Jarrett meeting with Viacom

[JoeDirt 0]

"Jeff Jarrett is in New York City right now and sources close to the situation have told us that he is meeting with Viacom executives. One source has told us that Jarrett is meeting with Viacom about getting TNA a clearance on Spike TV, possibly on Monday night to replace WWE programming when it leaves the network in September. Jarrett's being in New York has been anything but a secret, and at least some people close to the situation feel that Viacom wants WWE to know that they are meeting with Jarrett since there are hard feelings between the companies given the way their negotiations recently broke off. It will be interesting to see what happens here because if TNA is able to secure a slot on Spike, especially on Monday nights, it could completely change the landscape of the business. On a related note, there is still no new cable deal for WWE to announce at this time."

 

That is the full story from PWInsider.com. It would be really interesting if Spike kept TNA on Monday nights to actually COMPETE with WWE instead of moving them to Tuesday or Wednesday or something like that. But still, this is a long way from going down so we'll have to wait and see.

[Guest Loss]

Why would Viacom get rid of WWE to bring in TNA? That makes zero business sense.

[Molotov The Bear 0]

It would cost less money for them to have TNA on insteads of WWE, which was the "reason," that nmegotiations broke down betweenWWE/spike tv.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

I don't get that either.

 

I think TNA is better focusing their energy on getting Fox to move them to FX with more time and not have to pay to be on.

[res37618 0]

I'm guessing that maybe Viacom hasn't "gotten rid" of WWE after all; to save face, that's what they're telling the media, but in all reality, it seems that I've read that WWE was asking for an almost $10 mil. per year hike in their "usage fee" (paid to them by Viacom, is what I mean). WWE probably put a "take it or leave it" option on the table, knowing that USA or some similar network would be willing to at least negotiate to WWE's benefit, and Viacom said "Leave It." TNA would definitely be more affordable for Spike, I'm sure, so I guess it's not all that far fetched that they could be talking with TNA.

[swan 0]

Why would Viacom get rid of WWE to bring in TNA? That makes zero business sense.

Viacom has said that while wrestling brings the ratings, it doesn't bring the advertisers, so this makes no sense.

[res37618 0]

Why would Viacom get rid of WWE to bring in TNA? That makes zero business sense.

Viacom has said that while wrestling brings the ratings, it doesn't bring the advertisers, so this makes no sense.

I don't see how they can say it doesn't bring advertisers. It may not bring huge-dollar advertisers (such as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc.), but it definitely seems to have no problem bringing in advertising aimed at a young target demographic (such as the video games, "edgy/scary" movie trailers, some fast food/candy/"junk food", and don't forget the ever-popular Birdman Lugz ) It's not like TNA is going to change things when it comes to advertising revenue, it'll be the same old stuff, just with an upstart company as opposed to an established money-maker in WWE. It's not like Coca-Cola is going to see TNA and think "hey, that WWE wasn't worth advertising on, but this company with the 6-sided ring and 500 fans in the audience may just be what we're looking for!"

[Golgo 13 0]

I really doubt Viacom broke off negotiations with the express purpose of picking up TNA, but as long as it's there, why not. TNA comes in much cheaper than WWE and they're surely dangling that carrot in front of Viacom. Maybe Viacom figures it's not that much of a risk to take due to the low cost, and it's still original programming they don't have to produce, which'll fill a hole in their schedule for a few months at least.

 

And all this advertising talk. At least now the lower cost, lower production values, lower ratings, etc., would justify the lack of top level advertising. Viacom would be a bit more willing to forgive it, then, since they'd be paying much less.

 

With that said, we don't even know if they're going to be on Mondays, which they would be complete idiots to do, or primetime at all, which is where the big advertisements come in. All rampant speculation on that point by PWI.

[swan 0]

Why would Viacom get rid of WWE to bring in TNA? That makes zero business sense.

Viacom has said that while wrestling brings the ratings, it doesn't bring the advertisers, so this makes no sense.

I don't see how they can say it doesn't bring advertisers. It may not bring huge-dollar advertisers (such as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc.), but it definitely seems to have no problem bringing in advertising aimed at a young target demographic (such as the video games, "edgy/scary" movie trailers, some fast food/candy/"junk food", and don't forget the ever-popular Birdman Lugz ) It's not like TNA is going to change things when it comes to advertising revenue, it'll be the same old stuff, just with an upstart company as opposed to an established money-maker in WWE. It's not like Coca-Cola is going to see TNA and think "hey, that WWE wasn't worth advertising on, but this company with the 6-sided ring and 500 fans in the audience may just be what we're looking for!"

