The Hamilton Ave Journal 06.03.10: Volume 2 – Issue 140
Posted by JP Prag on 06.03.2010
Will Awesome Kong, OBD, and Daffney beat TNA at the trademark office? Is there anyone on the WWE roster who comes close to selling as much merchandise as John Cena? Does TNA have other potential homes or is their relationship with Spike best for everyone? All this and more is answered in this week’s edition of the Hamilton Ave Journal!
THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL
By JP Prag
Volume 2 – Issue 140
ABOUT THE JOURNAL
The Hamilton Ave Journal is the only wrestling news report focused solely on the business of wrestling. Here in the Journal we not only look at the stories that are important to the investor and business-minded person, but also delve deeper into stories that most fans of wrestling would overlook. That is because the Journal is about getting the heart of the matters that affect the companies and outlooks of the wrestling world.
And where is Hamilton Ave? That is the location of the WWE Production Studio in Stamford, CT, and thus the most powerful place in the wrestling world. Besides, The East Main Street Journal just does not have the right ring to it.
Who am I? I am JP Prag: consultant, entrepreneur, businessman, journalist, and wrestling fan.
Now, ring the bell because the market is open.
The Journal's front page area known as What's News isn't just about telling you what has happened. The stories in this section are about what will have an effect on the wrestling industry, individual federations, and the wallets of the fans.
LEAD STORY: TNA forgets to trademark
While TNA has often renamed wrestlers on their roster so that they could own the names, it would appear that they were behind on their paperwork.
For instance, Amazing Kong filed a trademark on "Awesome Kong" (her TNA in-ring name) on February 8, 2010. The application is open for opposition until June 22, 2010. Interestingly enough, Ms. Kong does not own the name "Amazing Kong", that instead solely belonging to a stuffed toy company.
Obviously thinking in the same vein, ODB filed for her name on May 24, 2010. Being as she has not been featured in recent months, one would assume ODB is looking out for her potential future. Her mark will not go out for opposition for some months, but this is the only mark under her name. In other words, ODB is not filing additionally for what the letters stand for.
Daffney has done the same filing for the mark "Daffney Unger" on April 4, 2010. XWF had a previous mark of "Daffney" that expired on June 4, 2003 but it would appear that Ms. Unger is uninterested in that one.
While TNA would make a case that "Awesome Kong" was invented by them and Ms. Kong's contract stipulated that what she did on TNA television was owned by the company, they would have a much tougher case with ODB and Daffney who used their names prior to TNA. That hasn't stopped the WWE from trying in the past, but TNA has rarely been faced with a situation where they have wanted to enforce their names. TNA has not in the past made a move to control trademarks, but that doe snot mean they would not want to attempt to do so in the future as the WWE does.
Meanwhile, some other marks put out there recently are:
TNA Wrestling Reaction (April 12, 2010) - Obviously named for the new TV show
Desmond Wolfe (February 19, 2010)
TNA does not appear to be in the business of registering everything like the WWE is. From the WWE's front:
Inside Out (May 20, 2010) - A movie title
WWE All Stars (May 10, 2010) - A video game title
That what I am (May 14, 2010) - A movie title
Famous and Flawless (April 28, 2010) - To be used for merchandise for Michelle McCool and Layla El.
All the NXT Rookie names in Season 1 (April 26, 2010)
Additionally, Lex Lugar also recently (May 10, 2010) applied for a mark on his name and "The Total Package", meaning the marks owned by WCW/WWE must have run out.
And if you keep moving down the list, many independent wrestlers also are registering their names nowadays. People like "Mr. Pec-tacular" have to look out for their own best interests against anyone that would want to take that name.
Newsbites
Some items of note in the rest of the wrestling business world:
MTV2's Masked Warriors (which also recently filed trademarks) is set to make their first television taping this Sunday in Mirage, CA and has another show planned for June 19, 2010 in Springfield, MA.
