Could a Move to a Bigger Network Help TNA?

[Rayne]

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.

It's public knowledge that WCW lost $80 million dollars in their last year of operation. They were a public company, and that information can be found in Time Warner/AOL's fiscal reports for 2000 and 2001.

I asked you for sources, not "well this guy said". Ted Turner said that WCW was a horrible investment and should have been put out of its misery. See what I did there? Anyone can say "well this guy said". So what if there were people in Time Warner who didn't like wrestling, as per "this guy said"? I guarantee you there are people at USA who don't like wrestling; you don't turn your back on a money-making business just because you "don't like that dadgummed wrasslin'".

In addition, WCW was pulling 2's in their final year, they were on a downward trend, and at the time, 2's were considered weak performance for professional wrestling, especially when your competition at the same time was pulling in 5's. You can't compare ratings from a decade apart directly; the marketplace changes. If the WWF was pulling 2's in 2001, they would have had some serious answers to provide too. Now, the WWE's 3.2-3.4 is considered acceptable, if not good, for what the network they are on is looking for. Professional wrestling also isn't the money maker it was at the beginning of the last decade. Expectations are lower. That's part of the reason the WWF/E left for SpikeTV for a few years; they received an offer they found unacceptable from USA Networks in light of their lower ratings after the Monday Night Wars. The WWE is not as strong as they were in 2001.

You're also making the mistake of directly tying ratings to financial loss. WCW was losing $80 million in their last year because of some insanely foolish decisions; like signing talent to multimillion dollar contracts through their parent organization, sending airline tickets to wrestlers who weren't traveling, even paying wrestlers that they didn't know they had under their employ (Lanny Poffo). A show earning a 2 rating doesn't automatically mean it's a money loser; correlation != causation.

I always prefer to buy into the most logical explanation. You have a business with ratings that are slowly descending, that's absolutely bleeding money, and has limited hopes for regeneration. That's a recipe for a business that gets closed down. The "I just don't like that wrasslin'!" line sounds great to professional wrestling fans, familiar with the bad guy doing bad things to the good guy for no reason, but holds absolutely no logic in a world which is measured by which business can bring you money.

There's a reason that Time Warner/AOL could only get $7m for WCW. (Again, the specifics of the Bischoff/Fuscient offer were dependent upon Time Warner purchasing three years of WCW programming, with most of the money for the offer coming in later years.) It's not because they were a business that was secretly successful that evil people wanted to destroy because they just didn't understand it.

 

[Awesome_Miz]

Well they need more than that.They will need to built characters,have some pretty decent storylines,and they need to make a good business image for themselves.With all of then I can see them being picked up by a decent network.

 

[Paralyzer Z]

Impact wrestling is fine were it is. They just need to start taping episodes of impact somewhere else than the town that I reside in. Spike TV has large amount of viewers and is a decent network. Before they decided if they want to move to a new channel they need to build a better product. End of story

 

[Underwoody]

Definitely. It would raise the ratings. But I don't see it going anywhere...well, anytime soon. But a network change is most likely to happen. If they DO move, the bookings will stay the same AFTER the debut on the following network.

 

[Mazzaroti78]

Well TNA could move to a better network but Spike is not a bad network at all. The TV home of TNA is not the problem with the company at all. TNA is the number one show on Spike, they wouldn't have that claim on say FX that has strong original programming. UFC is a much larger company than TNA and they got very good exposure on Spike and pulled in less ratings than TNA but UFC turns their viewership into PPV buys. TNA gets 2.2-2.3 million viewers per week but they convince a small amount of those viewers to buy PPV's. Both Hardcore Justice and Destination X got less than 8,000 PPV buys. So TNA has a loyal TV audience but barely any of them pay for TNA's PPV's.

TNA has bigger issues than just a change of scenery. They need to figure out if they are TNA or Impact Wrestling and then start branding and promoting that name. Then figure out how to convert more of the 2.3 million viewers of Impact into PPV buyers. Once TNA can say they are a ratings draw and a PPV draw TV stations will come to them. TNA should be a little worried with UFC leaving and Spike now determined to change it's programming. The future is a bit murky for TNA right now I hope they get it together.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Theoretically, the answer to that is yes. However, the answer is yes, theoretically, if one asked the same question about WWE.

As others have mentioned, The Big Four broadcast networks of NBC, ABC, CBS & Fox have little to no interest in signing a wrestling program to their programming. Once a year, NBC throws WWE a bone and airs the annual WrestleMania 1 hour special. It always airs on a Saturday night and there's virtually no hype or plug about it from NBC in and of itself. Saturday night is usually pretty dead when it comes to television programming anyhow. This year's WM special drew 3.64 million viewers, which is about twice what the show drew last year. If it had aired on a cable network, such an audience would be looked at as a huge success but it's pretty much nothing compared to what shows like 30 Rock, American Idol, Two and Half Men & NCIS draw. Now that's WWE, a company that has been around for far longer and has established its television programming as long term & reliable draws for a very, very long time. TNA simply doesn't have that.

