Could a Move to a Bigger Network Help TNA?

[dwith]

Now UFC just signed a new contract with FOX, and say's that their show will reach 99 million homes now... I am not sure how many homes SPIKE TV reaches, but I have to believe it's not nearly that.

So if it had been TNA that was able to make the move to FOX, do you think it would be a substantial help for TNA with offering there product to millions and millions of more homes across the us?

I know WWE's rating's were much higher on USA, and not SPIKE due to the availablilty of the two channel's.

I have to believe that if TNA want's to grow, that they need to really start sending feeler's out to these larger network's, and build their viewership from there.

Does anyone think or agree that a UFC like move to a larger network could give TNA a boost it need's to move forward?

 

[Rayne]

Why do you think that the WWE is shown on USA and not NBC? (NBC Universal owns USA Networks.) The major networks just don't have any interest in professional wrestling because they are doing much, much better with programs like "American Idol" or "CBS Evening News". The WWE's 3.2 rating, along with the mediocre draws for their special events, turn networks off from the idea that professional wrestling could be a draw for them. There's a reason that NBC hasn't shown anymore Saturday Night Main Event specials.

Now, if the WWE can't get a network TV deal- who in their right mind would offer TNA/IW one? We're talking about a company who made a large investment 20 months ago in order to grow their business and has thus far improved ratings by one or two tenths. The only people with hot growth prospects on TNA/IW are TNA/IW fans, because they don't know any better.

But we forgo network television and say TNA/IW wants to move to a bigger cable network. WHO? USA is about as big as cable stations get. MTV has tried professional wrestling (WSX), found it a miserable failure, and again, can do a lot better than TNA/IW's weekly 1.1 in prime time. FX would be a possibility, but its a lateral move for them; they do just as well showing fresh-to-TV feature films.

You think about this from a TNA/IW viewpoint; but what does TNA/IW offer other networks to help the networks out? The answer is nothing that can't be found somewhere else for less money.

 

[H33LTurn]

Moving to a new network would help TNA get exposure, but I dont know about ratings. You need to sign on to a network that fits your content. I dont know how UFC will fit into the crowd of frequent FOX viewers, and it could actually hurt FOX if it interferes with some of its most popular programing. TNA needs to sign on to a network that gives a crap about them succeeding but at the same time isnt having its first taste on pro wrestling with them. I can see TNA on MTV because they' both have an emphasis on pop culture. It could be the push TNA needs to get over with a new crowd. I could also see it on TNT but I dont know how many people have that channel. If anything they should stick with MTV. They're not opposed to wrestling and its not the first time TNA works with them. AJ Styles had a little cameo in one of their Made shows. The fact is TNA has rebranded itself and its time they start trying to get themselves out there any way possible.

 

[Kizzo]

Networks have no interest in wrestling... PERIOD!

The ratings for wrestling are pretty good (even better than UFC on cable), but they generate shitty ad rates. There is a stereotype in the media and ad business about wrestling due to the audience that it attracts. I'm sure they view all the samplings and they have no interest in that audience.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Why do you think that the WWE is shown on USA and not NBC? (NBC Universal owns USA Networks.) The major networks just don't have any interest in professional wrestling because they are doing much, much better with programs like "American Idol" or "CBS Evening News". The WWE's 3.2 rating, along with the mediocre draws for their special events, turn networks off from the idea that professional wrestling could be a draw for them. There's a reason that NBC hasn't shown anymore Saturday Night Main Event specials.

Now, if the WWE can't get a network TV deal- who in their right mind would offer TNA/IW one? We're talking about a company who made a large investment 20 months ago in order to grow their business and has thus far improved ratings by one or two tenths. The only people with hot growth prospects on TNA/IW are TNA/IW fans, because they don't know any better.

But we forgo network television and say TNA/IW wants to move to a bigger cable network. WHO? USA is about as big as cable stations get. MTV has tried professional wrestling (WSX), found it a miserable failure, and again, can do a lot better than TNA/IW's weekly 1.1 in prime time. FX would be a possibility, but its a lateral move for them; they do just as well showing fresh-to-TV feature films.

You think about this from a TNA/IW viewpoint; but what does TNA/IW offer other networks to help the networks out? The answer is nothing that can't be found somewhere else for less money.

I disagree. I think FX would actually be a step up, because FX offers something SpikeTV does not — critically acclaimed original programming which can be used to cross-promote with TNA/IW in the event they moved there.

The same way you see Burn Notice and shows like it cross promote with WWE, you could see Sons of Anarchy, Rescue Me, Louie, Wilfred and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia all work with TNA, or at least some of them could. Maybe Rescue Me and Louie don't touch it, but what's the stop It's Always Sunny or Sons of Anarchy from using some of TNA's wrestlers as cameos for their programs?

