WWE to leave Spike TV

[bob_barron 0]

Cable can do whatever they want.

 

Disney is Disney obviously so they will have family programming. The FCC has no control over cable

[Golgo 13 0]

Yeah, it's not the FCC's jurisdiction, as much as they would like to be running cable as well. The cable networks regulate themselves and their programming. The only reason you don't have more stations going further is because of the fear that they'll lose viewers and advertising dollars.

[Kizzo 0]

Aside from the erectile thing, I've done all that within the last two months. And I grew up on wrestling. It's like not buying ad time during NBA games because blacks watch NBA, and they are poor...

 

You are a racist redneck...

 

That was just a stupid comment all together....I'm black and NOT poor at all....

[AndrewTS 0]

Wrestler's aren't the smartest people to begin with.

 

Look at all the petty and insecure political bullshit they deal with from fellow wrestlers and owners.  They're not too far off from pornstars.

I think porn stars have health care.

 

If not, they're closer to it than WWE wrestlers.

[Your Paragon of Virtue 0]

Aside from the erectile thing, I've done all that within the last two months. And I grew up on wrestling. It's like not buying ad time during NBA games because blacks watch NBA, and they are poor...

 

You are a racist redneck...

 

That was just a stupid comment all together....I'm black and NOT poor at all....

Ha, I was about to say the same thing.

 

He's not doing a good job of portraying himself as anything but a dumbass redneck by saying something like that. I'd give him the benefit of the doubt by pointing out its humour, but there's nothing remotely clever about this at all.

 

Most people I know that watch wrestling don't really take it seriously. No one I know analyzes it like the folks online do. I'm not making a generalization here, since I don't know many wrestling fans. However, I was curious as to whether or not the situation was the same for most of you guys. Do you honestly know any wrestling fans that collect tapes, look for things like proper selling and backstory and psychology, or are they all just people who look at it at face value? Also, if they do look at it at face value, are they regular folk, or are they dumbass rednecks?

 

From what I can tell, it's just another TV show to them. Although I think Vince should be grateful he still has a fanbase, seeing as how he's shit on them often over the past few years, since Attitude died down.

[USC Wuz Robbed! 0]

I don't really have any friends who likes wrestling, actually. However I think I've known more "smarks" than casual marks.

[Mole 0]

All networks follow the FCC guidelines so I doubt it matter whether the WWE is on Spike TV or the Discovery Channel, if it’s on at the same time for the same duration, it will be exactly the same no matter what Channel it is on.

The FCC (right now, anyway) only can influence network TV. They can't touch cable stations. Why do you think shows like The Shield, Rescue Me and Nip/Tuck are able to air?

They are able to do so because they come on later at night. I wouldnt expect A show on Disney ( a Cable operated station) to say "shit" on a show that comes on late at night.

Like what Bob and King said, the FCC can't do anything about cable. I remember seeing something on CNN that the FCC is really pushing to regulate cable, which would really suck.

 

I'm not sure if this has been posted, but I got this at 411.

 

In a column for the Associated Press, a network executive speaking on condition of anonymity told writer David Bauder that WWE was "never as popular with the network's advertisers as it was with viewers."

 

He also said that Spike TV wanted to focus more on their own scripted programs and less on reality.

 

Here is the article.

 

That is complete bullshit because WWE, even though ratings have been down from the past, is in the top 15 for cable every week. Hell, the week of 2/28 - 3/6 "Raw" and "Raw Zone" were the top two shows.

 

Any advertiser would be all over a top 15 show, so I call their bluff.

 

And they want to have more scripted shows and LESS reality shows? First off, wrestling isn't reality, it is scripted. Second off, Spike TV has TONS of reality type shows.

 

Carpocalypse, MXC, The Ultimate Fighter, Boom!, and Untold. 5 of their 7 shows, that air at night, are "reality based." If they want to move away from reality TV, they need to do up their whole lineup, again.

