And that would've been a terrible business decision. For Ted Turner to let his fandom keep costing him money. We are talking about more than sixty million in losses.
Why would AOL and Time Warner keep a dead brand in wcw that was hemorrhaging money?
Bad business decision or not Ted loved wrestling and always wanted wrestling on his channels. And really it ain't like he was spending our money so why care.
Once Ted left, it was over.
I once heard that WCW was 'profitable' in the early 90s because some of their losses were moved to other areas of the company. My conspiracy theory side thinks that back in the early 2000s, some of those losses were from other areas of Time-Warner and were moved to WCW. I have no evidence to back me up, however.
BTW, Time Warner lost a billion dollars over a quarter back in 2001.
Last Edit: Dec 30, 2017 7:21:00 GMT -5 by The Barber
Around 1999 and 2000 there were like 90 wrestlers signed and probably less than a third were actually used. Russo also according to Gene Okerlund f***ed up their budget by ordering vehicles to be destroyed and explosions that had no rhyme or reason.
One of the things that truly shocks me is how they hired Russo not only to write TV but essentially left him in charge of making these huge budgetary decisions. His desire to have Nitro go back to two hour show because it was more creatively satisfying caused them to take a huge hit in lost advertising when they made that move. And it's mind boggling that a division of AOL/Time Warner would let this goof make decisions like that.
Nitro going from 3 hours to 2 hours didn't cost Time Warner any money. They owned the station, so if WCW airs from 9pm-10pm on Monday Time Warner got the ad revenue, and if Picket Fences re-runs aired from 9pm-10pm on Monday Time Warner still got the ad revenue. And with wrestling having notoriously low ad rates, even when they were 1998 popular, then odds are Time Warner made more off the Picket Fences re-run.