 

[JaylisJayP]

Networks have no interest in wrestling... PERIOD!

The ratings for wrestling are pretty good (even better than UFC on cable), but they generate shitty ad rates. There is a stereotype in the media and ad business about wrestling due to the audience that it attracts. I'm sure they view all the samplings and they have no interest in that audience.

What audience is that...the same one that watched My Name is Earl and voted Scotty McCreery the newest Idol?

 

[Kizzo]

What audience is that...the same one that watched My Name is Earl and voted Scotty McCreery the newest Idol?

Yep... and look at the ad rates for those shows. The media industry is very prejudice against wrestling. I don't know why, but they are. They will pay big money to be on the Simpsons, The Cleveland Show, and other FOX shows. I mean look at the low rated Fringe (great show BTW).. terrible ratings, but FOX is still able to charge high ad rates.

 

[90swerebetter]

I know eric bischoff has two shows he produces on tru tv which is own by ted turner maybe if TNA gives more power to Eric he can somehow get TNA on a time warner network station. I was also reading ted wants to get a wrestling program back on one of his tv station remember Ted didn't want to sell WCW its was the board decision after the AOL/Time warner merger.

 

[Kizzo]

I know eric bischoff has two shows he produces on tru tv which is own by ted turner maybe if TNA gives more power to Eric he can somehow get TNA on a time warner network station. I was also reading ted wants to get a wrestling program back on one of his tv station remember Ted didn't want to sell WCW its was the board decision after the AOL/Time warner merger.

Ted Turner has no influence at Time Warner... he sold all his stock (lost most of it) and resigned from the Board in 2006. He has no interest in the media industry. He is busy with the United Nations (donated $1 billion to them), and overseeing his other interests... mostly his 2 million+ acres of land across the country. He still has an office at CNN, which was part of his retirement package.

 

[ECW Sandman]

I thought Turner did not own TBS TNT and the other stations any more I thought Time Warner owned it now ? and Time Warner did not want ''Wrasslin' '' on there networks.

 

[Rayne]

I disagree. I think FX would actually be a step up, because FX offers something SpikeTV does not — critically acclaimed original programming which can be used to cross-promote with TNA/IW in the event they moved there.

The same way you see Burn Notice and shows like it cross promote with WWE, you could see Sons of Anarchy, Rescue Me, Louie, Wilfred and It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia all work with TNA, or at least some of them could. Maybe Rescue Me and Louie don't touch it, but what's the stop It's Always Sunny or Sons of Anarchy from using some of TNA's wrestlers as cameos for their programs?

I meant that it would be a lateral move for FX. FX would be a better channel than SpikeTV, for sure; losing the UFC has the potential to be a deathblow for the network. (Let's face it- TNA/IW is SpikeTV's biggest program, but you aren't going to have a successful television network using professional wrestling as your centerpiece.) We've already heard rumors that SpikeTV is looking to rebrand away from a male-oriented network.

It would be a case of piggy-backing; could FX use their other shows in order to bring audience awareness of TNA/IW up? TNA/IW stars aren't going to bring anything on their own to other shows (barring Hogan, who would likely cut his own deal apart from TNA/IW.) If FX thinks that kind of investment could pay off for them, I see it as a possibility. FX could help out TNA/IW, for sure; could TNA/IW help out FX?

I thought Turner did not own TBS TNT and the other stations any more I thought Time Warner owned it now ? and Time Warner did not want ''Wrasslin' '' on there networks.

Ted Warner has not owned TBS or TNT since 1990. The "we don't want wrestling on our network" bullshit was spread around by the people who ran WCW into the ground, and couldn't understand why a company wouldn't want anything to do with a business that was losing $80 million a year. Since the people involved in tanking WCW wanted to work in the industry again, they cast the blame on network executives, as wrestling fans do not give a shit what a board of directors member would have to say in a shoot interview. A lot of people like to say "but they wouldn't sell to Eric Bischoff when he made his offer!" Bischoff's offer was contingent on deferred money and a three-year guarantee of a prime time television slot; it was a deal offered for the simple sake of saying "we offered to buy it, so look at how unreasonable these people are!" Time Warner would have been insane to accept the deal; there is a reason why they thought Vince McMahon's $7m offer was the better one.

"We don't want Wrasslin'" narrative plays great to professional wrestling fans who are used to mainstream society's disdain for the form of entertainment; however, it bears almost no relation to reality.

