# **All TV Ratings, Buys, Draw Talk Here** - THE RATINGS WAR PART IV



## Brock

***All TV Ratings, Buys, Draw Talk Here***

Previous Thread HERE: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-raw-smackdown/1234473-all-tv-ratings-buys-draw-talk-here.html

*THE RATINGS WAR PART IV:*

Yeah, a new thread to talk about numbers and all that other pointless crap that comes with wrestling. So chat away about how someone's segment only drew so many viewers and how it's all their fault.

It's the numbers WAR, where marks and shit cry and moan over a bunch of numbers to try and justify their points of view.


----------



## validreasoning

WWE released their 2nd quarter average full ratings to the sec last friday. these numbers are live viewership *plus dvr playback* for the period 1st april 2015 to june 30th 2015..makes for some interesting reading (or not ) when compared to the previous years..only went back to 2007 as wwe started defining their business year from january to december then as opposed to may till april before that.

2015, raw = 3.2, smackdown = 2.2
2014, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 2.2
2013, raw = 3.3, smackdown = 2.1
2012, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 2.0
2011, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 1.8
2010, raw = 3.4, smackdown = 1.9
2009, raw = 3.8, smackdown = 1.9
2008, raw = 3.4, smackdown = 2.4
2007, raw = 3.8, smackdown = 2.6


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

* RAW last night. Very stable rating.


WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 10:00 PM 1.29 3,671
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 09:00 PM 1.26 3,695
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 08:00 PM 1.23 3,739*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

IDONTSHIV said:


> * RAW last night. Very stable rating.
> 
> 
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 10:00 PM 1.29 3,671
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 09:00 PM 1.26 3,695
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA NETWORK 08:00 PM 1.23 3,739*


With Brock in only one segment where he just stood there, too. Nice. It was a good show, too. So, I'm cool with them getting a good enough number. (Y)


----------



## CM punker

no Cena = RATINGS!


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> With Brock in only one segment where he just stood there, too. Nice. It was a good show, too. So, I'm cool with them getting a good enough number. (Y)


I want Brock's job. Show up, stand there and get paid millions. That's the life.
:Brock

I felt RAW was a bit filler but I'm glad the show had a stable rating.

All three hours were consistent, especially the first. Neville/Rollins was a great match.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Crazy Eyes said:


> I want Brock's job. Show up, stand there and get paid millions. That's the life.
> :Brock
> 
> I felt RAW was a bit filler but I'm glad the show had a stable rating.
> 
> All three hours were consistent, especially the first. Neville/Rollins was a great match.


Yeah, usually the first hour is way behind, IIRC. Good to see that didn't happen last night. Guess the Rollins promo bragging about breaking Cena's nose and then the very good Rollins/Neville match held the viewers in, which is good news for both guys. I thought it was a pretty good show outside of a few things here and there. Not a great show (no reason to expect that), but a decent-good enough show. Certainly an improvement over past months.


----------



## CookiePuss

Big Dog bringing in them viewers :banderas


----------



## wwefan123

But I thought Cena was a ratings draw and we need him in the main event holding belts? :vince4


----------



## wwefan123

Windows_10 said:


> What does this have to do with Cena?
> 
> Cena was not on the show and it did a terrible number. People started tuning out after they found out he wouldn't be on.
> 
> So yes, they obviously do need a real star to be holding the world title.


.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

wwefan123 said:


> But I thought Cena was a ratings draw and we need him in the main event holding belts? :vince4


:lol That theory was debunked a month or so ago when he main evented Raw with a 28 minute match and it did nothing for the rating. WWE released their quarterly financial report for this past quarter and they are in great shape, even for a 3 month time period in which Cena didn't have the belt. It's a good thing for both Cena and WWE that they can still do just fine financially without always heavily relying on him. The fact that they did this good of a number without him is a great sign. I'm not even a big fan of the overall product in this era, but it'd be foolish to suggest WWE isn't in very good financial shape.


(PS: Don't feed the re-joiner/troll. We are all ignoring him going forward. Just an FYI.) (Y)


----------



## goc

CM punker said:


> no Cena = RATINGS!





wwefan123 said:


> But I thought Cena was a ratings draw and we need him in the main event holding belts? :vince4





Windows_10 said:


> What does this have to do with Cena?
> 
> Cena was not on the show and it did a terrible number. People started tuning out after they found out he wouldn't be on.
> 
> So yes, they obviously do need a real star to be holding the world title.





Brock said:


> *It's the numbers WAR, where marks and shit cry and moan over a bunch of numbers to try and justify their points of view.*



Sounds about right.


----------



## The Bloodline

Are we in a time period where we're happy about no hour reaching 4 million? It's a legit question, im curious as 4 million was something that was expected not even long ago.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ravensflock88 said:


> Are we in a time period where we're happy about no hour reaching 4 million? It's a legit question, im curious as 4 million was something that was expected not even long ago.


Meh. They're not far off and with all of the different options and how to watch TV these days.. Just catch the WWE quarterly financial report they just released last week to see what kind of shape the company is in.


----------



## Empress

Ravensflock88 said:


> Are we in a time period where we're happy about no hour reaching 4 million? It's a legit question, im curious as 4 million was something that was expected not even long ago.


I don't think consistent 4 million viewers is possible for the WWE unless they undergo a creative boom and something catches fire. There are also various ways to watch the WWE.

The WWE is very financially stable as well. Their bottom line isn't hurting due to a loss in popularity, TV wise.


----------



## Empress

Windows_10 said:


> The biggest driver of their growth was the escalation of their TV fees. They were able to negotiate a very favorable TV deal a while back.
> 
> With the decrease in popularity, do you really think they will be able to negotiate such a favorable deal going forward?
> 
> The decline in popularity will absolutely start to be felt down the line. It's absurd to think that it won't.


I don't disagree with you. There will come a time when the WWE's declining viewership and the correlating loss in popularity will hit them in their wallet. At the moment, they're still financially solvent. 

I still think there's something off about the Network numbers. It would be one thing if there was a universal policy of the Network being offered for free the first month during a trial period. But the WWE seems to just be offering it for free periodically when they need a boost.


----------



## The Bloodline

ShowStopper said:


> Meh. They're not far off and with all of the different options and how to watch TV these days.. Just catch the WWE quarterly financial report they just released last week to see what kind of shape the company is in.





Crazy Eyes said:


> I don't think consistent 4 million viewers is possible for the WWE unless they undergo a creative boom and something catches fire. There are also various ways to watch the WWE.
> 
> The WWE is very financially stable as well. Their bottom line isn't hurting due to a loss in popularity, TV wise.


Oh ok, I see they're doing well elsewhere, which is kind of what I was afraid of. If they're currently satisfied with the ratings, I doubt they're even considering shaking things up or cutting off a hour . They'll just wait this out.

To take something good away from this at least the last hour didn't drop, and they didn't even advertise anything special happening to close the show.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It wasn't the night after a PPV or even a go home show to a PPV, it was one of the in between weeks with nothing really advertised (good or bad). WWE is probably happy considering those circumstances. Changing the format and the creative in general would be great and has been talked about for YEARS. I think alot of people just don't talk about it anymore because it's pretty obvious it's not happening anytime soon, if ever. So, it's an it what it is situation. I'm surprised this many people watch Raw considering Raw has sucked for years now and all of the options people have nowadays. Considering that, and their recent financial report, I bet WWE is happy.


----------



## goc

For the people who live and die by the Raw ratings and argue this shit every week: Do you guys pay attention to any OTHER ratings? Like year over year trends in cable and broadcast ratings? And the fact that they are declining overall every year? 

Or are you just pretending that Raw is in a vacuum?


----------



## Chrome

That's still not a real good number tbh, but not much of a drop considering no Cena.


----------



## Empress

Ravensflock88 said:


> Oh ok, I see they're doing well elsewhere, which is kind of what I was afraid of. If they're currently satisfied with the ratings, I doubt they're even considering shaking things up or cutting off a hour . They'll just wait this out.
> 
> To take something good away from this at least the last hour didn't drop, and they didn't even advertise anything special happening to close the show.


This is as good as it's probably going to get outside of Wrestlemania season. No, I don't think these are the greatest numbers ever but it's the new normal. But you're right. If the WWE is satisfied with the bare minimum, I doubt many creative changes are on the way.

As for Cena, I think it's a good thing that the ratings were stable without him. He's a draw but he shouldn't be the only one. His injury should be proof that other talents should be pushed to look like credible stars. 

I've had my issues with Rollins' booking, but he looked credible last night. He had a great match, talked his shit and got heat. Well, he got heat when he wasn't bragging about breaking Cena's nose. >

I'm surprised the last hour didn't drop either. Wonder why. :reigns2

I wish there was a summer of "____________" going on. I don't care who, but the Summer of Punk was nice. I know that drew a lot of attention. I'm not sure what the ratings at that time were though.


----------



## AEA

So.. The ratings are still in the gutter then?


----------



## goc

I love how hard some people try to twist these numbers to mean whatever the fuck they want them to. That's how you get people saying shit like "See WWE ratings suck! Everyone knows Raw is shit that's why you should watch Lucha Underground!" 

Raw still gets over 3.5 million viewers every week and Lucha Underground isn't even getting 1/10th of that so I mean if ratings are the sole indicator of whether the show is good then that means Raw is about 10 times better.


----------



## The Bloodline

goc said:


> I love how hard some people try to twist these numbers to mean whatever the fuck they want them to. That's how you get people saying shit like "See WWE ratings suck! Everyone knows Raw is shit that's why you should watch Lucha Underground!"
> 
> *Raw still gets over 3.5 million viewers every week and Lucha Underground isn't even getting 1/10th of that so I mean if ratings are the sole indicator of whether the show is good then that means Raw is about 10 times better*.


This has nothing to do with anything that was being discussed here :aries2. I dont think anyone believes ratings determine how good a show is. The majority of Raws hasnt been good in MY opinion whether 3 million or 5 million people watch it. I think its mostly due to 3 hours and the same formula every week. With that said I've still been watching it though cause im still a fan of WWE(many of their wrestlers and segments do entertain me despite what i think of the weekly show quality as a whole) :shrug:.


----------



## RatedR10

The positives of this week: Viewership rise. 

The negatives of this week: Declining viewership as the show went on completely bottoming out in the 3rd hour which was led in by Brock Lesnar and main evented by four of WWE's "biggest" full-time stars in Ambrose, Reigns, Orton and Wyatt; the lingering question of how many viewers tuned in just to see the "Rowdy" Roddy Piper tribute to open the show before tuning out.

What we learned: The John Cena-factor. No matter what the circumstances this week, viewership rose, albeit, slightly. And there was no John Cena. This is the part where WWE should look at themselves, look at Cena, look at their roster and figure out that Cena is passed his prime when it comes to drawing viewers. Putting the WWE Title on him at Summerslam will not raise ratings heading into the Fall. It hasn't happened recently when it's been done in the past few years. He's past his prime when it comes to drawing, and WWE will really, really hurt ratings-wise if he's the champ (or god forbid, Sheamus) heading into Monday Night Football season. 

WWE's best course of action heading into the Fall would be Seth Rollins holding onto the strap and start booking him properly rather than turning him into an extreme chickenshit heel. Last night was a good start. He didn't back down from the Neville challenge, and was booked "smart" by picking up the scraps and taking advantage of Neville's mistake. He should be a smarter, cunning heel rather than chickenshit heel #39398304 . 

On a side note, please do not give us Seth Rollins vs. Kane and John Cena vs. Sheamus storylines coming out of Summerslam and going into the Fall. Oh my god, that would be so bad. 

Okay, enough rambling.


----------



## The Tempest

goc said:


> I love how hard some people try to twist these numbers to mean whatever the fuck they want them to. That's how you get people saying shit like "See WWE ratings suck! Everyone knows Raw is shit that's why you should watch Lucha Underground!"
> 
> Raw still gets over 3.5 million viewers every week and Lucha Underground isn't even getting 1/10th of that so I mean if ratings are the sole indicator of whether the show is good then that means Raw is about 10 times better.


LU isn't even being discussed right now. Pretty weak effort.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> The positives of this week: Viewership rise.
> 
> The negatives of this week: Declining viewership as the show went on completely bottoming out in the 3rd hour which was led in by Brock Lesnar and main evented by four of WWE's "biggest" full-time stars in Ambrose, Reigns, Orton and Wyatt; the lingering question of how many viewers tuned in just to see the "Rowdy" Roddy Piper tribute to open the show before tuning out.
> 
> What we learned: The John Cena-factor. No matter what the circumstances this week, viewership rose, albeit, slightly. And there was no John Cena. This is the part where WWE should look at themselves, look at Cena, look at their roster and figure out that Cena is passed his prime when it comes to drawing viewers. Putting the WWE Title on him at Summerslam will not raise ratings heading into the Fall. It hasn't happened recently when it's been done in the past few years. He's past his prime when it comes to drawing, and WWE will really, really hurt ratings-wise if he's the champ (or god forbid, Sheamus) heading into Monday Night Football season.
> 
> WWE's best course of action heading into the Fall would be Seth Rollins holding onto the strap and start booking him properly rather than turning him into an extreme chickenshit heel. Last night was a good start. He didn't back down from the Neville challenge, and was booked "smart" by picking up the scraps and taking advantage of Neville's mistake. He should be a smarter, cunning heel rather than chickenshit heel #39398304 .
> 
> On a side note, please do not give us Seth Rollins vs. Kane and John Cena vs. Sheamus storylines coming out of Summerslam and going into the Fall. Oh my god, that would be so bad.
> 
> Okay, enough rambling.


Well said. But I also wouldn't have a problem with Rollins losing the title at SS. Not a Cena fan at all, but you always knew they were eventually going to go back to him at some point. Frankly, I'm surprised he's been out of the World Title picture as long as he's been out of it for. I agree with you that booking Rollins stronger and with the title in the Fall would be a good idea, but I wouldn't have a problem with and am expecting Cena to win at SS, especially since it's a match for BOTH titles. Guess we'll see what happens, though.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Here's the actual chart, so you can see the various demo ratings. Remarkably consistent is about the only takeaway from this. I do wonder what kind of hit the NFL will bring to these numbers in about a month.*


----------



## Chrome

The Tempest said:


> LU isn't even being discussed right now. Pretty weak effort.


Guy's got some weird hatred towards LU. Brought them up in another thread last night that had nothing to do with them. :Jordan

Be nice if these trolls could at least be amusing in bashing everything smarks love but I guess that's asking for too much.



RatedR10 said:


> On a side note, please do not give us Seth Rollins vs. Kane and John Cena vs. Sheamus storylines coming out of Summerslam and going into the Fall. Oh my god, that would be so bad.


Oh man, if they try to go up against MNF with those feuds. :mj4


----------



## RatedR10

Chrome said:


> Guy's got some weird hatred towards LU. Brought them up in another thread last night that had nothing to do with them. :Jordan
> 
> Be nice if these trolls could at least be amusing in bashing everything smarks love but I guess that's asking for too much.
> 
> 
> Oh man, if they try to go up against MNF with those feuds. :mj4


It'd be so fucking bad. I don't even know what they were thinking giving Sheamus the briefcase. They've put themselves between a rock and a hard place; he's an incredibly boring character that the fans simply don't care about, but WWE tries to position him as a credible threat as a heel. Now they have to get the title win (or MITB loss) out of the way at some point. Do you do it in the Fall when the football season rolls around or after Wrestlemania when you're resetting everything? He sure as hell isn't going to be cashing in and winning the title anytime between December - April.

I could easily see WWE saying "fuck it" and attempting to use his cash in as a spark, because, as we know, WWE is mostly clueless when it comes to what the fans want and WOULD be dumb enough to think Sheamus of all people and his cash-in could boost the ratings.

Seth Rollins vs. Kane is inevitable... whether it's for the title or not, I guess we'll see at Summerslam.

IF they do go the route of Sheamus cashing in and giving us Sheamus/Cena, the only positive I can think of is football, basketball and hockey all starting up in October to take my attention. :lmao


----------



## LOL-ins

If WWE can't even hit a 3.0 during Summerslam build up then when MNF starts again it's going to get really ugly. I predict maybe even high 2 million numbers.


----------



## Randy Lahey

WWE cant even pop a rating with the death of Piper? Even I tuned in to watch the first 10 minutes of the show, then didnt watch another second. 

A part of me believes that MNF wont hurt ratings that much because the people still left watching WWE now are the hard core fans that will watch wrestling no matter what (even if football is on). The WWE has lost just about all casual fans. Their core base can still get them a 2.5 rating.


----------



## Prosper

MNF is gonna rape WWE in the asshole. You stupid WWE writers better start writing some dope shit.


----------



## Erik.

I'm willing to bet that the ratings will still be similar when the football is on. Almost guarantee it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Crazy Eyes said:


> I'm surprised the last hour didn't drop either. Wonder why. :reigns2
> 
> I wish there was a summer of "____________" going on. I don't care who, but the Summer of Punk was nice. I know that drew a lot of attention. I'm not sure what the ratings at that time were though.