If TNA went to a network like FX, it could potentially be beneficial but, again, TNA isn't a red hot commodity. If WWE announced that their contract with USA was ending and were sending out feelers, I'm sure that many high profile cable networks would be interested. As I said, WWE has proven itself to be consistently one of the biggest draws on cable television. I don't think TNA would get nearly as much attention quite frankly. The network brasses don't care about fan arguments as to which company is better, they only care about the numbers & the bottom line.

Even if TNA did move to another network, that's no guarantee that all is going to be right within TNA's world. A move isn't a fix all and TNA has problems that aren't going to be fixed by merely changing its address.

 

[CaptainZaltan]

Could a Move to a Bigger Network Help TNA........

Get cancelled? Sure.

Every day in these forums, someone points out how Impact is the highest rated show on Spike. That doesn't mean it gets great ratings, it just means that Spike as a whole generally has crappy programming (or that it doesn't have as much 'brand awareness'; whatever you prefer to believe). Either way, Impact's position on Spike is fairly secure for the moment because TNA is a big fish in a small pond. A larger network is going to have access to far more popular programming that can attract far higher ad revenues. If TNA couldn't increase it's ratings and advertising appeal in short order, it would be dropped; probably in favor of a reality show about old people crossing the road or compulsive stamp lickers or something equally as ridiculous (and far cheaper to produce).

And as for all the talk about how the increased exposure would increase Impact's ratings, I just don't buy it. Impact has already had plenty of exposure, particularly during Hogan's debut. Those first Impacts of the Hogan era showed that TNA could hypothetically attract over twice as many fans as they generally do. Those fans that tuned in for those first few Impacts and never came back are obviously aware of TNA's existence, are capable of watching it, and yet choose not to. And I doubt they were thinking to themselves "Oh man, Impact is great. Too bad it's on Spike, I guess I can't watch it." And besides, wasn't Impact already on Fox anyways?

In any case, I think Spike is a great home for TNA. They've done a good job of promoting and investing in the show, and have provided opportunities for TNA talent to cross-promote with other programming on occasion. And as Spike is the former home of RAW, we know that TNA has the potential to bring in at least the same number of viewers as RAW used to (ie: we know that X amount of wrestling fans have been able/willing to watch wrestling programing on this network before). Anyone who doesn't think that Spike is at least doing a decent job is clearly not aware of how ECW was handled by Spike's predecessor, TNN. Impact is in the best place it can be, at least for the moment.

 

[Marzyk]

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.

2s and 3s...which was it... that's quite a gap there, man... like me telling you, "Your car note will be between $400 and $600... Alrighty then, If you'll just sigh here."

And, after all, who goes to the shareholders meeting with a big ass smile on their face and say, "GOOD NEWS YALL. WE ONLY DOWN 35%."

Plus it's a balance. Thier overhead was too high and they were losing money. WWE has several other streams of income... Higher merch sales, WWE Home Video, WWE film, you get the idea.... Basically regardless of the ratings they are making more than they are spending... there's nothing more to be said, really

 

[Mazzaroti78]

Once a year, NBC throws WWE a bone and airs the annual WrestleMania 1 hour special.

Most of what you said is spot on but this. WWE contractually gets 4 spots a year on NBC. The troops show and the wrestlemania video show are in there along with 2 saturday nights main event shows but that format has been scrapped.

 

[sdaniel1977]

A larger network won't help TNA because they fell into the Hogan/Bischoff trap. We've seen this show before and know how it ends. Both are so much about themselves that they will eventually run TNA bankrupt so it won't matter what station they're on.

 

[WeaverOfDarkness]

Help or not, WWE will always have that 'It' factor over TNA anyday

 

[Kizzo]

Most of what you said is spot on but this. WWE contractually gets 4 spots a year on NBC. The troops show and the wrestlemania video show are in there along with 2 saturday nights main event shows but that format has been scrapped.

What a waste... They contractually have 4 spots on NBC, but leave 2 nights open due to SNME being a flop. I wonder why they haven't created another program to fill those two contracted obligated slots.

