MeeThinks 3.21.06: Primetime TNA (Page 1 of 2)
Posted by John Meehan on 03.21.2006
To be, or NOT to be?
"Methinks your looks are sad, your cheer appall'd:
Hath the late overthrow wrought this offence?"
- Bastard of Orleans, King Henry VI, Part I
Act I, scene ii
Greetings, all and welcome back to your weekly dose of positivity. Thanks to all who voted my way in the first ever for The Great Positivity Debate, and even though the results seem to indicate that more fans could care less than not I think it's still a pretty safe bet to say that this column is the most optimistic thing going in the IWC today.
Anyhow
This week, we're looking at the TNA timeslot fiasco as well as a boatload of reader feedback and your usual dose of glossary entries. You'll notice that I had to pitch in with this week's batch and put in a few extra glossary entries of my own so if you've got any, send em my way!
Also
This week's reader feedback section (page two), contains a bevy of SHOCKING PHOTOS of one of WWE's most beloved divas - none other than two-time Playboy covergirl Torrie Wilson. I will warn you in advance, readers - these photos are GRAPHIC and they could well ruin your perception of the "wholesome beauty" that is the "lovely and talented" Ms. Wilson.
Before we get to the meat and potatoes of this week's debate, do kindly allow Mee to indulge in a bit of a departure from our usual format for a second here as MeeThinks goes "MeeBooks" and tries its hand at some of that "fantasy booking" that seems to be all the rage these days. If you're not into that sort of thing no worries, just scroll on past this next section to the actual debate below (here's a hint it starts with the words "MeeThinks: Primetime TNA".
We'll rock & roll the debate in just a sec but first, cue the fantasy booking!
It's Just a Sweet, Sweet Fantasy Baby
With WrestleMania on the horizon, a number of readers have asked Mee how *I* would have booked this year's big event. Since a number of readers seem to enjoy Hayhurst's weekly EWR fantasy warfare, I figure I'd bite and try my hand at the same.
So -
There was a contest a few months back on the forums which challenged posters to see who could fantasy book the best WrestleMania we're talking backstories, feuds, turns, guest stars angles and all beginning with the night after Summerslam 2005 and continuing straight on through till WrestleMania.
The field was talented and the competition was fierce, but in the end only two men remained when the dust had settled. Bogey, who had won the same contest two years earlier, and RockyIV - perhaps better known to you kind folks as yours truly, John Meehan.
Sadly,
The guy who was organizing the contest wound up getting banned (and leaving the 411 interwebs forever, or so he says) before we could make the final vote, and so we never got to determine just who had put together the stronger program.
Well, until now.
Head on over to the forum and check out the fantasy booking showdown between Bogey and myself (under the name of "RockyIV") and lemme know what you think!
In the mean time to this week's debate!
MeeThinks: Primetime TNA To be, or NOT to be?
Let's cut to the chase and get to
Our Story So Far
(From 411's news report on the issue):
In a move that has to be killing TNA morale right now, SpikeTV has decided not to go ahead with the planned move of Impact to Thursdays at 8PM ET. Impact will still move to Thursdays starting on 4/13, but will instead air at 11PM ET.
Jeff Jarrett informed the wrestlers of the news today at the Impact taping.
Impact will follow the Ken Shamrock/Tito Ortiz season of "The Ultimate Fighter" which will air at 10PM ET. Spike made the move so they could get "The Ultimate Fighter" into the prime time schedule. The full Thursday line-up will be "CSI" at 8PM ET, "UFC Unleashed" at 9ET, "The Ultimate Fighter" at 10ET, and TNA Impact at 11ET.
On the surface the move is obviously bad news, however the show may be better off following UFC since they will benefit from the lead-in UFC gives them. Recent ratings have shown that TNA benefits greatly from UFC's audience.
And a follow-up, also as reported by 411:
As reported yesterday, SpikeTV has decided to move TNA Impact to Thursdays at 11PM ET, not 9PM ET, starting 4/13. TNA initially reacted to the news negatively since they had their hearts set on a "prime time" slot. However, those in the know at TNA and SpikeTV feel that the show has a better chance of success in the short term and long term with the 11PM ET timeslot.
Spike made the decision largely because "CSI," set to be Impact's lead in initially, does not have a similar demographic as Impact and would thus force Impact to draw in its entire audience without any sort of lead in. UFC's demographic is almost identical to TNA's demographic and will provide Impact with a strong lead in in addition to the audience TNA brings in. Spike views TNA as a young show which does not have a defined audience and thus feels more comfortable giving the show a good lead in. Spike's new show, "Pros vs. Joes," drew a 1.3 rating (higher than any episode of Impact) for its debut episode largely due to the lead in it got from a UFC show. "The Ultimate Fighter" will air before Impact at 10PM ET and is expected to draw a rating between 1.5 and 2.0.