The WWE and Floyd Mayweather Jr. have been given until June 10, 2010 to respond to the allegations put against them by Anthony Dash. Mr. Dash contents that the theme music used by Mr. Mayweather during WrestleMania was stolen from him and that the defendants makes "millions of dollars" off of said pirating. In total, Mr. Dash is asking for $150,000 per alleged copyright infringement and an injunction against any future use of his alleged work.
In the Marketplace we look at the trends in television ratings. This section is less for critical analysis by the Journal but more for the reader to see what is really going on and to draw their own conclusions.
As with stocks, here in the Journal we track the progress of television ratings. If ratings are the barometer by which we judge the product, then over the course of time we should be able to see patterns, trends, and anomalies.
For the week ending Wednesday June 2, 2010, here are the current standings of the shows:
Analysis:
With so many ratings delays due to the Memorial Day holiday, there is not much to report here. iMPACT held on to their recent leads, coming in at a 0.96 once again. SuperStars, on the other hand, dropped back down to a 0.65, marking the fifth time in nine weeks the show has done below a 0.7 rating. Before that point nine weeks ago, SuperStars had never slipped below the 0.7 mark.
SmackDown from two weeks ago came back slightly to a 1.7, in line with recent numbers. While still being plagued with preemptions, SmackDown now has to contend with local affiliates dropping them in preparation for their move to SyFy in the fall. Do not expect SmackDown's ratings to be above 2.0 any time before October.
Come back to the Journal in a day or two to see the charts updated above with RAW and NXT ratings.
We all know that wrestling is a business, but we don't often pay attention to what sells and makes money. Money and Investing looks into the top selling items in the world of wrestling and any interesting figures that may have come out this week.
What are the top selling items for the WWE? WWEShopZone.com releases a list of varying numbers to show what is selling for them:
1. Undertaker WrestleMania XXVI Plaque with Ring Rope ($99.00)
2. John Cena Never Give Up T-Shirt ($25.00)
3. John Cena Never Give Up Sweatband Set ($12.00)
4. John Cena Never Give Up YOUTH T-Shirt ($22.00)
5. John Cena Never Give Up Baseball Cap ($20.00)
6. Randy Orton Lobotomy T-Shirt ($25.00)
7. The Best Pay Per View Matches of the Year 2009-2010 DVD ($34.95, on sale $21.49)
8. Randy Orton Lobotomy TOP ROPE T-Shirt ($45.00)
9. WrestleMania XXVI Beanie Bear ($10, on sale $4.98)
10. Shawn Michaels Tribute T-Shirt ($25.00)
11. Christian Captain Charisma Basics T-Shirt ($14.99)
12. John Morrison Revolution T-Shirt ($25, on sale $14.98)
13. The Undertaker's Deadliest Matches DVD Package ($59.95, on sale $29.99)
14. WWE Slam Attax Trading Cards ($3.00)
15. CM Punk Salvation T-Shirt ($25.00)
16. WWE Black Gift Bag ($3.00)
17. WrestleMania XXVI 3 Disc Collectors Edition DVD ($34.95, on sale $24.99)
18. John Cena Illustrated YOUTH T-Shirt ($9.99)
19. Triple H Eversoris Top Rope T-Shirt ($45, on sale $19.98)
20. Matt Hardy Unlock Your Destiny Pendant ($10.00)
It may not be Halloween, but the John Cena ensembles are selling like hotcakes. Mr. Cena immediately overtook four of the top five positions, only being bested by the Undertaker plaque and ring ropes. Both had other items further down the list, but they had to share space with the likes of Randy Orton, John Morrison, Triple H, Shawn Michaels, and CM Punk. Two other people who rarely appear on the list, though, managed to break in. First up was Matt Hardy who sneaked in at number 20 with a pendant. While Hardy merchandise sold well with Jeff around, since his departure from the WWE anything Hardy related has steeply dropped off. Further up the list was Christian, someone making his debut in the top selling charts of the WWE. Whether this is a one off or not is hard to say, but it will be even more difficult to say if the WWE will do anything with a top selling performer.
