Jarrett interview

[Guest bob_barron]

WRESTLINGOBSERVER.COM INTERVIEW WITH JEFF JARRETT

By Alex Marvez

E-mail: [email protected].

Although this interview was conducted before the December 4 NWA/TNA telecast, the concept of having wrestlers deliver unscripted interviews a la Roddy Piper on that show was something that Jeff Jarrett strongly supports. As the Chief Operating Officer of NWA/TNA, Jarrett wants to change the nature of his group’s product through a controversial strategy that should result in, if nothing else, some memorable moments. In the following interview, Jarrett talks about the state of NWA/TNA after six months and the direction of his promotion as it enters 2003.

Q: After six months, is NWA/TNA where you thought it would be?

Jarrett: "Business-wise, of course, we've had our troubles legally. I don't want to rehash that, but it was a tremendous setback with our marketing. Litigation is still ongoing in that aspect (against Jay Hassman, associate Len Sabal, BTP Consulting and K-4 LLC on claims of fraud and breach of contract with regard to marketing and consulting services for NWA/TNA). I could have never looked into the future on June 19 and known quite frankly that we would be getting screwed in all aspects of our marketing from people within. We've rebounded from that remarkably well. Now, we're partners with Panda Energy International. Who could have known that six months ago? That was a great diversification for them. They really look at this product to grow. We went through a time business-wise where we were getting our feet wet. It's like that with any new business, but I think it's been magnified 10 times over because of certain aspects of our short history."

Q: What exactly are you talking about with the setback? Buy rates?

Jarrett: "Buy rates are really way down on the list. The No. 1 thing was promotion and awareness. We were not getting the awareness factor through the 2,000-plus cable systems throughout the country. The pay-per-view marketer did everything not to help us out. With each individual cable system, whether it's in Miami or Chicago, you go in and build a relationship. Our business partners are the cable systems as well as DirecTV. We needed to get more in the promotional aspect of that. That's the short version of our problem."

Q: The Wrestling Observer reported that NWA/TNA was close to bankruptcy in September. Is that accurate?

Jarrett: "If I were to really go into it, I don't think that would be as accurate as it sounds. But on the surface, absolutely, we had a financial situation that was not directly related to us. Our partner had problems of its own. In turn, we had to turn around and partner with Panda Energy out of necessity. But in hindsight, it was a true blessing. We've got involved with a big company that's hands on and wants to dive into this project and really grab the bull by the horns and watch it grow."

Q: How about the creative end of the company through the first six months?

Jarrett: The thing I'm about to tell you may make you scratch your head and say, 'Huh?' The next statement I'm about to make about creative is something I really feel strongly about. I've sat back and analyzed a lot of history in the business. I heard stories from my grandfather and grandmother and dad about the evolution of the business. Six months ago when we started, we wanted a good wrestling product and were experimenting with some … the easiest way to say it sports entertainment. My opinion now in December is that sports entertainment and wrestling are exactly the same. I really believe the business over the last three or four years, every element of what made it so special has been taken away. Growing up as a kid, there were much more spontaneous reactions. I think the Monday night war had people flipping channels so much that the owners of both companies were worried about everything from the guys at the ring entrance to the opening high spot and finish to the backstage skit. Everything was so pre-planned and organized to the T that we lost the art of entertaining and spontaneous reactions. No improvisational action ever took place. Everybody was walking through the motion in a very scripted way.

"I think that not just on network TV but in all of entertainment, people want real reactions. I think that's what's going to make NWA/TNA different. That's how we're going to approach this. Not everybody on the card or show is going to know everything that is going to happen all the time, from the wrestlers to the announcers to the production people. If we don't get the best shot, that's real TV. Survivor brought that to the forefront several years. They were filming and getting real emotion and reactions out of people. I think that's what wrestlers used to do in the 1970s. Guys would be given a finish, but it was up to them how to get there. Sure, it was predetermined with winners and losers, but there was much more freedom and liberty to do things. Vince (McMahon) was an announcer for 15 years and everybody in the world knew he was the owner of the promotion. But then the stuff with Bret (Hart) took place. When (McMahon) talked about Bret screwing Bret, he was speaking from his heart and what he really believed. He really believed Bret screwed Bret. It was a real- life situation, but unfortunately, Bret did not get to stay and play out the storyline.