And since that pretty much sums it up, let's hop right into the thick of things to see if we can't find some "positive" in all of this in a little column I likes ta call
MeeThinks?
Ok, readers I'm not going to lie to you here. On the surface, this thing obviously has to be a major disappointment for a promotion like TNA. Here they were getting their hopes up for a prime time slot on a major cable network and, lo and behold the rug gets yanked right out from under them as the folks from SpikeTV decided to re-shuffle things to push TNA right back to the 11 o'clock hour, just three nights earlier.
Some will tell you that this
1) Buries the company with a worse time slot than before, and spells doom for the immediate future of TNA.
2) Shows that the network has little faith in TNA to draw an audience in a prime time slot.
3) Pretty much kills all of the company's momentum to this point.
Valid if reactionary concerns all around, I suppose. But let's break them down one at a time, if I may:
First up
The current time slot vs. the new time slot issue
Anybody who honestly believes that 11pm on Thursday nights is in any way worse than 11pm on Saturday nights needs to seriously check the social calendars of most of the wrestling viewing audience. Let me ask you, Joe and Jane Wrestling Fans given your average week, which of the following nights are you *more* likely to be home to watch television?
a) Thursday
b) Friday
c) Saturday
d) Monday
If you're anything like Mee or any other 18 to 24 year old male, for that matter which again, would put you smack dab in the middle of the target demographic for most wrestling programs, your answer would probably be "d) Monday," then "a) Thursday," followed up by some combination of "b" then "c" (or c then b).
So what does this mean?
Saturday night wrestling is a tough sell. With normal "going out" on weekends a pretty regular fixture in most fans' schedules it's certainly no easy task to make "destination television" on either of those nights ESPECIALLY later in the evening (when there are plenty of bars and parties just waiting to be hit up). Friday night Smackdown works, to an extent., because it starts at 8pm a solid two hours before most "real" parties / nights of debauchery / etc. actually kick into high gear. Sure, there's always something to do with "the guys" or the lady-friends on the weekends, but most of those things don't get started till later in the evening which means that you can easily get your "pre-game" on while watching Smackdown in the background as you get yourself dressed before hitting up the bars, parties and the like.
SATURDAYS at 11pm, on the other hand is a bitch of a time to break away from the middle of said soirées to tell your friends "hey sorry guys, I've gotta' bounce early professional wrestling is on." The middle-to-later in the night that your show airs on these "prime" party nights, the less likely fans are to schedule their entire evenings around getting back home to gravitate to their television sets.
"But John," come the critics, "ECW made its reputation and established a solid underground following thanks to it's craptacular post-midnight timeslot on MSG!"
To those folks, I'll say from plenty of personal experience, too "you're right, but you're wrong."
True, the late-night ECW shows gave the promotion an added sense of "edginess," "independence" and "underground appeal" (something that the then-WWF was severely lacking, and something that even they tried to copy with Shotgun Saturday Night, if you'll recall) but there's also something to be said for the fact that those old weekly ECW shows were on at all sorts of crazy post midnight hours back in the day.
An example, by way of anecdotal evidence
Some weeks, it'd be a 12a.m. show. Others, thanks to a Knicks game or whatever, the show wouldn't come on until 1a.m. or sometime thereafter. Others still I'd wait up all night trying to kill time with friends just to show them this "awesome new wrestling show" only to find out that the TV Guide channel had lied to Mee and that no, in fact there'd be NO show altogether this week which would be all kinds of "teh suck."
In short?
ECW prided itself on being "the little guy" who thrived on being oppressed by "The Network" and "The Big Two" long before Heyman ever got on the mic and played that into an angle on TNN. The craptastic tv slot, the shoddy editing, the blood-spattered brawls, and the rowdy crowds were all part of the brand's charm.
TNA while similar to ECW in many of these aspects is not ECW. Whereas ECW championed "garbage wrestling" and blood at the forefront of their product (with a healthy dose of some of the world's best cruiserweights and technical wrestlers to boot), TNA attempts to bill itself as an "alternative" wrestling product to the "sports entertainment" style product offered by WWE. What this means, then, is that while sure, TNA will be happy to showcase some blood and plunder here and there (Abyss, Sabu and Rhino, for example) they're much more set on offering a quality in-ring product that offers a "polish" and a "class" all of its own that more than makes up for the flashiness that is WWE's big budgets and "larger than life" atmosphere.
