Home
contagioustruth wrote:Xero wrote:contagioustruth wrote:My whole argument is that there's not enough demand for a wrestling product as least not wrestling as we know it today. The boom period of the 90s and early 00s was the culmination of what began in the 70s and 80s, and the popularity of wrestling has little to nothing to do with the quality of the product. In 2014, Raw is basically pulling Nitro numbers from 2000 despite being a vastly superior show.
I refer you to the post above yours.
The rest of what you say is easy to type on a keyboard, but it just is not practical. For example, I could say the exact same thing about Sega re-entering the console race, but I'm not going to do that because it's just not realistic to assume that some Ted Turner-like billionaire is going to pop out of thin air to throw money at this unproven product to go up against a corporate giant.
It's far more logical to go after a segment of the population that the WWE has never appealed to (niche product) and is a much easier goal to obtain.
There's a significant difference between modern U.S. demand and the level of U.S. demand that existed in the 90s. I don't buy Monday night ratings as indicative of that demand, because WWE is pulling in even more money today than they were back then, and that's exactly what any true competitor is looking at-- not how impressive a rating they can draw going head to head with Raw.
TNA has already cast its lot as a second major promotion, and considering how well they've been drawing overseas, there's no reason for them not to. TNA or another company can tap into the entire WWE audience with no direct programming with the right resources, but even being a distant second is better than being a niche product, because the people behind TNA are in it to make money, not to cater to niche audiences in high school gyms and ballrooms.
WWE is making more money now but it isn't due to eyeballs on the product or fans buying pay-per-view events. They're no longer just a wrestling company. They work on films, books, and music just to name a few. The WWE Network alone is something that I don't think any other wrestling company can compete with. Part of the reason why I believe it's foolish to compete against the WWE is simply because they are as large as they are now.
TNA hasn't been able to compete with the WWE because they're too concerned with trying to be a better WWE than the best TNA. This is evidenced by the money spent on contracts for Hogan and other big money talent like Sting in addition to attempts at bringing Impact to Monday nights and also the move to bringing Impact on the road. As you say TNA is in this business to make money. They are not making any money.
Stay in the Impact zone, build a small but devoted following centering your product around young, talented wrestlers and market yourself as a true alternative to the WWE. Building a niche product around an audience that WWE doesn't cater to doesn't automatically mean you're producing shows out of ballrooms. Niche doesn't mean indy. Niche simply refers to a specific audience. If our example company is efficient enough at appealing to that specific market then at the very least the company should achieve some level of success with minimal expense. If they catch on with a larger audience, that's even better, but they don't need to forsake who they are and what made people watch them in the first place.
Lastly, your final comment isn't entirely accurate. Being number 2 may be largely irrelevant purely based on the idea that if you're one of only two mainstream wrestling promotions, it doesn't matter how niche you are as you're still number two. TNA has been the number 2 wrestling promotion in the United States for over 10 years, but we can all agree there's a big difference between TNA in 2002 and TNA in 2014. Also, even if you are #2 and have eyeballs on the product, you can still be hemorrhaging money (see TNA and WCW). What good is being #2 if your business model is not profitable?