“Look at Steve Austin. When he was first employed by WWE, he was very frustrated in his career at the time because of what happened in WCW. He was a hell of a talent who had a real-life position like, 'Screw this. I'm going to be who I am,' and show the boss who he was. It's the same as when Scott (Hall) and (Kevin) Nash went to WCW. They really were WWF stars whose contracts had expired. Everybody knew they were going to WCW to be in a top slot and that it would cause dissension and they would take over the locker room. And they did. And that was real. DX really were a bunch of renegades that bonded together and went to Nitro (hoping to interrupt a taping). Sure, it was a storyline. I'm not saying that was real, but there was some realism done with that skit when they went to Nitro and Nitro really did shut the door on them. Those were real reactions and I think that's what helped business.

"Since the day Vince bought WCW, the numbers in all aspects of his company have gone down. I believe he conquered the mountain and has nothing left to do. It's his product, his game and his show. Everything is thought out step by step. There's no realism or shred of it in any type of storyline."

Q: Which explains your decision to bring back Vince Russo without telling anybody beforehand?

Jarrett: "Here's what really happened. The investors said, 'Make this thing work. We bought into this TNA concept. We enjoy it. We think Russo has value, and there's also the traditional wrestling.' This was an absolutely real-life situation. So we made the decision, along with Panda, to let the fans decide. Vince (Russo) will go to his grave believing sports entertainment is the only way to do it. Without a doubt. There are others that want all in-ring action. I'm one that thinks you need both. But the Vince (Russo) thing was an absolutely real situation. Quite frankly, I was put right in the middle (in Panda deciding who would handle booking for NWA/TNA between Russo and Jerry Jarrett). I had my father on one side and Vince on the other. For two weeks, I didn't know what direction the company would take. That story is real.

"I'm not sitting here and saying I want a product that's all real. But wrestling fans are so educated. They want what they want when they want it and they want great effort. I think those fans will suspend disbelief, but they have to have things presented to them with a reality-based concept."

Q: But playing devil's advocate, the idea of doing angles without telling the boys led to a lot of dissension in WCW under Russo and helped drive the company out of business. You've had one wrestler quit (Sean "Syxx-Pac" Waltman) because he wasn't told that Russo was coming in. The BLA thing (the short-lived Bad Lesbian Angle between April and Goldilocks) was horrible.

Jarrett: "First and foremost, we're not going to hit a home run each time we're at the plate. But I don't think there's any other way to go. I watch WWE's product. Their production has no peers. They have great talent up there, but I don't think they're connecting with people at home that have been there and done that. They've seen every angle the group has had. I don't think there's anything new or fresh in that product. I think wrestling fans want something different. We as a company have to be careful to avoid doing exactly what you're talking about and make sure to head off dissension in the locker room. In WCW and WWF, there was tremendous dissension in the locker room. But you have to keep it under control and keep everyone focused on one goal. You can't let it get out of control."

"As for Sean, everyone would like to put the blame for that whole situation on Russo. That's completely contrived. The real truth is that Vince (Russo) had nothing to do with it. It had no bearing on Sean's so-called oversleeping and missing his flight by 20 hours. Now if you want to call and tell us that you're not going to be part of a show because one piece of talent is on the show, that tells me you don't want to be on the show at all. We can contrive and come up excuses. I've talked to Sean four or five times in the last couple of weeks. I'm not sure the door is closed on us. But I told him he's got to make up his mind if he wants to be a part of our show. If one guy is going to keep you from it, why not come on the show and voice your displeasure. Russo is not writing the show. He isn't the booker, writer and the whole nine yards. The angle with Bruce, that was Jerry Jarrett's idea. The seed of the idea came from someone else, but not Vince. Dad took it and wanted it to be part of the show. Vince got blamed for that (by industry insiders). Vince is only contributing what you see on camera. But history will make it hard for people believe that."

Q: Can you walk me through the pay-per-view numbers through six months?

Jarrett: "By contract, we will not get the final figures for the June 19 show until May 19, 2003. That's how the business works. Multichannel News is the only third-party source that has reported about it and they say the first show did between 20,000 to 40,000 buys. We feel like we've been very consistent doing that. That goes with an asterisk besides it because the numbers keep coming in every accounting period. When we moved into the new building (in Nashville), we took a dip because people didn't have confidence in the product. We're steadily increasing again. We've made production upgrades and talent upgrades."

Q: The face of the company has changed several times since it started. There have been shows focusing on sports entertainment, shows focusing almost solely on in-ring action and there's the type of product you're trying to present now. Are you able to get figures that would indicate whether some shows are more successful than others based on what style of product you are presenting?

