UFC Possibly Leaving SpikeTV; Good News For TNA?

[It's Damn Real!]

http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticl...n=Feed:+pwinsider+(PWInsider+Latest+Articles)

The New York Times is reporting that the UFC is in talks with Comcast to buy the G4 gaming network from the cable giant. If the deal goes through, UFC would move their programming from SpikeTV to their own network. UFC's deal with Spike runs about six more months.

If UFC leaves, that makes TNA Impact Wrestling easily the network's most valuable show. Impact is usually the highest rated show on Spike while UFC draws a better advertising rate and thus more money. With the MMA group gone, TNA becomes even more vital to Spike's strategy than they already are.

With UFC leaving, TNA becomes SpikeTV's most valuable program by default, but is this really "good news" for TNA? Could the move of UFC to it's own network in turn pull fans who watch TNA now with them, losing TNA viewers in the process?

General thoughts on this whole potential scenario?

 

[Rayne]

Bad news for TNA/IW. It's good to have shows which attract a similar audience, and there is some overlap between the MMA audience and the professional wrestling audience. What this means is less opportunity for TNA/IW to advertise themselves to people who aren't watching.

Being SpikeTV's most valuable program is nice and all, but there aren't any incentives for being the top program on a network. Cash comes from total viewership.

 

[Shocky]

I've read that this could actually hurt the company somewhere down the line. If Spike TV loses their big cash cow, then the image of the network will be easy to change. Spike TV has made themselves "Television for Men", but it seem to be hurting the network. The Network itself is no longer in the top 20 for overall viewership.

If I remember correctly, some former exec has moved from the History channel over to Spike to bring in more "original programming". Original programming becomes code word for "Shit Reality TV programming." Coal is a prime example of this guys direction and the type of programming he wishes to produce.

It all depends on what the up and ups and Spike want to do with their network. If they decide "Well we tried the man tv thing, time to broaden our audience", then TNA might be in some sort of trouble.

This is the same scenario that killed WCW. It wasn't the terrible booking or lack of direction, it was the change at the top of the network. If the Execs decide they don't want wrestling on their network, then TNA could be in big trouble.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

I personally think that this is good news for TNA. IF UFC leaves Spike network TNA easily becomes the most important and puts them in a good position when it comes to future contract negotiations because I doubt that Spike would want to lose their two most popular shows. I also think this could lead to more programming for TNA Spike is going to need to replace the UFC shows and maybe this could lead to shows like Xplosion getting on TV,maybe a return of Reaction or possible live specials like a 3 Hour iMPACT or maybe putting Before the Bell on air to hype the PPVs like the UFC does with their shows all in all I think this is good news for TNA.

 

[Kizzo]

I've been following Viacom this past year.. and I think they already suspected that they could possibly lose UFC.

Here is a statement from their CEO back in March via The Hollywood Reporter... "Meanwhile, Spike has done well with UFC at its core, but it has had a smaller percentage of original content than other Viacom networks, Dauman emphasized. It has been a guys-centric brand, but is now evolving to be "a brand for men, not just guys," he explained, citing the second season of Auction Hunters and such new shows as Repo Games and Coal as moves that will allow Spike to wean itself off the drug of third party programming, as Dauman put it."

In the same way when USA network lost WWE they transition into a original programming powerhouse and did very well. Eventually they didn't NEED wrestling and was able to get WWE very cheap in 05. So this might not be good news for TNA in the long run. Especially if their original programming investments start to do very well in ratings. But TNA does have an advantage being that they are cheap... but I'm sure Spike may want to use that Thursday Night spot to launch new shows.

Basically it comes down to if they lose UFC, why continue to air wrestling? Does it fit into their "new branding" and long term vision? Kind of the same scenario that Turner had with WCW in 2001.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Meh, who knows. It might not help, because if the UFC fans on Spike-TV don't stay to watch Impact then TNA looses ratings. But if and thats a big if TNA can have the same or higher ratings without UFC fans then it might not be so bad.

As Shocky said, it all depends on how much faith the Spike-TV executives have in TNA. Like he said, it wasn't booking or bad management that killed WCW (didn't help either) it was the fact that TV execs didn't want wrestling on their TV networks.

