WWE OnDemand Trying to help TNA?

[jccool420]

If Anyone in here subscribes to WWE OnDemand you know that they are paying tribute to Ric Flair this month and are also showing the first ever ECW PPV...

It just seems weird to me for WWE to be airing all these things that in a way help TNA...

New fans that don't remember the old ECW can just tune into WWE Classics and see what they were all about...

They also show a lot of Sting stuff regularly which is weird seeing as he never worked for Vince...

And on their Legends of The Round table they feature Foley, Taz and Flair...

It either shows that in some way they want some competition or that they just don't care what TNA are doing...

 

[justinsayne]

Or that you are just reading way to much into all of this

people will pay to see matches of Flair and Sting from back when they meant something to the business, same with ECW, and WWE is raking in a fortune off what these guys have done in the past, far more money than what TNA will likely ever get from these guys currently

Also there are 2 sides to that sword, people tuning into TNA may get nostalgic and want to see their old stuff, the only place they can go to see that is WWE OnDemand, therfore you could argue TNA is helping WWE in a way

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

The percentage of WWE's audience that has WWE 24/7 is minuscule. Whatever is on that programming is just enough to make it large enough of an attraction to be profitable. Would have no notable positive effect on TNA.

 

[sislater69]

Yeah I think you are probably reading too much into this also.

Flair, Foley, even Tazz to an extent, are all WWE "legends" which is what the 24/7 is all about. Your average WWE fan doesn't give 2 shits that these guys are now playing for the opposition.

All these guys are beyond their best days so, yeah i agree with justinsayne that a lot of TNA fans will also watch these classic matches.

 

[sepehrsfmech]

guys, they showed footage of jeff hardy.....
JEFF HARDY. I WAS AMAZED.
and that was on smackdown i saw on tv this friday

guys, i think that the surprise that the tna manager was talking about was maybe wwe and tna have signed a merging contract.

in a few weeks we might see tna names on wwe tv

 

[Tomm2x]

guys, they showed footage of jeff hardy.....
JEFF HARDY. I WAS AMAZED.
and that was on smackdown i saw on tv this friday

guys, i think that the surprise that the tna manager was talking about was maybe wwe and tna have signed a merging contract.

in a few weeks we might see tna names on wwe tv

First, in response to the thread, outside of the IWC, a lot of wrestling fans don't even know TNA exists. If they do, it's passing familiaty. When I talk to former wrestling fans (old college friends who watched in the attitude era), they'll reminisce about Mick Foley, Nash, Sting, etc. When I tell them they still wrestle, the surprised look on their faces in priceless. But, they don't tune in to TNA. Truth is, the audience Taz, Flair, and Foley endeared themselves to have moved on from wrestling and aren't coming back.

So, the truth is, WWE could do a month of exclusive Foley/Flair/Nash/Sting matches and it wouldn't budge TNA's rating one bit.

On a side note, in response to the quote at the top regarding a TNA/WWE merger, I'll politely say it won't happen now or anytime soon. I'm assuming the poster is either a young kid who loves wrestling (which is awesome) or an older audience member who is a huge, clueless mark (in which case, grow up, man). This is an outrageous statement on several levels. One, each organization has a separate TV contract. I'm sure NBC's parent company (owners of USA, Bravo, Sci-Fi, among other networks) would be nonplussed to say the least if WWE affiliated programming was on Spike (an Viacom network, if I remember correctly). WWE has a contract with NBC, so that would result in a lawsuit. Second, TNA is owned by Panda Energy. If Panda Energy sold TNA or WEE bought TNA, it would've been publicized as both are major, billion dollar companies.

 

[chris435]

what you have missed is this. back in the early 2000's ted turner sold wcw to wwe. paul heyman sold ecw to wwe. when these comapnies were sold to vince and the wwe, all related content went to the wwe. i.e. their colmplete cataloge of matches. so while wwe on demand is showing matches of flair, sting and taz, they have every right as they own the rights to those old shows. thats wqhy your not hearing sting is suing them for it. ive watched wrestling since wwe was the wwf, and when wcw was nwa. that was the 80's. i was over seas in the military when the outsiders invaded wcw, came back and watched the bash at the beach ppv, when the nwo was formed. its a good question. hope this answers it for you.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I'm willing to bet it's because they don't give a damn what TNA is doing. I also have a hunch that Vince really doesn't have a clue what goes on inside WWE.com. I know he's got eyes and ears everywhere, because you don't become a billionaire company owner without knowing what's going on, but I just don't see VKM spending a bunch of time patrolling the website. It wouldn't surprise me if he's never even been the site. The play things about Sting because they own the WCW rights, and he was a big part of it. I hear that they want to induct Sting to the Hall next year, and it might be a way of showing him that they are interested in his career. The Ric Flair thing is interesting, but it's probably a business decision. He's a legend that sells, and I'm willing to bet it's just to get more OnDemand viewers. WWE has a vault of Flair stuff, and they'd be stupid not to sell it to the people just because Vince has a bug up his ass about Flair going to TNA.