*
For the record, I was told ratings "always" increase during the summer when I pointed out Reigns main eventing last year surpassed Daniel Bryan's title reign numbers, yet this year they decreased dramatically :cena.*


----------



## A-C-P

Crazy Eyes said:


> I'm surprised the last hour didn't drop either. Wonder why. :reigns2


B/c Ambrose was advertised to be in the main event obviously :ambrose4

I am pretty sure having Heyman/Lesnar start the 3rd hour was a BIG factor in that 3rd hour to.


----------



## The Bloodline

Randy Lahey said:


> WWE cant even pop a rating with the death of Piper? Even I tuned in to watch the first 10 minutes of the show, then didnt watch another second.
> 
> A part of me believes that MNF wont hurt ratings that much because the people still left watching WWE now are the hard core fans that will watch wrestling no matter what (even if football is on). The WWE has lost just about all casual fans. Their core base can still get them a 2.5 rating.


That's what I'm thinking when it comes to Football this year as well.


----------



## The Renegade

RatedR10 said:


> It'd be so fucking bad. I don't even know what they were thinking giving Sheamus the briefcase. They've put themselves between a rock and a hard place; he's an incredibly boring character that the fans simply don't care about, but WWE tries to position him as a credible threat as a heel. *Now they have to get the title win (or MITB loss) out of the way at some point.* Do you do it in the Fall when the football season rolls around or after Wrestlemania when you're resetting everything? He sure as hell isn't going to be cashing in and winning the title anytime between December - April.
> 
> I could easily see WWE saying "fuck it" and attempting to use his cash in as a spark, because, as we know, WWE is mostly clueless when it comes to what the fans want and WOULD be dumb enough to think Sheamus of all people and his cash-in could boost the ratings.
> 
> Seth Rollins vs. Kane is inevitable... whether it's for the title or not, I guess we'll see at Summerslam.
> 
> IF they do go the route of Sheamus cashing in and giving us Sheamus/Cena, the only positive I can think of is football, basketball and hockey all starting up in October to take my attention. :lmao


Truth be told, I feel like they'd be better off having Sheamus lose that briefcase to someone like Rusev who they can still push as a heel and has fan's interest.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Romans Garbage Ratings Reigns strikes again


----------



## Empress

*RATINGS: WWE TOUGH ENOUGH SETS VIEWERSHIP LOW, “TOTAL DIVAS” UP IN DEMO*

WWE Tough Enough falls to a new viewership low; Total Divas rises in the adults 18-49 demo but loses viewers.

USA’s “WWE Tough Enough” suffered a second consecutive viewership loss.

This week, loss resulted in a series low viewership total.

Tuesday’s edition of the reality series, which featured Chelsea’s elimination, drew a 0.32 adults 18-49 rating with 856,000 viewers.

Both numbers trail those of last week’s broadcast, which drew a 0.35 with 980,000.

This week’s demo rating, meanwhile, ties a series low. The viewership mark represents a new low.

— Fellow WWE-themed program “Total Divas,” which aired on E!, enjoyed a gain in adults 18-49 and a loss in viewership.

This week’s episode managed a 0.48 with 1.012 million. Last week’s posted a 0.42 with 1.083 million.
http://headlineplanet.com/home/2015...h-sets-viewership-low-total-divas-up-in-demo/


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Keep eliminating the best people and viewers will keep dropping.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> I'm willing to bet that the ratings will still be similar when the football is on. Almost guarantee it.


Of course they will. And for the hand-wringing about certain people killing the business in the past few months, check out the most recent WWE quarterly financial report. The business is dying two people said..

:ti

The product needs the part timers more!11 They did that, and it had virtually no effect. Every week it's something else, and everyother week it is proven wrong.


----------



## dougfisher_05

RAW was #2 for the night behind Major Crimes on TNT in terms of overal viewership. 

They may have finally reached their low end base, because it seems that least 3.5 million people are tuning in each week regardless of anything else going on. I expect them to continue to hit the 3.5 million viewer mark even with Monday Night Football coming up. 

Of course if they do eventually drop below 3 million viewers, I do expect this thread to break. haha.

As for Tough Enough, I seriously hope that train wreck of a show continues to tank and I hope McMahon takes it right on the chin in any meeting with USA network going forward.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Of course they will. And for the hand-wringing about certain people killing the business in the past few months, check out the most recent WWE quarterly financial report. The business is dying two people said..


*
So when Reigns has the title, this solidifies that we won't be hearing anything from you about the ratings? Got it.*


----------



## SóniaPortugal

CM Punk is right about one thing WWE live in a bubble and do not know what's happening around them
Vince has built an empire and as has no direct competition they think that everything is fine
The same applies to certain fans who think that these terrible ratings will not affect or is already affecting WWE

WWE Network free almost every month since it was created is not a good sign

House shows with awful numbers

Smackdown rarely sold out (apparently this is starting to affect RAW and PPVs)


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> So when Reigns has the title, this solidifies that we won't be hearing anything from you about the ratings? Got it.*


Absolutely, bro. Especially if the quarterly financial report remains stable like it did last week for Rollins' reign, then definitely not.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Absolutely, bro. Especially if the quarterly financial report remains stable, then definitely not.


*
In that case, I'm done placing blame on Rollins' title reign. I just wanted to prove a point to everyone who grabbed their torches and pitchforks during Reigns' RTWM.*


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's latest newsletter:


> Raw on 8/3 did 3.70 million viewers, which is almost identical to the 3.68 million the week before.
> 
> In the past, Raw after major deaths of wrestling stars have shown major increases as the Raw after the death of Randy Savage did 5.41 million viewers (about 700,000 more than they were doing at the time), after Ultimate Warrior drew 4.76 million (about 380,000 more than the show was usually doing although down from Raw-after-Mania numbers), and after Dusty Rhodes did 4.10 million viewers (about 440,000 more than the show averaged this summer).
> 
> The first hour was up from the summer average so there probably was a little curiosity bump early, as the pattern of late has been second hour growth. The 8 p.m. hour did 3.74 million viewers, the 9 p.m. hour did 3.70 million viewers and the 10 p.m. hour did 3.67 million viewers. Raw was second for the night on cable.


I was also surprised that the Hogan scandal didn't cause more of a bump up.

It is interesting to see proof that viewers usually tune in when someone dies. I know that when I stopped watching wrestling, the times I'd try to catch a glimpse of RAW again were when someone died.


----------



## IWillAlwaysRejoin

I hate nigguhrs.


----------



## bigdog40

IDONTSHIV said:


> *Here's the actual chart, so you can see the various demo ratings. Remarkably consistent is about the only takeaway from this. I do wonder what kind of hit the NFL will bring to these numbers in about a month.*





Given the state of how cable is, the WWE is fine and Raw is still one of the most watched shows on cable, it's people arguing over Raw getting 3.5 million viewers as opposed to Raw getting 5 million, hell they are in the top 5 or 10 every week so who cares. Raw isn't going anywhere.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Smackdown's rating:


----------



## Fighter Daron

Last time SD! cracked 3 million?


----------



## Blade Runner

thought this was worth posting. Eric Bischoff talking about people using minute by minute ratings to justify what's working or not. he's a bit harsh in his opinion but raises interesting points. the topic was mostly in relation to talking segments v wrestling segments






starts at 29:40 ends around 36:00

the whole interview is worth checking out by the way


----------



## VitoCorleone

If tonights Tough Enough doesnt draw 1 million people with Cena as Special Guest then i can proudly say that Cena isnt a Draw anymore.
Funny after Patrick got eliminated the Ratings dropped.


----------



## Marrakesh

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> In that case, I'm done placing blame on Rollins' title reign. I just wanted to prove a point to everyone who grabbed their torches and pitchforks during Reigns' RTWM.*


Spot the difference in the Rollins title reign and the proposed Reigns run that never materialized. 

Rollins is a bitch heel never intended to be a market mover. 

Reigns was being handed endorsement deals, unlimited merch and fully intended to be the solution to the question of how do WWE replace John Cena. 

Obviously he was and still is not the answer but had they decided to follow through on his crowning moment and there was no change in business then of course it would have to be said that Reigns was a complete and utter failure.

His supposed marketability and potential earnings for the company were believed to be so high that they were willing to feed the biggest monster in wrestling to him on a platter to cement his status as ''the guy''. 

The business is slowly dying and Roman Reigns was WWE's long term plan for growing it again. 

Not his fault as he is just not up to the task but the goons who tried to give it all to him too soon are the exact same people who have taken wrestling to the dire slums it currently finds itself in.


----------



## Empress

*RAW SOCIAL MEDIA: Monday's show falls in Twitter TV Ratings *

WWE Raw Social Media Tracking

-- August 10: Raw's social media momentum disappeared this week, as Monday's show fell to a four-week low in Nielsen's Twitter TV Ratings.

Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.591 million, down 33 percent from last week's big audience of 2.372 million.

Raw's total impressions were 9.220 million, down 17 percent from 11.088 million last week.

The numbers should rebound next week with Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker returning to Raw for the final show before Summerslam.

Raw still ranked #1 among series & specials on Monday night, mainly due to a lack of original TV competition. If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #2 behind MLB Baseball on ESPN.

***

WWE Raw Social Media Scoresheet 2015

- Unique High: 3.563 million (3/30 post-WM31)
- Impressions High: 26.587 million (3/30 post-WM31)
- Uniques Low: 1.234 million (1/5)
- Impressions Low: 7.127 million (6/8)
- Avg. Weekly Uniques: 1.896 million
- Avg. Weekly Impressions: 11.237 million
- Avg. Mon. Rank: #2 among series & specials
http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_86876.shtml#.VcpWB_lVikp


----------



## SmackdownvsRAW2005

> Monday's episode of WWE RAW, with no appearance by John Cena for the second week in a row and a WWE World Heavyweight Title match in the main event slot, drew 3.838 million viewers. This is up from last week's 3.702 million viewers.
> 
> For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.791 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.947 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.775 million viewers.


No Cena = RATINGS!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

HOLY SHIT, they almost hit 4 million with NO Cena, NO Taker, and NO Brock!


----------



## D.M.N.

Highest number since June 15th - not a fact to celebrate though given that we're still on track for Q3 (July through September) to be the lowest number since the mid 90s.


----------



## A-C-P

But what will the WWE do without JOHN CENA? :CENA


----------



## CookiePuss

My man was in the second hour :reigns2

Always bringing in them ratings


----------



## A-C-P

CookiePuss said:


> My man was in the second hour :reigns2
> 
> Always bringing in them ratings


Yep Ambrose keeps bringing in those viewers :ambrose4


----------



## CookiePuss

A-C-P said:


> Yep Ambrose keeps bringing in those viewers :ambrose4


Nah, I meant THE BIG DOG coming out watching little brother Dean's back :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## A-C-P

CookiePuss said:


> Nah, I meant THE BIG DOG coming out watching little brother Dean's back :mark: :mark: :mark:


Oh then your first post was incorrect :ambrose


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RATINGS WARS are BACK.

:mark:

:ti

:Seth


----------



## Chrome

So maybe Cena and the part-timers should retire then?









Since WWE doesn't seem to need them. :draper2


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Probably whoever was between hour two and three is responsible for popping both ratings...


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> So maybe Cena and the part-timers should retire then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since WWE doesn't seem to need them. :draper2


People get quiet when you can't rip the full timers a new one and/or you can't credit Cena and the part timers.


----------



## Empress

CookiePuss said:


> My man was in the second hour :reigns2
> 
> Always bringing in them ratings


Interesting avi/sig. bama

Second hour was Reigns/Ambrose/Bray/Harper and I think the triple threat as well. Maybe even the Stardust and Stephen Amell. All the hours held up, but something made it spike to almost 4 millions in Hour 2. 

I know that RAW didn't advance many angles, but I liked the show for what it was. 

The WWE should be happy that the ratings have held steady in Cena's absence. Yes, I know they're not great in the grand scheme but at least viewers aren't free falling.


----------



## Chrome

What hour was Bryan's segment in?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

StraightYesSociety said:


> Probably whoever was between hour two and three is responsible for popping both ratings...


That would be Daniel Bryan, I believe.


----------



## A-C-P

StraightYesSociety said:


> Probably whoever was between hour two and three is responsible for popping both ratings...


I wonder who was in that time slot :hmm

:yes



Chrome said:


> What hour was Bryan's segment in?


end of hour 2/beginning of hour 3


----------



## Chrome

tis a shame Bryan's only over because of the "Daniel Bryan" chants. unk2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The chart. Loved seeing the energy that Bryan brought to the crowd last night. Next thing, Vince will make him change his name to Lloyd Boner because the words Daniel Bryan are just too over. :yes


----------



## Frico

That second hour though. wens2 :cesaro :ambrose :bryan


----------



## SnapOrTap

It was Stephen Amell.

The true draw.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

SnapOrTap said:


> It was Stephen Amell.
> 
> The true draw.


Ratings on the last season of his show dropped off by over a million viewers. He's actually not doing this to pop the WWE's rating but for the WWE to pop his ratings since his show is on the decline.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

People legit think Cena's presence ever really impacts ratings? His main event a few weeks back dropped in viewership after the real stars Brock and Taker were done with their shit. Everyone fucked off again because nobody cares.

No one _really_ gives a shit about John Cena outside of wrestling. He has a section of fans in the palm of his hand, but away from the industry? Meh.


----------



## Kabraxal

People are still trying to celebrate sub 4 million viewership? o.0


----------



## Chrome

StraightYesSociety said:


> Ratings on the last season of his show dropped off by over a million viewers. He's actually not doing this to pop the WWE's rating but for the WWE to pop his ratings since his show is on the decline.


Well there's a shock, WWE getting a guy to appear on Raw after he's cooled off a bit. At least they didn't wait until 2026 to get him like they usually like to do.


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> People are still trying to celebrate sub 4 million viewership? o.0


I think this is just the new normal and trying to find a bright side. At least it's been stable the past few weeks. 

I am interested if the ratings can possibly reach 4 million next week since they've been hyping up Brock/Taker and Cena's return. Probably not since Taker/Lesnar's brawl couldn't do that. But Bryan deserves his credit for popping it this week. I think his segment did start late in hour 2 and run over into 3.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

They were pretty damn close to 4 million, tbh. And it wasn't the go-home show to a PPV, nor was it the night after a PPV. Nor were any part-timers on the show, nor was Cena. Considering all of that, to get that close to 4 million is damn good. People have to get that wrestling isn't hot anymore.


----------



## wwefan123

With Summer on the show the ratings go up, long live the Queen :summer :summer2 

But in all seriousness though, John Cena could die/retire/leave/get fired tomorrow and the ratings wouldn't bat an eyelid; in fact I wouldn't even give a shit; I haven't missed him once these past 2 Raw's and actually glad I don't have to hear his shitty theme music, shitty catchphrases, shitty face, shitty John Cena everything, hope he stays gone.

The best parts about Raw imo are Cesaro, Owens, Rusev, Summer Rae, the new divas, Rollins, Ambrose. I want to see new blood, the worst parts are Cena, Orton (even though I like him), Big Show, Mark Henry, sick of same old shit


----------



## JTB33b

It's always been a myth that Cena was a ratings draw. being a merch draw and ratings draw are two different things. He is the most responsible for the ratings dropping over the last few years.


----------



## Silent KEEL

I watched for the first time in a couple months.

Thanks to Daniel Bryan.


----------



## DoubtGin

:bryan instead of :cena = RATINGSSS


----------



## Xtremeee

CENA GONE RATINGS UP 

http://uproxx.com/prowrestling/2015/08/raw-viewership-up-john-cena/


----------



## Empress

*Did John Cena's Return To TV Help WWE Tough Enough Viewership?, WWE Total Divas Viewers Up*
- Last night's episode of WWE Tough Enough on the USA Network with John Cena's return to TV, drew 1.025 million viewers. This is up from last week's 856,000 viewers, a season-low.

- Last night's episode of WWE Total Divas on the E! channel drew 1.176 million viewers, up from last week's 1.012 million viewers.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...eturn-to-tv-help-wwe-tough-enough-viewership/


----------



## CookiePuss

Crazy Eyes said:


> *Did John Cena's Return To TV Help WWE Tough Enough Viewership?, WWE Total Divas Viewers Up*
> - Last night's episode of WWE Tough Enough on the USA Network with John Cena's return to TV, drew 1.025 million viewers. This is up from last week's 856,000 viewers, a season-low.
> 
> - Last night's episode of WWE Total Divas on the E! channel drew 1.176 million viewers, up from last week's 1.012 million viewers.
> 
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...eturn-to-tv-help-wwe-tough-enough-viewership/


The Champ putting in that work to bring back them viewers :cena3 

:nasir


----------



## VitoCorleone

Orton vs Owens vs Cesaro & Ambrose/Reigns vs Harper/Wyatt (& a little bit Bryan) are the true Rating Draws.
These Guys delivered good wrestling and the people liked it. 

