this:

More importantly, it's almost like they can't figure out where TNA's money is really coming from and how they can make more of it with no change to their core business.

This has nothing to do with the Journal and everything to do with marketing. The fact that TNA does not keep their marketing up to date is a consistent sign that the company is disorganized and does not know how to properly take advantage of all of the tools they have. As stated in the Journal in the past, not updating the list is indicative of much bigger problems with the company: there is too much going on and nobody knows what the other people are doing.

Should TNA once again go back to not updating their list, though, the Journal will once again go through all of the same adorations. Muta Mark is confused by one of those:

I have a quick question: Why is the top 10 merchandise for TNA always crossed out? Just don't understand it.

Because TNA did not update their list, which means the list is inaccurate. When they update it, like this week, the Journal is glad to show it in full.

Of course, TNA does not have to anything the conventional way and can do business in a whole other model, as tstrike elaborate on:

I too support the convention that TNA can CLEARLY take a different business model and likely be a guidon (sic) bearer for the future of Wrestling business.

And I firmly believe that TNA is clearly thinking about using some of the same tactics WWE used. A monthly big show against a WWE PPV could be quite telling and a turning point in the wars.

Right now the only thing TNA needs to focus on is streamlining their core business and cleaning up their onscreen product.

Unfortunately, instead of streamlining their business TNA has been complicating it. But TNA has shown a perseverance when it is least likely and--despite everything--are still profitable at the moment.

Moving on to the ratings world, Guest#23899 wants to know:

Why is NXTs 1.2 higher than TNAs 1.2?

For that week, NXT's ratings were a 1.21 and TNA's were a 1.16. The Journal rounds to the tenth digit for visual purposes but the numbers in the database are as accurate as available.

And finally to finish off the ratings talk and the editorials, Cloud Strife asks:

I know HDnet is private, and thus doesn't release its ratings, but have ratings, or at least a general "ball park figure" for ROH on HDnet ever been leaked? I've always been curious how many people watch the show.

Actually, HDNet being private has nothing to do with why there are no ratings for the network. In order to get ratings, a company has to pay Nielsen Media to do the monitoring. HDNet has said they do not care about ratings and therefore have never paid Nielsen Media. Since Nielsen is not getting paid, they are not going to monitor HDNet, and thus there are no ratings to leak.

And let us be clear about one thing: ratings are the property of the Nielsen company, not the companies that purchase the monitoring. It does not matter is a station is private or public--if they pay the bills then they will get ratings and those ratings will be released to the world.

Plenty more was written, so be sure to take a look. And if you enjoy the Journal, why not bookmark 411mania.com and make it your home page? You can do that by clicking here.

CLOSING BELL

This concludes Issue #128 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.

Till then!

Post Comment (30) | Email JP Prag | View JP Prag's 411 Profile

Send To Friend |

Stumble It! |

Digg It! |

Please add your comment below.

If you are registered, you can login and post under your registered name. If not, you can post as a guest or register.

* Please note that 411 moderates all comments. Your comment will show up on the site after it has been approved by an editor.

Name :

Comment :

Remaining Characters :

2800

Comments (30)

why dont we all talk about the elephant in the room?

hogan and bischoff are killing tna

Posted By: pro life (Guest) on March 10, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Since the Rumble buyrate went up this year, does that mean Sheamus was a draw versus another heel or maybe Rey vs. Taker? Can't possibly be the 30 man Rumble, can it? Or economy issues?

Posted By: Chungles (Guest) on March 10, 2010 at 11:56 PM

I thought they just released the first issue of the comic this week?

Posted By: Guest#0503 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 12:03 AM

why dont we all talk about the elephant in the room?

hogan and bischoff are killing tna

Posted By: pro life (Guest) on March 10, 2010 at 11:55 PM

Because it has been addressed and isn't in the room.

It was clearly stated that TNA has a new three year contract. So as long as they put out shows, Spike has to pay them a set amount. Now Spike may suffer in terms of ad rates because of the ratings, but TNA will not in the short term. In three years time, who knows?
But since Spike must pay or default, they will have a time slot for TNA.
The fact that TNA also airs in other countries has also been addressed in previous Journals. So they will be a viable business for some time.

The ratings for Hogan's match may be low, but he is moving merchandise. Four of TNA's top 10 selling items are Hogan related. So he is making them money now, while learning that "lacing up the boots" may not be so useful. As a one time thing it is relatively harmless.

Posted By: Guest#4567 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 01:53 AM

hogan may sell a shit load of merchandise but his first match in years did not increase rating. now the have rvd one of the last big free agents out there tna will have to improve there product or die.

Posted By: Guest#5014 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 12:47 AM

No, they are a viable business with their domestic ratings. If they don't improve they will merely be a distant number two. They don't really have to improve except to fulfill their ambitions, unless the new contracts are huge.