 

[90swerebetter]

Ted Turner has no influence at Time Warner... he sold all his stock (lost most of it) and resigned from the Board in 2006. He has no interest in the media industry. He is busy with the United Nations (donated $1 billion to them), and overseeing his other interests... mostly his 2 million+ acres of land across the country. He still has an office at CNN, which was part of his retirement package.

okay i didn't know turner left . if trutv is willing to show micro wrestling why not TNA?

 

[duckbutter]

if trutv is willing to show micro wrestling why not TNA?

Because Micro Wrestling actually has an interesting product.

Seriously, though. TNA could gain a bigger audience by simply putting out a better product. I've been a wrestling fan since 1985 and have watched some crappy wrestling promotions come and go, but I cannot watch TNA because it's so confusing and boring. If their product improves and they can find some consistency in their storytelling, I'll start watching again.

How many others are out there that feel the same as I do? My guess is that there's enough to make the ratings nearly double.

Until their product improves, then neither will the ratings on a consistent basis. For now they can squander in their horrid writing.

 

[Deexter Jorgan]

Now UFC just signed a new contract with FOX, and say's that their show will reach 99 million homes now... I am not sure how many homes SPIKE TV reaches, but I have to believe it's not nearly that.

So if it had been TNA that was able to make the move to FOX, do you think it would be a substantial help for TNA with offering there product to millions and millions of more homes across the us?

I know WWE's rating's were much higher on USA, and not SPIKE due to the availablilty of the two channel's.

I have to believe that if TNA want's to grow, that they need to really start sending feeler's out to these larger network's, and build their viewership from there.

Does anyone think or agree that a UFC like move to a larger network could give TNA a boost it need's to move forward?

Wasn't TNA on fox sports.net at one point?, TNA's move to spike TV did nothing for the ratings, hell its move to Monday night did nothing for the ratings, TNA or Impact Wrestling as it is now known has always stagnated in the 1. ratings and has done nothing to raise this, some say its a booking issue, others say its the overall product, the fact still ramains though that the company is making some sort of a profit.

I've made my concenrs about TNA's bookng but believe that the lack of viewership is moreso due to promotion, outside of Spike TV there is little promotion for the companies top brand and a change to a bigger network may help but i doubt that it would make any difference, and with a company such as fox they would probably cancel their relationship with TNA once the ratings fail to climb, there needs to be a majority interest in the product, there has to be some motivation in regards to sponsorship such as Subways Sponsorship of the series Chuck which actually brings in outside income from its partnership with the fast food chain, without a reason for a big network to view Impact wrestling as a financial sucess and something that could actually benefit the network i doubt it would make any sort of move in regards to aiding the company.

If I were Dixie i would look moreso about strengthening my companies relationship with Spike and work on broaderning my companies brand a little more outside of my loyal fanbase then changing its home, the company can at least grow as a brand in its current format rather than jump into a situation that will only be beneficial for a big network and not for TNA.

 

[Bigrog25]

Actually Rayne you are incorrect, they didn't want wrestling on their networks, if that wasn't the case, why would people that have no obligation to defend Russo/Bischoff say THE EXACT SAME THING? People like dusty, Jericho, Goldberg and so on? These people have had no problem blasting Russo/Bischoff on their mishaps, but at the same time have said they weren't wanted, anyone who worked for WCW knows how they were looked at by other branches of the turner/time Warner conglomerate, hell it was like that since turner bought WCW before time Warner was even in the picture. Every booker/producer/agent have all stated this on many different occasions. Even higher ups in turner/time Warner have stated this on the record. Hell, even Paul heyman has stated ithey were looked down on when he was there, and if youthink Paul heyman would make something up to help give Bischoff an out, you're nuts. As to the group that tried to buy WCW with Bischoff, they backed out of their offer ONLY when the higher ups took WCW completely off the air, that's why they sold to McMahon, and is also the only reason he was allowed to buy it, had it stayed on TNT/tbs, viacom wouldn't allow McMahon to buy it. Please check your facts and don't just take the word of dirtsheets.

As to the op, of course it would help IW, they would have the opportunity to be seen by how many millions more who for the most part there's a good chance don't even know what the hell an IW even is.

 

[SharpShooter083]

Doesn't Spike TV help TNA when it comes to certain finances as far as signing bigger talent and whatnot? If that is the case then I think that TNA are lucky to have Spike because no other network would shell out money to help a wrestling promotion acquire talent or anything else for that matter. UNLESS the promotion made the network a lot of money which TNA really hasn't done for Spike. I think Spike is investing because they see potential with TNA but how long can something have potential before all hope is given up and too much money is lost?

