Impact tonight.

chopperbyrne

Joe Vs Angle for the title on Impact????

Do these people not want to sell PPVs????

Mr.Nice Guy

Hey that's being a bit harsh. After all the show did a WHOPPING 1.0 rating! :pac:

Bubs101

chopperbyrne wrote: »

Joe Vs Angle for the title on Impact????

Do these people not want to sell PPVs????

Talk of your double standards. i can only assume the match didn't have a clean finish in which case it's a common tactic used by the WWE as well to build hype for their match at the upcoming PPV which will probably have some clauses which prevent cheating. HAving said that this is TNA

Fozzy

I'll direct you to Glenn Gilberti's (Disco Inferno) most recent column. He works for TNA

http://www.wrestlezone.com/column.php?articleid=210740886

To answer your question:

Would it be a better idea to tell them to pay for the same match again, for the same price? That's not too bright.

I usually assume that they do stuff like this for ratings, but putting Joe against anyone else would've given them the exact same rating

Fozzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

Talk of your double standards. i can only assume the match didn't have a clean finish in which case it's a common tactic used by the WWE as well to build hype for their match at the upcoming PPV which will probably have some clauses which prevent cheating. HAving said that this is TNA

Joe vs Angle is the biggest match TNA can put on. Do you see WWE giving away HBK vs Undertaker or Cena vs HHH on tv? Has there been a HHH vs Orton match to build up this Backlash title match?

Bubs101

No but you often see them give away matches like Batista Taker or Batista Edge on TV. Also, WWE pulls in much more viewers so TNA has to put on the matches it thinks will get them higher ratings if they want to compete

Fozzy

Bubs101 wrote: »

No but you often see them give away matches like Batista Taker or Batista Edge on TV. Also, WWE pulls in much more viewers so TNA has to put on the matches it thinks will get them higher ratings if they want to compete

But that match clearly wasn't going to do higher ratings! I think the opposite is true, that TNA has fewer headliners than WWE so when they face each other they should make the most of it

Bubs101

I kiind of agree but if the match has just been used and it's not been useed at the next PPV I don't see the harm (I haven't watched TNA in a while so I'm not sure what the story is). If it was a DQ finish then There's no problem

Vince135792003

Also another problem is the match that they are giving away on free tv (Kurt and Joe) is more attractive than the 1 they are promoting for the ppv (Triple Threat).

the flananator

Joe Vs Angle for the title on Impact????

Do these people not want to sell PPVs????

Silly post. Joe/Angle has been done to death, no-one was going to pay to watch it again. But given the previously high quality of their matches, I would say many would be willing to watch it for free on iMPACT. Furthermore, as bubs has rightly noted, the bout had a screwy finish, and existed primarily to set-up the main event of the upcoming PPV, which is exactly what TNA should be doing on its televised broadcasts. (I think having a straight Joe/Steiner match at Sacrifice and saving the Three Way for Slammiversary would be far more interesting and logical mind, but thats not whats being debated her, and moreover is a personal preference anyway).

I can gaurantee you that if WWE gave away Orton/HHH for free on this weeks Raw, there would not be a topic created about it. Rather, people might actually focus on whether or not it successfully built up the Backlash PPV, or *gasp, whether or not they actually enjoyed the match! Its funny how emotional people on here get about TNA, especially when most don't even watch it!

Vince135792003 wrote: »

Also another problem is the match that they are giving away on free tv (Kurt and Joe) is more attractive than the 1 they are promoting for the ppv (Triple Threat).

Again thats a personal opinion. I would prefer to see the 3 Way than watch Joe/Angle clash AGAIN, especially so soon after Lockdown.

Hey that's being a bit harsh. After all the show did a WHOPPING 1.0 rating!

You are just displaying your ignorance to the situation here. A 1.0 rating is perfectly fine. TNA and Spike TV are more than happy with it, so much so that Spike has been aiding TNA financially.

":pac:"

Mr.Nice Guy

the flananator wrote:

You are just displaying your ignorance to the situation here. A 1.0 rating is perfectly fine. TNA and Spike TV are more than happy with it, so much so that Spike has been aiding TNA financially.

I'm not displaying ignorance to the situation. I used to follow their ratings quite closely and a 1.0 is a diabolical rating. You said that chopperbyrne's post was silly yet you made some very silly statements in your own post. For example...

Joe/Angle has been done to death, no-one was going to pay to watch it again.

Isn't it true that the majority of people who buy TNA PPVs are hardcore fans who will likely shell out for any of their PPVs? Why wouldn't these people buy an Angle/Joe match? Also I bet that's a match more likely to attract the non-hardcore following than something involving Scott Steiner or whoever.