Glad to hear that the Ratings are going a little bit up without Super Cena & Part Timers.
Maybe Cena should get injured monthly so the ratings can rise. :yes

To be honest without Cena this weeks rating of TE would be the lowest rating ever in this season in my opinion.


----------



## Batz

The numbers for RAW are still pretty piss-poor, regardless if they're the best numbers from this years summer. The number for Tough Enough was still well, well below the USA primetime average. I really doubt it'd be picked up for another season.


----------



## krai999

c'mon doubters when will you admit that when Bryan returned ratings when up. Coincidence much?


----------



## boxing1836

Um guys, smack downs viewership was 2,083,000, that's actually comparable to tna viewership of 2011, that is really worrying that I can make that comparison


----------



## Empress

*WWE SmackDown Suffers Big Drop, Garners Lowest Non-Holiday Audience In Years*

Last night's episode of WWE SmackDown had the lowest audience for a first-run episode in years, outside of last year's episode on the Fourth of July. The show averaged 2.083 million viewers, down 13% from last week's 2.405 million viewers.

For the night, SmackDown was #4 in total viewers, as well as #4 in the 18-49 demo.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0814/599439/wwe-smackdown-suffers-big-drop/


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Crazy Eyes said:


> *WWE SmackDown Suffers Big Drop, Garners Lowest Non-Holiday Audience In Years*
> 
> Last night's episode of WWE SmackDown had the lowest audience for a first-run episode in years, outside of last year's episode on the Fourth of July. The show averaged 2.083 million viewers, down 13% from last week's 2.405 million viewers.
> 
> For the night, SmackDown was #4 in total viewers, as well as #4 in the 18-49 demo.
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0814/599439/wwe-smackdown-suffers-big-drop/



Thank you for posting. I havent watched it yet. Here's the chart for anyone who is interested:


----------



## Darkness is here

I miss the old days when we used to have wars between Bryan and punk marks *cries*
Bring back those days plz..


----------



## Empress

*RAW - Twitter Ratings*

- Monday's RAW ranked #1 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings. RAW had a unique audience of 2.514 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is way up from the last week's 1.591 million. RAW had total impressions of 10.995 million, which represents the number of times the show was tweeted about. This was also up from last week's 9.220 million impressions.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0818/599582/wwe-performance-center-reality-show-to-air/


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Discuss amongst yourselves the ratings for this go home edition of RAW*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Wow, 10PM had both Brock's homecoming (with heavy indication that Taker would be appearing), Cena/Rollins contract signing and even Sasha/Nikki (which could be considered one of the biggest divas match they could do right now) and they still dropped over 200k. Not a good number. Next week's post-Summerslam number will probably be the last number at this level tbh, because it's all downhill after that.


----------



## Batz

Nothing can draw. We're just in a drought.


----------



## Empress

*Did John Cena's Return, The Undertaker And Brock Lesnar Help This Week's WWE RAW Viewers?*

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, featuring the final build SummerSlam with John Cena's return, The Undertaker, Brock Lesnar and others, drew 3.777 million viewers. This is down from last week's 3.838 million viewers.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.649 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.953 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.728 million viewers.

RAW was #2 for the night on cable behind Love & Hip-Hop in the 18-49 demographic and #1 for the night in viewership.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0818/599589/did-john-cena-return/


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Oh shit, it was also Cena's return to Raw in a month. :lol Yep, not good. Will be interesting to see how low numbers go over the next few months.


----------



## A-C-P

so 3.6 - 3.9 million is about the size of their TV audience for Raw now, right on track with the 5% - 10% drop per year.


----------



## wwefan123

Lol Cena is a ratings killer but Vince is too senile to realise that :Jordan


----------



## Chrome

Wow I was sorta joking last week when I said that Cena and the part-timers should be left off Raw but now I think they should seriously do that. :lol


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

It will be interesting to see what is WWE's core audience who will stay true, once the NFL fires up. If you thought the summer was cruel, this autumn might be their fall.


----------



## A-C-P

IDONTSHIV said:


> It will be interesting to see what is WWE's core audience who will stay true, once the NFL fires up. If you thought the summer was cruel, this autumn might be their fall.


Not sure if the NFL will have that major of an effect or not, I am actually starting to think most of the people that choose the NFL over the WWE during football season have stopped watching all together already.


----------



## Batz

IDONTSHIV said:


> It will be interesting to see what is WWE's core audience who will stay true, once the NFL fires up. If you thought the summer was cruel, this *autumn might be their fall.*


(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞


----------



## Chrome

IDONTSHIV said:


> It will be interesting to see what is WWE's core audience who will stay true, once the NFL fires up. If you thought the summer was cruel, this autumn might be their *fall*.












Gonna be setting some more low-rating records this Autumn.


----------



## wwefan123

They need to start appealing to casuals again, make it "cool" to watch. Turn Cena heel, get rid of the PG rating and go back to bloody, violent adult TV like it used to be, or near enough. IMO that's the only thing that will make WWE "cool and hip" and the only thing that can boost viewers dramatically imo


----------



## validreasoning

wwefan123 said:


> Lol Cena is a ratings killer but Vince is too senile to realise that :Jordan


the only place cena was advertised for this show on tv was tough enough last tuesday

raw numbers last year with cena as champion leading into summerslam
6/30/14 =	4,332,000
7/7/14 =	4,381,000
7/14/14 =	4,153,000
7/21/14 = 4,433,000
7/28/14 = 4,318,000
8/4/14 = 4,048,000
8/11/14 = 4,300,000

compare that to same period this year when he wasn't wwe champion

6/29/2015 = 3,463,000
7/6/2015 = 3,647,000
7/13/2015 = 3,531,000
7/20/2015 = 3,804,000
7/27/2015 = 3,671,000
8/3/2015 = 3,702,000
8/10/2015 = 3,838,000
8/17/2015 = 3,777,000

its been a year since wwe had a face wwe champion and a heel has been champion heading into the last 3-4 mnf seasons so i believe wwe will change it up a bit this year...or at least they should. rollins won't be hurt dropping the belt at summerslam and winning it back again say survivor series.



wwefan123 said:


> They need to start appealing to casuals again, make it "cool" to watch. Turn Cena heel, get rid of the PG rating and go back to bloody, violent adult TV like it used to be, or near enough. IMO that's the only thing that will make WWE "cool and hip" and the only thing that can boost viewers dramatically imo


lol why does everyone come up with this stuff. wwe were bloody, violent etc between 2002-04 and lost 40% of their audience. tna never moved past a certain point despite being tv-14 this whole time. the tv rating doesn't mean jack regards wrestling and hasn't in a long time. ratings will rise if a good storyline especially a mainevent storyline catches the viewers imagination not more hardcore stuff which was done to death. 

there is going to be no major changes for the foreseeable future given the money they are getting from tv, sponsors etc. raw still was easily most watched show on cable last night. *the live baseball on epsn head to head did 968,000 viewers*...about a quarter of raw which gives you idea of the level we are talking. outside the nfl no major us sports is drawing anything averaging remotely close raw viewership for its regular season games


----------



## Blade Runner

numbers are down from last week? time to bring back :bryan


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Unbelievable that they did a better number last week with no Cena and no part timers than the did this week, especially when you take into consideration this was the go home show to SS. In the past, WWE was able to use Cena and part timers as a bandaid Ora quick fix to a bump in the ratings. Not anymore, just like I've been saying for awhile now. No one is a draw as far as tv ratings go anymore, not even Cena, not even part timers.


----------



## JTB33b

Sex and violence sells. I don't know why Vince can't see this. bring back blood. bring back the bra and panties matches, bring back edgier programming.


----------



## Marv95

validreasoning said:


> lol why does everyone come up with this stuff. wwe were bloody, violent etc between 2002-04 and lost 40% of their audience. tna never moved past a certain point despite being tv-14 this whole time. the tv rating doesn't mean jack regards wrestling and hasn't in a long time. ratings will rise if a good storyline especially a mainevent storyline catches the viewers imagination not more hardcore stuff which was done to death.
> 
> there is going to be no major changes for the foreseeable future given the money they are getting from tv, sponsors etc. raw still was easily most watched show on cable last night. *the live baseball on epsn head to head did 968,000 viewers*...about a quarter of raw which gives you idea of the level we are talking. *outside the nfl no major us sports is drawing anything averaging remotely close raw viewership for its regular season games*


Women's soccer outdrew Raw recently. _Women's soccer_. 

Yeah while they lost their audience from 2002-2004 it wasn't because of TV-14. When you lose 2 megastars on top of botching the InVasion what do you think is going to happen? And they lost even _more_ of their audience with the PG transition with recent numbers near record lows dating back to when they had competition Monday nights. TNA being TV-14 has nothing to do with the piss poor shape they're in. Like it or not the most popular primetime shows out there are catered towards adults not kids.


----------



## goc

Ratings for all cable and network TV aren't dropping. Only Raw. Yep. I'll be right here living in a bubble acting like somehow Raw is supposed to be immune to overall trends.

I will also ignore the fact that it was the highest rated show on cable because


----------



## BOOTS 2 ASSES

JTB33b said:


> Sex and violence sells. I don't know why Vince can't see this. bring back blood. bring back the bra and panties matches, bring back edgier programming.


Even better bring out :rock1 and :austin from 1998/99 itself and get those 7/8 segment ratings


----------



## Stone Hot

Cena a ratings kill :lmao get the picture vine mac. We don't want to see him anymore. More HHH would be nice tho


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Wasn't the Cena/Rollins segment in hour 2? If that's the case hour 2 did 3953 viewers. Last week's hour 2 did 3947 viewers.


----------



## SóniaPortugal

If ratings had gone up = Taker and Lesnar fault 
Ratings down = is John Cena fault


----------



## Empress

*Tough Enough and Total Divas ratings for 8/18/15*

Tuesday night’s episode of Tough Enough drew 998,000 viewers. That is down from the previous week’s 1,025,000 viewers. Last week’s show was boosted by John Cena’s appearance.

Total Divas drew 1.031 million viewers. That is down from last week’s 1.176 million viewers.

http://wrestlingnews.co/tough-enough-and-total-divas-ratings-for-81815/


----------



## Empress

*WWE Smackdown TV Ratings 2015*

-- August 20: The Summerslam lead-in show recovered from last week's year-low Smackdown TV rating.

Thursday's show scored a 1.70 rating, up from a season-low 1.57 rating, returning to the same 1.70 rating as two weeks ago.

Smackdown drew 2.434 million viewers, up from a year-low 2.083 million viewers last week against the first Thursday of the NFL pre-season.

- Overall on Thursday nights this year, Smackdown has averaged a 1.80 rating and 2.513 million viewers.

The average is down one stair-step from a 1.91 rating and 2.700 million viewers through the same period on Friday nights last year. 
http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87086.shtml#.VdeYhfZVikp

-------

*WWE Attendance*
- Below are recent WWE attendance figures:

* August 15th in Citrus Springs, FL for NXT drew 300 fans
* August 15th in Detroit drew 5,500 fans (Seth Rollins tour, John Cena pulled)
* August 15th in Sioux Falls, SD drew 3,500 fans (Roman Reigns tour)
* August 16th in Bemidji, MN drew 2,500 fans (Rollins tour)
* August 16th in Fargo, ND drew 5,500 fans (Reigns tour)
* August 17th in Minneapolis for RAW drew 10,000 fans

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0821/599719/wwe-bans-negative-term-from-website/


----------



## The Tempest

But I thought Thursday nights would help SD increasing its viewers :mj


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Here's the chart for the aforementioned Smackdown.


----------



## Empress

*WWE SummerSlam Named Most Social In History*

"SummerSlam" on WWE Network Named Most Social Program on TV Sunday Night

Surpassing the premiere of the new Walking Dead show, SummerSlam on the award-winning WWE Network, was the most social program in primetime last night, generating more than 575,000 social mentions – more than double the social mentions of Walking Dead.

This was also the most social SummerSlam in WWE history, an event which saw Seth Rollins defeat John Cena with the help of former Daily Show host Jon Stewart.

Competitive programming includes:

SummerSlam (WWE Network) 575,424 (up 43% vs. SummerSlam 2014)

Fear the Walking Dead (AMC) 246,962 (N/A WoW)

NFL Preseason: Rams at Titans (FOX) 44,544 (N/A WoW)

Basketball Wives (VH1) 40,716 (down 26% WoW)

Big Brother (CBS) 38,151 (up 6% WoW)

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0824/599888/wwe-summerslam-named-most-social-in-history/


----------



## D.M.N.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-monday-cable-originals-8-24-2015.html

Hour 1 - 3.606m
Hour 2 - 3.794m
Hour 3 - 3.764m

Coming off SummerSlam.... OUCH.


----------



## FITZ

Crazy Eyes said:


> *WWE SummerSlam Named Most Social In History*
> 
> "SummerSlam" on WWE Network Named Most Social Program on TV Sunday Night
> 
> Surpassing the premiere of the new Walking Dead show, SummerSlam on the award-winning WWE Network, was the most social program in primetime last night, generating more than 575,000 social mentions – more than double the social mentions of Walking Dead.
> 
> This was also the most social SummerSlam in WWE history, an event which saw Seth Rollins defeat John Cena with the help of former Daily Show host Jon Stewart.
> 
> Competitive programming includes:
> 
> SummerSlam (WWE Network) 575,424 (up 43% vs. SummerSlam 2014)
> 
> Fear the Walking Dead (AMC) 246,962 (N/A WoW)
> 
> NFL Preseason: Rams at Titans (FOX) 44,544 (N/A WoW)
> 
> Basketball Wives (VH1) 40,716 (down 26% WoW)
> 
> Big Brother (CBS) 38,151 (up 6% WoW)
> 
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0824/599888/wwe-summerslam-named-most-social-in-history/




Does this really mean anything though? I mean a bunch of people talked about it on Twitter and stuff but more people watched other things but just didn't Tweet about while watching.


----------



## The Bloodline

D.M.N. said:


> http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-monday-cable-originals-8-24-2015.html
> 
> Hour 1 - 3.606m
> Hour 2 - 3.794m
> Hour 3 - 3.764m
> 
> Coming off SummerSlam.... OUCH.


Not too surprising.This is their regular numbers now. Plus Football returned and S.S wasn't very good. Raw was really good though, so maybe after some good word of mouth it'll effect next week viewership more.


----------



## A-C-P

The new normal Raw audience :quimby


----------



## DoubtGin

RAW was very good this week. I expect higher numbers next week because people expect some quality stuff after this week.


----------



## Kabraxal

D.M.N. said:


> http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articles/showbuzzdailys-top-100-monday-cable-originals-8-24-2015.html
> 
> Hour 1 - 3.606m
> Hour 2 - 3.794m
> Hour 3 - 3.764m
> 
> Coming off SummerSlam.... OUCH.


Not even a PPV bump in any sense?! Damn...


----------



## Undertakerowns

Not good. But what matters is the Network subscriptions numbers. Last count they had 1.1 million. If they get 1.4-1.5 million then SS was a success.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Following a hyped ppv, this number is not good. The pre-season Nfl game did not do a huge number.WWE needs to hope that this is their base rating. I'd hate to see how low they go during a regular Monday against a marquee NFL game. The chart was already linked but here is is for your visual indulgence.


----------



## Chrome

That's a bad rating coming off a ppv like Summerslam. But who knows, next week might be better since people now know STANG and the DUDLEYZ are back. :quimby


----------



## Kabraxal

Chrome said:


> That's a bad rating coming off a ppv like Summerslam. But who knows, next week might be better since people now know STANG and the DUDLEYZ are back. :quimby


Not sure if that will work... I mean, even though Sting and the Dudleyz are big names, I think many fans are tired of the past their prime guys taking up time and effort from building new guys. We need to see an effort to build guys that will be here for a decade and that says this company can move forward instead of being stuck in the mid 90s with everything (seriously, how out of touch is Vince o.0)


----------



## Erik.

Great show. That's all I care about.


----------



## Randy Lahey

Those are terrible numbers on the night after a PPV. Even the go home show last week failed to pop anything. I think it is safe to say WWE has been dead for the entire year and will continue to be so.

Going to be an ugly fall. I really wonder how low ratings would need to get for USA to cancel the show or for WWE to change the format? Would USA keep WWE if it were pulling in 2.0 flat?


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Undertakerowns said:


> Not good. But what matters is the Network subscriptions numbers. Last count they had 1.1 million. If they get 1.4-1.5 million then SS was a success.


They *might* get people to stick around for another month for Sting-Rollins, but between baseball pennant races and the beginning of football season, they'd have to pay _me_ to watch the product at this point.

Also, you might get some people to pay for a month, but more than likely you're getting lots and lots of people getting free months like I did.