In other words -
TNA survives (and does quite well) for the most part by presenting a quality (and some might even say "superior") in-ring wrestling product of class, technical merit, and performance skill. Unlike ECW, TNA's "independent charm" doesn't come from the fact that the promotion is something like a "bastard stepchild" of the wrestling biz but rather that it's performers are of a different caliber than any other wrestling organization in North America.
It's a small difference, but an important one all the same.
With ECW priding itself on its "hardcore only" appeal, TNA succeeds by offering a "fresh alternative" to a "tired" product from mainstream wrestling promotion. Sure, ECW was "alternative and proud of it" but it was also proudly "you either get us or you don't" in its overall attitude. TNA's approach is much more welcoming, and being "marginalized" doesn't exactly play to their favor.
This means that whereas a crap timeslot made ECW look "fringe" and "marginalized" an image that they were going for a crap timeslot for TNA just makes them look "bush league."
So what does this have to do with the Thursday night time slot, then?
The way I see it the Thursday night slot is a much better position than the Saturday night one at the same time. Eleven p.m. on Thursdays means that more people will likely be home (and thus, be more likely to tune in) 11 on Saturday nights, not so much. Now true, plenty of folks "start the weekend early" and get their crunk on starting on Thursday night and continuing straight through Sunday night, but by and large most folks are likely to be settling down in front of the TV on a Thursday night at eleven than they are to be doing the same on a Saturday night at the same time.
"But what about the older fans, who might have jobs and stuff so they wont watch TV during the weeknights?"
Here's a hint for you (again, by way of anecdotal evidence):
My dad is a die-hard wrestling fan, and he's happily watched WWE, WCW, ECW and TNA whenever it's been on. He's also in his fifties. More importantly, though (for the sake of this argument, at least) he always stays up through the opening monologue and sketch of Leno at the very least. That usually wraps up right around 11:40 at the earliest, which means that my pops your "average wrestling fan" outside of the 18-24 year-old
So sure, it's not primetime yet but the move from Saturday to Thursday means that the promotion is one step closer to making headway in the "mainstream" demographic (18 to 24 year-old males), a group who's much more likely to be home late at night on a Thursday than they are to be on a Saturday. And yes, 11pm on Thursday is hardly as primo as 8pm on Thursday but it's still a much better step in the right direction than being stuck at 11pm on Saturdays.
AND they still have the Monday night replay, too.
Which leads Mee to point number two -
The last minute timeslot swap shows that the network has little faith in TNA to draw an audience in a prime time slot
Well, again yes and no.
The fact that Spike seems pretty aware of the lead-in issue makes it seem like they're trying to do their best not to bury the show by dropping it smack-dab into the primetime waters without so much as a lead-in or a lifeline to help get new viewers behind the product.
Thursday nights have long been notoriously stiff competition for television viewing. Friends, Survivor, The Apprentice (till recently, at least) not to mention that whole slew of "must see TV" that preceded each of these guys, and we're staring at a veritable shark pool of viable competitors fighting for the same viewers' attention.
That said -
Putting TNA up against the current crop of Thursday night heavyweights (Extreme Makeover: Home Edition, Survivor, The Office, My Name is Earl, ER) could well prove fatal for an upstart broadcast the likes of Impact. It's pretty much a case of "forest for the trees," actually and while it looks tempting to jump right into primetime on what is (arguably) THE single most competitive night of television, it might also be disastrous to stack a relative "unproven" newcomer like Impact up against the established ratings juggernauts.
Baby steps people, baby steps.
The fact that Spike is putting Impact right after The Ultimate Fighter one of the network's most popular shows means that they want to see it succeed. The lead-in from CSI against all of those other rival networks would be DEATH for a show that caters to an entirely different demographic (kinda like when M*A*S*H used to come on right after Saturday morning cartoons, ya know?) and a few million simultaneous "flips" of the remote as CSI fans tuned out once "that wrestling show" came on would definitely only serve to hurt the show's staying power with Spike in the long run.
So instead -
They give us "Ultimate Fighter" first an established commodity and one of their biggest ratings-getters in the past year and then the overflow into another hour of "adrenaline rush" thanks to Impact. And since Ultimate Fighter (and all things UFC) seems to be doing quite well in terms of overall popularity as of late, going from the "more popular" show into a similar, "less popular" show shortly thereafter actually makes better sense than leading into your "more popular" show with one that fewer people cared about to begin with.