_______________________________________
" Survey says, One more for the good guys!!!" - Scott Hall

 

[klunderbunker]

Bad in theory I would think. Without UFC, the pressure would be on TNA to make up the difference. In theory, fans are going to follow UFC rather than staying with whatever else Spike has. If those fans leave, TNA would have to have something to hold them there, which Sting vs. Hogan isn't going to do anytime soon. This puts a lot more pressure on TNA and the bosses at Spike are going to want results. TNA chilling around a 1.1-1.3 is only going to carry them so far, especially with the big money UFC brings in as mentioned in the article. Scary news for TNA, although it could work out better for them so it's not doomsday by any means.

 

[The Holy One]

This could lead TNA in two directions. On one hand, now with no other competition for the top spot on the network. Spike directs all its attention on keeping TNA which means more spending on the program. As Joe pointed out, Xplosion could get a spot on the network, return of ReAction, and more specials such as live shows, different venues, PPV previews. TNA basically could have it's own network without having the responsibility of running it.

However, it could end up like Smackdown on MyNetworkTV and become the only thing worthwhile watching without any help at all to keep Spike TV afloat. That eventually leads it to look for a new network. One can only hope for the former though. I'm actually more concern about the future of G4 if run by UFC. They better not get rid of X-Play and Attack of the Show.

 

[the Albanian viper]

i think this is good because if ufc leaves spike this will force panda and spike 2 invest more money into tna and if that happens we will see better tv product and beetter ppv buys and hopefully they can get rid of Vince Russo and bring in Paul Heyman Y

 

[Zeven_Zion]

To me, with UFC gone, it seems that Spike would have to really push hard and supply TNA with more of what they've been giving them so far if they want to keep the network from drowning. TNA would also have to step it up and show that it deserves it.

I've no idea how this will turn out, but I hope it's not something negative.

 

[Rayne]

As Shocky said, it all depends on how much faith the Spike-TV executives have in TNA. Like he said, it wasn't booking or bad management that killed WCW (didn't help either) it was the fact that TV execs didn't want wrestling on their TV networks.

Ugh. I hate that the people at the helm of WCW were so successful in spinning the results of their failure.

Television executives are ****es, not purists. TNT didn't turn into Lifetime overnight; the reason why they dropped support for WCW wasn't because someone said, "well gosh, I just don't like that dadgummed professional wrestling." That is a story agreed upon by virtually everyone who was running WCW, because television executives don't have anywhere near the kind of media exposure to the professional wrestling world that professional wrestlers do. Who gives a shit about Kip Frey's shoot interview? They're a target for blame that isn't going to fight back against you. It's a great narrative for the professional wrestling fan that plays to mainstream media's disdain for professional wrestling.

WCW failed because they were hemorrhaging cash, and in 2001 it didn't look like they had any hopes of returning to profitability in any kind of reasonable time frame. Management was a mess. Even if Time Warner decided to purge WCW from their networks just because; why weren't they able to find another home on another network? If they were this gem in the rough that was callously cast aside by the fools at Time Warner/AOL (as the narrative goes), why is it that no other networks wanted WCW?

WCW failed because of incredibly poor spending decisions and a product which had ceased to be interesting. Of course the people at the helm are going to shift the blame to someone else; most of them wanted to get work again in the future.

 

[Nate DaMac]

i think this is good because if ufc leaves spike this will force panda and spike 2 invest more money into tna and if that happens we will see better tv product and beetter ppv buys and hopefully they can get rid of Vince Russo and bring in Paul Heyman Y

Awful. Just awful.

But explain something to me, why would Spike be more inclined to spend money after they lose what is presumably their biggest cash cow? They lose a lot of money so in turn, they're going to spend more? Maybe they'd be willing to spend some more money over the next 6 months while they still have the UFC in hopes that TNA can somehow turn into a big enough source of revenue to make up for the UFC's absence, but it doesn't make a lot of sense to me for them to wait until they're gone to do so.

In all honesty, the smart thing to do(and what I think most other networks would do) would be to try to find or develop something else they think could replace UFC as their big show, not just put a whole lot of money into trying to better a product that has been in the same ratings bracket that they've been in for virtually their whole existence.