Posted By: Guest#3376 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 01:55 AM

tna didn't need to move to monday but it did because of hogan and eric's ego.
hulk hogan promised huge rating they have gone up on ocasion but have mostly stayed the same. he may sell merchandise but how much money are the pissing away on him. That could have been used to improve the production value of the product which looks terrible compared to the wwe

Posted By: Guest#3334 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:38 AM

If we're using the assumption that people were aware of wcw because of it previously being jcp, then really you cant say people werent nationally aware of them until they reached ppv. Which was not until nov of 1987. So really at best wcw was in existence under seven years then they launched nitro. Tna has existed closer to eight years now at this point. Basically they have been around the same amount of time. Saying they're younger is just silly.

Posted By: Guest#7621 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:52 AM

Between TNA's domestic and international ratings (where they often beat WWE) they rake in more than enough revenue to be substantial. A lot of people seem to forget that a 1.0 is still a pretty big cable rating. Though I don't know how people can't see that, when WWE is only doing about 3X that much.

Posted By: Guest#9192 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:53 AM

"TNA has a long way to go before they are in the WCW/WWF territory in 1997/1998"

They've got a long way to go before they reach WCW '95 yet. It's going to be a tough battle and they're going to have to be prepared to get a lot of bloodied noses for a while.

Next week's show in particular could be in for a kicking, taped and up against a stacked Raw. They have to be ready for things like that affecting their rating and their coveted 18-34 demographic.

Above anything else, the 0.98 should've showed those in charge that there is no miracle cure here. It's going to be uphill.

Posted By: Ryushinku (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 03:58 AM

LOL @ NXT's rating history.\
\
\

Posted By: Guest#4324 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 07:27 AM

I have been waiting all week until I got your fiscal analysis JP. This tracks to my line of thought about this will be a long ways away from a Monday Night war.

I too, subscribe to the fact of TNA being a extremely viable business with solid backers (the Carters and Pandy Energy), a solid business model (not being too dependent on PPVs (a key element of ECW's doom), and just concentrating on their core elements: TV Ad revenue and International Distribution.

JP I feel that TNA are actually doing things in reverse of WWE:

1. There isnt a territory hierarchy to acquire.

2. They are getting plenty of press from the International Markets. If they can turn their investments in that direction, the War may arrive faster than we all think.

3. Once Impact straightens out the kinks (1. Presentation, 2. Delivery, 3. Homegrown Stars), the show will be a force to be reckoned with. I forecast Spike ordering another show next year, but just for the International markets.

There is definite value especially if they can concentrate in the EU market, and attempt to expand in the Orient (by leveraging relationship with New Japan, etc...)

Posted By: tstrike (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 08:24 AM

this has to be said,

if superstars, the wwe's 4th place show, can out do impact. how does anyone think tna has a chance against raw?

Posted By: rey (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 08:26 AM

The point of comparison for TNA's ratings ought not be those of the WWE, but those of Spike's other programming. Viacom will be pleased as punch if TNA keeps doing a over a 1.0 because most of Spike's drek pulls weaker numbers.

Posted By: Iron Knee (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 09:43 AM

Could a wrestling company like TNA hold a "mega event" against a PPV by WWE ... Sure Wrestlemania could kill anything in its path...but something like a Bragging Rights...could TNA hold a supershow against that???
I think an agreement was reached between WWE and then JCP WCW which barred companies from doing this...Am I wrong? I could wager TNA would get a lot of Ad revenue, eyeballs etc doing a supershow on TV..

Posted By: Indianguy (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 10:18 AM

How about exploring the WWEeuroshop top selling items?

The Miz's Awesome t-shirt has been top for the last couple of weeks here in europe!

Posted By: Jimmy (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 11:07 AM

Of course, Hogan is making money for TNA; BUT no one else is doing that. And that's the big program with Hogan in command, it's a cancer to TNA. The more he "grows" the less everyone else does.

Posted By: mr_wonderful (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 11:12 AM

Any chance we might see the old Bret Hart wraparound shades ?? I see they have the new Aviator style but I was wondering if that would ever make a comeback as it could be a big seller...

Posted By: Guest#1658 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 12:11 PM

I forecast Spike ordering another show next year, but just for the International markets.

Posted By: tstrike (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 08:24 AM

Spike has nothing to do with international distribution. Exposure of a show on Spike or any network makes it easier to sell a show to other networks, but Spike only has broadcast rights for a show within the US.
Really, as far as business goes, Spike could give a damn about other places TNA peddles their product. It doesn't affect their bottom line or their goal of overtaking USA network.

Posted By: Guest#9038 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 01:59 PM

Considering TNA has nothing but old WCW parts can you try not to compare them to the WWE...(as they are claiming to compete with them at the moment).

Just saying...financial information is more useful when proper comparisons are made. FYI, that isn't one of them.

They are not a YOUNG WWE either. Not even close. They are a Smokey Mountain/ECW/WCW Hybrid (with all the worst habits of each).

_B.