Q: "We have incomplete (buy rate) information, but we review every show we do. I have people all over the country giving me reviews of the shows, what we're doing good and bad. But we're literally learning as we go. It's not like we have a big history to go back on. We feel good about certain pieces of talent that we've used, and others that we tried we did not feel as good. But I feel in the short history of TNA that the (wrestling) business has changed. It's not the same business it was six months ago. I don't think it's rocket science. I think it's very simple and basic. People want compelling storylines. Maybe (WWE's) hot lesbian action is not compelling in 2002. But I look at a show like the Osbournes. A lot of people are not Ozzy fans, but they watch that show. Why? It's got whacked out, weirdo people. I think the main thing is its real people. It's a real documentary. I think over the past couple of years, it goes without saying that fans were not pleasantly entertained by some storylines, like the Invasion angle and the HLA. They didn't really bite on that. People want something realistic and compelling they can sink their teeth into. It's not going to be easy, but I believe applies not just for wrestling but all of TV."

Q: How will the addition of Panda make an impact in the on-air product and behind the scenes?

Jarrett: "On the air, I can't really say it will mean anything. They want the best possible product that we can put out. Keep in mind, they are business people first and foremost. So we have to make rational decisions not to overspend while getting the best bang for the buck in the on-air product. Also, for example, they said, 'Fix this problem,' between Vince and my dad. And we did. Behind the scenes, they are very business-oriented."

Q: There is a lot of big-name ex-WCW talent now available like Sting, Lex Luger and Bill Goldberg. Does NWA/TNA have any interest in talent like that?

Jarrett: "I'm not going to say we're not interested in that talent. But we know that we have to have a hungry group of performers. I don't know if those guys are hungry any more. I'm not knocking them at all. In fact, they've all reached the mountaintop. Some of them are done with the business or they're not interested in being part of a weekly show. Maybe they'll take a tour here or there. That's great for them. But our situation is that we have the first-ever weekly pay-per-view events. I also don't know that financially we'd be able to come to terms with any of them."

Q: What is the next step for NWA/TNA? Is there a U.S. tour planned for next year? And will Andrew McManus be involved seeing that you're going to go work his WWA tour later this week (in Europe)?

Jarrett: "We've got an international announcement that we're in the process of tying some things up before announcing it. We're growing in all aspects of the company, from licensing and merchandise to international distribution to awareness in the states as far as pay-per-view. We're wrapping up our advertising budgets. This is really the first opportunity to do this for us because of what happened to us behind the scenes (with marketing problems). We've been behind the eight ball since August and September. In October, we were going through the acquisition process. In November, we just started to get the ball rolling. And now the holidays are here. We want to keep adding different elements to the show.

"Things with Andrew McManus are a one-shot deal. As for live events, we know the arena business is not good. We've got to be careful and smart, but we're definitely hoping to start running shows. I can't give a timeline. It would be crazy to say anything before we had a date locked in, but it's something we want to do."

[Guest Gary Busey]

Jarrett makes a good point-- I miss the days when having a live show meant something. You never knew what to expect when the shows didn't micromanage everything and have the luxury of editing. Even Raws today suck because they have lost the feeling of spontaneity that the Attitude era had. It wasn't being live alone that gave Nitro and Raw that special can't miss feeling, but it was one of the components.

 

I say with a fair amount of tweaking on the shows, it's an idea that might work. All hail NWA "trying something new!" TNA!

[Guest Jobber of the Week]

Most of his responses seem to sound like "Oh yeah, Vince Russo is a perfectly nice guy. People are blaming him for this and that and it's not really his fault."

 

This is just like when Jerry wrote a letter talking about how he thought Russo would help the product and then the profanity went through the roof.

 

How frustrating. Oh well, they'll see where it takes them soon enough.

[Guest Slapnuts00]

I know! It hurts so much, because Russo is no good and they just don't realize it. I've loved this product so much, but if last week's shw is any indication of the new direction they're going for, I can't see this product succeeding.

[Guest eirejmcmahon]

They've every right to let wrestlers free wheel it on their show but they have to take responsibility when one of them crosses a line too.

[Guest Hogan Made Wrestling]

It would be funny if this "shoot" bullshit bit them in the ass. I can imagine some wrestler wanting out and asking for shoot time, and then preceeding to shoot on Jarrett, call the product shit, and basically tell people "watch RAW and Smackdown this week!".

 

Oh wait, that's gonna be Vinnie Ru's promo next week.

[Guest oldschoolwrestling]

Exactly. Its going to be like WCW when they did the millionaires vs the young talent thing with Russo and Bischoff. Everyone shooting on everyone and everyone swearing every other word.