I think it's more that it doesn't bring in top dollar like other programming formats.

[Some Guy 0]

I hope for Pro Wrestling's sake that Spike picks up TNA and puts them on at 11:00 pm for 1 or 2 hours on Mondays after Raw ends. If they threw them into a 2 hour time slot opposed to Raw they would get absolutely decimated in the ratings. TNA does a .4 or somthing now, they won't do much better opposing Raw. They'd need to advertise pretty heavily for the show during Raw, obviously which I imagine they'd be able to do, ECW and WCW used to. If the show does well then move it to 8-10, so they have a head start on Raw and if that does well then it could be moved head to head.

 

TNA wouls have to make major changes as well. Their show looks very minor league. They need to move into a venue that can hold a decent amount of people (2-3000) and if they have to paper like crazy (which they will) then so be it. Half of the game is presentation. Look at Raw's set, it is larger than life and propably cost millions, look at TNA's and it's pathetic. They should dump the 3 sided ring and "TNA" as well. I have trouble taking the product seriously because the company's name is a stupid pun (that doesn't even apply anymore) and the ring is a gimmick. They should just be the "NWA."

 

But, I just don't see it happening. I think Viacom making it known that they are talking to TNA is a move to try to get WWE to come back to teh table with a more reasonable offer. If it does Spike would get a show that could do Ultimate Fighter numbers in the 11:00pm time slot and would not have to spend anywhere near the amount that WWE costs. I'd bet they could get TNA for free.

[Magus 0]

I have trouble taking the product seriously because the company's name is a stupid pun (that doesn't even apply anymore) and the ring is a gimmick. They should just be the "NWA."

While I agree, I personally wouldn't want the Jarrett's to completely decimate the NWA name by calling themselves that. I always thought they should just be called NWA and ACT more like the National Wrestling Alliance instead of a WWE/WCW knockoff, but alas.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say the name "TNA" is stupid, but it's a pretty good representation of the crap that they present themselves as.

[Jericholic82 0]

They should move it back to The Asylum, they at least had a good local following there. Although they seem to have some regualrs at the impact tapigns and ppvs

[Golgo 13 0]

Well, they had their regulars at The Asylum, too.

 

Anyway, vaguely related to the thread, but has TNA EVER run a show that wasn't in Nashville or Orlando? They should've been running shows (house shows, PPVs, TV tapings, whatever) in other areas all this time to get the word out once a day like this hit, assuming it goes through, but I can't remember anything of the sort.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

They ran the first couple of shows in Alabama.

 

And they absolutely should not move back to Nasville. The Orlando crowds are lightyears ahead of the Nasville crowds and they have the perfect set right now.

[Vyce 0]

I don't see how they can say it doesn't bring advertisers. It may not bring huge-dollar advertisers (such as Wal-Mart, Coca-Cola, Pepsi, etc.), but it definitely seems to have no problem bringing in advertising aimed at a young target demographic (such as the video games, "edgy/scary" movie trailers, some fast food/candy/"junk food", and don't forget the ever-popular Birdman Lugz )

Numba one stunna.

 

And here, I'll save MikeSC the effort: should TNA somehow get a TV slot head-to-head against the WWE's flagship show, they'd get slaughtered in the ratings.

 

And by "they", I'm not referring to the WWE.

[Fro 0]

Well, considering they have to pay millions for WWE, and TNA would come basically free to them (or getting paid by TNA like FSN does), it's a no-brainer.

 

They could hype the crap out of the new show during Raw and debut it after Raw goes off the air for the last time and then stick it in Raw's old timeslot for a couple weeks, then move it to the Velocity/Heat timeslot.

 

The show would probably do 2.0s if promoted properly.

[Some Guy 0]

I have trouble taking the product seriously because the company's name is a stupid pun (that doesn't even apply anymore) and the ring is a gimmick.  They should just be the "NWA."

While I agree, I personally wouldn't want the Jarrett's to completely decimate the NWA name by calling themselves that. I always thought they should just be called NWA and ACT more like the National Wrestling Alliance instead of a WWE/WCW knockoff, but alas.

 

Anyway, just wanted to say the name "TNA" is stupid, but it's a pretty good representation of the crap that they present themselves as.