TNA sometimes releases a list of top selling items on ShopTNA.com. According to the site the top selling items were:
1. Don West's Vintage Celebration ($59.97, on sale $6.99)
3. Sacrifice - 2005 ($19.99, on sale $14.99)
4. Jeff Hardy Enigma T-Shirt (Glow In The Dark) ($19.99)
5. Bound For Glory 2005 ($11.99, on sale $4.99)
6. RVD - Video Wall T-shirt ($19.99)
8. Mr. Anderson.........People Are Fake T-Shirt ($19.99)
9. Cross The Line Triple Pack 3.0 (Triple Threat) ($24.99, on sale $19.99)
10. Slammin' Celebration ($199)
Well, two items left the list because they are apparently sold out. Otherwise, nothing changed.
Wrestling isn't just about watching and reading. The best way to be a wrestling fan is to experience it live. Where is wrestling coming to in the upcoming weeks? The Personal Journal answers that question.
Do you know a wrestling event coming up? Send one in to The Hamilton Ave Journal and we'll be sure to add it to the list.
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, Kevin Edwards wanted to know about how the WWE machine functions:
I thought I would bring up a point about WWE cost-cutting.
I'm a collector of wrestling DVD's, and that includes WWE releases. I've been noticing that releases for pay-per-views in the past year, they haven't used the advertised music for the event on the title screen (for example, WrestleMania XXVI's theme was "I Made It" by Kevin Rudolf). Instead, they replace it will in-house music. Could this be some small effort at WWE cost-cutting or is it too small to be effective at all?
Guest#2492 had the quick response:
Yeah, it is part of cost cutting. They own the rights to stuff Jim Johnston write.
To use outside music, they would have to negotiate separately to use the music they had for the PPV. It can add up, though probably not for a huge percentage of their costs.
But hey, they have this in-house guy they are paying for anyways.
More than that, though, it has been WWE policy for a long time to not use commercial music in their releases in order to not have to pay rights fees. Look no further than the ECW and WCW collections to know that the WWE is fine with replacing music in order to save on costs. The rights fees for a DVD distribution are totally different than those for a live event and the WWE does not want to pay out those costs in perpetuity.
Odin, though, is less concerned with this aspect of merchandise:
I remember when wrestling was about selling tickets.
Now it's about selling T-Shirts.
Actually, wrestling is about television rights fees and licensing more than it is about selling tickets. It is all about where the revenue streams are, and if more revenue comes from television and merchandise then so be it. Guest#5431 sums up this point:
Merchandising has gotten more sophisticated in all businesses. But it the story is the same - it is still about making money.
Jumping gears a little bit, V wants to know:
What level of penetration does Spike achieve in relation other possible TNA broadcasters?
If News Corporation (WWE rights holder in the UK), or Disney (would they consider TNA family friendly?) could reach more consumers then maybe the Spike deal was the wrong one for TNA to sign.
According to recent press releases, Spike TV is available in 98 million home in the United States. By comparison, the USA Network (the #1 cable network in the United States) is seen in 98.5 million homes. Therefore, the availability of Spike in homes is not an issue. There is a grave misconception of availability versus number of people watching. Spike has almost the exact same potential as USA but has about 25% of the average number of viewers. When SmackDown went to MyNetworkTV, people said they were on a less available network than the CW. In actuality, though, MyNetworkTV is seen in a few million more homes than the CW; it just so happened that some of the minor markets MyNetworkTV was not available in were more visible.
In this day and age, few major networks are not going to have the potential reach that USA has. Spike, as a member of the Viacom family and part of MTV Networks, has all of the same resources that NewsCorp's FX has. Spike, like TNA, has not found a way to draw people in and keep them and often resorts to rash judgments in order to grow their audience.
As far as other potential partners, NewsCorp always teases that they want more in the wrestling game, but aside from SmackDown they seem to be mostly used as a negotiating tool. And do not let Disney fool you into thinking everything they do is "family friendly". Disney owns studios like Miramax, Buena Vista, and Marvel, all of which have produced many less than TV-PG entertainment. Disney, like the WWE, is in the business of making money and will put on whatever face allows them to make the most of it.