 

[flyawaymsg]

good fit for tna

 

[whoopin' ass]

i don't think it would help. look at wwf and wcw - neither were on network tv yet look at the ratings they pulled in during the 90's. tna can say they are the highest rated show on Spike but would that rating even keep them on tv on another network? while Spike may not be the biggest network, they do have a decent reach so if tna can't pull in the viewers there, how would being on a different network help? their ratings have been fairly constant for a few years now (dropped a bit during the monday run but generally around a 1). make no mistake, it isn't the network that is hurting tna, it is tna that is hurting tna. quit screwing around with the titles, get some new creative people and the ratings will improve. once that happens, you will get more deals for toys, games, etc since there will be the demand for it. moving to a different network won't fix anything if the same product is put on it.

 

[Dizzy]

i don't think it would help. look at wwf and wcw - neither were on network tv yet look at the ratings they pulled in during the 90's.

1. What? TNT and USA were the two cable channels back in the day and still to this day.

2. This isn't the 90s. Wrestling was as popular as any sport right now. That isn't the case in 2011.

tna can say they are the highest rated show on Spike but would that rating even keep them on tv on another network?

They don't say they are the highest rated show. Their not WWE.

It's a proven fact they are and Spike TV says it. Would it keep them on another network? Yes. If 1.8 million people was a problem, SmackDown would be dead with that logic. Considering the only reason why they move to different networks was because CW didn't want any wrestling and rebranded to a Teenage Girly block on Fridays.

while Spike may not be the biggest network, they do have a decent reach so if tna can't pull in the viewers there

Decent? Lol

1.7 million isn't pulling in viewers?

how would being on a different network help?

There is more to ratings than what Internet fans think. It would make a difference by bringing TNA to a new home, new audience, demographics, promotion, financial support, possibly more TV deals, better exposure through out the USA.

If TNA can be grabbing massive ratings overseas, this screams to be a WWE/Spike TV issue holding them back here.

their ratings have been fairly constant for a few years now (dropped a bit during the monday run but generally around a 1). make no mistake, it isn't the network that is hurting tna, it is tna that is hurting tna.

We've heard that enough. It's becoming the Internet excuse of the year.

quit screwing around with the titles

Screwing around? There has been only 5 title changes this year. Compare that to what WWE has done this year. Please tell me how their screwing around?

get some new creative people

Here we go.

and the ratings will improve.

Then, when people hate that new creative person and ratings do not improve. We await the next excuse.

once that happens, you will get more deals for toys, games, etc since there will be the demand for it.

You do realize TNA is far ahead of everything you just listed right?

moving to a different network won't fix anything if the same product is put on it.

What exactly is the "Same Product"

You all complain about it but when they make changes they complain about shit from 2009 or 2010. Let's go over what TNA has done but still has gotten little respect or even recognition for a new product overhaul.


"TNA needs to find an identity and direction"

Impact Wrestling is created with new look, slogan and attitude. Yet, It's the same product apparently. If If were like ROH, I'm sure we would hear complaining about that too.


"TNA should push homegrown young guys"

They push Gunner, Crimson, Robert Roode, Austin Aries but it's still a problem.

"TNA should go on the road"

3 booked venues on the road in August, September and October. Yet, no one has even mentioned it.

"Bring back the X-Division"

They give the X-Division it's own PPV, sign 5 new wrestlers, spent more time on the X-Division and it's still a problem.

"Bring back the old Knockout Division"

They bring back Traci, Jackie, ODB. Still a problem.

"Push someone fresh and not from WWE!"

Crimson apparently sucks, isn't talented, green (despite wrestling better than Joe has in 1 year) but I can name 5 guys in WWE that make Crimson look like The Rock and they get little criticism.

"Don't push Ex-WWE talent!"

But It's a problem that Pope isn't main eventing.

I fail to see what's wrong with the product. It's the fans that program themselves to associate everything TNA does with a flaws and It's simply the truth at this point.

I mean, everything people "claim" they liked in 2002-2007 was all created by Vince Russo/Jeff Jarrett. The guy everyone loves to hate.

Then people say they loved TNA in 2009. I've been on this forum for awhile and I know for a freaking fact that is a lie. Everyone hated MEM, they hated Lashley's signing, the way he was booked, they thought Suicide was shit despite him having a great feud with Pope, etc.

It's just at this point, natural to dislike TNA. If they don't deliver a 15 minute match, It's "Wrestling doesn't matter"

When Devon lost to Steiner last week in a 5 second match, you hear and read "I thought wrestling matters" now If TNA had gone through and made it a 15 minute match, I'm sure people would complain about Steiner vs. Devon taking up time and spotlight from other wrestlers.

It's just natural to hate TNA at this point. Even when they do everything you want.

 

[New Hot Fed]

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?

If they go on FX they would have to modify their product to be of more quality with less shocking turns and booking. TNA is fine on Spike because their standards are very low and they have things like a thousand ways to die, etc...

 

[New Hot Fed]

Help or not, WWE will always have that 'It' factor over TNA anyday

That's like saying the NFL will always have the edge over Arena Football League.