 

[Rayne]

Actually Rayne you are incorrect, they didn't want wrestling on their networks, if that wasn't the case, why would people that have no obligation to defend Russo/Bischoff say THE EXACT SAME THING? People like dusty, Jericho, Goldberg and so on? These people have had no problem blasting Russo/Bischoff on their mishaps, but at the same time have said they weren't wanted, anyone who worked for WCW knows how they were looked at by other branches of the turner/time Warner conglomerate, hell it was like that since turner bought WCW before time Warner was even in the picture. Every booker/producer/agent have all stated this on many different occasions.

I'd like a source on this, because I've never heard this story from anyone without a vested interest in not being blamed for WCW's failure. Kevin Nash spouts it pretty regularly, because he spent a bunch of time on the book. Goldberg I could believe, as he's been sour grapes ever since WCW folded, as he hasn't proven marketable anywhere else. I'd like to know who this "and so on" is. I have my doubts that there are any "and so ons" that hadn't worked significant time for WCW.

A lot of people take issue with me stating that WCW was a massive money loser, had no prospects for improvement and was hence, like any other televised business, a prime candidate for cancellation. The professional wrestling fan, with a biased interest in believing his favored industry has to be successful, tends to prefer the "Those Big Meanies!" explanation.

I can't think of why I'd want to keep around a show on my network with declining ratings that was absolutely hemorrhaging money which had just undergone an entirely unsuccessful rebranding, but pro wrestling fans don't want to hear that; they like stories, like how the good guys were oppressed for silly reasons by the bad guys.

 

[mlp420]

Seriously, though. TNA could gain a bigger audience by simply putting out a better product. I've been a wrestling fan since 1985 and have watched some crappy wrestling promotions come and go, but I cannot watch TNA because it's so confusing and boring. If their product improves and they can find some consistency in their storytelling, I'll start watching again.

How many others are out there that feel the same as I do? My guess is that there's enough to make the ratings nearly double.

Until their product improves, then neither will the ratings on a consistent basis. For now they can squander in their horrid writing.

I knew someone would come on and post this. "Just book better and the ratings will double!!!" Good lord.

 

[sTyLnK]

Of course, but no big time networks want to pickup TNA because it's so mediocre. If Raw left USA however, I guarantee a few big name networks would come knocking.

 

[Bigrog25]

If you google the ratings for WCW in 2000 & 2001, you would see they were still doing 2s and 3s even when they were getting ready to close, these are the same numbers WWE is doing today, does that mean WWE is about to fall off and are hemorrhaging money like people who didn't work for WCW claim? The fact if the matter is they were still producing good numbers, never below a 2 even in 2000 and 2001. Harvey Schiller has stated many times how people in the org thought of WCW, mike Graham, who hogan blasted in his book still says this, Dave Crockett talks openly about it, so yes I can go on with more names.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Yes, theoretically a network that reaches more viewers would increase TNA's viewership but it is far from a guarantee. There would be many other factors that would come in to play. I don't think that moving to Lifetime or the Style Network would improve their numbers.

TNA has many other aspects that they have more control over and should focus on. Blaming Spike has its merit but really does not help them succeed. Burning that bridge may leave them with nothing.

As far the other new side topic, Rayne is right. Losing money and viewership are far more important to a network than the executives personal tastes. Network executives are not artists, they are businessmen.

 

[Bigrog25]

And once again, THEY WERE STILL DOING 2s & 3s WHEN SHUT DOWN!!! They might not have been doing 4s & 5s, but they were still doing what www does today. so please refrain from the viewership/ratings debate when I can sit here and prove otherwise. Just because you sheep of the IWC no longer watched WCW, there were still millions who did.

 

[mlp420]

Of course, but no big time networks want to pickup TNA because it's so mediocre. If Raw left USA however, I guarantee a few big name networks would come knocking.

What does Raw have to do with this topic? And what is the point of this posts? Does it make you feel better about yourself to come on a topic about TNA and point out that Raw is more popular/attractive? What part do you play in Raw's success by the way since you feel the need to come on here and boast about it?

 

[Bigrog25]

@mlp420 he's nothing more than a WWE troll, what he forgot to mention was the fact that wwe wouldn't get picked up by a major network, as already stated, ifthat was the case they'd already be on NBC seeing as how they own USA, there is a reason they no longer do Saturday night main events and spend the money to do these shows when they can just air parts of the last wrestlemania for a much cheaper cost. If NBC felt the WWE was stillthat big, they would be on NBC and bot USA.

 

[duckbutter]

I knew someone would come on and post this. "Just book better and the ratings will double!!!" Good lord.

I dare TNA to prove me wrong.