Posted By: NotSoFast... (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 01:54 AM

Your consideration isn't a real consideration. The roster has nothing to do with financial comparisons.
WWE is the proper comparison point. They are TNA's primary rivals, the leader of the industry, and only real comparison point of size.

In fact, international distribution and growth potential in markets that have been relatively unexposed to WWE or TNA means that TNA will be a contender for some time. Having a strong financial backer and a stable income base puts them on far stronger footing than WCW or the old territories.
Being reliant on television contracts that run for years means TNA has projectable and reliable income. As long as they stay within their means, they are fine for the short term. As long as they produce sufficient ratings for Spike or anybody else who would bid for their product, they have a long term future.
The international distribution is practically free money. They must make a show for Spike anyways. It would be like McDonalds selling the same hamburger over and over while only changing the wrapper.

In business, letting petty matters of prejudice and homerism color your decisions is a fast way to be poor. Objective thinking is far more useful.

Posted By: Guest#8640 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:09 PM

Spike has some pretty funny shows........."Blue Mountain State" is hilarious. I don't watch USA other than "Raw".

Posted By: Guest#5926 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:38 PM

While JP touched upon the fact that TNA will be just fine with a 1.0 rating b/c they are guaranteed money from Spike regardless, I think that they need to rethink their strategy on Monday nights if they intend on making the impact (pun intended) that they want.

I think them deciding to start at 9 was a DUMB mistake on their part. The reason the 1/4 show got such a good rating is because of that 1st hour when they were unopposed. TNA should really move the show to an 8-10 timeslot. That will give them an hour jump on the WWE. Their diehard fans will watch regardless, but with that unopposed hour they can probably grab the attention of some WWE fans out there that will watch them until RAW comes on. And who knows? If they run an angle or match that is appealing enough near the 9 o'clock hour and RAW is in a funk, some fans may choose to stay tuned to Impact rather than turning over to RAW.

I think the move to Monday night was a good decision for TNA. God knows I barely watched TNA on Thursday nights since it came on the same time as many other shows that I prefer watching. But I've caught both TNA shows that have been on Monday. So for fans like me, having both of them on Monday night is more convenient. The only problem is that they insisted on running directly against RAW which is ridiculous in my view. Ratings may not mean much in terms of finances for TNA right now, but it could spell trouble down the line if their ratings do not grow or get even worse.

Move Impact to 8 on Mondays. Save your best segment until 8:55 to try and keep some of the new viewers that you have. It's really that simple. If TNA expects to have a fighting chance in this "War", they cant expect to go up against a juggernaut without any momentum on their end. Better ratings = More advertising = Happy Spike TV = More Money. Period.

Posted By: Monty (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 04:15 PM

"If we're using the assumption that people were aware of wcw because of it previously being jcp, then really you cant say people werent nationally aware of them until they reached ppv. Which was not until nov of 1987. So really at best wcw was in existence under seven years then they launched nitro. Tna has existed closer to eight years now at this point. Basically they have been around the same amount of time. Saying they're younger is just silly.

Posted By: Guest#7621 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 02:52 AM"

Jim Crockett and the NWA was much more known at the time than TNA is now. It's two completely different markets. When WCW came to TBS and got lots of press, TBS was one of only a handful of cable channels.

TNA entered Cable several years ago on Spike when there are literally HUNDREDS of cable channels.

TNA has to counter the myth that WWE ended wrestling. There are a lot of people that don't know another wrestling company even exists after WWE put WCW out of business.

When JCP and WCW forged together, they were already well known and for a large portion of the country the name in wrestling.

Posted By: Guest#7020 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 04:58 PM

*Whyis NXTs 1.2 higher than TNAs 1.2?*

For that week, NXT's ratings were a 1.21 and TNA's were a 1.16. The Journal rounds to the tenth digit for visual purposes but the numbers in the database are as accurate as available.

You sir, are a King amongst Men; for a minute I thought you might be Byers. luls.

Posted By: Guest#23899 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 05:28 PM

LOL @ NXT's rating history.\
\
\

Posted By: Guest#4324 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 07:27 AM

LOL I agree, only a few weeks in and already destroying TNA!

Posted By: Yah (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 09:13 PM

If hogan is your main draw and you show him practically all night you already gaves the fans what they wanted at the start so now they can switch channels sounds real simple to me.

Posted By: halifax (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 04:59 PM

LOL @ NXT's rating history.\
\
\

Posted By: Guest#4324 (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 07:27 AM

LOL I agree, only a few weeks in and already destroying TNA!

Posted By: Yah (Guest) on March 11, 2010 at 09:13 PM

Just remember that SyFy was unhappy with TNA-like ratings.

Posted By: Guest#7510 (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 05:45 PM

tna can't move to 8pm because usa and wwe would just expand raw to 3 hours each week as a counter attack.

there is no way in hell that usa and wwe are going to allow tna to have an unopposed hour ever again. raw would just become a 3 hour show.

Posted By: Guest#6169 (Guest) on March 12, 2010 at 06:52 PM