----------



## Empress

Chrome said:


> That's a bad rating coming off a ppv like Summerslam. But who knows, next week might be better since people now know STANG and the DUDLEYZ are back. :quimby


I don't think bringing back old timers works anymore. Brock and Undertaker didn't move the needle much. They're a great selling point to a PPV but the full time stars are needed to carry the company and TV programming all year out. I thought last night did a good job of developing characters/feuds. Outside of the divas and 8 man tag, everything else progressed. If the WWE were consistently good, they wouldn't need already made stars to pop the ratings. Rollins looked like a bonafide star coming out of Summerslam and into RAW. The WWE needs to keep doing more of that and make all the characters come alive. I loved the debut of Scary Wyatt which immediately made Bray a threat and Roman/Dean more sympathetic. Well, Dean is already loved but the snarky NYC didn't bury Roman during the angle. That's a start. Even Cena wasn't too bad. If only they'd make him heel. I do hope Owens gets the U.S. Belt soon. He's the person to build the midcard around and the Dudleys just made the tag team division more credible. New Day needed better foils than PTP.

Great show though. I honestly thought it would be horrible.


----------



## Marv95

Even after all this mainstream attention they couldn't get a 3.0, or even close.

It's more than the talent(or lack thereof). The _format_ needs to go. The _presentation_ needs an overhaul.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Not a good number, but this what happens when you put on bad shows for years on end like they've done. They've had some decent to good Raws these past couple of months, and they've done better numbers than they did last night. There's going to be highs and lows when you're basically trying to rebuild a new generation of stars. Just look at how long it took them to finally beat Nitro for the first time in April '98, when they had been putting on very good to great shows dating back to the Summer of '97. Just keep on putting on shows like last night on a consistent basis. Consistently good shows matters.


----------



## funnyfaces1

All those stars and guest celebs, and they can't even reach CM Punk numbers :lmao


----------



## Erik.

The only thing I agree with in this thread is that if the ratings ever got bad (in their eyes), they would give the entire show an overhaul. They did it in 1997 and they'd do it again in this day and age. I think before it even gets to that level (which I don't think it ever will, they'll always be getting millions of viewers, subscribers, views, whatever they rate this on anymore), they need to give the show a revamp.

I think it's too 'overproduced' - look at NXT for example, I know it's a smaller size, smaller arenas etc. but they just look like 'wrestling' - I don't know, it's hard to explain. NXT was at the Barclays Center. So was Summerslam and so was Raw (I believe)? but you tell me what looked like a better environment? NXT, you know why? Because it was dark, looked gritty and the attention was totally wrestler focused, like they were the stars of the show. Like Raw, Nitro and its predecessors used to be. 

WWE seem to be very "money oriented" the past few years with lack of pyro to open the show, using the same sets etc. but they'd probably save a lot more money by keeping things simple in this way. It's... well, stale.


----------



## Marv95

Final number: 2.72. Football's coming.

http://www.wrestleview.com/wwe-news/55908-final-8-24-wwe-raw-rating-overall-number-down-slightly


----------



## Choke2Death

Serves them right for the awful, half-assed crap they put out week in, week out. This year has been a new low for them, with only 5 episodes going above a 3.0 rating.


----------



## Empress

*WWE SummerSlam Fallout Boosts RAW Twitter Ratings, Xavier Woods On Far Cry 4, Stock, RAW Top 10*


- Monday’s RAW ranked #1 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings. RAW had a unique audience of 2.958 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from the last week’s 2.514 million. RAW had total impressions of 18.253 million, which represents the number of times the show was tweeted about. This was also up from last week’s 10.995 million impressions.

– WWE stock was up 1.20% today, closing at $19.34 per share. Today’s high was $20.00 and the low was $19.28.



Read more: http://www.pwmania.com/wwe-summersl...s-on-far-cry-4-stock-raw-top-10#ixzz3jsEJ52oi


----------



## The Bloodline

Erik. said:


> The only thing I agree with in this thread is that if the ratings ever got bad (in their eyes), they would give the entire show an overhaul. They did it in 1997 and they'd do it again in this day and age. I think before it even gets to that level (which I don't think it ever will, they'll always be getting millions of viewers, subscribers, views, whatever they rate this on anymore), they need to give the show a revamp.
> 
> *I think it's too 'overproduced' - look at NXT for example, I know it's a smaller size, smaller arenas etc. but they just look like 'wrestling' - I don't know, it's hard to explain. NXT was at the Barclays Center. So was Summerslam and so was Raw (I believe)? but you tell me what looked like a better environment?* NXT, you know why? Because it was dark, looked gritty and the attention was totally wrestler focused, like they were the stars of the show. Like Raw, Nitro and its predecessors used to be.
> 
> WWE seem to be very "money oriented" the past few years with lack of pyro to open the show, using the same sets etc. but they'd probably save a lot more money by keeping things simple in this way. It's... well, stale.


You said exactly what Ive been thinking for a while. NXT set looks a lot better to me. I was at the nxt show and the raw show, I agree the NXT set with dimmed lights gave off the better look(both live and on tv). I guess WWE has a way of looking too expensive these days, i dont know if that even makes sense. WWE lacks that gritty look for sure now. As an example LU also has high production value but keeps all the grit of a wrestling event. Maybe WWE should dim the lights more often, I really enjoyed the Takeover look


----------



## Wynter

:ha

Welp. We will see the dumb angle Vince comes up with to combat this disinterest.


----------



## FITZ

Kabraxal said:


> Not sure if that will work... I mean, even though Sting and the Dudleyz are big names, I think many fans are tired of the past their prime guys taking up time and effort from building new guys. We need to see an effort to build guys that will be here for a decade and that says this company can move forward instead of *being stuck in the mid 90s with everything (seriously, how out of touch is Vince* o.0)




Being stuck in the 90s/early 2000s actually makes him in touch with today. Have you seen a movie this year. New things aren't making money anymore. Almost all of the big box office winners this year are based of pre-existing IPs. Avengers has all the comic book character you liked as a kid. The Fast and Furious movies came out in 2001 and they are getting more popular. Very few things that are successful are new anymore. 


90s stuff is making people a fortune everywhere else. WWE is following a trend that everyone in entertainment is doing. I don't particularly like it but it's not like they're doing something that nobody else is doing.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

This is the second year in a row where the RAW after Summerslam had a rating lower than the go home episode the previous week.


----------



## promoter2003

Marv95 said:


> Even after all this mainstream attention they couldn't get a 3.0, or even close.
> 
> It's more than the talent(or lack thereof). The _format_ needs to go. The _presentation_ needs an overhaul.


I've said this a couple years ago. They have NEVER used a format for this long in its history.

Stupid stuff like Jon Stewart deciding world title matches must not have worked just like I said. It makes the product come off lame and not cool at all.

The saying that bad pr is better than no pr is not always true. I have seen comments on non wrestling media sites reporting SummerSlam. People leave comments about how wrestling is so fake and stupid with stuff like Jon Stewart. 

Just go to Complex Magazine website's youtube or website and see how people are reacting to the SummerSlam report. 

Vince is making the product a joke to non fans.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The rating also proves how little correlation there can be between a very socially interactive show and the actual rating which is derived from the Nielsen families.


----------



## promoter2003

IDONTSHIV said:


> The rating also proves how little correlation there can be between a very socially interactive show and the actual rating which is derived from the Nielsen families.


Well, who knows why it was so socially interactive.

If people were saying Stewart in a title match outcome was horrible and then people were pissed with Brock/Taker's finish that kind of word of mouth will sink interest.

WWE is obsessed with having twitter fingers. They should ask Meek Mill about how that could backfire on you:drake2


----------



## BlueRover

Question: is there a more outdated piece of technology in the Western world than the so called Nielsen ratings? Deriving "ratings" from the TV boxes of a few chosen families when the vast majority of the audience uses other means to watch programming? It's like still using candles 200 years after the invention of light bulbs. The Amish would call this method outdated.


----------



## Badbadrobot

2 dusty main event finishes at your ppv and then old men being brought in ... Never a good mix


----------



## Kabraxal

FITZ said:


> Being stuck in the 90s/early 2000s actually makes him in touch with today. Have you seen a movie this year. New things aren't making money anymore. Almost all of the big box office winners this year are based of pre-existing IPs. Avengers has all the comic book character you liked as a kid. The Fast and Furious movies came out in 2001 and they are getting more popular. Very few things that are successful are new anymore.
> 
> 
> 90s stuff is making people a fortune everywhere else. WWE is following a trend that everyone in entertainment is doing. I don't particularly like it but it's not like they're doing something that nobody else is doing.


There is a difference remaking things from the 90s... and being stuck in the mentality of the wrestling business in the mid 90s. Granted, Vince apparently thinks Baywatch is something to aim for (believable given the whole Lana collapse)... but the real issue is that he has reverted to the terrible vision he was trying to push in 94/95. Something that is just so against the wrestling fanbase that it just cannot work creatively. The only reason it "works" financially is because of hte brand he built over the decades.


----------



## Starbuck

Raw 2.0 incoming...as in the era of 2.0 ratings. They're gonna get murdered when football starts back again and no, Sting isn't going to do shit to help things. In fact, Sting, Taker, Brock, Rock, HHH, Cena, Austin, Jesus Christ couldn't do shit to help things because WWE has finally succeeded in insulting/boring enough of its audience to the point that they have switched off and haven't come back.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

Twitter ratings are pointless and I don't understand why they're a thing. That shit should only matter if they discuss the feedback on social media, which I imagine isn't all that great. 

It's funny because the amount of people discussing an episode of RAW on Twitter make up a good fucking portion of the people watching the show now, it looks as though they may even be the majority. 

Off-topic, but that's why "internet fan" is redundant and pointless in this day and age. It's not 1990 anymore, as it's clear to see most of the fanbase is using the fucking internet regardless of their opinions on the shows. 

WWE's presence actually seems to be growing online, but coming to a halt everywhere else.


----------



## BookItVince

Yup. This is what happen when your world champion is Seth Rollins.


----------



## TehBigBossMang

Yup. This is what happens when Seth Rollins is the world champion.


----------



## A-C-P

Starbuck said:


> Raw 2.0 incoming...as in the era of 2.0 ratings. They're gonna get murdered when football starts back again and no, Sting isn't going to do shit to help things. In fact, Sting, Taker, Brock, Rock, HHH, Cena, Austin, Jesus Christ couldn't do shit to help things because WWE has finally succeeded in insulting/boring enough of its audience to the point that they have switched off and haven't come back.


There was going to be a breaking point for all the "Will Watch Anyways" people and it seems the WWE reaches the breaking point of more and more of them each passing month.


----------



## FITZ

BlueRover said:


> Question: is there a more outdated piece of technology in the Western world than the so called Nielsen ratings? Deriving "ratings" from the TV boxes of a few chosen families when the vast majority of the audience uses other means to watch programming? It's like still using candles 200 years after the invention of light bulbs. The Amish would call this method outdated.


A small sample size can give you an accurate measurement for the overall population. I mean it's not perfect but if they say 3.5 million people watched Raw there is like a 99% chance that between 3.4 and 3.6 million people watched Raw. So I'm sure there are some inaccurate ratings but for the most part I think they are pretty accurate as long as the small sample size was properly selected. 

The other thing is that if you DVR Raw or watch it somewhere else the TV advertisers don't give a shit. If you don't watch Raw live on TV you probably are't watching the advertisements on the show and it's people watching adds that are what the USA/WWE cares about as far as ratings go.



Kabraxal said:


> There is a difference remaking things from the 90s... and being stuck in the mentality of the wrestling business in the mid 90s. Granted, Vince apparently thinks Baywatch is something to aim for (believable given the whole Lana collapse)... but the real issue is that he has reverted to the terrible vision he was trying to push in 94/95. Something that is just so against the wrestling fanbase that it just cannot work creatively. The only reason it "works" financially is because of hte brand he built over the decades.


That's a totally fair point. They have all sorts of problems with how they are running the company and putting on shows. But relying on pre-existing stars from the 90s and early 2000s to make you money insteadof trying to create new stars isn't an uncommon business model in today's entertainment industry. 

Granted WWE has more of a sustainability issue than other things. You can reboot a comic book or get new actors in old IPs but you can't have someone that isn't he Undertaker act like the Undertaker in a WWE ring.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Starbuck said:


> Raw 2.0 incoming...as in the era of 2.0 ratings. They're gonna get murdered when football starts back again and no, Sting isn't going to do shit to help things. In fact, Sting, Taker, Brock, Rock, HHH, Cena, Austin, *Jesus Christ* couldn't do shit to help things because WWE has finally succeeded in insulting/boring enough of its audience to the point that they have switched off and haven't come back.


----------



## D.M.N.

4everEyebrowRaisin said:


> WWE's presence actually seems to be growing online, but coming to a halt everywhere else.


I do think this is evident in Raw's audiences - that people will only watch the full three hours if it is 'must watch', otherwise they are happy to catch up and watch the YouTube clips and segments that interested them most.

I don't think Raw's audience is evidence that WWE is getting less popular, instead I think it is evidence that Raw's audience is consuming the material in different ways than even a year or two ago.


----------



## Empress

*RATINGS: WWE TOUGH ENOUGH SLIPS FOR SEASON FINALE; “TOTAL DIVAS” ALSO FALLS*

WWE reality series "Tough Enough" and "Total Divas" both slipped this week.

Tuesday’s “WWE Tough Enough” may have been the USA competition show’s season finale, but it still suffered week-over-week losses in adults 18-49 and total viewership.

The episode, which crowned Josh and Sara Lee as this season’s winners, drew a 0.34 adults 18-49 rating with 981,000 total viewers. Last week’s broadcast posted a slightly-stronger 0.35 with 998,000.

E!’s WWE-themed series “Total Divas” also suffered losses this week.

This Tuesday’s episode drew a 0.39 adults 18-49 rating with 920,000 viewers. Last week’s broadcast posted a 0.45 with 1.031 million.

http://headlineplanet.com/home/2015...ips-for-season-finale-total-divas-also-falls/


----------



## Randy Lahey

I was just looking at how low the Nitro ratings were when AOL/TimeWarner decided to pull the plug on them. They were in that 2.1 range for most of 2001.

http://www.twnpnews.com/information/WCW/wcwnitro.shtml

Back in 2000, the combined wrestling audience on a monday night for Raw and Nitro was around a 10.0
That audience is now a 2.5 - 2.8.

If WWE cascades down to the low 2.0s, I could see USA pulling the plug on them. Now Vince would probably be able to get Raw on another channel, or perhaps he will simply make Raw a WWE Network exclusive, and in essence for you to watch WWE programming you'll need to pay Vince 9.99 a month directly. I think that is the business model he's going to end up using. It might work.


----------



## fabi1982

And then again people forget that this is a different era in communication and how people watch/get news on their beloved shows, but I think it is useless to explain why 2000 and 2015 cant be compared...people will still do this.

We in Germany had shows 10 years ago getting 40-45% viewerships, this never happens anymore because of the amount of stuff to watch, which is much more than 10 years ago.

Not saying the interest of wrestling is the same, of course it dropped over the years, but saying the show will be removed because of 2.0 ratings is stupid, the company makes money, a lot of money, the network is a success and new brands like NXT get attention, still some people say "if they dont get 10.0 ratings they suck"...

I know it is stupid to try to argue here, but it is Thursday afternoon and I wanted to get distracted from work


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Yes technology has changed but even so. Its been ages since WWE got a 3 rating or above. WM31 even. Hell if you want to go to consecutive 3.0's you go to the beginning of the year. That is pathetic. 

The decline in WWE is a bit like the state of Christianity in the West. Nobody wants to go to church because its long, boring and pointless. The audacity to extend RAW to 3hrs was mind bogglingly arrogant, when it was already struggling with two. The show has become boring since the AE but even during the period of 01-05 there was a reason to watch RAW, such as the rivalry between HHH and HBK. It was still violent. Ever since the AE and 2005 RAW and Smackdown just became a hard sell for the next PPV. In the AE things happened each week but then it became forulatic. Undertaker v Batista at the next PPV? Put them in a tag team match. Cena v HBK at WM 23? Put them in a tag team match. The fanbase has wised up and realised that RAW and Smackdown are just filler shows- really really long filler shows. Hell maybe a better comparison would be between WWE and Mormonism. Mormonism is 3hrs long (no really).

Of course WWE, like Mormonism, has got its tithes in the form of the Network but they shouldn't get too cocky. The Network has lost 150k paid subs since WM31. I do think the declining popularity of WWE will kick them in the balls once they have ran out of old legends to kick a dead horse. Hell even the Rock and Lesnar no longer dint the ratings. Fans are just bored and the scary thing is is that they may never return. Why would they when they have so many other entertainment options available?


----------



## rakija

Who really wanted to tune into TE to see Sara win?


----------



## A-C-P

rakija said:


> Who really wanted to tune into TE?


Fixed that for you :jericho2


----------



## RT2929

this might be the year Raw falls to 2.0 with MNF coming I would not be shock to see it cause Raw has been just terrible all year.


