tpww7 Posted December 30, 2005 Report Posted December 30, 2005 Like the topic says, with the now expanded audience on Spike, what would you think of TNA running another 1 cent PPV? Good Idea? Bad Idea?
MrRant Posted December 30, 2005 Report Posted December 30, 2005 May be good for getting more exposure. May not be good as far as paying out much more then they will receive.
Guest Coffey Posted December 30, 2005 Report Posted December 30, 2005 Eh, the only people that know about or follow TNA are people that are willing to pay full price anyway. This new "expanded audience on Spike" isn't some astronomical number. They just need to develop their characters better and get some non-shitty storylines going. Good stories with good characters will make people tune in. A lot of non-wrestling fans started watching WWF when Austin was taking on McMahon. A lot of non-wrestling fans started watching WCW when the NWO were taking over and Sting came in to combat them. People aren't going to tune in to see Jeff Jarrett take out the entire roster and a bunch of cruiserweights fly around a six-sided ring.
RedJed Posted December 30, 2005 Report Posted December 30, 2005 The One Cent PPV idea was that is was just a Best of show, and the only reason they probably had it on ppv was that they didnt have any other clearance otherwise on FSN at the time. More I think about it, WERE they even on FSN at all when they did that? Now they could just do it on Spike straight up. Makes much more sense that way anyway.
Mole Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 Eh, the only people that know about or follow TNA are people that are willing to pay full price anyway. This new "expanded audience on Spike" isn't some astronomical number. They just need to develop their characters better and get some non-shitty storylines going. Good stories with good characters will make people tune in. A lot of non-wrestling fans started watching WWF when Austin was taking on McMahon. A lot of non-wrestling fans started watching WCW when the NWO were taking over and Sting came in to combat them. People aren't going to tune in to see Jeff Jarrett take out the entire roster and a bunch of cruiserweights fly around a six-sided ring. They need a break out star. WWF did well in 1998 because of the storylines AND because of Austin. TNA needs the storyline and the star.
Dangerous A Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 TNA needs the storyline and the star. Alvarez and Meltzer were talking TNA a few weeks ago and hit on something regarding making stars. They said that TNA needs to focus on making 2, 3 max people into stars. They said if you put the focus on making 2-3 guys, the rest will come, but if you try to make 25 guys into stars, you'll fail at making even one.
RedJed Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 TNA needs the storyline and the star. Alvarez and Meltzer were talking TNA a few weeks ago and hit on something regarding making stars. They said that TNA needs to focus on making 2, 3 max people into stars. They said if you put the focus on making 2-3 guys, the rest will come, but if you try to make 25 guys into stars, you'll fail at making even one. Thats such a good point, it should be damn near a rule of thumb for bookers.
Jericholic82 Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 The One Cent PPV idea was that is was just a Best of show, and the only reason they probably had it on ppv was that they didnt have any other clearance otherwise on FSN at the time. More I think about it, WERE they even on FSN at all when they did that? Now they could just do it on Spike straight up. Makes much more sense that way anyway. no they were still on ppv only every wednesday, the 1 cent show was on in sept 03
Guest Mike Posted December 31, 2005 Report Posted December 31, 2005 If TNA wants to lose more money, they could run a 1 cent PPV. They are good at losing money. -=Mike
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now