How would TNA be decimating the whole NWA by going by that name? The people who are fans of the NWA territories will not cease to be fans if TNA goes by just NWA.

 

I agree that they, if given two hours on Spike (one hour wouldn't be enough time to keep your main guy's angles going and bring in other NWA talent) should try to act more like a National Wrestling Alliance. They could constantly cycle fresh talent in and out and book the TNA contracted guys on the other territory's shows around the country. It would be a fair trade off to the territories. They get national TV exposure for their guys and TNA gets to have their's work at other places promoting their show.

 

The TNA name sucks and they should just go by NWA. JCP pretty much did that until Turner bought the company. Maybe they should name it JJSPT (Jeff Jarrett's Self-Promotional Toy), it would be an acurate name at least.

[RHR 0]

If Spike was interested in getting TNA...I would move the CSI before Raw up an hour to cover the first hour of RAW (or, get CSI:Miami), then, bring back Ultimate Fighter (a decent little show) for the 2nd hour, then TNA for an hour long slot after RAW finishes on whatever channel they are on. Raw right now outrates CSI by a point or two, normally, so the drop-off wouldn't be huge, then, UFC gets a better slot, and TNA can be the post-RAW wrestling show, and, become cult-ish.

 

Just get the belt of Jarrett. No old guys. Push the young guys.

 

It'd get at least the same ratings as Thunder did.

[Youth N Asia 0]

I was all for TNA getting on real tv (not an hour on Friday afternoons). But their shows are just so ugly now and I'm sick of Jarrett more than HHH. I honestly don't even know if I'd watch TNA on Spike.

[Guest MikeSC]

Well, considering they have to pay millions for WWE, and TNA would come basically free to them (or getting paid by TNA like FSN does), it's a no-brainer.

 

They could hype the crap out of the new show during Raw and debut it after Raw goes off the air for the last time and then stick it in Raw's old timeslot for a couple weeks, then move it to the Velocity/Heat timeslot.

 

The show would probably do 2.0s if promoted properly.

The show wouldn't pull a 1.0. To sell advertising, they'd have to make promises that the show would NEVER match, requiring them to GIVE ad time to advertisers to make up for the numbers TNA would never possibly draw.

 

I take this as seriously as I took the "OMG! ECW IS TALKING TO FX!" after TNN dumped them.

 

It...ain't...happening.

 

Spike is not going to dump RAW to pick up a really cheap knock-off that has never turned a profit, drawn a paying crowd of any size, or drawn buyrates or ratings that are above embarrassing.

-=Mike

[2GOLD 0]

I don't get that either.

 

I think TNA is better focusing their energy on getting Fox to move them to FX with more time and not have to pay to be on.

 

From what I understand, they tried by FX wasn't interested and couldn't find a slot for the show. I guess they have more faith in COPS re-runs than putting wrestling on a network.

 

Plus to be honest, wrestling drags the entire image of a network down. USA NETWORK for example was just known as a "wrestling network". SPIKEtv has been the "network for men" so they can get away with it since no one takes them seriously anyway. I mean come on, they used to be The Nashville Network which also worked for wrestling.

 

FX right now has made a name for themselves with original programming that is edgy. Wrestling added to that would immediately hurt that image in the eyes of some critics and advertisers.

 

This is why I think USA NETWORK would be stupid to pick up WWE. They have FINALLY erased the wrestling tag with The Dead Zone and Monk and now Kojak that they don't need the WWE at all.

[Some Guy 0]

This is why I think USA NETWORK would be stupid to pick up WWE. They have FINALLY erased the wrestling tag with The Dead Zone and Monk and now Kojak that they don't need the WWE at all.

USA was the wrestling network because they had no other shows worth watching. It is possible to have wrestling on your network and not have wrestling define it. USA used to run Murder She Wrote as a lead in for Raw, who the fuck wants to see that show? Now they apparently have some good shows and as long as they keep them then I see no problem. It's not like WWE is going to force Kojak off the air.

 

USA wouldn't have to reprogram their entire line up, just Monday nights. They should jump on Ultimate Fighter if it's availible as well.

 

I think FX is the station that should want WWE. They run Fear Factor and Married With Children on a constant loop, I don't consider wrestling to be any lower class than Fear Factor and Married With Children. I know they have other shows as well (Shield and Dennis Leary's fireman show). Plus, I'm a wrestling fan and I like both Fear Factor and Married... If they put Raw on and had Fear Factor as the lead in they might get me for 3 hours every Monday, like Spike does now with Raw and Ultimate Fighter.