It seems like a bad thing for TNA in my eyes. Spike is going to lose a lot of money due to this and may have to result to a major overhaul or face collapse, both of which could mean the end of TNA on National television.

 

[Dizzy]

Lol at people trying to make TNA look "in trouble" by this news. Uninformed IWC fans are the same exact ones Bischoff talks about.


Fact 1: SPIKE TV HAS NEVER EVER PROMOTED TNA OUTSIDE OF UFC.

This makes Spike TV realize they have to stop BSing and push the Impact Wrestling brand hard. And stop bullshitting with Xplosion and bring it to the US, stop bullshiting and bring back Reaction and actually provide funds for TNA on the road.

These are things Spike are responsibility and they do not do it. This pushes them to make Impact Wrestling their primary show.

UFC draws the same ratings TNA does and actually less. If TNA can grow outside of that and gain a high amount of marketing sales like UFC does then it will be deemed a success.

Fact 2: WHY WOULD SPIKE TV KEEP TNA AROUND FOR 8 YEARS IF THEY WOULD DECIDE NOT TO HAVE WRESTLING ALA. WCW?

Makes no sense. I don't understand the logic of people anymore. Whatsoever. WCW, Turner and TNA, Spike are COMPLETELY different. If TNA is Spike's backbone, why would they commit suicide and get of it?

The scary thing is what if TNA decides they found a network of their own to go too that offers more exposure. That's when Spike is screwed but until then Spike NEEDS to realize that they are lazy when it comes to the TNA brand and they need to fix that.

Bring in Xplosion, bring back Reaction, air Impact Wrestling repeats, etc. If TNA is killing in ratings in the UK, Australia and international markets why is it Spike TV can't provide that exposure here? It's not like TNA is favoring the International market over the American market.

 

[Rayne]

Fact 1: SPIKE TV HAS NEVER EVER PROMOTED TNA OUTSIDE OF UFC.

This makes Spike TV realize they have to stop BSing and push the Impact Wrestling brand hard. And stop bullshitting with Xplosion and bring it to the US, stop bullshiting and bring back Reaction and actually provide funds for TNA on the road.

You mean, like the fifteen second ads that play twice every hour on SpikeTV? I'm going to guess that you aren't watching Spike that much when TNA/IW isn't on, because I'd find it hard to guess what SpikeTV could be doing more to promote TNA/IW, without handcuffing themselves to the brand. They do not appear to be inclined to give them another show right now, after the failure of ReAction and the lack of increased interest in TNA/IW from 2009 that would indicate there is enough audience response for another show. (.1 is not increased interest; at least, not in the kind of sums that's going to convince a television executive to give you a brand new show.)

Viacom could be pushing TNA/IW harder on their other networks, but they also have other shows to promote and advertising space to sell instead of give away.

TNA/IW's big hope here is that SpikeTV chooses to fill one of the many, many holes they will have on their schedule with a new TNA/IW program, but unlike Smackdown and Thunder in the '90s, TNA/IW isn't showing the broader audience appeal that would validate paying for another program, when shows like "1,000 Ways to Die" are far, far cheaper to produce and pull in steady .5's.

SpikeTV's end job isn't to promote TNA/IW. It's healthy for them to do that, but they aren't TNA/IW's personal vehicle for success. They have to worry about advertising sold vs. the cost of producing a program. If shows like "Manswers" get half the ratings, and cost a tiny fraction to produce, it makes a lot more sense for them to go with that instead of paying TNA/IW for more programming.

 

[Gelgarin]

I honestly fail to see any significant negative consequences as a result of this. I doubt that it is likely to have a profound effect on the SPIKE network as a whole, and it is even less likely to come with negative consequences for IMPACT.

SPIKE TV already invest heavily in IMPACT, and the reason that they are making these investments is because they get a return on them [people running TV networks tend not to be complete idiots]. Spike would not have continually pumped money into IMPACT for half a decade if they weren't making a return. An absence of UFC on the network isn't going to stop people watching IMPACT, and as such IMPACT will continue to make the same amount of money for SPIKE. As such there is no reason for SPIKE not to continue to invest in IMPACT.