----------



## Empress

*How many pay-per-view buys did Battleground do?*


– WWE has updated their corporate site and by doing so, they’ve revealed the traditional pay-per-view buy rate for Battleground. The July event was headlined by Brock Lesnar vs. Seth Rollins and did 76,000 buys, of which 24,000 buys were domestic and the remaining 52,000 were international.

The event drew 11,000 fans at the Scottrade Center in St. Louis, Missouri.

http://wrestlingnewspost.com/how-ma...ephen-amell-continues-his-feud-with-stardust/


----------



## SóniaPortugal

4everEyebrowRaisin said:


> Twitter ratings are pointless and I don't understand why they're a thing. That shit should only matter if they discuss the feedback on social media, which I imagine isn't all that great.
> 
> It's funny because the amount of people discussing an episode of RAW on Twitter make up a good fucking portion of the people watching the show now, it looks as though they may even be the majority.
> 
> *Off-topic, but that's why "internet fan" is redundant and pointless in this day and age. It's not 1990 anymore, as it's clear to see most of the fanbase is using the fucking internet regardless of their opinions on the shows.
> 
> WWE's presence actually seems to be growing online, but coming to a halt everywhere else*.



This
I laughed when I read this forum "ICW is a small small part of the WWE fanbase," we are in Internet Age, everyone has access to Internet

WWE has to do something, and they need to stop doing so obvious who they want to push, there needs to be more equality between bookings and need surprises


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the chart for this week's SmackDown ratings, ouch :uhoh


----------



## Empress

*WWE's Disappointing Ratings Week Continues, SmackDown Draws Near Record Low Audience*

Despite coming off of the much-anticipated SummerSlam pay-per-view, all of WWE's network programming saw drops in viewership from last week. Last night's episode of WWE SmackDown continued the trend.

Last night's episode, which featured The Dudley Boyz having their first match on WWE television in over a decade, garnered its third lowest non-holiday audience for a first-run episode since moving to Syfy in 2010. The show averaged 2.195 million viewers, down 11% from last week's 2.434 million viewers.

For the night, SmackDown was #4 in total viewers, as well as #4 in the 18-49 demo.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0828/600045/wwe-disappointing-ratings-week-continues/


----------



## Brodus Clay

Hahaha oh Seth Rollins you fucking non draw ******, they could give him the U.S. and Tag Team belts and he would still be unable to draw.


----------



## TehBigBossMang

Change Rollins' name to 'Failings' 'cause he's a failure LMFAO.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The strongest performance in the demo was in the last hour which shows there was some interest in the Sting/Rollins confrontation which never really happened.

Overall viewership was up from last week and the demo was for every hour too.


----------



## validreasoning

raw wins night in terms of viewers. viewership up slightly over 4.5% from post summerslam episode. actually interesting to see viewership higher monday night than any of the weeks leading into summerslam with brock and taker on the show

last years show (brock lesnar as wwe champion) the week before labor day drew 3.97 million average live for 3 hours...this years show averaged 3.89 million

wwes male viewers aged 50+ have fallen alot over the past 18 months i noticed. raw used do 2.3-2.5 ratings in that demo (late 2013-early 2014) but currently is down to mid 1s. i wonder what has caused that fall?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wow, they almost hit 4 million again without Brock and Taker.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

:damn


----------



## The Bloodline

Yea, I said last week that this week would do better due to the high praise for the post summer slam show. Raw was pretty bad this week though so It makes me believe it won't carry over. They need consistent good shows in a row.


----------



## Empress

Monday’s episode of WWE RAW drew 3,894,000, which is up from last week’s show with 3,721,000. WWE aired Monday’s episode of RAW from Tampa, FL at the Amalie Arena.

Hour one drew 3,865,000, hour two drew 3,987,000 and then the show began to decline in hour three with 3,831,000 viewers.

Superstars who appeared on the show: Sting, Randy Orton, The Authority, John Cena, Dean Ambrose, Roman Reigns, Seth Rollins, Big Show, Bray Wyatt and many more.

The main segment was John Cena confronting Seth Rollins and demanding that he receive his U.S Championship rematch at Night of Champions.

We hope to have the actual rating of the show shortly.

http://wrestlingnewspost.com/viewership-from-mondays-episode-of-raw-is-in/


----------



## DoubtGin

Yup, ratings going up was expected since last week's RAW was actually pretty good and people wanted to see how it continues.

Next week's ratings will probably decrease as this RAW sucked ass.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Glad to see we are starting to understand how it works. Put on a good show, the ratings will go up the following week. Put on a not so good show, and the ratings will fall the next week. That's what it's all about; putting on consistent good shows, no matter who the champion is, no matter the part timers that are or aren't on Raw that week. Good shows are what draw.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*WWE ROYALLY fucked up this week. They put on the worst show possible after having a damn near flawless(Divas/8 Man Tag aisde) show last week. This is exactly the kind of dumb shit Russo said they would do and they did it. "Hey, new storylines brought the audience back? Lets put on several pointless 20 minute rematches!"ut. Ratings increased, but you just lost all of those new viewers by putting on such a shitty product.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Dreamer with a tweet to his buddies, the Dudley's, busting their balls, slightly about ratings:

Tommy Dreamer ‏@THETOMMYDREAMER 3m3 minutes ago
I see @WWE RAW ratings were way up @realBully5150 @testifyDevon in the main event. In related news Raw cholesterol ratings were even higher
---------------------------

It's just too bad ratings will be back down next week because the show this week was shit.

:mj2


----------



## A-C-P

So what have we learned here, the biggest effect on Raw's weekly rating is the quality of the previous week's show...

Next week's ratings will be down again would be my guess, though it being Labor Day it was already going to be down


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wasn't going to start a new thread about this, but interesting to note that WWE Stock also went up today (wonder if it had to do with the ratings?), and Sting isn't scheduled to be on next week's Raw:

– WWE stock was up 3.51% today, closing at $18.86 per share. Today’s high was $18.87 and the low was $18.00.

– Sting is not currently scheduled to be at next Monday’s WWE RAW from Baltimore but obviously that could change, according to PWInsider.




Read more: http://www.pwmania.com/possible-wwe...stings-status-wwe-stock-back-up#ixzz3kcQCwBn1


----------



## Randy Lahey

This week's Raw got a higher rating than last week because it was not going up against MNF.

August 24th Raw went up against Jameis Winston on MNF
August 31st Raw there was no MNF.
September 7th Raw there will be no MNF>
September 14th Raw there will be MNF on till December


----------



## Chrome

A-C-P said:


> So what have we learned here, the biggest effect on Raw's weekly rating is the quality of the previous week's show...
> 
> Next week's ratings will be down again would be my guess, though it being Labor Day it was already going to be down


The Ohio State/Virginia Tech game isn't going to help either. Also LOL at no Sting on the next Raw. Looking forward(or not) to that Rollins/Cena non-title main event match. :eyeroll


----------



## Empress

Chrome said:


> The Ohio State/Virginia Tech game isn't going to help either. Also LOL at no Sting on the next Raw. Looking forward(or not) to that Rollins/Cena non-title main event match. :eyeroll


I think Ambrose/Rollins is the last time that two of the principles in the title feud were on RAW for all the shows leading up to their match. Brock's been a part timer and John Cena got injured. And now Sting is probably done until the week of the NOC.


----------



## D.M.N.

Interesting.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...formances-from-wwe-raw-suits-mr-robot/457614/



> WWE MONDAY NIGHT RAW continues to be the most-watched, regularly scheduled, year-round program on cable, airing a live three-hour block every Monday night, 52 weeks a year. This summer RAW again earned a spot in the top ten shows on television, averaging 1.83MM P18-49, 1.965MM P25-54, 949K P18-34 and 4.22MM P2+.


We don't normally get Live + 7 day figure. That's for June to August.

Live + Same Day = 3.75 million
Live + 7 day = 4.22 million (+12.5%)

In other words, Raw increases 12.5 percent as a result of people DVR'ing the show.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's latest newsletter (September 7, 2015):


> *Raw in July averaged a 2.66 rating and 3.67 million viewers. That’s down 11 percent in ratings* (the rating is key figure to look at because it, being a percentage of the homes that have access to the station, factors out cord cutting) and 15 percent in viewership, *which is really a hell of a drop.*
> 
> *In looking at the past July’s, 2014 averaged a 2.99 rating and 4.32 million viewers*, 2013 averaged a 2.97 rating and 4.00 million viewers and 2012 averaged a 3.35 rating and 4.91 million viewers. *So over a three-year period, they’ve lost 21 percent in ratings and 25 percent in viewers.* Viewers per home were 1.44 this year, compared to 1.49 last year and 1.37 the year before.
> 
> *Smackdown averaged a 1.70 rating and 2.32 million viewers in July, down four percent in ratings and eight percent in viewers from the prior year, even though last year was on a worse night for television, Friday, and with one of the shows on July 4th. Throwing out July 4th, the ratings are down 11 percent and viewers down 15 percent.* Throwing that out, the 2014 average was a 1.91 rating and 2.72 million viewers, the 2013 average was a 1.79 rating and 2.41 million viewers and the 2012 average was a 1.92 rating and 2.78 million viewers. Smackdown had dropped less than Raw which is partially due to improving its night. Viewers per home was 1.46 this year.


Keep up the shit shows, though, Vince. Everyone will continue watching, right? :vince3


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the SmackDown chart for this week, the show is under 2 milions :LOL :uhoh









But they'll keep watching damnit :vince2


----------



## LilOlMe

The Tempest said:


> Here's the SmackDown chart for this week, the show is under 2 milions :LOL :uhoh
> 
> But they'll keep watching damnit :vince2


I've never seen that before. Has that ever happened on a non-holiday? Awful numbers.




D.M.N. said:


> Interesting.
> 
> We don't normally get Live + 7 day figure. That's for June to August.
> 
> Live + Same Day = 3.75 million
> Live + 7 day = 4.22 million (+12.5%)
> 
> In other words, Raw increases 12.5 percent as a result of people DVR'ing the show.


Is there a way to know if those who are watching on their DVR definitely didn't watch live as well? Because plenty of people go back and re-watch segments that they like.

This may be why networks still don't take DVR numbers that into consideration.

Actually, the reason they don't is because people fast forward past commercials when they use their DVRs. So it's really irrelevant how many people are watching on DVRs, because ad revenue is what matters.


----------



## The Tempest

LilOlMe said:


> I've never seen that before. Has that ever happened on a non-holiday? Awful numbers.


Outside the 4th of July episode of last year which was on a holiday, I don't recall SD going that low.


----------



## D.M.N.

The Tempest said:


> Here's the SmackDown chart for this week, the show is under 2 milions :LOL :uhoh
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But they'll keep watching damnit :vince2


I think that's the first time that a regular edition of SmackDown has gone below two million viewers.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

This is only going to get worse. Thursday Night Football from the NFL, plus Thursday College Football will give Smackdown some competition for the male demo they need.


----------



## DoubtGin

Apparently this is the lowest viewership for an original run of Smackdown ever.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Is there a decent chance SD could get cancelled?


----------



## bigdog40

TheShieldSuck said:


> Is there a decent chance SD could get cancelled?




No chance because that show still generates a good amount of revenue. Stop paying attention that this outdated 90's ratings system. Smackdown would have been canned back in 2002 if they wanted to can it. It would help the writers focus on Raw more if Smackdown was canned, but that show isn't actually losing revenue.


----------



## LOL-ins

bigdog40 said:


> No chance because that show still generates a good amount of revenue. Stop paying attention that this outdated 90's ratings system. Smackdown would have been canned back in 2002 if they wanted to can it. It would help the writers focus on Raw more if Smackdown was canned, but that show isn't actually losing revenue.


Why the fuck would they have even considered cancelling Smackdown in 2002 when it was outdrawing RAW at times?

Shit argument/point.


----------



## The Tempest

LOL-ins said:


> Why the fuck would they have even considered cancelling Smackdown in 2002 when it was outdrawing RAW at times?
> 
> Shit argument/point.


Heyman said that SmackDown was about to get cancelled back in 2002 because RAW ratings were falling due to the end of AE, if it weren't for him, SD wouldn't be here today.

I do, however, wonder what's the actual ad revenue for the show.


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641221222483660801
*WWE Raw and SmackDown Ratings Slumps Put More Pressure on the WWE Network*
http://www.forbes.com/sites/blakeoe...-slumps-put-more-pressure-on-the-wwe-network/


----------



## Randy Lahey

bigdog40 said:


> No chance because that show still generates a good amount of revenue. Stop paying attention that this_ outdated 90's ratings system._ Smackdown would have been canned back in 2002 if they wanted to can it. It would help the writers focus on Raw more if Smackdown was canned, but that show isn't actually losing revenue.


The ratings system isnt outdated. Its just as relevant today as it was back then. More people have access to cable television today, than they did 20 years ago. Great TV shows draw huge Nielson numbers even today. Look at Game of Thrones or the Walking Dead.

This DVR excuse is just a cop out. You think people back in 1997 werent recording Raw and watching it later? Of course they were. The Nielsen ratings didnt pick that up but they didnt need to because the only thing that matters are people watching the show live.

I think the end game for Vince will be that Raw and Smackdown will both be exclusive WWE Network shows. USA doesnt need to be buying two very expensive shows that bring in garbage ratings.


----------



## Kabraxal

Sasha Fierce said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641221222483660801
> *WWE Raw and SmackDown Ratings Slumps Put More Pressure on the WWE Network*
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/blakeoe...-slumps-put-more-pressure-on-the-wwe-network/


Why are there always assumptions that wrestling isn't as popular is the sole reason the ratings decline instead of the simple fact that the WWE main product is ABSOLUTE SHIT? There aren't less people out there or even less people that like wrestling... the WWE just aren't capable of drawing them in with their main roster and Vince's outdated and stupid ideas. 

Simple answer... people want simple, logical booking based around the premise this is a show about wrestlers that are there to wrestle and be champion. That needs to be the core of the product. They aren't entertainers. They aren't giving exhibitions in the ring. It isn't a fucking variety show. It's wrestling and the shows need to be written as if it is a real sport revolving around the fucking ring. 

Even LU, as wonderfully creative as they have been, stick to the premise that everything revolves around the ring (or the temple). They aren't there to perform for the crowd kayfabe... they are there to beat the fuck out of each other to prove who is the best "warrior" in that ring. LU proves you can take that core concept and make a fucking imaginative and entertaining show out of it. 

TLDR: The WWE sucking is the reason wrestling "isn't popular", not that the WWE's numbers are down because wrestling "isn't popular".


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Ratings should be out tomorrow morning. I will be curious to see if the College Football game impacted it. Wonder how the return of the NFL will affect a show that is almost at a ratings nadir already?


----------



## Kabraxal

IDONTSHIV said:


> Ratings should be out tomorrow morning. I will be curious to see if the College Football game impacted it. Wonder how the return of the NFL will affect a show that is almost at a ratings nadir already?


I would not be shocked for sup 3 million numbers within a month or two. And if they troll the audience in the next two weeks with Bella retaining and breaking the streak, Cena winning, then Sting winning...... o boy is it going to get ugly as many of the "hardcore" fans just throw up their hands and tell the company to fuck itself. 

You can tell the audience the WWE is losing are the older more "hardcore" demos right now. Many "smark" cities that used to be hot have become quite tame lately. I mean, you might have two surefire crowds in the US now that will make noise, but that is probably stretching it. You basically have New York as even Philly and Chicago have seemingly given up on the main roster.


----------



## Empress

@Kabraxal

Did you see the segment they put Ryback in? They had him reading from a teleprompter and the promo just came off real bad. He's already shown that he's much better unscripted. A lot of these wrestlers get shit on for not being good talkers, but the WWE doesn't do them any favors. And that was just one of the many problems from last night's RAW. 

I don't know why this company goes out of its way to highlight the weaknesses of their talents. 


@IDONTSHIV

RAW was a bore. I hope the ratings reflect that. They refuse to groom new stars and it's gotten to the point that you don't even need to watch RAW to know what happened. It's almost the same show every week.


----------



## Kabraxal

Sasha Fierce said:


> @Kabraxal
> 
> Did you see the segment they put Ryback in? They had him reading from a teleprompter and the promo just came off real bad. He's already shown that he's much better unscripted. A lot of these wrestlers get shit on for not being good talkers, but the WWE doesn't do them any favors. I don't know why this company goes out of its way to highlight the weaknesses of their talents.
> @IDONTSHIV
> 
> RAW was a bore. I hope the ratings reflect that. They refuse to groom new stars and it's gotten to the point that you don't even need to watch RAW to know what happened. It's almost the same show every week.


It's WCW all over... the suits are meddling and way to hands on with a product that, while it needs a strong guiding hand in the major beats happening, has to give the talent the freedom to infuse the stories and characters with their own flare. 