 

SpikeTV is just upset because they don't have wrestling anymore.

[bobobrazil1984 0]

That is complete bullshit because WWE, even though ratings have been down from the past, is in the top 15 for cable every week. Hell, the week of 2/28 - 3/6 "Raw" and "Raw Zone" were the top two shows.

 

Any advertiser would be all over a top 15 show, so I call their bluff.

 

This has been a known fact for a while. I mentioned earlier that at some point show(s) which do less than smackdown in ratings UPN can get the same amount of advertising money, and meltz has mentioned the advertising $$ dilemma many times in the past. With that being said though, I doubt its REALLY SIGNIFICANTLY less, after all RAW is still a top show, and there are plenty of video game and stuff like that companies who see it as their target audience. I'm sure it makes a good chucnk of change, But make no mistake, if, say, CSI and RAW are doing the exact same rating on Spike, right down to the tenth of the point, CSI makes more money from advertising hands down.

[Kizzo 0]

SpikeTV is just upset because they don't have wrestling anymore.

 

You guys are forgeting something....Spike TV can afford to purchase WWE programming hell they are owned by "VIACOM"......that's the reason they were able to outbid everyone that had interest in WWE in 2000....whatever price WWE wanted...Spike TV could have agreed to it......MONEY is no problem for SpikeTV.....

 

.....The question they probaly asked themselves is it worth it to them to keep WWE on there network.....I can almost gurantee that ad sales where the deciding factor in Spike's decision.....as metr0man pointed out..

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

Plus if Spike is going into a new direction, which would start in the Fall Season, then whatever they have on _now_ is irrelevant when it comes to their future focus.

 

If the WWE was helping SPIKE, they would have kept them, it's that simple. In one way or another, whether it is in terms of their desired image or the unbalanced costs/rewards, they do not see the WWE as valuable. And why should they? The WWE hasn't done anything to improve any of their products since they signed on with Viacom.

[reign 0]

Aside from the erectile thing, I've done all that within the last two months. And I grew up on wrestling. It's like not buying ad time during NBA games because blacks watch NBA, and they are poor...

 

You are a racist redneck...

 

That was just a stupid comment all together....I'm black and NOT poor at all....

I think the point he was trying to make was that saying advertisers not buying time on WWE because they stereotype wrestling fans as hillbillies with no money would be like not buying ad time during the NBA games because someone thinks that all NBA fans are black and all African-Americans are poor. The point is that both cases are wrong. You would think that on Spike or USA(with some sporting events excluded) there can't be too many shows that get better or more advertsing than Raw.

[Guest Fook_Theta]

You're being extremely idealistic and failing to understand that quite simply wrestling even when it was hot had a harder time selling itself to everyone but wrestling fans(and a certain chunk of the cyclic crowd.) Wrestling fans might enjoy it, but not many people other than them respect the product enough to think it would sell their product beyond a couple of companies. Most wrestling fans are between only a handful of advertising types, the extreme minority would be internet wrestling fans that tend to be better informed over a long period of time.

 

 

Really need some ad agency/consumer statisticians wrestling fans that could lay down the specific points better so that everyone understands some very clear signs of the mainstream wrestling business as it is currently understood.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

With every PPV you see a new company sponsoring it and then not following up on it. There are very few companies which have stuck with advertising on WWE programming (Snickers and Subway come to mind). This might be because there isn't a return on their investment or because of another reason that has nothing to do with the WWE. I think the wrestling audience is hard to sell to - there have been a number of attempts at cross-promotion that have failed both done by the WWE and with the WWE. I know that if I were running my own company, I would not trust the WWE to sell my product. It is often done half-heartedly, and none of it makes me want to actually go out and buy what they are selling. The fans buy WWE and nothing else - that's how the fans are, and that's how the WWE wants it.

[Styles 0]

Aside from the erectile thing, I've done all that within the last two months. And I grew up on wrestling. It's like not buying ad time during NBA games because blacks watch NBA, and they are poor...