Quod. Erat. Demonstrandum.

SPIKE's inability to wave around the UFC brand in thier press releases might have a negative effect on their ability to secure advertising contracts, but I doubt it. Advertisers who are sufficiently impressed by UFC to invest with SPIKE are going to be the ones demanding UFC specific contracts, which is not going to have a major baring on IMPACT.

With UFC gone IMPACT suddenly becomes SPIKE TV's irrefutable golden program. It draws fantastic ratings (regardless of what idiots on the internet tell you) on an extremely consistent basis and unlike most other programs on the network it is partially self financing. This change (if it does indeed come to pass) makes IMPACT more important to SPIKE, but doesn't make SPIKE any more important to IMPACT. It's a very simple equation, the more important TNA is viewed as the more leverage they hold in any future negotiations. Leverage is good. Ergo; it is good for IMPACT.

There is also the question of SPIKE potentially being in the market for more original content, which TNA is in a position to provide at short notice. Extended content has thus far failed to match the network's ratings expectations, but with different time slots becoming available it may open doors for some further experiments.

So yeah; not really seeing much in the way of a downside at the moment.

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Rayne i can agree that WCW was loosing money, hence why i said that management didn't help. Let me ask you something, why didn't AOL/TimeWarner just sell WCW but kept its programing on their networks then? Don't tell me that it couldn't have worked. Another thing its not that easy to find a big network willing to change its programming when they have big shows that people also love.

 

[Rayne]

Rayne i can agree that WCW was loosing money, hence why i said that management didn't help. Let me ask you something, why didn't AOL/TimeWarner just sell WCW but kept its programing on their networks then? Don't tell me that it couldn't have worked. Another thing its not that easy to find a big network willing to change its programming when they have big shows that people also love.

Who would have bought it? Eric Bischoff's group, whose offer was contingent on TNT handcuffing themselves to a brand they perceived as failing for several more years? (That's something you won't hear the Eric spin campaign discuss, but their deal was predicated upon TNT providing them the same programming block for a term that was reported as three years, an absurdly long time in television.)

The only offer Time Warner/AOL got that was reasonable- and that's a stretch- was Vince's $7 million offer. There were no other interested buyers, because most people were smarter than to buy first-class cabins on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

 

[Dizzy]

You mean, like the fifteen second ads that play twice every hour on SpikeTV?

No. You can do that all you want. Nobody watches those shows but men or women that are at home doing nothing.

Promoting TNA OUTSIDE of Spike TV. showing ads on Vh1, MTV, USA, TNT, Sports Channels, etc. That's how you promote it.

I'm going to guess that you aren't watching Spike that much when TNA/IW isn't on, because I'd find it hard to guess what SpikeTV could be doing more to promote TNA/IW, without handcuffing themselves to the brand. They do not appear to be inclined to give them another show right now, after the failure of ReAction and the lack of increased interest in TNA/IW from 2009 that would indicate there is enough audience response for another show. (.1 is not increased interest; at least, not in the kind of sums that's going to convince a television executive to give you a brand new show.)

Stop. You know nothing on how the TV business works. Quit while your ahead.

UFC's reruns and preliminary weigh ins draw 800,000 viewers. Spike TV put ReAction at an 11pm timeslot. You expect people to stay up that late on a weekday to watch it?

I can name 100 TV show failures by Spike TV and none of them appear in this post. Ironic.

Viacom could be pushing TNA/IW harder on their other networks, but they also have other shows to promote and advertising space to sell instead of give away.

Who the hell is giving away anything? UFC ads popped up all the time when the Lesnar era began and was going strong. Spike TV promoted the hell out of it. TNA needs the same treatment. That's all.

TNA/IW's big hope here is that SpikeTV chooses to fill one of the many, many holes they will have on their schedule with a new TNA/IW program, but unlike Smackdown and Thunder in the '90s, TNA/IW isn't showing the broader audience appeal that would validate paying for another program, when shows like "1,000 Ways to Die" are far, far cheaper to produce and pull in steady .5's.