But given the previously high quality of their matches, I would say many would be willing to watch it for free on iMPACT

Again let's remind ourselves of the rating - 1.0. So there goes that notion.

This is the kind of thing that WCW started doing when Nitro was suffering poor ratings. Giving out PPV quality matches on free TV. It hurt them in the long run. I think that's why people are bewildered by TNA.

PS Interesting fact - guess what TNA's rating was for April 26th, 2007? Answer: 1.0

Damn they're sure making progress huh?! What's Spike's hope for the rating this time next year I wonder? 1.1?

Hey maybe they should bring back this guy! ->>> :pac:

the flananator

I used to follow their ratings quite closely and a 1.0 is a diabolical rating.

1.0 really isn't a diabolical rating. As long as it doesn't drop below 1.0, the ratings are steady.

Why wouldn't these people buy an Angle/Joe match?

Because they paid for it one month previous in a cage. Booking Joe/Angle AGAIN in a non-gimmicked match at Sacrifice could make the difference between 18,000 buys and 35,000 buys (which were the figures which TNA's buy-rates fluctuated between in 2007, not sure how they've been doing so far in 2008).

Also I bet that's a match more likely to attract the non-hardcore following than something involving Scott Steiner or whoever.

Couldn't disagree more. Scott Steiner is one of the most over and entertaining guys on the TNA roster, who can still deliver in the ring when given the right opponent. I take it you haven't seen his previous matches with Joe? They were very well-received. Moreover, despite his mid-card role in WWE, the guy still has name value, which could appeal to the non-hardcore following you mention (like myself, who would pay to watch Joe/Steiner rather than Joe/Angle AGAIN).

This is the kind of thing that WCW started doing when Nitro was suffering poor ratings. Giving out PPV quality matches on free TV. It hurt them in the long run. I think that's why people are bewildered by TNA.

The comparisons between WCW and TNA these days are redundant. While there are similarities (and some of them are glaring), WCW was a former giant who was losing money over fist before ceasing to exist, TNA is a relatively new company which is finally finding its feet with financial projections for 2008 being encouraging.

Damn they're sure making progress huh?! What's Spike's hope for the rating this time next year I wonder? 1.1?

I'm pretty sure Spike would be more than happy with that. They put on UFC shows with less ratings than that. 1.0-1.1 ratings are solid for that time-slot. Using sarcasm to compensate for the lack of merit in your point really won't do you and good.

Did someone say Pacman vs. Joe at Bound For Glory? :pac: "Can you believe this Don?!?"

Vince135792003

the flananator wrote: »

Again thats a personal opinion. I would prefer to see the 3 Way than watch Joe/Angle clash AGAIN, especially so soon after Lockdown.

You missed my point. I'm not saying they should put Angle and Joe on ppv again this month. They shouldn't have put it on free tv in my opinion either! They should save it.

However, I'm just making the point that they gave a match away on free tv, a match that I believe more people would be interested and excited in coming off the buzz of the last ppv than their main event at the next ppv that you're asking people to pay money for. I like Steiner but I don't think he adds anything to the Angle/Joe mix.

I enjoyed the match though last night. Great effort by both of them. One little thing that annoys me though is the volume of the announcers. They are just so loud that the crowd is barely audible.


Also a 1.0 is at the very least disappointing if not completely unexpected. If I was TNA I would have hoped to break into the 1.3's with that as my main event. And even then, I'm not sure if that justifies doing the match.

The UFC comparison isn't that simple either. UFC's ratings this year, have to this point been disappointing I would imagine for both Spike and UFC. However a couple of things needs to be considered before the comparison is made:

Spike show ALOT of UFC with alot of it being re-run tv. So it's not a complete like with like comparison although I guess you could compare TNA with The Ultimate Fighter Series. However UFC over the last 3 years have had ratings even if you just use The Ultimate Fighter ratings that would make Jeff Jarrets wet his pants if TNA were ever to get them.

the flananator

However, I'm just making the point that they gave a match away on free tv, a match that I believe more people would be interested and excited in coming off the buzz of the last ppv than their main event at the next ppv that you're asking people to pay money for. I like Steiner but I don't think he adds anything to the Angle/Joe mix.

