> Speaking of Smackdown, Broadcasting Cable had a list of the ten companies that spent the most money from January through last week in advertising on Smackdown as: 1) WWE Network $742,418; 2) Taco Bell $618,033; 3) Verizon $583,050; 4) The Real Cost $559,728; 4) NutriSystems $559,728; 6) Universal Pictures $536,406; 7) Domino’s $513,084; 8) Geico $443,118; 9) Burger King $396, 474; 9) Subway $396, 474. Considering USA Network would have paid about $21 million for the rights to Smackdown and the revenue from the leading advertisers was $5,348,513, it shows a big gap between the two numbers. Overall, that would under normal TV standards be considered shockingly low advertising revenue given the amount of viewers Smackdown draws.
>>2678334
>1) WWE Network $742,418
Soooo...the WWE is technically paying itself? Can't see how that could go wrong in the long run...
>>2678349
But it's only 9,99, Maggle
>>2678349
Not quite. They may get a small cut, but they are talking about the money NBC universal gets to air commercials.
The TV deal, for the most part, is an agreed upon amount of money before hand.
>>2678355
Yeah, I know. They are still boosting the ad-revenue of their own show by paying for ads during it. That system can't really work out, when the TV contract is their main source of income.
>>2678367
Yeah it's weird, but the wwe just wants more time to get the network subs up. It's actually a pittance fee in comparison to what they are getting paid.
That being said with numbers like these it's actually shocking NBC universal isn't talking about canceling.
The demographic for WWE is poor mexicans, literally the least valuable type of consumer
>>2678390
>That being said with numbers like these it's actually shocking NBC universal isn't talking about canceling.
Yeah, that would only add to the problems the WWE will likely have to get a new contract that comes anywhere close to the current. They will take a massive hit in 2019 and probably can be happy to stay on TV.
>>2678367
I think it's just more that they are trying to get as many Network subs as possible, and the people most likely to get the Network are ones who already watch WWE programming.
The fact they are the ones paying the most money could be bad, but even then if they are getting more than $742,418 in getting new subscribers to the Network than money well spent.
>>2678334
What moron thinks this is correct math? Multiply that $5M by 12 and you get a substantially higher number than the $21M that USA Network paid for rights to Smackdown.
Also, who gives a fuck about this stuff? Are we wrestling fans, or accountants?
>>2678334
>Taco Bell
>The Real Cost (for smoking and tobacco users)
>NutriSystem (weight loss)
>Domino's
>Burger King
>Subway
THE STATE of the WWE Universe is so JUST
>>2681587
During the attitude era it was all pimple cream.
>>2681593
>JVC Kaboom Box
>Stacker 2
>>2678398
This is the correct answer. The rich smarks spend all there money flying to various cities for payperviews and buying replica belts.
>>2681593
At least the Attitude Era was GOOD. They're castrated the product so they can shill fast food joints
And this is what happens when you push lil poochie as your top guy.
>>2678349
Agreed upon terms to influence the stock scam.
>USA, boost our TV deal and pretend to give us more money so idiot investors buy more stock.
>We'll give it right back in ad revenue.
People in the stock market are bigger marks than wrestling fans.
But you should take note. WWE's TV deal is NOT their main revenue stream since they can throw some of that money right back to USA.
>>2681595
Stacker 2 is the ad I've seen the most in my lifetime. Fuck those ads.
>all the GOAT fast food restaurants advertise with double double e
i wonder why?
>>2678334
>4) The Real Cost $559,728
Over half a million taxpayer dollars spent keeping stupid people from dying off. Great job.