 

You are a racist redneck...

 

That was just a stupid comment all together....I'm black and NOT poor at all....

Not that I want to get in the middle of this, but I think you misunderstood him. I took it as saying, not advertising on wrestling because of stereotype that wrestling fans are ignorant would be like not advertising on NBA games because the stereotype of blacks is that they are poor...i.e. just like not all blacks are poor, not all wrestling fansare ignorant...It was poorly worded, though.

[Guest MikeSC]

Plus if Spike is going into a new direction, which would start in the Fall Season, then whatever they have on _now_ is irrelevant when it comes to their future focus.

 

If the WWE was helping SPIKE, they would have kept them, it's that simple. In one way or another, whether it is in terms of their desired image or the unbalanced costs/rewards, they do not see the WWE as valuable. And why should they? The WWE hasn't done anything to improve any of their products since they signed on with Viacom.

But you can't ignore what the WWE did for them. TNN was a nothing little network when WWE signed with them. UPN is, honestly, Smackdown and little else. MTV ruined Heat to a point it might not be salvageable.

-=Mike

...My only concern is that Velocity will likely not return --- and it's the best show they have, IMO...

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

What did the WWE do for them?

 

I haven't really seen any effects on the network aside from more people watching Monday nights between 9-11.

 

Any turn-around in the network can be attributed to the rebranding from "We Got Pop" and "TNN" and into "The Network for Men" and "SPIKE". Getting CSI was probably bigger the network than the WWE. I just think with Spike, they often take one step forward and then move 3 steps back. I don't think they have a clearly defined target market. They are very broadly targeting males 18-45, which means they have shows like CSI, and then they have shows like BOOM!. They have the Star Treks, and then they have Car and Driver. They are trying all these different trends and niches and its counter-productive. They are throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks, and that's not good for a network. TBS, I think, has better redefined itself because they are way more consistent with their programming. Spike needs to pick a more focused theme and go with it. Maybe they have and the WWE does not belong there.

[Guest TheLastBoyscout]

No offense, but WWE would slaughter TNA in ratings.

Until people that like watching actual wrestling find out what TNA offers.

(snicker)

[Guest MikeSC]

What did the WWE do for them?

 

I haven't really seen any effects on the network aside from more people watching Monday nights between 9-11.

 

Any turn-around in the network can be attributed to the rebranding from "We Got Pop" and "TNN" and into "The Network for Men" and "SPIKE". Getting CSI was probably bigger the network than the WWE. I just think with Spike, they often take one step forward and then move 3 steps back. I don't think they have a clearly defined target market. They are very broadly targeting males 18-45, which means they have shows like CSI, and then they have shows like BOOM!. They have the Star Treks, and then they have Car and Driver. They are trying all these different trends and niches and its counter-productive. They are throwing shit at the wall and see what sticks, and that's not good for a network. TBS, I think, has better redefined itself because they are way more consistent with their programming. Spike needs to pick a more focused theme and go with it. Maybe they have and the WWE does not belong there.

What did they base their entire rebranding upon?

 

The WWE franchise is what they used as the cornerstone. And they have grown nicely with the WWE as the cornerstone.

-=Mike

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

...Along with Stripperella, Star Trek, CSI, Joe Schmoe, Baywatch, Funkmaster Flex, a ton of old 80s shows, etc. etc. etc. The WWE wasn't a corner stone in their rebranding, it was one of many. It didn't get as much promotion as CSI or Star Trek did when Spike got the rights to air those shows, or Stripperella for that matter. The only cornerstone the WWE is/was to Spike is in their "Slammin Saturday Nights".

[Guest Deadbolt]

Cable television may not be as controlled by the FCC as network television, but they are still held to a personal standard. Just because Spike is a cable channel doesn't mean that they don't censor themselves or are given suggestions by the FCC. Most people have a basic cable package, which includes Spike TV, so they can be influenced by the FCC. Even Cinemax and HBO don't show their most risque stuff until late at night. That's partially because the FCC suggests to them that they don't show their erotic stuff until after a certain time.