Coming back to TNA and Spike, Guest#9416 summarizes the real issue:
Even if they were available in 100% of homes, not enough casual wrestling fans know about TNA, much less view them as a viable alternative.
Without that awareness, people will not purposely tune in. With literally hundreds of stations to choose from, hoping that potential fans will simply stumble onto Impact! at the right day and time is a vain hope.
Not just channels, but all forms of entertainment. With options available from YouTube to Facebook to video games to (gasp!) books, TNA and Spike have a lot of clutter to cut through so that people can hear their message.
And then it comes to the relationship between Spike and TNA, there is also Spike's side to consider. Northants Grecian brings this to light:
One final point on the viewing figures... the 0.6 Spike share would by definition include the 0.96 Impact. If you remove the 0.96 from the others, you may be looking at more like a 0.55 or so.. which would make it nearly twice as big...
Yes, TNA is largely responsible for the uptick in Spike's ratings. Without TNA, Spike would definitely have a lower average ratings than they do today. So in the end, Spike is benefitting a number of ways by having TNA on the roster.
To finish off this week, let this reporter state that the Journal does not usually address unfounded rumors. If you are looking for gossip and unnamed sources that can never be confirmed, the Small-For-All News Report is an excellent choice. Guest#0754 brings up the Journal's viewpoint:
In this day of Twitter and Facebook as well as lawyers, I believe that if people were paid a month late we would be hearing about it from more than just un-named sources.
There would also be no-shows and people double booked.
Not just in this day and age--when Paul Heyman stopped paying talent in the late 1990's, many were vocal about it such as Mike Awesome and RVD. Also, let us not forget that many TNA talent have just a pay-per-appearance deal with no or very low guaranteed bases. With that, talent costs can be greatly reduced just by not flying people in.
This most likely stems from two things. One, people want to believe TNA is having money issues because of the moves to iMPACT and the mass hirings. Unfortunately, that does not take into account the extra revenue that TNA has made in merchandise sales, the higher distribution deals they have overseas, the addition of new revenue from new programming (ReAction). Two, there were rumors similar to this as recently as October 2009. Like any good internet rumor, the story works its way around and comes up again and again.
Now, TNA is hardly in the financially secure position the WWE is in. That said, cash in should still be outpacing talent costs. TNA does need to watch their expenses much better and control growth, but they have yet to show they have learned any lesson in slow expansion. They were slightly profitable a year ago, so they should still be today if they have kept some things in check. That said, in a worst case scenario they do still have parent company Panda Energy that can provide a one-time cash infusion or loan.
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.
This concludes Issue #140 (Volume 2) of THE HAMILTON AVE JOURNAL. Join us next week as we get ready to ring the bell again.
However thinking hurts my head so I can't read it. Sorry.
Posted By: Drippy (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 12:49 AM
That point about trademarking names was interesting.
A little search of the US Patents & Trademark Office shows that "AJ Styles", "Velvet Sky", "Angelina Love", & "The Beautiful People" are not trademarked.
Now AJ Styles did use that name before working in TNA, IIRC, so they may not have the greatest case there.
Now if WWE really wanted to screw with TNA, they could hire those three and use their TNA names. Not that WWE has shown a history of using previous names, but recently they have. They do have a history of going out of their way to be un-necessarily vengeful too.
I'd take Jeff Hardy too, but that name was already established.
The fact that TNA has not trademarked anything related to The Beautiful People is interesting. Whatever may be said of their wrestling skills, TNA has pushed this group hard. A check of TNA show reviews & match listings shows that it is a very rare week when this group has not made it on air. The reason is pretty simple - they have the ratings to justify it.
TNA has also failed to trademark a number of other wrestler & stable names they have established.
Which is a long way to say that TNA needs to learn how to protect their intellectual property.