Again, baby steps.
And let's not overlook the fact that Spike is packing TNA right behind a reality program with a limited run of just twelve weeks. This means that Spike will find themselves with another free hour of television sooner than later, and given time, and the proper lead-in from UFC in some twelve weeks' time, TNA might just be drawing the type of ratings that would convince the network to give them that extra hour to really show their stuff.
And no matter how you slice it this is a good thing. Three months to work out the kinks and attract a substantial enough fan following, then a summer's worth (since networks tend to be a little bit more forgiving with their summer programming) of two hours of Total Nonstop Action to really put the promotion on the map.
And if anyone knows what it's like to really step up their games when the future of the promotion's television deal is on the line it's TNA.
Hey, that sounds like point three!
The timeslot mishap pretty much kills all of the company's momentum to this point.
Not to be too tangential here, but as a way of analogy to illustrate the point
I'm Catholic, and I used to serve as a lay minister doing ministry work for two years solid. As a Catholic minister, I had the opportunity to hear my fair share of flack about the ills, shortcomings, and problems with the Catholic Church. Most of the flack, in fact, suggested that the Church have themselves a little "Vatican III" soirée to enact a whole slew of changes.
A fair point, but here's the thing
Vatican I wasn't held till 1869-1870. Before that, there was a good nineteen centuries of church history behind the meeting.
Vatican II wasn't held till 1963, a good 100 years later.
To ask for "Vatican III" in 2006 effectively asks the Church to slap together another council with less than fifty years distance from the last one.
"That's nice, Meehan but where are you going with this one?"
Look at the "momentum" that's gone into TNA's history
For two years solid, TNA existed without any sort of weekly network television deal whatsoever, relying entirely on weekly $9.95 pay-per-views to keep the company afloat from 2002-2003. They lost all kinds of money, and were barely a blip on the radar of international markets.
For the better part of a year thereafter, TNA existed with limited weekly network television thanks to those $30,000-a-week hour-long spots on Fox Sports Net. Limited TV meant that while the company was making headway, "Impact" was still a relative unknown to the casual wrestling fan, and the weekly PPV was pretty much the TNA bread and butter.
From May through September (five months, if you're keeping score) of 2005, TNA was stranded without a weekly TV deal and they were forced to make fans download new programming content exclusively through the interwebs until the deal with SpikeTV was finalized for September of the same year.
Then, from September through today (just about six months), TNA has made their regular presence felt through two hours of television on late night SpikeTV one at 11pm on Saturday nights, and a replay of the same show at midnight on Mondays.
Now, they're moving to Thursday nights at 11pm (with the replay still airing on Mondays at midnight) and fans are getting all up in arms like this is the worst possible setback that a young upstart company like TNA could ever be forced to endure.
News flash, people
Don't let our shortened attention spans get the best of you. Much like the Catholic Church in the example above, the process of change and growth for such a major organization is a slow and deliberate one. The first change takes a very, very long time. The next as the analogy suggests comes in a somewhat shorter timeframe but still by no means an immediate one. And subsequent changes, in turn, also take their due time as well.
And in both the "wrestling world" and the "faith world" I think there's more than enough of a precedent in place to suggest that immediate overhauls, radical policy changes, and sudden popularity booms have actually proven more detrimental in the long-run than not (see: Turner's open pockets, Eric Bischoff, Vince Russo, and WCW). Well-founded (and well-established) changes implemented over a prolonged period of time, on the other hand while admittedly frustratingly slow at times have ultimately seen much more success in the long haul.
In other words
Don't let the trend towards "shortened time frames" throw you into a panic. TNA (and the Catholic Church, come to think of it) has survived the test of time through a prolonged (and deliberate) period of self re-evaluation and a natural "evolution" (ever so gradual though it may seem). Demanding a prime-time slot for a company that spent most of it's history not even on national television is just about as unlikely as seeing another Vatican Council any time in the near future "just because we think things really need a good shaking up."
These things take time, folks and if history is any precedent of future behavior, both organizations have made it clear (by stubbornness or by force) that their evolution process is not a rapid one. The first step for each organization took QUITE a long time, and the second (and third, and ) steps while somewhat closer in proximity were still by no means "rapid" in their succession.
So
If you're honestly doubting that TNA can recover from such a "major setback" as this recent misstep take a deep breath for a minute here, and rest assured:
1) They've survived much worse.
2) Sometimes, gradual evolution is just as good if not better than a sudden popularity explosion.