 

The WWE is not going to be allowed this day in age to press the envelope like they did only 6-8 years ago. Cable t.v. or not, the FCC does have some say. The Attitude Era is dead and returning to USA Network will not change that. I remember more self-censorship by USA on a variety of programming than many other cable stations. The WWE was simply allowed to do some of the things they did several years ago, because we were a little more liberal then than we seem to be now. If WWE tried to do some of those Attitude Era storylines now, they would likely be protested and shunned by the FCC. The Attitude Era came from the social situation, not from the mode of transmission, be it cable or network.

[Guest MikeSC]

...Along with Stripperella, Star Trek, CSI, Joe Schmoe, Baywatch, Funkmaster Flex, a ton of old 80s shows, etc. etc. etc. The WWE wasn't a corner stone in their rebranding, it was one of many. It didn't get as much promotion as CSI or Star Trek did when Spike got the rights to air those shows, or Stripperella for that matter. The only cornerstone the WWE is/was to Spike is in their "Slammin Saturday Nights".

And none of them did anything to help, outside of Spike. Why did they stick Joe Schmo on after RAW? Because it was the only consistent ratings-grabber. Why did they stick Stripperella after RAW? Same reason.

 

It didn't get the promotion the others did --- but it was, easily, the most successful show on the network.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

Cable television may not be as controlled by the FCC as network television, but they are still held to a personal standard. Just because Spike is a cable channel doesn't mean that they don't censor themselves or are given suggestions by the FCC. Most people have a basic cable package, which includes Spike TV, so they can be influenced by the FCC. Even Cinemax and HBO don't show their most risque stuff until late at night. That's partially because the FCC suggests to them that they don't show their erotic stuff until after a certain time.

 

The WWE is not going to be allowed this day in age to press the envelope like they did only 6-8 years ago. Cable t.v. or not, the FCC does have some say. The Attitude Era is dead and returning to USA Network will not change that. I remember more self-censorship by USA on a variety of programming than many other cable stations. The WWE was simply allowed to do some of the things they did several years ago, because we were a little more liberal then than we seem to be now. If WWE tried to do some of those Attitude Era storylines now, they would likely be protested and shunned by the FCC. The Attitude Era came from the social situation, not from the mode of transmission, be it cable or network.

You can do whatever you want on cable- the cable networks set their own standards for content to please their advertisers.

 

And HBO has shown Sex and City at 8 pm before- so you're wrong.

 

The cable networks are under no regulation by the FCC. If Spike said they could do whatever they want- they could do whatever they want.

[Guest MikeSC]

Unfortunately, Bob, the FCC is trying to find a way to target cable TV.

 

You're right now --- but I fear you'll be mistaken in a few years.

-=Mike

[bob_barron 0]

I don't watch any of the risque stuff on cable (except HBO) so this probably wouldn't bother me.

 

They're not going to censor ESPN Classic are they??

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

In terms of single ratings, of course it was the most successful show on the network, I am not denying that, however it's success didn't translate over into anything else on the network because that's how wrestling fans are. The only thing I can think of is The Ultimate Fighter. The reason for TUF's success has yet to be determined, but the positioning is right because its something that can interest a wrestling fan on a wrestling level (and it would be much more successful if the WWE promoted it on their shows, but they won't because Vince - in his limited wisdom- sees it as a threat), which is generally the problem with most things the WWE advertises - its not on a wrestling level. They can sell wrestling video games because it has to do with wrestling, they can sell wrestling dvds because it has to do with wrestling. They have a much harder time selling non-wrestling games, and non-wrestling videos because that's not what wrestling fans are looking for. The WWE is an ideal company to advertise with because it has so many marketing venues, but because of their and their fans' nature, it's not worth pursuing because the returns aren't there.