Posted By: Guest#5774 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 01:30 AM
"let this reporter state that the Journal does not usually address unfounded rumors"
With all due respect, almost 100% of the 'news' the IWCS sees is 'unfounded rumors'. NONE of us are 'there' or 'know the real stories'. Just what we read, so if you didn't speak about 'unfounded rumors', that would eliminate just about everything.
Posted By: Donk (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 02:45 AM
With all due respect, almost 100% of the 'news' the IWCS sees is 'unfounded rumors'. NONE of us are 'there' or 'know the real stories'. Just what we read, so if you didn't speak about 'unfounded rumors', that would eliminate just about everything.
Posted By: Donk (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 02:45 AM
Quarterly statements, ratings, marketing releases, legal filings, and general business truths are certainly not unfounded rumors.
If they are not close to 'real truths' the SEC might have something to say, since WWE is a publicly traded company and Linda McMahon has some public exposure here.
So no, when we eliminate 'unfounded rumors' we are left with real information. Really the meat of the industry.
Posted By: Guest#1694 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 03:20 AM
the trademarks are interesting. it is the reason why wwe gives out generic names to new wrestlers. kayfabe is pretty much dead. if the undertaker debuted today. he wouldnt work out. in order to avoid another kurt angle, brock lesnar, bobby lashley, and jeff hardy, zack ryder and wade barrett are born.
Posted By: rey (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 11:16 AM
I've got a 3 question for you.
WWE has run with a basic formula for many years, with certain exceptions: They use tv to advance angles with the purpose of convincing the audience to buy ppv to see a wrestling culmination. PPV is where the boys get 10-20-30 minutes to put on a match with few skits.
Now TNA's business model differs from WWE in that they are not ppv-dependent. My questions are thus:
Since TNA does not see ppv buyrates as their measuring stick for success, why do they ape the WWE operating model which does?
Would it not make more sense to feature more wrestling on Impact, as clearly wrestling is what Vince uses to entice buyrates?
Does anybody in charge of TNA want the company to grow or are they happy with a continuance of the status quo?
Thanks!
Posted By: Ronnie (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 11:22 AM
TNA will never take down the WWE. they already failed in the Monday night wars. so there is no way IN HELL they will ever take down WWE at this point. Fuck TNA.
Posted By: Guest#9594 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 04:16 PM
TNA = fail.
Posted By: Guest#3454 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 04:17 PM
Since TNA does not see ppv buyrates as their measuring stick for success, why do they ape the WWE operating model which does?
Would it not make more sense to feature more wrestling on Impact, as clearly wrestling is what Vince uses to entice buyrates?
Does anybody in charge of TNA want the company to grow or are they happy with a continuance of the status quo?
Thanks!
Posted By: Ronnie (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 11:22 AM
TNA started out as a weekly PPV only show, so there is a history here.
However, TNA does have low buy rates. Dixie Carter has stated that when their contracts run out, TNA intends to get out of the PPV business.
It is arguable if RAW features wrestling to sell PPVs. Look at the length of matches. Differentiating the TNA product would give viewers a reason to watch (or tune out).
Obviously, the move to Mondays and the history of hiring former WWE wrestlers with much fanfare are attempts to grow. Another sign is the sheer number of overseas broadcasting contracts which they have sought out.
The same question may be asked of WWE. Their net growth lately has been from becoming more efficient rather than growing their market. It is only possible to go so far with that approach. It is often said that "good is the enemy of great".
Posted By: Guest#6614 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 05:37 PM
TNA will never take down the WWE. they already failed in the Monday night wars. so there is no way IN HELL they will ever take down WWE at this point. Fuck TNA.
Posted By: Guest#9594 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 04:16 PM
Silly mindless homerism.
WCW beat WWE for over a year. By your standards WWE would not have stood a chance of catching up to WCW, but after 84 weeks they won the rating war.
In business and sports there are many stories of people and companies that failed at first but came back to succeed.
Winning once is no guaranty of the future. It takes continual effort.
Bring facts and cogent arguments next time.