 

[Mannic]

why is anyone surprised about any of this? WWE/Vince owns the rights to everything WcW and WWF they make money showing the old stuff since its huge nostalgia to alot of old wrestling fans

its like buying KFC 100% rights to everything changing the name but not still saying they are using "the coronals original recipe chicken" if you own it and can make money off of it why not?


your really just reading way to much into it

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I know that there are a lot of fans that are outright desperate for the WWE to, in some way, openly acknowledge the existence of TNA but it's kind of ridiculous. I think that justinsayne put it best in that WWE OnDemand or going out and buying WWE DVDs featuring Ric Flair, Sting, the cast of ECW, etc. are the only real means of seeing these guys when they were in their prime and relevant to wrestling. Oh, I almost forgot about the deal with WWE and YouTube. In any case, the only ways to watch anything regarding Ric Flair or ECW when they were legitimate forces results in money going into Vince's pocket.

TNA has relied heavily on the nostalgia factor for a while now, particularly over the course of this year. If someone is watching WWE OnDemand, feels a bit of nostalgia creeping up and decides to head over to TNA and see what's going on, they're going to quickly see that the Ric Flair they may have just watched take on Sting circa 1989 is currently a 61 year old man trying to act like he's 31.

 

[Ruthless-RKO]

Just about a month ago, WWE officials stopped paying attention to TNA ratings, which shows they don't see TNA as competition whatsoever!!

WWE Classics has nothing to do with wanting competition or advertising for TNA, its about history and great moments from the past decades!!

Your reading too much into this!

 

[goodlay]

Yeah man, you're definitely reading way too much into this. WWE Classics/WWE 24/7 showcases everything in the history of pro wrestling. From ECW, WCW, to the old school WWF.

While WWE says they don't acknowledge TNA as competition, I think that's fucking bullshit, but they definitely would NEVER be advertising for TNA. Never.

 

[jccool420]

Hey, I'm not stupid...lol

I understand that WWE owns the rights to damn near all wrestling from the past and I could understand why they show most of the things...

I was just saying that sometimes the timing of the things they put on the channel or weird compared to what TNA are doing now...

I know TNA isn't near as big as WCW was, but for a fan from back in the day (when Vince would NEVER air anything that would any way promote the competition, even if he did own the rights to it...) it's funny to see WWE highlight so much of TNA's talent...

I was not looking too far into it all IMO... My second thought on my OP was "Or he doesn't care what TNA is doing at all" which yes, I do think is the most logical assumtion...

 

[goodlay]

Hey, I'm not stupid...lol

I understand that WWE owns the rights to damn near all wrestling from the past and I could understand why they show most of the things...

I was just saying that sometimes the timing of the things they put on the channel or weird compared to what TNA are doing now...

I know TNA isn't near as big as WCW was, but for a fan from back in the day (when Vince would NEVER air anything that would any way promote the competition, even if he did own the rights to it...) it's funny to see WWE highlight so much of TNA's talent...

I was not looking too far into it all IMO... My second thought on my OP was "Or he doesn't care what TNA is doing at all" which yes, I do think is the most logical assumtion...

Never said you were stupid

You're right, WWE does randomly highlight TNA talent on their shows, but it's usually negative. Like look at this past week on Raw when they showed Jeff Hardy. Yeah he's in TNA, but they showed him getting beaten by CM Punk.

 

[Stink Foot]

What is showing OnDemand this month has nothing to do with TNA. If anything TNA is helping promote WWE - Not the other way around.

Barely Legal is playing this month because the April 97 period is where ECW TV Classics is at on Demand.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I think WWE can show pretty much anything regarding the past legends and wrestlers that are on the TNA roster, and people still wouldn't know about TNA. When most people see Flair or Sting then don't think of TNA, they think of WCW or NWA. The last thing WWE would do is help TNA. Flair, Hogan, and Sting are such a big part of wrestling history, its pretty much impossible to not mention them.

 

[blkscrpn5]

WWE released the Monday night wars DVD and made little if any mention of the entire sting vs nwo angle, which was a very big deal. So they could easily do the same thing with anything else. History is written by the victor, which in this case is Vince Mcmahon

 

[JackBurton]

In some regards I agree with most people who say these presentations of ECW or Flair footage, translates to exposure for TNA - to a certain extent. The best way to look at this is ask why WWE have a hard-on for changing the names of recent acquisitions from other companies, TNA and ROH, respectively. Wasn't it confirmed that they changed Monty Browns name to prevent people from googling his name and finding TNA content in the search results? They must think that it has some kind of meaningful impact on how much exposure TNA has with fans who haven't ever heard of TNA - otherwise why would they go ahead and do it, and then CONFIRM that was the reason for doing it?!

In no way am I saying this could increase TNA's stature by 500% or anything - but if the brains at the barn in Connecticut are selling it like it does something positive for TNA, who the fuck am I, or you, to disagree?