 

CSI did more _for the network_ than the WWE did and is largely credited with Spikes success, btw. In the SpikeTV universe, the WWE is not the sun where every other thing revolves around. It's just a planet with one or two moons floating around it.

[Placebo Effect 0]

CSI isn't actually too big of a deal for Spike. There was an article in Video Business about how it has not yet proven to be an entity for a network to have. Unlike L & O, which has unbelievable replay value to a lot of people, CSI hasn't proved to be a big success for Spike at all.

[RavishingRickRudo 0]

From mediaweek about SPIKEtvs new runner ...

 

Hecht presided over the network’s transformation from TNN to Spike TV, the first network for men, and while he has some successes with original programming, ratings growth largely came from re-runs of CSI.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article...t_id=1000798528

[LessonInMachismo 0]

Aside from the erectile thing, I've done all that within the last two months. And I grew up on wrestling. It's like not buying ad time during NBA games because blacks watch NBA, and they are poor...

 

You are a racist redneck...

 

That was just a stupid comment all together....I'm black and NOT poor at all....

Not that I want to get in the middle of this, but I think you misunderstood him. I took it as saying, not advertising on wrestling because of stereotype that wrestling fans are ignorant would be like not advertising on NBA games because the stereotype of blacks is that they are poor...i.e. just like not all blacks are poor, not all wrestling fansare ignorant...It was poorly worded, though.

No, no, thanks for getting in the middle of this. It was somewhat poorly worded, but the way I read it, it's still clear that I was drawing an analogy. I think the operative words were "It's like..."

 

Now that we have everything clear, I will graciously forgive the ad hominem directed toward me, while noting that there was no ambiguity in its use.

[Guest MikeSC]

In terms of single ratings, of course it was the most successful show on the network, I am not denying that, however it's success didn't translate over into anything else on the network because that's how wrestling fans are. The only thing I can think of is The Ultimate Fighter. The reason for TUF's success has yet to be determined, but the positioning is right because its something that can interest a wrestling fan on a wrestling level (and it would be much more successful if the WWE promoted it on their shows, but they won't because Vince - in his limited wisdom- sees it as a threat), which is generally the problem with most things the WWE advertises - its not on a wrestling level. They can sell wrestling video games because it has to do with wrestling, they can sell wrestling dvds because it has to do with wrestling. They have a much harder time selling non-wrestling games, and non-wrestling videos because that's not what wrestling fans are looking for. The WWE is an ideal company to advertise with because it has so many marketing venues, but because of their and their fans' nature, it's not worth pursuing because the returns aren't there.

 

CSI did more _for the network_ than the WWE did and is largely credited with Spikes success, btw. In the SpikeTV universe, the WWE is not the sun where every other thing revolves around. It's just a planet with one or two moons floating around it.

Oh, I don't argue that advertising towards wrestling fans seldom works well (video game companies, DEFINITELY, should do so -- few others seem so well-positioned) as, like it or not, the average fan IS not terribly wealthy or well-educated.

 

But to ignore the WWE's impact is ridiculous. Joe Schmo, honestly, is probably Spike's most successful original program and I do think that it's positioning after RAW helped it a lot.

 

And Vince doesn't advertise Ultimate Fighter because it really isn't good business for the WWE. Vince makes no money from the show. I don't think it's ever wise to advertise shows with no real financial benefit to you. I didn't think advertising USA's old shows was good business for the WWF, either.

 

And the WWE gave Spike enough revenue to seriously pursue CSI. Would the pre-WWF/E TNN have EVER had a chance at it?

-=Mike

[Placebo Effect 0]

From mediaweek about SPIKEtvs new runner ...

 

Hecht presided over the network’s transformation from TNN to Spike TV, the first network for men, and while he has some successes with original programming, ratings growth largely came from re-runs of CSI.

http://www.mediaweek.com/mw/search/article...t_id=1000798528

Conflicting articles.

 

I do get the feeling that Spike likely put out quite a bit of money to get them.