Really, during the first run of that Monday Night War show, the jokes were right on point: you can literally rip the commentary right off that show and impose it over Raw and it fits perfectly. And that is fucking frightening that it seems no on in the company sees it.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Sasha Fierce said:


> @Kabraxal
> 
> Did you see the segment they put Ryback in? They had him reading from a teleprompter and the promo just came off real bad. He's already shown that he's much better unscripted. A lot of these wrestlers get shit on for not being good talkers, but the WWE doesn't do them any favors. And that was just one of the many problems from last night's RAW.
> 
> I don't know why this company goes out of its way to highlight the weaknesses of their talents.
> 
> 
> @IDONTSHIV
> 
> RAW was a bore. I hope the ratings reflect that. They refuse to groom new stars and it's gotten to the point that you don't even need to watch RAW to know what happened. It's almost the same show every week.


You are right;that show sucked as a whole. Just a bunch of crap surrounding an oasis with the E&C, Dudleyz, New Day segment. If ever a show deserves to bomb, it was this one. What a poor way to head into the next week vs the NFL.


----------



## Empress

IDONTSHIV said:


> You are right;that show sucked as a whole. Just a bunch of crap surrounding an oasis with the E&C, Dudleyz, New Day segment. If ever a show deserves to bomb, it was this one.* What a poor way to head into the next week vs the NFL*.


And to think this was their "season finale".



Kabraxal said:


> It's WCW all over... the suits are meddling and way to hands on with a product that, while it needs a strong guiding hand in the major beats happening, has to give the talent the freedom to infuse the stories and characters with their own flare.
> 
> Really, during the first run of that Monday Night War show, the jokes were right on point: you can literally rip the commentary right off that show and impose it over Raw and it fits perfectly. And that is fucking frightening that it seems no on in the company sees it.


The scary part is I think the WWE genuinely believes they are doing right by their performers. When an audience starts yelling "boring" during the first 15 minutes of the show, something's got to change. And that Summer Rae segment was trash. The show deserves to bomb in the ratings for that segment alone.


----------



## Kabraxal

IDONTSHIV said:


> You are right;that show sucked as a whole. Just a bunch of crap surrounding an oasis with the E&C, Dudleyz, New Day segment. If ever a show deserves to bomb, it was this one. What a poor way to head into the next week vs the NFL.


TO be fair, I enjoyed the Paige/Sasha match up until the botched fuckery with Naomi's interference. But yeah, outside of the New Day there wasn't much to the show. Well, at least Ryback got a win, even though it was naturally at the expense of Seth Rollins. 

I feel so sorry for this roster, because I look at it and see one of the most stacked rosters the WWE has had and how this could easily be a hot show with a lot of huge stars. Instead, we have one defacto "star" that has driven away many fans and a bunch of "those guys" that are just stacked up to be used by that one "star". 

Well, that and a few part timers and a bitchy heel that never gets hers.............. can't wait til parttimermania coming up.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I find it interesting that he only focused on a couple of July numbers and didn't bring up August at all, which was a better month rating wise. Interesting.


----------



## Fighter Daron

No ratings yet? That's weird.


----------



## LOL-ins

Hour 1: 3.1 million
Hour 2: 3.5 million
Hour 3: 3.4 million

Shit numbers about to be shitter next week.


----------



## A-C-P

:ha:HAbryanlol:heston:duck:maisielol:tysonlol:reneelel


----------



## Chrome

First hour almost got under 3 million. :lol


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Holiday Raws get absolutely obliterated in the ratings. Still more interested to see how it does with Week 1 of Monday Night Football next week.


----------



## Cliffy

AMERICA'S TEAM bout to squash vinnie mac on monday:mark:


----------



## A-C-P

Cliffy B said:


> AMERICA'S TEAM bout to squash vinnie mac on monday:mark:


Packers aren't playing Monday night next week :rodgers2


----------



## TheShieldSuck

LOL-ins said:


> Hour 1: 3.1 million
> Hour 2: 3.5 million
> Hour 3: 3.4 million
> 
> Shit numbers about to be shitter next week.


How do people work out the rating number? Like how does this equate 2.5 or 2.7 etc?


----------



## Empress

*Average WWE RAW And SmackDown Ratings For July 2015, Major Growth For WWE's Shop Website
*

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

- WWE RAW averaged a 2.66 rating with 3.67 million viewers in July 2015. This is down 11% in ratings and 15% in viewership from July 2014, which averaged a 2.99 rating with 4.32 million viewers. July 2013 averaged a 2.97 rating with 4.00 million viewers while July 2012 averaged a 3.35 rating with 4.91 million viewers. RAW viewers per home for July 2015 were 1.44, down from 1.49 per home in 2014 and 1.37 per home in 2013.

- WWE SmackDown averaged a 1.70 rating with 2.32 million viewers for July 2015, down 4% in ratings and 8% in viewership from July 2014, even though the show was on Friday nights and one of the episodes fell on July 4th. Excluding that holiday episode, the ratings are down 11% at a 1.91 average and the viewership is down 15% from July 2014 with a 2.72 million average. SmackDown averaged a 1.79 rating with 2.41 million viewers in 2013 and a 1.92 rating with 2.78 million viewers in 2012. SmackDown averaged 1.46 viewers per home in July of this year.

- WWE's Shop website processed 1,452 orders per day in July 2015. This is up 67% from 871 per day in 2014, 774 per day in 2013 and 548 per day in 2012.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...-wwe-raw-and-smackdown-ratings-for-july-2015/


----------



## LilOlMe

LOL-ins said:


> Hour 1: 3.1 million
> Hour 2: 3.5 million
> Hour 3: 3.4 million
> 
> Shit numbers about to be shitter next week.


2014's Labor Day ratings:

Hour one: 4.00 million
Hour two: 3.92 million
Hour three: 3.82 million


2013's Labor Day ratings:

Hour one: 3.69 million
Hour two: 4.14 million
Hour three: 3.97 million


2012's Labor Day ratings:

Hour one: 4.31 million
Hour two: 4.40 million
Hour two: 3.91 million


2011's Labor Day ratings:

Hour one: 4.22 million 
Hour two: 4.16 million


2010's Labor Day ratings:

Hour one: 4.32 million
Hour two: 4.15 million


Sources:
Source 1
Source 2
Source 3
Source 4
Source 5

When will Vince wake up?

Seems like the "hardcore base who will watch anyway" is dropping lower and lower. Lower than even I thought.

What's funny is that in some of those articles, _those_ numbers were considered bad.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Would love to see the link for the ratings as none of the normal sites have that info yet.


----------



## The Tempest

Can we please stop making random numbers out of nowhere? At least, a link would be much needed because ratings still aren't available due to tecnical issues


----------



## LilOlMe

IDONTSHIV said:


> Would love to see the link for the ratings as none of the normal sites have that info yet.


Hmmm, then it's probably not true. Getting near 3 million is insane, and probably not true. 

Does that poster normally troll?

If it's legit, it should be out there by now.

Well, either way, the numbers are up there for comparison.


----------



## Empress

I have been looking for independent confirmation of the RAW ratings. The user who posted those numbers has previously trolled/lied about them.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The site where I get the chart said approximately 4:30 EST because they were delayed. If the one guy has posted fake info, you know to never take anything he says seriously again, if you ever did.


----------



## tark1n

I am not defending the current product, but cable numbers are tending downwards across the board (likely) because of apps/streaming services. My teenager and her friends rarely watch anything on cable or network TV (for example). Nielsen still has Raw firmly in the top 10 from its most recent weekly report fwiw http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/top10s.html


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The troll was trolling, but that hour 3 number just barely broke 3 million. :damn


----------



## The Tempest

Holy shit the third hour bombed BIG TIME, and once again I was right, RAW has gone under 3,5 milions :ti :ha :maury :reneelel :frankielol :LOL :bryanlol


----------



## LilOlMe

So to make it neater:

Hour 1: 3.57 million
Hour 2: 3.56 million
Hour 3: 3.02 million

For comparison's sake:


LilOlMe said:


> 2014's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.00 million
> Hour two: 3.92 million
> Hour three: 3.82 million
> 
> 
> 2013's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 3.69 million
> Hour two: 4.14 million
> Hour three: 3.97 million
> 
> 
> 2012's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.31 million
> Hour two: 4.40 million
> Hour two: 3.91 million
> 
> 
> 2011's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.22 million
> Hour two: 4.16 million
> 
> 
> 2010's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.32 million
> Hour two: 4.15 million
> 
> 
> Sources:
> Source 1
> Source 2
> Source 3
> Source 4
> Source 5
> 
> When will Vince wake up?
> 
> Seems like the "hardcore base who will watch anyway" is dropping lower and lower. Lower than even I thought.
> 
> What's funny is that in some of those articles, _those_ numbers were considered bad.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Terrible drop off for hour 3. To compound matters, you would have thought WWE would have put it's best foot forward knowing that next week the NFL returns. Yet we got a rather poor show and a main event angle of two grown men squabbling over a stupid statue that a billion dollar corporation could easily replace. Vince may just have lost his smile.


----------



## RatedR10

I mean... I was expecting it this Fall, but I wasn't expecting it this soon. Holy fucking shit. That average viewership. That third hour. WOW. :ti:reneelel


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Would it kill them to have title matches once in awhile on Raw? And by title matches, I mean World Title matches. Geez. Still, better than I thought it would be, at least the first 2 hours.


----------



## Wynter

Those aren't the real numbers though lol


Edit: I see them now lol


----------



## Empress

*How Did WWE RAW Do Up Against College Football On Labor Day?*

Source: ShowBuzzDaily.com

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, the Labor Day episode with Seth Rollins wrestling twice, drew 3.385 million viewers. This is down from last week's 3.894 million viewers.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.570 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.564 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.021 million viewers.

RAW was #3 for the night on cable behind college football and Love & Hip-Hop in the 18-49 demographic and #2 for the night in viewership, also behind college football which drew more than 17 million total viewers on Monday night.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...-do-up-against-college-football-on-labor-day/


----------



## Born of Osiris

Dat 3rd hour :mj5


:Jordan


----------



## Fabregas

3rd hour was must see tv


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*That third hour drop off is hilarious. It's probably the biggest I've seen.*


----------



## A-C-P

I stand by my post from the "fake viewership" post



A-C-P said:


> :ha:HAbryanlol:heston:duck:maisielol:tysonlol:reneelel


----------



## JBLoser

:lmao Holy shit, that drop from the 2nd hour to the 3rd hour.

Meanwhile


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/641711802657599488
RAW is so fucked this fall.


----------



## Empress

The WWE deserves these pitiful ratings. Stop revolving the damn show around one person and balance out the screen time. Try having some matches that mean something and aren't just throwaway's, cut out the endless recaps and make the stories more interesting. It's not that hard to do.


----------



## Wynter

:ha 

Sweet Lord


----------



## Cliffy

Sting is winning the belt at NOC


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Hey, people saw the GOAT New Day segment and realized that nothing could follow it. With those ratings, one could almost call hour 3 "a dark match". :bryanlol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Sasha Fierce said:


> The WWE deserves these pitiful ratings. Stop revolving the damn show around one person and balance out the screen time. Try having some matches that mean something and aren't just throwaway's, cut out the endless recaps and make the stories more interesting. It's not that hard to do.


*
Yeah, football season is not the time to restart 45 minutes of Rollins and turn off 500,000 viewers.*


----------



## LOL-ins

People are legit not watching the show anymore. Remember those "I'm done with WWE.." posts that everyone loves to say "See you next week" a few years ago that was true but now people are walking away and staying away. It's not like the wrestling fans aren't there either they just know the product is shit.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

\People are hilarious. If Rollins' promo did it, the huge falldown would have been between hours 1 and 2. Not hours 2 and 3. Some people. :eyeroll

Raw did good numbers last week. Two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+. It's almost like people want to ignore that and the fact that Monday was a holiday. Get lost.


----------



## RatedR10

ShowStopper said:


> \People are hilarious. If Rollins' promo did it, the huge falldown would have been between hours 1 and 2. Not hours 2 and 3. Some people. :eyeroll
> 
> Raw did good numbers last week. Two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+. It's almost like people want to ignore that and the fact that Monday was a holiday. Get lost.


the previous page had a post that compared holiday viewership. It's not an excuse.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> \People are hilarious. If Rollins' promo did it, the huge falldown would have been between hours 1 and 2. Not hours 2 and 3. Some people. :eyeroll
> 
> Raw did good numbers last week. Two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+. It's almost like people want to ignore that and the fact that Monday was a holiday. Get lost.


*Yet another expected and terrible excuse for Rollins boring everyone to death.*


Lil Ol Me said:


> 2015's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.57 million
> Hour 2: 3.56 million
> Hour 3: 3.02 million
> 
> 2014's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.00 million
> Hour two: 3.92 million
> Hour three: 3.82 million
> 
> 
> 2013's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 3.69 million
> Hour two: 4.14 million
> Hour three: 3.97 million
> 
> 
> 2012's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.31 million
> Hour two: 4.40 million
> Hour two: 3.91 million
> 
> 
> 2011's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.22 million
> Hour two: 4.16 million
> 
> 
> 2010's Labor Day ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.32 million
> Hour two: 4.15 million


----------



## Fabregas

A-C-P said:


> :ha:HAbryanlol:heston:duck:maisielol:tysonlol:reneelel


That's a very good point, but I would also add

:maury:ti


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm well aware of that post. :lmao Viewership had already been down before the holiday. It was only going to get WORSE on the holiday.


----------



## Empress

I remember RAW's back in AE. Yeah, it's easy to look back and say everything was great back then, but RAW was always giving you something fresh and different. I still remember marking the hell out when Chris Jericho won the belt from HHH. 






Go to 8:44. When was the last time a match on RAW made anyone feel that way? It was electric. The Rock always had an equal in Stone Cold. The supporting players were credible. I like Seth but he doesn't need the show dedicated to him. I shouldn't have to listen to a 20 minute promo from him each week and then anticipate him being in 10 more segments. Most fans don't just watch for one performer. The WWE needs to get it together and change their stale format.


----------



## The Bloodline

ShowStopper said:


> \People are hilarious. If Rollins' promo did it, the huge falldown would have been between hours 1 and 2. Not hours 2 and 3. Some people. :eyeroll
> 
> Raw did good numbers last week. Two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+. It's almost like people want to ignore that and the fact that Monday was a holiday. Get lost.


Monday was a holiday but college football still manage to bring in over 10 million :shrug:. It was a shit show that by hour 3 you'd expect people to not care anymore. It happened. They may bounce back next week but it'll be harder off of a bad show.

Plus previous years shows Labor Day still gets good numbers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

ZeroFear0 said:


> Monday was a holiday but college football still manage to bring in over 10 million :shrug:. It was a shit show that by hour 3 you'd expect people to not care anymore. It happened. They may bounce back next week but it'll be harder off of a bad show.
> 
> Plus previous years shows Labor Day still gets good numbers.


Of course College Football did well. Football is red hot and has been for years now. And yeah it was an awful show. I actually expected hours 1 or 2 to do the worst, but I'm glad they didn't.


----------



## DoubtGin

I like Seth as the champ, but there is just way too much of him every week. Especially the opening promos which are boring me to death.

But that's what happens if the midcard is so well under the main event that you have very limited options.

They deserve those ratings.


----------



## Wynter

*pictures how gloaty and smug this thread would be if Roman dominated Raw as much as Seth did and got the same exact ratings and viewerships Seth has been getting*

"Roman is the reason why road to Mania sucked in Ratings! "

"well see here now! Seth doesn't affect anything... Unless it's a good rating :rollins" 

No one draws for the most part, fact. But some don't draw to the point it's ew. And one of them shouldn't be your champ. Time to spice things up. 

As JR said, he likes Seth as a heel but he's overexposed :shrug


----------



## Born of Osiris

Blows my mind we have such an amazingly talented roster and they find it so fucking difficult to build around it.

It's not fucking rocket science :chan


----------



## LOL-ins

ShowStopper said:


> \People are hilarious. If Rollins' promo did it, the huge falldown would have been between hours 1 and 2. Not hours 2 and 3. Some people. :eyeroll
> 
> Raw did good numbers last week. Two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+. It's almost like people want to ignore that and the fact that Monday was a holiday. Get lost.