Posted By: Guest#5049 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 05:40 PM
Silly mindless homerism.
WCW beat WWE for over a year. By your standards WWE would not have stood a chance of catching up to WCW, but after 84 weeks they won the rating war.
In business and sports there are many stories of people and companies that failed at first but came back to succeed.
Winning once is no guaranty of the future. It takes continual effort.
Bring facts and cogent arguments next time.
Posted By: Guest#5049 (Guest) on June 03, 2010 at 05:40 PM
At the time, WWF's product was very cartoony and stagnant and the WCW had big $ backing them. They were able to be competitive by signing guys like Hogan, Hall and Nash to big money deals when they were in their prime. They signed a lot of up and coming talent as well. They also positioned their product to be more reality based, to differentiate themselves.
TNA can only get the WWE castoffs, and guys WAY past their prime. TNA can't write good storylines. TNA fails at using the good talent that they do have correctly. TNA moved to Monday nights to "challenge WWE" and got their audience cut in half and was back on Thursdays with their tail between their legs in a month. TNA will NEVER beat WWE unless they get someone that can write great TV... and get a time machine.
Posted By: t-money (Guest) on June 04, 2010 at 06:02 AM
TNA will not beat WWE because TNA can't do the WWE formula better than Vince can. Hell, VINCE can't do it that well anymore, but that's because it's played out.
What TNA needs is to come up as an alternative. Hell, maybe cutting out PPVs IS a good idea if they can survive without the added revenue from tickets and buys, though everyone's conditioned to think of the big blowoff shows to be PPVs nowadays, and it'd take work to fix that.
Posted By: MadmanJack (Registered) on June 04, 2010 at 12:35 PM
TNA will never be in a position to "beat" WWE, in the same manner Sun, Adobe, or Mozilla will never be in a position to "beat" Microsoft but this doesn't make them poor companies. It's not about bettering WWE, being bigger( Apple's market cap recently eclipsed MS despite smaller profits) or overtaking them it's about turning a profit. As Guest 6614 has said and Vince has shown sales are vanity-margins are sanity, if TNA can balance expenditure over returns there's no reason for them to be considered a failure. The tricky part is at what point do TNA abandon profit in pursuit of growth, and organic growth at that. I'd suggest trimming the roster of any employee not adding value, revamping the online shop, get the hell out of PPV and go to a free supercard (well semi super anyway), and finally tour the UK/Germany/France(longer term Middle East with the new Al Jezeera in place)maybe twice a year as these markets have consistently returned high profits once initial costs are over come(don't forget TNA's highest live audience 30k at Wembley Arena, and 80k at SummerSlam '92). Without PPV you could possibly tie Slammiversary into Europe.
Posted By: V (Guest) on June 04, 2010 at 03:42 PM
A little bit of info here for brit wrestling fans which may slipped bye them. Bravo (who airs tna imapct) was sold today by virgin media to sky tv ( who shows wwe). I wonder if wwe has a contract with sky saying something like "wwe is the only wrestling product you can show". If that is the case it could mean that impact may no longer have home on British television.
Posted By: martyn (Guest) on June 04, 2010 at 08:17 PM
Seems like a recurring topic: TNA doesn't do well in PPV buys, and Dixie would prefer to not do PPVs, so they should get out.
I agree. There is no reason for them to follow the WWE model. TNA wouldn't have to save its "big" moments and matches for PPV -- they could just give it away on Impact (with commercials).
They could even do a Clash-type event on Spike every now and then. And if they really want to make some waves, they could air those specials on Sundays immediately before a WWE PPV.
Posted By: Guest#4101 (Guest) on June 05, 2010 at 12:16 AM
They could even do a Clash-type event on Spike every now and then. And if they really want to make some waves, they could air those specials on Sundays immediately before a WWE PPV.
Posted By: Guest#4101 (Guest) on June 05, 2010 at 12:16 AM
Or during.