You do realize, LIVE shows cost money to produce right? Not taped syndicated shows like Xplosion.

SpikeTV's end job isn't to promote TNA/IW.

You clearly no know nothing about the business. When you pick up a TV show, it is the networks job to promote it on the air waves and in any other TV way possible. It is the company's job to do the other side of promoting.

That's how USA Network can promote RAW on their TV network but also find ways to get the stars into their TV shows and do crossovers and promotional things.

Spike TV produces the dumbest shit and it always flops.

It's healthy for them to do that, but they aren't TNA/IW's personal vehicle for success. They have to worry about advertising sold vs. the cost of producing a program. If shows like "Manswers" get half the ratings, and cost a tiny fraction to produce, it makes a lot more sense for them to go with that instead of paying TNA/IW for more programming.

A show like Manswers gets zero money and makes zero money. TNA makes money, Spike TV gains funds they make since Spike owns and has a stake within TNA.

Do you realize Spike TV actually encourages TNA to sign big name free agents like Flair, RVD, etc?

 

[AntiChristDeicide]

Who would have bought it? Eric Bischoff's group, whose offer was contingent on TNT handcuffing themselves to a brand they perceived as failing for several more years? (That's something you won't hear the Eric spin campaign discuss, but their deal was predicated upon TNT providing them the same programming block for a term that was reported as three years, an absurdly long time in television.)

The only offer Time Warner/AOL got that was reasonable- and that's a stretch- was Vince's $7 million offer. There were no other interested buyers, because most people were smarter than to buy first-class cabins on the Titanic after it hit the iceberg.

I don't know who would have bought it, but the economy wasn't as shitty as it is now. I didn't know the fact you said about TNT, but TNT was/is still part of the AOL/TimeWarner network right? So maybe Bischoff was able to convince one exec at TNT and he was overruled by the bigger execs at AOL/TimeWarner that possible isn't it?

 

[Rayne]

No. You can do that all you want. Nobody watches those shows but men or women that are at home doing nothing.

Promoting TNA OUTSIDE of Spike TV. showing ads on Vh1, MTV, USA, TNT, Sports Channels, etc. That's how you promote it.

It's amazing that you have the hubris to tell me that I know nothing about how television works, but you're blaming SpikeTV for something they have zero control over. That's Viacom you want to blame.

UFC's reruns and preliminary weigh ins draw 800,000 viewers. Spike TV put ReAction at an 11pm timeslot. You expect people to stay up that late on a weekday to watch it?

Actually, TNA did. The whole premise of the show was the cast of Impact reacting to the events that had just occurred. What, are they going to put that kind of programming on the air two days afterwards?

I can name 100 TV show failures by Spike TV and none of them appear in this post. Ironic.

Which has, exactly, what to do with the argument? We're talking about the strength of TNA's brand here; it's no secret that SpikeTV's original programming isn't that hot. I'll bet they were all a lot cheaper to produce than TNA's programming as well.

Who the hell is giving away anything? UFC ads popped up all the time when the Lesnar era began and was going strong. Spike TV promoted the hell out of it. TNA needs the same treatment. That's all.

You mean, Brock Lesnar, a star which had a whole shitload of crossover appeal? Yeah, when you have a product people want to see, you push it. Like TNA tried to do with Hulk Hogan when he joined up, and were spreading ads all over the place? TNA/IW isn't offering anything with any kind of widespread appeal right now. They have nothing going on that hasn't been going on for the past year and a half.

You do realize, LIVE shows cost money to produce right? Not taped syndicated shows like Xplosion.

Ah, Mr. "You know nothing about the business". SpikeTV pays TNA/IW to produce television shows for them, and then sells advertising alongside that show, from which TNA gets a small cut. SpikeTV pays TNA/IW to give them programming; TNA/IW isn't giving shit away for free. This is why you hear networks talking about "original programming" so often- it's much cheaper for them to produce it than to pay someone else for it. It doesn't cost TNA as much to produce a taped show versus a live show. The cost savings to SpikeTV do not get passed along; this is how TNA/IW makes a sizable chunk of their money, although not nearly as much as merchandising, which is the real cash cow.

You clearly no know nothing about the business.