Again, and I may sound like a broken record here, but my point is that I really, really don't think anyone would pay to see Joe/Angle again. Lockdown was their fifth match together within a 17 month period. The cage gimmick, I thought, was the blow-off (I don't think another straight Joe/Angle bout would have garnered the same interest. I for one would have been bored). In another year or so, maybe people would be willing to watch Joe/Angle throw down one more time. But one-month after their blow-off match? Come on. Adding Steiner creates a fresh scenario with new and interesting possabilities (although I must point out that TNA have blown it on this one; as I said, Angle should be taken out of the title picture until at least Slammiversary, leaving the new and exciting Steiner/Joe feud to gather momentum. TNA is far, far from perfect, whichever way you look at it).

And I will concede the 1.0 rating is disapointing. Not "diabolical", but disapointing. TNA attempted to spike its ratings by booking a match from the biggest feud in its 6 year history on its TV show. The attempt failed. However they were right to attempt;

a) It set-up the next PPV.
b) People mock TNA for putting so-much emphasis on its TV ratings when its PPV buy-rates are so weak. Do these criticis not realise how vital these ratings are to keeping its slot on Spike? Do these critics not realise how vital its slot on Spike is to TNA's exposure, building of a brand name, merchandising, promoting of live events, etc? Do these critics not realise how vital these revenue streams, created by the TV show, maintained by steady ratings, are to TNA's growth and ultimate survival?

Spike show ALOT of UFC with alot of it being re-run tv. So it's not a complete like with like comparison although I guess you could compare TNA with The Ultimate Fighter Series. However UFC over the last 3 years have had ratings even if you just use The Ultimate Fighter ratings that would make Jeff Jarrets wet his pants if TNA were ever to get them.

Fair enough on the UFC front, I don't know enough about the UFC or its deal with Spike to argue with you there (as much as I might like to ), but would you not agree that anywhere between a 1.0 to a 1.3 for a programme on that channel on that time slot is healthy? Spike seem to think so.

I enjoyed the match though last night. Great effort by both of them. One little thing that annoys me though is the volume of the announcers. They are just so loud that the crowd is barely audible.

Now, y'see, thats the sort of thing I'd like to see discussed more on these boards, as in, did I, as a wrestling fan, enjoy the wrestling?!? Its so enjoying sometimes when people open smarky little topics, analysing thing like PPV buy rates when, as a wrestling fan, such a matter, being on the business side of things, should not concern you.

"Thats Pacman's music playing Mike! Could it be? Could it be? Does this mean what I think it means? Pacman comes to iMPACT, next week! BAWGAWD!"

:pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Vince135792003

You didn't read what I said again. I largely agree with what you wrote in the first paragraph.

Check the second sentence of my last reply. I will say this too though, just because your not going to do Angle/Joe next month does not mean it's a good idea to give 20 minutes of them wrestling away free on tv. It's the one feud they have that comes across as special. They cheapened it by putting having them wrestling on tv last night.

the flananator

When you said this:

I like Steiner but I don't think he adds anything to the Angle/Joe mix.

, I presumed you meant the "Angle/Joe mix" was worth pursuing into the next PPV, just without Steiner's involvement.

Out of interest, who do you think Joe's Sacrifice opponent should be? (And don't say Pacman :pac:)

Machismo Fan

Since Angle has faced come to TNA, him and Joe have had 4 PPV main event and one PPV feature match. Thats 5 times in the last year and a half that they have faced on PPV. There is no way Angle vs. Joe on PPV would draw huge numbers on PPV any time soon(By TNAs PPV draw standards).

To give the match away for free on TV was an attempt by TNA to boost ratings.
The feud should be left dead for a long while now, leave Angle move onto Styles and Joe onto Roode or Storm after KOTM. It failed despite the fact that it was a very good Impact.(Guns vs. Rhino/Christian was very good) It seems to me that no matter what TNA try that the cannot draw in more people to watch their TV than 1.3 to 1.5 million people, which is no small amount of people.

I think the triple threat is a good idea, Steiner can be good in small doses.

Vince135792003

the flananator wrote: »

When you said this: , I presumed you meant the "Angle/Joe mix" was worth pursuing into the next PPV, just without Steiner's involvement.

Don't presume anything, just read what I typed.

I would have gone with your scenario of Steiner and Joe and I would not have done Angle and Joe free on tv. You got to keep that match special and to be honest doing the match free on tv and then doing a triple threat a month later dilutes to me the job they did at building back up the feud of Angle and Joe.