Regardless of standard economic indexes, the economy is still doing poorly in terms of employment. Do as many people still buy the weaker WWE PPVs if they get PPV quality matches for free? Putting it on the same night certainly forces the issue.
Even if it doesn't, the buy rates may be interpreted in such a light.
Bishoff has not impressed me with his business acumen since joining TNA, but he does seem to want to stick it to WWE.
Of course the weakness in that is the fact that not enough of the viewing public is aware of TNA.
Still, if Spike does not do much in terms of ad rates on a normal Sunday, this may help them bump ratings and perhaps get the wrestlers a PPV-type payday.
Posted By: Guest#8780 (Guest) on June 05, 2010 at 01:10 AM
A little bit of info here for brit wrestling fans which may slipped bye them. Bravo (who airs tna imapct) was sold today by virgin media to sky tv ( who shows wwe). I wonder if wwe has a contract with sky saying something like "wwe is the only wrestling product you can show". If that is the case it could mean that impact may no longer have home on British television.
Posted By: martyn (Guest) on June 04, 2010 at 08:17 PM
----
That's certainly an interesting development. Virgin have been trying to sell the content/production arm for some time to concentrate on the delivery platform. I don't know if WWE have a veto on Sky programming but even given their long 20yr+ relationship with Sky I can't see WWE carrying enough weight. In terms of rights values WWE come a long way down the list of monies paid by Sky. The only parallel I can think of is the deal with the Premier League running along side Football League(1st & 2nd tier competitions), plus Uefa Champions League(one sport but three different rights holders), as well as the La Liga from Spain. Worst case is that Sky pay up the contract but TNA lose it's UK broadcaster, other than Dave-which I REALLY cant see-or maybe at a push Five it would leave TNA's options severely limited the Extreme Sports Network(new home of TNA PPVs)is a joke, and an unrecognized one at that, but taking the positive outlook I think seeing as Sky have said they don't want to re-brand Bravo and that Sky don't really have a Bravo type channel that TNA will have a UK home for the foreseeable future.
Posted By: V (Guest) on June 05, 2010 at 02:41 AM
"The tricky part is at what point do TNA abandon profit in pursuit of growth, and organic growth at that." - by V
I would have said that pursuing growth with a major marketing push prior to going to Mondays would have been a good idea. Increase awareness going into the move and all that, but that's just me.
In spite of IWC complaints, I don't object to pursuing SOME former WWE talent. But history has show that they do not equate to immediate ratings growth. Since, for whatever reason, this talent costs more, TNA would be wise to be more selective.
To me, Kurt Angle, (to some extent) Mike Foley, the Pope, and Ken Anderson were the only worthwhile ones. The last two were more on growth potential.
Well, Gail Kim too. Can't ignore the ratings the Knockouts had.
Since ROH and the indies can't afford what TNA can pay (they don't have all those TV contracts), why bid against themselves? They were dropped by WWE, so it isn't like anybody else is offering more.
I don't think Orlando Jordan was going to set the world on fire in ROH or anywhere else.
But it is the same story. We keep on saying that TNA needs to be more strategic and smarter with their money. Then they sign the Nasty Boys.
Posted By: Guest#8473 (Guest) on June 05, 2010 at 09:00 PM
This is probably one of the best comment sections I have ever seen. I can give credit where credit is due. Well done boys & girls.
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on June 06, 2010 at 01:20 PM
Eat shit and die. Fuck TNA. WWE for life TNA is for fucking loosers.
Posted By: Poey (Guest) on June 06, 2010 at 08:07 PM
This is probably one of the best comment sections I have ever seen. I can give credit where credit is due. Well done boys & girls.
Posted By: The Weesel (Guest) on June 06, 2010 at 01:20 PM
I'm pretty sure there's a lot of girls among them.
Posted By: Guest#5811 (Guest) on June 06, 2010 at 08:11 PM
Copyright (c) 2011 411mania.com, LLC. All rights reserved.
Click here for our privacy policy. Please help us serve you better, fill out our survey.
Use of this site signifies your agreement to our terms of use.