[BUTT 0]

I take this as seriously as I took the "OMG! ECW IS TALKING TO FX!" after TNN dumped them.

I think you mean USA.

 

I remember watching Raven's last appearance on ECW on TNN when Cyrus came out and announced that "the Network" had cancelled the show and all the fans started chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" It was so sad because I knew there was no chance in hell that was happening.

[Guest MikeSC]

I take this as seriously as I took the "OMG! ECW IS TALKING TO FX!" after TNN dumped them.

I think you mean USA.

 

I remember watching Raven's last appearance on ECW on TNN when Cyrus came out and announced that "the Network" had cancelled the show and all the fans started chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" It was so sad because I knew there was no chance in hell that was happening.

I remember FX mentioned A LOT right before they closed their doors. I'm sure rumors of USA were spreading, too -- but I seem to remember FX getting near-constant mentions.

 

And, much as I hate to break it to Heyman, even with tons of publicity --- ECW wouldn't have ever hit a 2.0

-=Mike

[Precious Roy 0]

There's a remake of KOJAK?!?! Blasphemy.

[Guest Neon]

The Torch has reported about it.

[Jericho2000Mark 0]

I take this as seriously as I took the "OMG! ECW IS TALKING TO FX!" after TNN dumped them.

I think you mean USA.

 

I remember watching Raven's last appearance on ECW on TNN when Cyrus came out and announced that "the Network" had cancelled the show and all the fans started chanting "U-S-A! U-S-A!" It was so sad because I knew there was no chance in hell that was happening.

I remember FX mentioned A LOT right before they closed their doors. I'm sure rumors of USA were spreading, too -- but I seem to remember FX getting near-constant mentions.

 

And, much as I hate to break it to Heyman, even with tons of publicity --- ECW wouldn't have ever hit a 2.0

-=Mike

And ECW had 10 times the fanbase TNA has...

[JHawk 0]

*If* TNA made the move to Spike, and *if* it got the 9pm Monday time slot, TNA could slip through the back door and become at least a minor threat. Think about it. Casual fans became conditioned to wrestling being on Spike TV Monday nights at 9. So maybe they forget Raw's moved to another station and flip to Spike automatically, catching some kickass X Division matchup.

 

That's a best case scenario I don't see coming to fruition, but stranger things have happened.

[Fro 0]

Meltzer's Wednesday Update Spike wasn't very interested in TNA (at least in a good timeslot), since they think that they can get the same ratings TNA would do with reruns, and therefore more ad dollars.

 

Keller was very optimistic about TNA going to Spike, and even said a top WWE star would jump ship if/when it happens.

[TNABaddboi 0]

Here's Keller's full update about the situation:

 

Jeff Jarrett met with Spike TV in New York this week to discuss the potential of TNA moving to the cable channel this fall after WWE's programming contract expires. Jarrett was said to be "extremely upbeat" and "optimistic" coming out of the meeting.

 

Spike executives are said to be interested because it is an established product with a three year track record of producing network-ready shows, plus the pricetag would be much lower than WWE to make up for what would certainly be lower ratings initially than what Spike is used to. Plus, Spike officials walked away from negotiations with Vince McMahon with animosity toward WWE. "Vince has a way of being pompous in those types of meetings, and network execs aren't used to that. They're used to being the pompous ones," says one source familiar with the situation.

 

There isn't any confirmation whether there is any clause in its contract with WWE that would prevent it from airing TNA immediately after the final WWE Raw program airs. Conceivably, TNA could be introduced to Raw viewers by airing a one-hour special immediately following the final Raw broadcast or airing in Raw's timeslot the following week.

 

Spike TV would be able to provide production funding to allow TNA to increase the quality of the look and feel of the show so it would fully compete with WWE on that level. The influx of revenue from Spike would also allow TNA to run actual arenas rather than running tapings exclusively at Universal Studios, assuming TNA wanted to shake-up that aspect of its shows.

 

TNA has also had recent discussions with one other major cable network that would be able to clear a weekday primetime slot for the program.

 

There is one major top level star who has expressed serious interest in working for TNA should it ever get a national primetime television clearance. His involvement from the onset would assure TNA of attracting WWE fans from day one of any new primetime clearance.