Just on Machismo Fan saying "It seems to me that no matter what TNA try that the cannot draw in more people to watch their TV than 1.3 to 1.5 million people". That's nonsense. It may take time but if you have a good show, people will tune in to it. The one thing TNA has never tried long term is a consistently enjoyable show that doesn't leaving you scratching your head.

oneofakind32

Everything you can buy on PPV eventually ends up on TV. Thats how the business works. HBK and Michaels had an hour long match on raw just a few weeks after there mania clash last year. TLC and Hell in a Cell also on TV at one point or another. The match it self was good and I think it was booked well to build up to the PPV, plus it wasn't over booked either. It was however the only thing that was booked well on impact last week(Gun's out of the tag tournament in the 1st round???).

the flananator

oneofakind32 wrote: »

Everything you can buy on PPV eventually ends up on TV. Thats how the business works. HBK and Michaels had an hour long match on raw just a few weeks after there mania clash last year. TLC and Hell in a Cell also on TV at one point or another. The match it self was good and I think it was booked well to build up to the PPV, plus it wasn't over booked either. It was however the only thing that was booked well on impact last week(Gun's out of the tag tournament in the 1st round???).

Excellent point regarding giving away PPV calibre matches on TV there.

On the other note; TNA has lost all interest in pushing the MCMG since they refused to blade at AAO (?) if I remember correctly. I actaully don't blame TNA actually. They can't push everyone, and this showed a slight lack of passion by the guns, bordering on an attitude problem. Don't get me wrong, they had every right not to blade, but TNA have no obligation to push them either.

Vince135792003

the flananator wrote: »

Excellent point regarding giving away PPV calibre matches on TV there.

I don't think it is!

Everything leads onto free tv after in the opinion of the company they have milked it dry on ppv or in the old days you've milked it dry on the road. Angle and Joe is something you can milk once or twice a year and should be able to do great business with.

That's how all of the old Saturday Night Main Event shows were booked. Hogan would face a guy like Orndorff after they had done all the house show business they were going to do with the feud and thus they weren't losing money by giving it away free on tv.

The example oneofakind used goes against his argument. They did give it away on free tv and did a 4 way after it. And guess what happened? WWE got their lowest ever buy rate for Backlash 2 weeks later (http://meltdown.homeip.net/wwe/ppvbuyrates.php)

Also, WWE rarely give away "money gimmick" matches away free on tv. I can recall 2 TLC's ever on free tv one which was done on the fly because Triple H got injured in 2001 and they wanted to make Jericho and Benoit look strong. The other was for the first ever Raw Roulette.

I think they might have given 1 Hell in a Cell match away free on tv over the last 10 years too.

To be fair to the WWE, they are pretty good at protecting their gimmick matches that draw.

the flananator

I guess where we essentially disagree here Vince is that you apparently believe Joe/Angle could be booked again this year (judging by your comment that it "is something you can milk once or twice a year") while I don't believe it should. Adding Steiner into the mix gives us something we haven't seen before, and last weeks iMPACT set-up the upcoming PPV well in my opinion. Joe/Angle has been, as you say "milked dry". I don't think putting it on for free this week will do any harm to them wrestling again in a years time if that match makes sense. Maybe I'm wrong. I guess we'll have to wait and see.

Vince135792003

To me, it's like TNA giving us their version of Rock and Austin away free on tv 2 weeks after Wrestlemania 1999 which had the same match and the company saying:

Now go buy it again. This time though it's a triple threat with the Big Show.

My point is if you've already seen the biggest match that the company can put on twice, paying for it once and getting it free the second time, why would you buy a ppv with the main event being a match that on paper doesn't look as good as one you just saw for free?


Time will tell I guess though.

the flananator

But that was the first time Rock and Austin fought in that scenario. This was the fifth time Angle/Joe have clashed in the main event. For me, it would be like WWE putting on Rock/Austin for free on Raw one week after Wrestlemania 19.

Vince135792003

the flananator wrote: »

But that was the first time Rock and Austin fought in that scenario. This was the fifth time Angle/Joe have clashed in the main event. For me, it would be like WWE putting on Rock/Austin for free on Raw one week after Wrestlemania 19.

Go with that scenario then even though I disagree with it considering Kurt/Joes ppv was relatively very successful for TNA while Wrestlemania 19 suggested that they did the Rock/Austin match one too many times for the people.

So they do Rock and Austin at Wrestlemania 19. 2 weeks later they do it again on Raw. And then they say: Pay to see a Triple Threat featuring Rock, Austin and Big Show.

That's NO BUYS to me. And lets say the WWE did that, any specialness that Rock/Austin had would well and truly have been eroded pretty badly by booking it like that.

Honestly, I think a Triple Threat match doesn't protect Angle and Joe from becoming stale. They shouldn't even be in the same match.