Having worked for a television executive in my past- one whose name I am sure you know- and after that last little gem of yours, which demonstrated that you don't even understand how television shows are paid for by television networks- I am 100% positive that I am more informed about the business than you are.

That's how USA Network can promote RAW on their TV network but also find ways to get the stars into their TV shows and do crossovers and promotional things.

Actually, that's through the WWE's deal with NBC Universal, dumbass. Keep telling me how I don't know anything about the business though.

A show like Manswers gets zero money and makes zero money.

Which is why you can find Manswers on television much more than TNA/IW programming, right? Here's how television works- you make money from the advertising that's sold on the programming.

Do you realize Spike TV actually encourages TNA to sign big name free agents like Flair, RVD, etc?

No shit. It is in SpikeTV's interest that TNA/IW is a success. They are what's called a "tentpole show" (look it up, but if you know so much about the business, you should know that term already.) People come to watch the main attraction, and stick around for the lesser shows. Yes, SpikeTV wants TNA/IW to sign those people, because, in theory (that hasn't panned out), people will come to watch those stars, be exposed to the rest of SpikeTV's lineup, and stick around to watch those shows and their related advertising.

Where'd you learn about television, anyways, the back of TV Guide? I learned about it in college and through work. Your fifth-grade analysis of how to promote a show was cute though.

 

[saw411]

I say yes and no. Depends on how the execs at spike are looking to go. If they want to stay the course then more than likely tna may have a little bit of leverage on maybe getting more air time, more advertising for shows, maybe even some specials or xplosion put on the network.

It can be bad if the ufc is on at the same time and day as tna. This would hurt ratings. Also, there would be no lead ins from say a "ultimate ko" special into impact.

It could go either way. There are some important details that need to be sorted out first

 

[wwerulestnaisbad]

Bad news. They need someone to help them carry the channel without losing ratings. Without ufc they are not going to have as many people watch that chanell thus not watching them. But to be really honest im a true and only wwe fan so the less ratings the less they will be worth so vince will buy them.


WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

 

[mlp420]

In recent days, sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity told MMA Fighting that Spike, which has been the home of the UFC since 2005, is essentially preparing for life without UFC, and that it will move the Bellator promotion on to the channel in 2012.

Doesn't look like there will be any "re-branding". TNA will be fine.

 

[JJYanks121]

There's another part of this that is going to affect advertising big time. With UFC gone, the closest thing to TNA is gone. As it pertains to advertisers, that's a bummer.

When advertisers come to Spike TV to advertise on their network, they get to pick where they want to advertise. Generally, the bigger advertisers who pay more money want more than just advertisements on one show. They want to advertise throughout the network in the prime time slots. They pay Spike for this, not the shows themselves. Thus, if there is more programming that is apropos for their advertising plan, they are more likely to buy ad space on the network. Without UFC, less advertisers will come to Spike TV to advertise and specifically, less of the type of advertisers that are best for TNA/IW will come to the network looking to buy ad space. There's absolutely no way to spin that and it's bad for TNA.

Thing is, it won't bury TNA, but if they want to make money off of their show, advertising is that way. Actually, since they make no gate, it's the ONLY way they make money by having a weekly show.

Basically, Spike is in more trouble than anything else, but as Spike's flagship show, this is not good for TNA. They aren't a strong enough program to bring in advertisers themselves (as very few shows on their own are), so unless TNA finds other programming that helps the overall appeal of the network to advertisers, this is a bad thing for TNA, trust me.

 

[MB1025]

Ugh. I hate that the people at the helm of WCW were so successful in spinning the results of their failure.

Television executives are ****es, not purists. TNT didn't turn into Lifetime overnight; the reason why they dropped support for WCW wasn't because someone said, "well gosh, I just don't like that dadgummed professional wrestling." That is a story agreed upon by virtually everyone who was running WCW, because television executives don't have anywhere near the kind of media exposure to the professional wrestling world that professional wrestlers do. Who gives a shit about Kip Frey's shoot interview? They're a target for blame that isn't going to fight back against you. It's a great narrative for the professional wrestling fan that plays to mainstream media's disdain for professional wrestling.