3) They've come a long way thus far and given time, there's no reason to believe they won't continue to grow and succeed in a similar manner in the future.
Sure, TNA calls its flagship broadcast "Impact"
But if they're really set on making a lasting "Impact" on the wrestling business for generations to come patience will be crucial.
Agree? Disagree?
"Methinks it sounds a parley to provocation!"
- Iago, Othello
Act II, scene iii
Shoot me YourThinks and I'll post your thoughts next week!
In the meantime
The Unofficial Glossary of Professional Wrestling: Volume XVI
We're compiling a massive Wrestling Glossary of fan observations of the clichés, trends, and standbys of the wrestling world that might as well serve as the unofficial "rulebook" for this sport we all love so well. Each week, I'll post one an entry of my own as well as a few submitted by you, my faithful (and hopefully articulate) readers.
It's simple, really. You submit an entry, I add it to the Glossary, and you get the credit.
This week's entries
The "No Wedgie" Law
Despite the fact that bumps tend to be pretty painful (it is falling on your back for gods sake), it is also a well-known fact that the pain incurred from said bump is, in fact, surpassed by the pain of embarrassment . As such,if a wrestler (see: Orton, Randy) is dropped from the top rope after a superplex, no matter how huge the bump might have been, chances are that immediately following said impact, a wrestler will immediately pull free all of the uncomfortable material that will have bundled up into his or her buttcrack. Even if a wrestler is "knocked out cold" from something like three German Suplexes, fans can be relatively assured that said wrestler will instinctively pick his or her wedgie even in a semi-conscious state. This also applies to the female women wrestlers (because God forbid Torrie Wilson's dress fly up as she's taking a faceplant). In short there shall be no free shots of panties, and definitely no wedgies here . - marlon
Kant's Axiom of Wrestlers' Ethics (female variation)
Any woman's heel or face status (and resultant moral character) is directly related to her willingness to appear naked in Playboy Magazine. As such, female wrestlers who are praised as "classy," "ladylike," or "elegant" are among the most likely to appear naked in adult magazines. - carp
Kant's Axiom of Wrestlers' Ethics (male variation)
With rare exceptions, any man's moral character is directly related to his popularity among large masses of people who barely know him. As such and with few exceptions popular wrestlers are automatically assumed to be "good" guys, each possessing a high and upstanding moral caliber. - carp
The Law of "Waste Not, Want Not"
The more elaborate a setup of tables, chairs, ladders, and or nearby plunder appears to be the more likely said setup is to be used in a dramatic "spot" just before or leading to the end of a matchup. As such, should *one* table be set up on the outside of a ring, it is quite likely to be used in a high spot and or the finish of a match. Should *two* tables be set up (or stacked on top of one another) outside of the same ring, they are virtually guaranteed to be destroyed prior to the finish of a match (see: Abyss vs. Rhino, etc.) - Meehan
The "Lock It Up" Principle
Despite the fact that many wrestlers choose to employ or set up tables in order to cause serious damage to their opponents, it is a well-known fact that while setting up any and all of these tables, performers will make certain to lock the table leg supports in place (by sliding the metal ring located along the metal underside of the table) so as to ensure that the table breaks cleanly down the middle once an opponent is dropped squarely through the center of it (see: Michaels, Shawn and McMahon, Shane, etc.). Ironically, this effort is designed to maximize pain towards an opponent, yet it is a well-established fact that a table spot that occurs through an improperly set-up or improperly secured object is, in fact, *much* more likely to cause serious damage to an opponent (see: Dudley, Spike and La Resistance). - Meehan
The "Say Cheese" / Freeze Frame Phenomenon
Once a number one contender has been announced for an upcoming pay-per-view event, it is almost an assured fact that by the end of that week's program (or in rare circumstances, the following week's program) that said challenger will find himself face-to-face with the champion in classic "stare down" fashion. This stare-down is often accompanied by obligatory "smack-talking" in close proximity to the champion, so as to *conveniently* position these would-be-opponents in the ideal setup for the perfect photo opportunity which, in turn will appear on any and all promotional materials that will be used to hype their upcoming PPV matchup. - Bt-10433
Great work all around, y'all! Love to hear your "unofficial rules" for this pseudo sport of kings as well, so shoot Mee your glossary entries today!
Till then - click the link below to catch up on the rest of this week's reader feedback as we wrap on The Road to WrestleMania, a WWE offseason, GOLDBERG?!, and those SHOCKING TORRIE WILSON PHOTOS that I warned you about!
