When Viacom/TNN/Spike had RAW they did a helluva lot more for wre than they do now?

[braveh]

When Viacom/TNN/Spike had RAW they did a helluva lot more to promote wrestling than they do now with Impact.

I remember all those wrestlers being on Punk'd (HHH, Goldberg, probably many more), Tough enough was on MTV in prime time, I'm sure they had wrestlers on Cribs...This kind of thing. MTV really wanted to promote wrestling back then.

Now with TNA and Impact on Spike (still owned by Viacom) I see nothing like that. Why didn't Jeff Hardy get to present an award at the VMAs? Why didn't Kurt Angle show up on Jersey Shore? Maybe those are stupid examples but you see what I mean. Viacom could do so much more to promote TNA.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

They have had stars appear at different venues. TNA wrestlers have appeared in movies, commercials, they've made appearances on MMA programming & vice versa as a means of promoting TNA, they've had billboards put up in the in the middle of Time Square in New York City, they advertise TNA on Spike all the time, they use social media to get the word out, etc.

I can see how it looks like they may have done more for WWE. When you look at WWE, however, I don't think that's the case. WWE was a big ratings draw long before they went to Spike. WWE was consistently, and still is consistently, the biggest draw the USA Network has ever had. That's why Spike wanted WWE. WWE can and does deliver numbers on a regular basis that TNA can't come close to. Ultimately, that's what the people in charge of Spike want. Fans and insiders can debate who is better until they grow mushrooms in the cracks of their asses, but the numbers tell the only story that matters to the executives that run these television networks. I'm sure WWE had a much cushier deal with them than TNA currently does and rightly so. As I said, Raw has been a long term proven ratings draw, meaning that they could and probably did make many more demands of Spike that TNA doesn't have the leverage to do.

WWE is simply much bigger than TNA is right now and that's not likely to change anytime in the forseeable future. WWE is a brand that's been built into the consciousness of America and that's something that only happens over a period of time in which you're able to generate interest and attention. Comparatively speaking, WWE programming is cheap to produce than most other shows yet they pull in big ratings. It's a network executive's dream. I read a few weeks ago that it costs about $800,000 to air a live episode of Raw each Monday night. Sounds expensive but it really isn't when you consider how much money it costs networks like NBC to pay Alec Baldwin & Tina Fey for each episode of 30 Rock, plus the salaries of all the other cast members and various other production costs. Each episode of 30 Rock costs millions of dollars to produce.

If TNA expects to get "WWE treatment" from any network or from the public at large, then they're going to have to generate WWE type numbers in terms of live attendence, ppv buys and television ratings.

 

[Brothervis]

Because wrestling was popular mainstream wise back then.The fact John Cena is the face of wrestling shows how bad of a state wrestling is in. The guy would of been a curtain jerker 13 years ago.

 

[theBec2101]

Cause they do not have alot of people that know about TNA. Have you seen their audience? There's like 500 people that are there and not to much more watch on TV. The two people you named became famous in the WWE anyway. I mean Kurt was gold medalists, but I didn’t know of him before WWE.