Educating the noobs (TNA vs ECW myth)
by, 09-15-2013 at 03:28 PM (3277 Views)
I saw a recent comment on the news section where someone stated (in a negative and smarky way) that TNA is smaller than even ECW was under Paul Heyman.
I never do these blogs but felt compelled to do a quick one and list some comparisons to try and educate some of the newer Wrestling fans who (by the fault of WWE's monopoly and twisting of history) don't know any better.
ECW did business during the last "boom decade."
It is important to consider this when making comparisons. This was a time with more wrestling fans in general and less negative influence on shows by so called IWC "experts" and "reporters." A time where it was easier to shock an audience and do a fresh idea / angle which hadn't been done before. A time with less competition from other shows. A time where fans could only watch the show on the TV, not on internet platforms, giving the company the maximum chance of gaining higher TV ratings. The company were also assisted by WWF and dabbled with WCW for a period of time. This was arguably an easier time to succeed in the Wrestling business and grow a new company.
TNA are doing business during the current "dip decade."
It is important to consider this when making comparisons for the many reasons. At this moment in time, the majority of casual viewers are no longer interested in wrestling (of any kind). During this time, the IWC seems to be particularly harsh and negative towards most things. TNA are now up against competition from 100's of stations and millions of hours of alternative TV options. ALL Wrestling shows in general are trying to gain a share of a market where the majority of new fans (16 years and under) are unaware of the history of the business and only know of WWE. ALL wrestling shows in general are trying to draw TV ratings while fans can also watch the same show within an hour of broadcast on many internet platforms, therefore taking potential viewership figures away from the show. This is arguably the hardest time in the entire history of wrestling to do business as a new Wrestling company and grow as a company.
As you can see, there is such a double standard amongst the IWC. The same people who are quick to proclaim how great ECW was and how successful they were, are the same people who bash TNA saying it should be doing better, it's "struggling" it is a failure etc etc despite TNA actually out performing ECW.Time in business (ECW) - 12 years
Time in business (TNA) - 12 years and counting
ECW record attendance - 6,000+ (PPV event)
TNA record attendance - 10,000+ (PPV event)
TNA record house show - 9,000 +
Average ECW tv rating - 0.9
Average TNA tv rating - 0.9
ECW drew an average 21% of RAWs viewer numbers
TNA draws an average 32% of RAW's viewer numbers
I am in no way trying to say TNA is perfect or TNA is a better show than the original ECW. I'm simply pointing out that a lot of criticism the TNA brand receives is not only unnecessary but incorrect.
I DID want to post a tonne of links where I gathered this information to share with you... but the internet Nazi's don't allow you to paste links to other wrestling sites!
THE EVIDENCE IS THERE... GO LOOK FOR YOURSELF AND SEE.