WCW failed because they were hemorrhaging cash, and in 2001 it didn't look like they had any hopes of returning to profitability in any kind of reasonable time frame. Management was a mess. Even if Time Warner decided to purge WCW from their networks just because; why weren't they able to find another home on another network? If they were this gem in the rough that was callously cast aside by the fools at Time Warner/AOL (as the narrative goes), why is it that no other networks wanted WCW?

WCW failed because of incredibly poor spending decisions and a product which had ceased to be interesting. Of course the people at the helm are going to shift the blame to someone else; most of them wanted to get work again in the future.

That is complete BS. They were hemorrhaging cash before 1995 and survived just fine because they didn't merge with AOL/Time Warner yet.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/12/14/news/fortune500/braves_sale/index.htm

But he has also criticized current management for some of its past asset sales, referring to them as "fire sales."

The announcement of a possible sale comes on the same day that Time Warner's print unit, Time Inc., announced it was laying off 105 employees, including some senior executives, in an effort to reduce costs and streamline its management structure.

They were selling off everything and were considered "fire sales"

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/media/article3340944.ece

WHEN AOL took over Time Warner for $164 billion (£84 billion) in 2000, it was hailed as the “deal of the century”.

“I don’t think it is too much to say this really is a historic merger. We’ve transformed the landscape of media and the internet,” said Steve Case, AOL’s then chairman and chief executive officer.

But almost before the ink on the deal was dry, the merger was being called “the worst deal of the century”.

Last week Time Warner finally moved to rid itself of the internet firm that was once the world’s hottest online company.

New chief executive Jeff Bewkes is separating AOL’s declining internet-access business from its content business in a move that is likely to lead to the eventual sale of the access division.

It was Bewkes’s first quarterly financial conference call since taking the top job. “This should significantly increase AOL’s strategic options,” he said – options that seem likely to lie outside Time Warner.

Even at the time of the merger the more net savvy were questioning AOL’s business model. The firm made most of its money from charging people to access the internet through its website. In 2002 AOL had almost 30m paying subscribers, but dial-up internet-access subscriptions have declined as high-speed broadband access has risen and advertising has become the most lucrative source of revenue on the web. Today AOL has about 10m subscribers.

The company is now ramping up its advertising business but lags way behind the rest of the industry. In the fourth quarter, ad revenue at AOL grew 18%, less than the International Advertising Bureau’s industry average of 25%. Google’s ad revenue grew 51% in its fiscal fourth quarter.

Rival media and technology firms have been on a second multi-billion dollar internet spending spree in recent years. News Corp, parent company of The Sunday Times, bought MySpace; Google snapped up DoubleClick; Microsoft took a chunk of Facebook and is now trying to secure Yahoo. But AOL has continued to look like a dud.

Analysts calculate that AOL will be a declining contributor to Time Warner’s fortunes. Separating AOL from Time Warner’s content business is a must, because it will “allow for more focus on stronger businesses,” said UBS analysts last week.

Time Warner has blown billions chasing the wrong business model with AOL, said one rival executive. “Follow the money. Platforms, not content businesses, are where the money has been made on the internet,” he added.

For too long AOL tried to keep its users in a “walled garden” offering them AOL content. And the money never followed. Instead it went to Google, which links you to other people’s content, or MySpace, Facebook, YouTube and eBay, which rely on their users to put up their own content.

In 2000, combining Time Warner’s expertise in creating content with AOL’s subscribers looked like a great deal on paper. But as Time Warner’s shareholders found out, big promises aren’t always worth the paper they are written on.

AOL sold WCW, Atlanta Hawks, and the Atlanta Braves only to be a huge fail and eventually Time Warner split from AOL because it was a sinking ship. Now if the deal was the other way around with Turner being in charge does WCW get sold for only a million dollars? No? It would still be around today regardless of money. AOL fucked up not WCW or Time Warner. BTW Smokey Mountain Wrestling, according to Jim Cornett, was also sold for a million dollars. Clearly there is something fishy there since 30 plus years of libraries and trademarks are not worth the same as Smokey Mountain Wrestling's 4 year run. Not to mention the Hawks and Braves also got sold on a discount price.