Variety: WWE looking to secure lucrative new TV rights deals

[Steveweiser]

A look at WWE's plans to market all its TV rights at once, in a bid for the sort of money the likes of NASCAR and the NHL are getting.

variety.com/2013/tv/news/wwe-aims-to-pin-down-rich-new-tv-rights-deals-exclusive-1200966579/

[Deleted]

Good luck with that WWE, I just can't see them getting anything close to what the "real" sports are getting even if the numbers say that they should.

[shaker]

I hope this works out well for them. You gotta figure, Raw and Smackdown both get amazing ratings for a cable show, while Main Event does pretty incredibly well for what it is. And Total Divas is definitely a hit - showing that people will watch a show ABOUT wrestling, as well as a wrestling show.

Plus it's on every single week, which has to be pretty appealing for networks that see dips when their popular shows go on hiatuses between seasons.

[Clash, Never a Meter Maid]

Judging by those numbers, this might be one of their more successful "down periods".

[RowdyRobbyPiper]

It is a longshot, but if they play their cards right, they may be able to pull it off.

[ayumidah]

Wait, they're shopping around Saturday Morning Slam? It may return yet? Yay!

[Todd Pettengill]

The problem is many advertisers won't touch wrestling.

[rocket]

I get what they want. All the networks see sports (and other live events) as something that keeps people from dropping cable, so they pay big bucks for rights. So since Raw is live most of the time and still gets good ratings for a cable show, they think they can use that leverage for that kind of money.

[xxshoyuweeniexx]

So they're looking for a new tv dealer besides NBC Universal? They haven't had a different once since Viacom and they air TNA, but I wonder if Viacom considersed WWE more lucrative than TNA and decided to make a deal with them again, would they just drop TNA entirely or what.

[Steveweiser]

Viacom kicked them out back in 2005, and they had to run back to the USA Network at a lower rate than the WWE wanted. Think Viacom is happy with TNA, as they get more of a say with it than they would have with the McMahons around.

Will be interesting to see what NBCU offer them. I have a feeling FOX Sports 1 will be very interested to get a guaranteed 4m+ viewers to their network on a Monday night.

[domrep]

Dec 17, 2013 14:21:20 GMT -5 Steveweiser said:

Viacom kicked them out back in 2005, and they had to run back to the USA Network at a lower rate than the WWE wanted. Think Viacom is happy with TNA, as they get more of a say with it than they would have with the McMahons around.

Will be interesting to see what NBCU offer them. I have a feeling FOX Sports 1 will be very interested to get a guaranteed 4m+ viewers to their network on a Monday night.

Vince would balk, FOX has the UFC.

[Slammy Award-Winning Cannibal]

"Now it’s up to the marketplace to tell us if we’re worth it.”

Nice closer from their marketing chief. This would be major for WWE if they secured this victory, and I think they will. We won't know anything for at least 2 months. I wonder what WWE offer was to NBCU in order to stay put. I'm guessing minimum 500M per year. Or maybe they went a lot higher to the Nascar level of 800M+.

Either way this is a big deal. Excited to learn what happens.

[The Dark Order Inferno]

Dec 17, 2013 14:03:07 GMT -5 xxshoyuweeniexx said:

So they're looking for a new tv dealer besides NBC Universal? They haven't had a different once since Viacom and they air TNA, but I wonder if Viacom considersed WWE more lucrative than TNA and decided to make a deal with them again, would they just drop TNA entirely or what.

Wasn't the WWE's departure from Spike Tv kind of acrimonious? The heavy plugging of USA network seemed like something Paul Heyman would have done just make sure that the bridge was burned. Still, it would be funny to see how Vince handles being forced to crosspromote Bellator to the extent TNA have.

[SEAN CARLESS]

Them announcing the formation of their own subscription network might end up biting WWE on the ass in hopes of generating a huge TV rights deal. With their intention of putting PPVs and original programming on there in addition to their vast library, the impetus is on WWE making that work against all odds, which might be seen as counterproductive to whatever network (presumably USA again) secures their current TV properties. WWE would have to provide some sort of guarantee that their current TV properties wouldn't be neglected or put on the back burner as they line all their eggs in a row with their own "network" in order to make it viable and appealing. In retrospect, it would have been much smarter for them to do their subscription service AFTER negotiating the big money deal.

[Stone Cold Eleanor Shellstrop]

Dec 17, 2013 15:17:14 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Them announcing the formation of their own subscription network might end up biting WWE on the ass in hopes of generating a huge TV rights deal. With their intention of putting PPVs and original programming on there in addition to their vast library, the impetus is on WWE making that work against all odds, which might be seen as counterproductive to whatever network (presumably USA again) secures their current TV properties. WWE would have to provide some sort of guarantee that their current TV properties wouldn't be neglected or put on the back burner as they line all their eggs in a row with their own "network" in order to make it viable and appealing. In retrospect, it would have been much smarter for them to do their subscription service AFTER negotiating the big money deal.

"Vince McMahon is going to make money despite himself. He’s a millionaire who should be a billionaire."

[Deleted]

Should be some good newz stories in a few months when someone allegedly makes an ass of themselves in front of some big shots and costs the WWE $$$ Note to newz writers: I'm giving you ideas!

[Boo!]

I don't think I'd be too pleased if I signed a deal with WWE to host show X and then a few weeks later they announced the WWE network. It's best to announce the network first so if you do want to use content you're selling to the TV companies on that service you can go into negotiations openly and reach an agreement e.g "We'll sell you Smackdown for X and we want the rights to upload it to WWE network for viewing after a period of X weeks"

That's much more sensible than reaching a deal with the networks and then having to go back in and renegotiate content rights for a newly-announced WWE 'network' service.

[Reflecto]

Dec 17, 2013 15:42:58 GMT -5 Boo! said:

I don't think I'd be too pleased if I signed a deal with WWE to host show X and then a few weeks later they announced the WWE network. It's best to announce the network first so if you do want to use content you're selling to the TV companies on that service you can go into negotiations openly and reach an agreement e.g "We'll sell you Smackdown for X and we want the rights to upload it to WWE network for viewing after a period of X weeks"

That's much more sensible than reaching a deal with the networks and then having to go back in and renegotiate content rights for a newly-announced WWE 'network' service.

Well, considering how it looks to be the end of the line there, as of January 2014 it's effectively a shell, and even the owners aren't saying that it's part of the NBC-U family anymore- plus the fact it goes dark on most places shortly before the WWE Network announcement (and NBC-U has first negotiating rights), it still "does" at least look like the odds are part of NBC-U's offer is "You take [x] amount for the next 10 years and we'll sell you G4 for $1."

Whether the corpse of G4 is better than WWE's network plan is the question, but it does seem like that's part of the NBC-U offer.

[Steveweiser]

Thing is, they are announcing the WWE Network before this deal is made. The supposed launch date is February 24th, so all the networks WWE are dealing with know what's up with that. They'll be fully briefed.