two fans, two points of view. who's right?

**kingblingbla** · 04-30-2012, 11:57 PM

fan 1
the more fans a wrestling company has shows whether they are a success or not. For example, WWE had about 80,000+ fans at wrestlemania. their biggest ppv of the year. TNA had about 5,000 or less fans at their biggest ppv. If you have 80,000+ people watching something than that proves that its better than its competition.

fan 2
the ammount of fans a company has does not show what show is better, it shows how much money they have to promote their product to get noticed by people. that's how you get a foundation of fans. given the fact that your putting on the best show possible to keep those fans coming back to watch next week. if a company puts on top of the line shows week after week, the fans that watch will get other fans to watch, thus, creating a chain reaction and fan growth.

fan 1 or fan 2, who's right?

**SESAfro** · 04-30-2012, 11:59 PM

Both are right.

**B-MCINTYRE** · 05-01-2012, 12:00 AM

They are both right.

**drumn4life0789** · 05-01-2012, 12:24 AM

both are right. Fan 1 is right because being able to sell out a place that big proves that at some point not necesarrily right now they were putting out the best product meaning they grew that fan base. Fan 2 is right because in order to grow the company and to create income you have to put out a good product.

Its a Catch 22 situation.

**Viperfish** · 05-01-2012, 12:42 AM

This is one of those questions... you know, like "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" It takes a #2 to spawn a #1 in normal, traditional business. The abnormal case would be to just throw money at something, sort of like the NFL which started from nothing versus the XFL which was the result of a guy throwing money at something. In a way you could say TNA was like this as well... it didn't start that way but when Panda Energy got involved, they skipped important steps in the growing of a business(and are consequently suffering for it right now in my opinion).

You can apply this to any business. Which is better, Starbucks or X(x being whatever small coffee joint there is that operates in more than just one state or province)? Is Starbucks better because they have one in every street corner and people walk in and out of it all day or is the other one better because they make better coffee? McDonalds or Harveys(sorry to use a Canadian chain but their burgers completely shit all over Mickie Ds)?

In my opinion #1 is better. I don't discredit #2, bless you for being around and offering something different, but people don't walk in and out of #1 everyday because they're horse-feces. Sure, in the physical world sometimes #1 is the winner because it's more convenient but all TV takes is the flip of a channel. If you're too lazy to change channels then there's something wrong with you. If we didn't have #2s around the world in general would be a giant ball of shit.