Would you do everyone a favor and shut the fuck up.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ramsay Bolton said:


> *pictures how gloaty and smug this thread would be if Roman dominated Raw as much as Seth did and got the same exact ratings and viewerships Seth has been getting*
> 
> "Roman is the reason why road to Mania sucked in Ratings! "
> 
> "well see here now! Seth doesn't affect anything... Unless it's a good rating :rollins"
> 
> No one draws for the most part, fact. But some don't draw to the point it's ew. And one of them shouldn't be your champ. Time to spice things up.
> 
> As JR said, he likes Seth as a heel but he's overexposed :shrug


Oh really? Where were you and everyone else last week when Raw practically hit 4 million viewers? And did the comments that some made on some wrestling website about your favorite wrestler bother you to the core so much that you bring them up nearly a year later in a discussion that has nothing to do with him? If so, I apologize for any remarks I made that bothered you this much.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Ramsay Bolton said:


> *pictures how gloaty and smug this thread would be if Roman dominated Raw as much as Seth did and got the same exact ratings and viewerships Seth has been getting*
> 
> "Roman is the reason why road to Mania sucked in Ratings! "
> 
> "well see here now! Seth doesn't affect anything... Unless it's a good rating :rollins"
> 
> No one draws for the most part, fact. But some don't draw to the point it's ew. And one of them shouldn't be your champ. Time to spice things up.
> 
> As JR said, he likes Seth as a heel but he's overexposed :shrug


*I can't wait for Reigns' title reign when the same people making ridiculous excuses for Seth's poor heel run blame him for ANY kind of drop. :nah, you lost that option when you said "SETH'S TOO YOUNG, YOU CAN'T EXPECT HIM TO CARRY THE COMPANY, IT'S A HOLIDAY, UHH FOOTBALL, UHH, DONALD TRUMP WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, UHH....*


----------



## Empress

Shala☆Frost;52211481 said:


> Blows my mind we have such an amazingly talented roster and they find it so fucking difficult to build around it.
> 
> It's not fucking rocket science :chan


They're idiots. All of them. I thought the WWE would do better under HHH, but I'm not so sure anymore. The WWE has shown that they can put on a great show. They choose not to. Lazy bums.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *I can't wait for Reigns' title reign when the same people making ridiculous excuses for Seth's poor heel run blame him for ANY kind of drop. :nah, you lost that option when you said "SETH'S TOO YOUNG, YOU CAN'T EXPECT HIM TO CARRY THE COMPANY, IT'S A HOLIDAY, UHH FOOTBALL, UHH, DONALD TRUMP WAS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT, UHH....*


Sorry, bud. But it's going to HAPPEN. You lost that option when you came on here and other threads and blame the guy for every little thing wrong with the company.

If you were a cop and saw him jay-walking, you'd arrest him and try to throw him in prison for 10 years. It's going TO happen. I guarantee IT.

:cena5


----------



## LOL-ins

The most important fact to take from the ratings is RAW LOST 500,000 viewers from one hour to the next. Did these 500,000 viewers suddenly say OMG IT'S A HOLIDAY LETS TURN OFF RAW. They had 3.5 million and lost a big chunk of it, there's no excuses. 

And stop being a mark ShowStopper.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Oh really? Where were you and everyone else last week when Raw practically hit 4 million viewers?


*
I was right here, bitching about how WWE roped in a lot of viewers with a great show(that didn't have 45 minutes of Rollins) and immediately lost them after the following week with a terrible show full of heatless wrestling matches. So, they started with a deficit, then lost even more viewers due to Seth's excessive segments and boring promos. If you're attributing the increase to Seth and dodging blame when the ratings tank, you're only proving her point, so great job.*


----------



## RatedR10

I like Seth, but anyone who thinks WWE hasn't completely ruined his character and potential drawing power as a heel is kidding themselves. The guy is quite possibly the most overexposed main event guy in recent memory, possibly all-time. I remember there were shows where he would be featured in 6-8 separate segments. Even I'm tired of seeing him unless he's wrestling.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> I was right here, bitching about how WWE roped in a lot of viewers with a great show(that didn't have 45 minutes of Rollins) and immediately lost them after the following week with a terrible show full of heatless wrestling matches. So, they started with a deficit, then lost even more viewers due to Seth's excessive segments and boring promos. If you're attributing the increase to Seth and dodging blame when the ratings tank, you're only proving her point, so great job.*


I'm not attributing the increase to him. I'm attributing it to being a good show that week (relative to this era, of course). I've never claimed Rollins is a ratings draw. I feel like I've typed that a million times.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I'm not attributing the increase to him. I'm attributing it to being a good show that week (relative to this era, of course). I've never claimed Rollins is a ratings draw. I feel like I've typed that a million times.


*So what did you mean by asking "where were we" as if we were avoiding giving Rollins undeserved credit for carry over ratings from a great show?*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *So what did you mean by asking "where were we" as if we were avoiding giving Rollins undeserved credit for carry over ratings from a great show?*


Well, I think it was a fair question. If people are going to showup when the show had a bad week of ratings, then they should at least show up when the show did a pretty good rating. Seems fair. And going by the logic of blaming one guy, then obviously that guy gets credit if the rating is good (even though it's never because of one guy). Don't want one guy to credit for a good rating? Then don't blame one guy when the rating is shit.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Well, I think it was a fair question. If people are going to showup when the show had a bad week of ratings, then they should at least show up when the show did a pretty good rating. Seems fair. And going by the logic of blaming one guy, then obviously that guy gets credit if the rating is good (even though it's never because of one guy). Don't want one guy to credit for a good rating? Then don't blame one guy when the rating is shit.


*
Why would I give him credit when the great episode of RAW was reasonably spread out between everyone :drake1? And no, it doesn't work that way. Seth only went back to his obnoxious amounts of screentime this week, therefore, he deserves the blame this week.*


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> Oh really? Where were you and everyone else last week when Raw practically hit 4 million viewers? And did the comments that some made on some wrestling website about your favorite wrestler bother you to the core so much that you bring them up nearly a year later in a discussion that has nothing to do with him? If so, I apologize for any remarks I made that bothered you this much.


Feisty lol I like how you felt personally offended and attacked me for something I was directing at EVERYONE who was spitting the same fuckery earlier this year. 




You mad in this thread huh though :troll 

Hmm, try to aim that vitriol at those who are coming for you directly and handing you receipts :shrug. Instead of, you know, quoting me on something that obviously bothered you way more than it should have. 

Take these licks and keep it moving. It was all fine and dandy when you got to give the heat, now you sweating because your boy going through the same thing :shrug 

Welcome to WF (Y)


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Why would I give him credit when the great episode of RAW was reasonably spread out between everyone :drake1? And no, it doesn't work that way. Seth only went back to his obnoxious amounts of screentime this week, therefore, he deserves the blame this week.*


I do agree that they had been doing a good job of not over-exposing him the past couple of months, or so. But to me, if someone (in any walk of life) gets blame for something when shit goes bad, then they get credit if it goes good. I never put all of the blame on one person or give all of the credit to one person, but whatever. We agree on the other stuff so that's all that matters.

Anyway, hope they start having some title defenses on Raw and dont turn Raw into SD with tag matches as the main event every or every other week. I already stopped watching SD completely. Don't want to stop watching Raw completely as well.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ramsay Bolton said:


> Feisty lol I like how you felt personally offended and attacked me for something I was directing at EVERYONE who was spitting the same fuckery earlier this year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You mad in this thread huh though :troll
> 
> Hmm, try to aim that vitriol at those who are coming for you directly and handing you receipts :shrug. Instead of, you know, quoting me on something that obviously bothered you way more than it should have.
> 
> Take these licks and keep it moving. It was all fine and dandy when you got to give the heat, now you sweating because your boy going through the same thing :shrug
> 
> Welcome to WF (Y)


 I see you trying to act like that post wasn't mostly directed at me : (insert a smiley of someone pointing a finger and wagging at someone else jokingly right here). Nothing serious at all. But come on, bruv. I wasn't born yesterday. Either way, all is good, though. (Y)


----------



## Wynter

Considering Seth has been dominating TV since he swung his chair and ratings/viewership have been from ew to meh with a few great sprinkled in. I'm more inclined to believe in the more abundant meh ratings than the few good ones. 

He takes up nearly an hour by himself. Anyone who gets that much time should be pulling in them numbers. That's too much time to be showing ONE talent and it doesn't benefit. All the rest of the talents fighting for scraps and a half assed storyline while Raw is Rollins.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I do agree that they had been doing a good job of not over-exposing him the past couple of months, or so. But to me, if someone (in any walk of life) gets blame for something when shit goes bad, then they get credit if it goes good. I never put all of the blame on one person or give all of the credit to one person, but whatever. We agree on the other stuff so that's all that matters.


*
If I really wanted to be petty I'd shit on Seth whenever the show is bad, but I don't. I only shit on him when he has excessive screentime and fails to do anything worthwhile with it. I didn't blame him at all for last week, I blamed the booking of the entire show. This week, MOST of the blame goes to him. They need to stop giving him over 40 minutes of screentime. It does nothing for anyone. And you know it does nothing for you either, so I don't know why you get so mad when it's pointed out.*



> Anyway, hope they start having some title defenses on Raw and dont turn Raw into SD with tag matches as the main event every or every other week. I already stopped watching SD completely. Don't want to stop watching Raw completely as well.


*The lack of title matches aren't the issue. They just don't put anything on TV that matters. Having Seth do something despicable in 10 minutes or less is far more useful than 40 minutes of whining and jobbing.*


----------



## Empress

I've never wanted to blame one performer for the ratings being bad because the fault ultimately lies with creative. However, the shows are very Seth Rollins centric. Some people actually started to question if I was still a fan of Rollins because I said months ago that Rollins was overexposed. Regardless of how great of a talent he is in the ring, he is not The Rock. He is not that transcendent talent that the WWE should turn over the bulk of its programming to in the interest of gaining & keeping viewers. At least not yet. Maybe he never will be but right now, he's not. The WWE needs to start rotating and developing other stars other than Seth Rollins. If the ratings remain stagnant and only Rollins is being consistently featured, he can't escape even the smallest amount of blame. 

I don't know if Rollins likes the show resting on his shoulders. But if HHH truly has his best interests at heart, he'll pull back on the screen time. Make Ambrose, Bray, Rusev, Roman and Kevin Owens comparable and credible to Rollins. Cena and Orton are on an established tier and can do their parts. The show two weeks ago were the wealth of screen time was spread around and each talent was presented in its best credible form was not a fluke in the ratings. The WWE needs to do more of that.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Owens went from having huge matches with Cena to not being US Champion, and finishing a fued with Cesaro that lost its luster weeks after it started because of Owens lack of said title :mj2

Cesaro going from that fued to a random fued with Show after losing to Owens 2 times with the 2nd time because lol we love random meaningless Raw PPV rematches. This, after having MOTYC with Cena week after week.

Owens wants the IC title now. Ok, fine. Lets see how that goes.

Neville goes from being a fresh, new sensation to this geeky ass fued with Stardust that stopped being fun weeks ago. 

Orton/Sheamus fighting eachother all Summer because lol we're WWE we don't need a reason to put two guys against each other :vince2

Divas from NXT getting called up and getting everything people loved about them absolutely pissed on :clap

Rollins being beyond overexposed.

Broken Shield/Fedora Man and his two hobos being mediocre except for Stromans debut.




I mean, really? :mj2 this is the best these people can do? :mj2

At least we have the Dudleyz and New Day :mj2

Nah, I give a month before they get fucked with too :mj2


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> I see you trying to act like that post wasn't mostly directed at me : (insert a smiley of someone pointing a finger and wagging at someone else jokingly right here). Nothing serious at all. But come on, bruv. I wasn't born yesterday. Either way, all is good, though. (Y)


Lol it wasn't. I would quote you if I felt that deep about you. I don't recall you being the only wf member who shat on Roman. That was generalized. 

Was it the Seth smiley that got you paranoid? Lol Was it the quote where I mocked people who only attribute Seth to ratings when it's positive? Are you part of that group? Yup. But was it ALL about you? Nope. It was in general. 

But if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about. 

Like I said, you are super fine when you get to troll in other threads but can't take the heat. 

Seth is overexposed. It's really that simple. I wouldn't want to see roman, Dean, Owen etc. As much either. It's too much.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> If I really wanted to be petty I'd shit on Seth whenever the show is bad, but I don't. I only shit on him when he has excessive screentime and fails to do anything worthwhile with it. I didn't blame him at all for last week, I blamed the booking of the entire show. This week, MOST of the blame goes to him. They need to stop giving him over 40 minutes of screentime. It does nothing for anyone. And you know it does nothing for you either, so I don't know why you get so mad when it's pointed out.*
> 
> 
> 
> *The lack of title matches aren't the issue. They just don't put anything on TV that matters. Having Seth do something despicable in 10 minutes or less is far more useful than 40 minutes of whining and jobbing.*


Hey, I completely agree that this much airtime for him is waaaay too much. I've agreed with that ever since they first started doing it way back when. Then, they thankfully stopped for awhile. And then this week they did it for some odd reason for the first time in awhile.

The title match thing is a pet peeve of mine going back years, way before Seth even had the title. I'm not saying there should be title matches every week. But I do think once a month or so would be a much needed thing to spicen the show up once in awhile. But I've felt that way for awhile now. They're not going to have Seth or really anyone do anything truly despicable anymore. Just look at the way Owens is booked now in comparison to when he first got called up. He's much more of a "bully" type of heel than Seth is or ever will be and even he doesn't do anything truly asshole-ian. It's just the way they book. I don't bitch about it anymore because I know they aren't going to change it.



Ramsay Bolton said:


> Lol it wasn't. I would quote you if I felt that deep about you. I don't recall you being the only wf member who shat on Roman. That was generalized.
> 
> Was it the Seth smiley that got you paranoid? Lol Was it the quote where I mocked people who only attribute Seth to ratings when it's positive? Are you part of that group? Yup. But was it ALL about you? Nope. It was in general.
> 
> But if the shoe doesn't fit, you have nothing to worry about.
> 
> Like I said, you are super fine when you get to troll in other threads but can't take the heat.
> 
> Seth is overexposed. It's really that simple. I wouldn't want to see roman, Dean, Owen etc. As much either. It's too much.


Ok, I guess I'll take your word for it :lol Who says I can't take it? I'm in this thread when the ratings are good AND bad, as you can see today. But not everyone shows when the ratings are good/decent. :shrug


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Is this the worst rating in WWE history?


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

LilOlMe said:


> So to make it neater:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.57 million
> Hour 2: 3.56 million
> Hour 3: 3.02 million


That's Monday Night Rollins for ya!
:rollins



LOL-ins said:


> Hour 1: 3.1 million
> Hour 2: 3.5 million
> Hour 3: 3.4 million
> 
> Shit numbers about to be shitter next week.


Bet you guys wish this was true now!
:Rollins :Cocky


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

^Another one not here last week

:ha


----------



## TheShieldSuck

2.44 rating.


----------



## Empress

Shala☆Frost;52212409 said:


> Owens went from having huge matches with Cena to not being US Champion, and finishing a fued with Cesaro that lost its luster weeks after it started because of Owens lack of said title :mj2
> 
> Cesaro going from that fued to a random fued with Show after losing to Owens 2 times with the 2nd time because lol we love random meaningless Raw PPV rematches. This, after having MOTYC with Cena week after week.
> 
> Owens wants the IC title now. Ok, fine. Lets see how that goes.
> 
> Neville goes from being a fresh, new sensation to this geeky ass fued with Stardust that stopped being fun weeks ago.
> 
> Orton/Sheamus fighting eachother all Summer because lol we're WWE we don't need a reason to put two guys against each other :vince2
> 
> Divas from NXT getting called up and getting everything people loved about them absolutely pissed on :clap
> 
> Rollins being beyond overexposed.
> 
> *Broken Shield/Fedora Man and his two hobos being mediocre except for Stromans debut.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, really? :mj2 this is the best these people can do? :mj2
> 
> At least we have the Dudleyz and New Day :mj2
> 
> Nah, I give a month before they get fucked with too :mj2



:lmao :lmao

I agree with your post. 

I know most people think that John Cena ruined the momentum of Kevin Owens, but I think Brock Lesnar played a role too. Owens was a monster heel before Brock returned. Brock has the Zeus on the Mount aura, but he and Owens are essentially the same character in many ways. The WWE intentionally scaled back Owens' antics and now he's eating an apple in a backstage segment like he's Carlito. 

Stardust is garbage and I say this as someone who loves Cody. 

Either way, the storytelling is crap all around. They need to reset on most things. Except for New Day. They're entertaining.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

ShowStopper said:


> ^Another one not here last week
> 
> :ha



^ another one making excuses after a show which featured almost an hour of Rollins
:ha


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Don't talk to my pal Empress like that, not that it was a good comeback anyway.


----------



## LilOlMe

This thread is returning to it's initial undercover intention. Mark wars. Good times.

I was never an "eff the WWE" person, but Vince's arrogance and the fact that they're raiding talent and then still putting on shit shows, is causing me to be happy with the ratings drop. Something has to wake Vince up.

The fact that the NJPW bookers and talent were at NXT & Summerslam is really bothersome, because it feels like Vince keeps getting undeserved shit, and yet will still coast on his laurels.

I wish there was a real alternative, because competition goes there because it's the only game in town, so good shit can never really rise up. Vince doesn't even know what he has in his hands, so it can never rise to the level it should, even when he gets it.

It's so frustrating. The only way a new vision will be instilled is if business takes a hit. Vince is soooo lucky that he signed the tv deal last year, because he'd get even less now.

How hot would the network be if the ratings were hotter?




JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Bet you guys wish this was true now!
> :Rollins :Cocky


Funny thing is that the troll's average was almost exactly dead on. 3.33 million, which is about what the real numbers are (3.38 million).


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> This thread is returning to it's initial undercover intention. Mark wars. Good times.
> 
> I was never an "eff the WWE" person, but Vince's arrogance and the fact that they're raiding talent and then still putting on shit shows, is causing me to be happy with the ratings drop. Something has to wake Vince up.
> 
> The fact that the NJPW bookers and talent were at NXT & Summerslam is really bothersome, because it feels like Vince keeps getting undeserved shit, and yet will still coast on his laurels.
> 
> I wish there was a real alternative, because competition goes there because it's the only game in town, so good shit can never really rise up. Vince doesn't even know what he has in his hands, so it can never rise to the level it should, even when he gets it.
> 
> It's so frustrating. The only way a new vision will be instilled is if business takes a hit. Vince is soooo lucky that he signed the tv deal last year, because he'd get even less now.
> 
> How hot would the network be if the ratings were hotter?


Kind of puts all of those WWF marks from back in the day in their place for being happy when WCW went out. I was a bigger WWF fan growing up in the Northeast and whatnot, but was NOT happy about WCW going out of business. Sucks.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> The title match thing is a pet peeve of mine going back years, way before Seth even had the title. I'm not saying there should be title matches every week. But I do think once a month or so would be a much needed thing to spicen the show up once in awhile. But I've felt that way for awhile now.


*
I wouldn't mind the occasional RAW title match either, but here's the problem: it worked perfectly in the Ruthless Aggression Era because everyone who mattered had strong enough booking to be considered a worthy contender. Nowadays, there's a handful of guys who have a chance in hell, and the rest, you can't even suspend your disbelief for. The guys who have a chance are all busy, so we'd get a bunch of random mid card jobbers getting title matches, which also does nothing for anyone.*



> They're not going to have Seth or really anyone do anything truly despicable anymore. Just look at the way Owens is booked now in comparison to when he first got called up. He's much more of a "bully" type of heel than Seth is or ever will be and even he doesn't do anything truly asshole-ian. It's just the way they book. I don't bitch about it anymore because I know they aren't going to change it.


*
You're right, Owens' has lost his midget Lesnar booking, but at least he still talks trash to his opponents and ambushes people. Rollins hasn't ambushed anyone since he feuded with Dean last summer if I recall correctly. I do agree that heels in general need despicable booking, but ESPECIALLY your supposed top heel that's getting loads of screen time.*


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

LilOlMe said:


> Funny thing is that the troll's average was almost exactly dead on. 3.33 million, which is about what the real numbers are (3.38 million).


Atleast it was an increase in ratings as the hours went by. The real ratings just dropped 500k by the third hour which is incredibly bad.

Impressive that he got it close like that though.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Whichever mod humbled the troll Lol-ins, thank you. It was richly deserved.


----------



## Empress

:maury @ "Midget Lesnar" booking

@ShowStopper

I was just curious as to how you felt about the WWE placing Seth in the eye of the storm. I think Vince and HHH, regardless of who they consider a golden boy, place their favorites in situations that build up backlash and resentment. As I said, I'm not really comfortable blaming one talent alone for the ratings but they keep making the shows revolve around Seth. Something's got to give. I thought Seth looked like a star coming out of Summerslam. But every ying needs a yang. I truly believe the WWE is undercutting his potential by not a) giving him an equal(s) and b) inconsistent booking. Rollins shouldn't be upset over a statue.

The boo's Roman Reigns got during RTW worried me (since he was a face) and were mocked by others. Rollins shouldn't be getting "boring" chants 15 minutes into a show. Well, he show by merit alone since he's been cutting the same promo for months, but just sayin. That usually means something isn't clicking with the majority of viewers.


----------



## Hydra

Those numbers :bryanlol

WWE is in a ton of trouble and I'm not even sure if Sting as champion will help that much. Maybe it will, maybe it won't. But if they keep churning out stinkers like this week's RAW, it won't matter who is champion.


----------



## validreasoning

LilOlMe said:


> How hot would the network be if the ratings were hotter?


not sure one follows the other. last year and especially road to mania/summerslam ratings were much higher than this year or the same period 2013 and yet network subs were well below what they are this year

anyway the issue is loss of male viewers over the age of 50 across all programs, thats what has caused the viewership to be lower this year than last. 18-49 demo is still around the same as it was. ie last years labor day raw did a 1.4, 1.3 and 1.3 in the 18-49 demo..this year it did a 1.3, 1.3 and 1.2 in the 18-49 demo and that was with a big football game head to head which didn't happen a year ago. the male 50+ demo was far and away wwes biggest but in 2015 that has shifted for whatever reason..

competition isn't going to make pro-wrestling ultra popular again, that was a one-off fight to the death that drew people in and you cannot ever recreate that again. wrestling was redhot in usa, mexico, japan, australia, canada and uk in the 60/70s when companies worked together, wrestling is already dead in the uk/australia and canada and on it lasts legs in mexico and japan compared to where it was 30 years ago (new japan don't even have prime time tv in their own country). this business only has a real future if companies work together not against each other


----------



## LilOlMe

I think that Smackdown being cold as ice is the biggest indicator that people are turned off by the product. They moved to a better night, yet still keep falling.

To me it's one of the biggest signs that people have had enough, and it flies in the face of Vince's theory that people will always watch.

Vince is lucky that people tend to just keep subscriptions when they're dirt cheap. Once people get in, they tend to kid themselves into thinking "eh, I'll probably use this." That's the only reason why the network isn't as cold as the ratings, IMO. 

The smartest thing they ever did was making it so cheap.


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

Sting and Rollins both can't draw. WWE needs to bring The Rock, he's the only one who can draw.

Although I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't draw either. Wrestling is just too awful now, nobody is going to draw.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

TheDevilsPimp said:


> Sting and Rollins both can't draw. WWE needs to bring The Rock, he's the only one who can draw.
> 
> Although I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't draw either. Wrestling is just too awful now, nobody is going to draw.


Pretty sure last time he was on RAW he didnt draw anything. Even legends become dull over time. 

They should have turned him heel with Reigns. 

I really wonder about the Network numbers. They lost 150k since WM31 and just wonder what they are now.


----------



## LilOlMe

validreasoning said:


> not sure one follows the other. last year and especially road to mania/summerslam ratings were much higher than this year or the same period 2013 and yet network subs were well below what they are this year
> 
> anyway the issue is loss of male viewers over the age of 50 across all programs, thats what has caused the viewership to be lower this year than last. 18-49 demo is still around the same as it was. ie last years labor day raw did a 1.4, 1.3 and 1.3 in the 18-49 demo..this year it did a 1.3, 1.3 and 1.2 in the 18-49 demo and that was with a big football game head to head which didn't happen a year ago. the male 50+ demo was far and away wwes biggest but in 2015 that has shifted for whatever reason..
> 
> competition isn't going to make pro-wrestling ultra popular again, that was a one-off fight to the death that drew people in and you cannot ever recreate that again. wrestling was redhot in usa, mexico, japan, australia, canada and uk in the 60/70s when companies worked together, wrestling is already dead in the uk/australia and canada and on it lasts legs in mexico and japan compared to where it was 30 years ago (new japan don't even have prime time tv in their own country). this business only has a real future if companies work together not against each other


Competition gives the talent more of a choice to go elsewhere. Once one wins out so be it, but that company could be a lot better than WWE. We will never know, unless a billionaire decides to really get behind wrestling, and start from scratch.

The network just started last year, and people had to get acclimated to it. The network would absolutely be doing great if the product on tv was super hot. No doubt about it, in my mind.

Having said that, I actually don't think the network is doing badly at all. Just that Vince could be making so much more money via the network, if he was smarter with the tv product.

As for NJPW, it's growing. It's making three times as much revenue as it did in 2012. It is no competition for WWE, but that's exactly the point. They don't have the coffers for it. So it's frustrating to me that the talent may go to WWE because they _do_ have the coffers for it, but then Vince will never implement WHY NJPW is working in the first place, from a creative standpoint (and hence why their business is growing).


----------



## Marv95

Final number via ProWrestling.net: 2.44. 

I'm not one of those guys and I know you shouldn't put the blame on the wrestlers but moreso the company but screw it. Sting for World Champ. Even if temporary. The Meth Rollins experiment is not working; I don't care if it's his fault or not.


----------



## The XL

Holy shit, a 2.4, that's beyond abysmal. People have finally had enough with this shit, I expect those numbers to drop even lower, perhaps below 2, in the thick of football season. You people bragging about their record profits are missing the point, WCW and ECW had their most profitable times right before their implosion. How much of that revenue stream is the WWEs TV deal? I can assure you that if the numbers continue to drop, they might be canceled or the terms of that contract restructured. 

WWE is in real trouble, folks.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> :maury @ "Midget Lesnar" booking
> 
> @ShowStopper
> 
> I was just curious as to how you felt about the WWE placing Seth in the eye of the storm. I think Vince and HHH, regardless of who they consider a golden boy, place their favorites in situations that build up backlash and resentment. As I said, I'm not really comfortable blaming one talent alone for the ratings but they keep making the shows revolve around Seth. Something's got to give. I thought Seth looked like a star coming out of Summerslam. But every ying needs a yang. I truly believe the WWE is undercutting his potential by not a) giving him an equal(s) and b) inconsistent booking. Rollins shouldn't be upset over a statue.


Last week's Raw, they were on the right track with the Sting/Rollins storyline with having Sting get supposedly get into Rollin's head and make him question the Authority. Then from there, at least this week, they fucked up by 

1) Moving the focal point of the storyline from Sting getting Seth's head re: the Authority TO the stupid fucking statue.

2) Even though Sting was supposedly on Raw this week; he really wasn't. He taped that segment in California because he wasn't at Raw. Another instance of a part timer not being present hurting a feud. fpalm

Hopefully, this upcoming week they move the direction of the feud back to Sting getting into Seth's head re: the Authority. Now that the statue is "gone", they really should re-direct the focal point of this angle back to where it originally WAS. Who knows if they will or not, though.

As for long term re: Seth. He'll be fine. They showed what I always say, and that is that they can fix ANYONE they want to in practically ONE night, as we saw with Seth at SummerSlam, and back at the Rumble back in January. I would actually book Seth to lose both titles at NOC via H fucking him over, take a few months off and come back revitalized as a face coming for HHH. Now, they're not gonna do that because it's too soon and they're not gonna give Rollins that much time off. But the point remains. They can fix anyone they want. They know Seth has a really good face run in him when they turn him, so I think that plays a part in them booking him like this. He was over-exposed this week, but this was the first time in months he'd been THAT over-exposed. They know when he turns and he's coming after the Authority (assuming they go this way) that he's gonna have the crowd behind him. I personally think the fans want to cheer for him right now but don't because of his Authority affiliation. I already wanted him to turn but seeing him at SS made go from wanting it to happen to really wanting it to happen, and I don't think I'm the only one. Knowing WWE it won't happen for awhile, though. They are usually slow as shit to react, for the most part.


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

TheShieldSuck said:


> Pretty sure last time he was on RAW he didnt draw anything. Even legends become dull over time.
> 
> They should have turned him heel with Reigns.
> 
> I really wonder about the Network numbers. They lost 150k since WM31 and just wonder what they are now.


The last time he was on RAW, it was an unadvertised appearance.

But like you said, they need something big like maybe Reigns turning heel.


----------



## Empress

@ShowStopper

Thanks for the answer. I agree with what you said. If I didn't genuinely want the best for Seth Rollins, I'd be all for fans getting sick of him and letting the backlash build. I don't want him peaking at 29. Roman Reigns has seen his career set back since Wrestlemania. At least Vince finally got it through his head that Reigns needs to be built in the midcard. He should also be a heel but at least there's been some remedy to his mega push. I just hope that Vince/HHH will scale back on Seth's overexposure. He'll be even better if he has a roster that's being utilized better.

It's almost like HHH is living through Rollins; as though he's the son he never had. Trips needs to snap out of it.


----------



## CM punker

Wasn't yesterday a holiday though? maybe that explains the low ratings


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CM punker said:


> Wasn't yesterday a holiday though? maybe that explains the low ratings


Ratings have been down before the holiday in comparison to previous years. But of course the last day of Summer vacation plays somewhat of a role, especially when last weeks ratings were so much higher. They'll go back up to a certain degree next week.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Ratings don't always reflect the quality of the show, but this week they sure as hell did. No interesting angles, long ass matches nobody cares about (Seth vs Ryback and of course the match that's more effective than any sleeping pill on the market, Sheamus vs. Orton). It was a fucking snoozefest from start to finish so I like the fact that so many people changed the channel throughout the night and sent a very clear message.


----------



## Kabraxal

It isn't the roster.... for fuck's sake this roster has some great talent on it that I'd love to watch, but the BOOKING is absolute dribbling shits. Owens, Cesaro, Rollins, Ambrose, Ziggler, Sasha, Paige, Becky, Charlotte, New Day, Dudleys, and even guys like Ryback and Orton are all guys I don't mind seeing or want to watch badly. But I can barely stomach watching full segments let alone shows if I watch them at all anymore. 

So enough of the "It's Rollins fault!" bullshit. There is only one man to blame for this shit and it is the senile old fool in charge: McMahon.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Tomorrow Smackdown takes on New England vs Pittsburgh. That will be a trouncing in the ratings I wonder if Smackdown can retain what it drew last week.


----------



## chronoxiong

2.44 rating for this week? The show deserved it as I was turning away during a lot of the portions of the show. Sometimes I can't wait for RAW to hit below 2.0 rating for them to really try hard and spark interest again instead of relying on old-timers (part-timers).


----------



## Brodus Clay

Low rating for a show that was focused on Seth Rollins, hahaha once again the ''Cross Fit Jesus'' proves he can't draw.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

That 3rd hour number... wow. It was Labor Day though... but then looking at previous year numbers, it's never been this low. This is the biggest drop off no doubt, so it has to be something else. Numbers in October-December will be interesting to see as those are usually the lowest. How low will they go?


----------



## funnyfaces1

Mark your calendars for October 19, because that's when the Giants and Eagles play. Expect a 2.1


----------



## Randy Lahey

Barely over 3 mils viewers in the final hour should sound alarm bells. That is terrible.


----------



## Randy Lahey

The XL said:


> Holy shit, a 2.4, that's beyond abysmal. People have finally had enough with this shit, I expect those numbers to drop even lower, perhaps below 2, in the thick of football season. You people bragging about their record profits are missing the point, WCW and ECW had their most profitable times right before their implosion. How much of that revenue stream is the WWEs TV deal? I can assure you that if the numbers continue to drop, they might be canceled or the terms of that contract restructured.
> 
> WWE is in real trouble, folks.


WCW was doing 2.2s and 2.1s right before they folded, and they had to compete with another wrestling show doing 6's and 7's. 

Raw with no other wrestling competition getting a 2.44 is a disgrace I am almost certain if they crater down to the 2.1 level that USA will cancel them. Its just too high of cost and too low of advertising dollars to pull in especially when the target audience is children who have no buying power.


----------



## dougfisher_05

For those who are saying "IT was a HOLIDAY!" 

RAW did a *2.81 *for Labor Day 2014. 
2.44 this year, a four-tenths drop year over year, despite the expected holiday drop off. They lost three-tenths of a point compared to last weeks *2.7.*

Basically RAW drew a *worse rating last week* than it did for the Labor Day 2014 show. 

And it gets worse...
Monday Night Football returns next week. 

Last year they did a* 2.88 *facing off against the traditional MNF double header, which was a *better rating *than the 2.7 rating they got _last week without any MNF competition_. 

I'd expect next week's rating to be somewhere in the 2.44-2.54 range, possibly lower. 

Without football they are bleeding away their audience. With football it could get downright nasty for them on Monday Nights. 

Tuesday Night RAW anyone? lol


----------



## KC Armstrong

> Low rating for a show that was focused on Seth Rollins, hahaha once again the ''Cross Fit Jesus'' proves he can't draw.



Fucking Cena was in the main event and apparently nobody wanted to see him, either. This is not about one guy, people need to realize that. You could have Rock & Austin in their prime on this show but they wouldn't be doing much better if they were constantly put in these shitty, God-awful storylines. If Stone Cold had thrown hissy fits about people destroying his property and acted like a little bitch, people would not have cared about him any more than they care about Rollins right now.


----------



## LordKain

TheDevilsPimp said:


> Sting and Rollins both can't draw. WWE needs to bring The Rock, he's the only one who can draw.
> 
> Although I wouldn't be surprised if he doesn't draw either. Wrestling is just too awful now, nobody is going to draw.


It's the unfortunate result of what happens to a company that gives their advertisers, sponsors and the network too much control over the product.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

KC Armstrong said:


> Fucking Cena was in the main event and apparently nobody wanted to see him, either. This is not about one guy, people need to realize that. You could have Rock & Austin in their prime on this show but they wouldn't be doing much better if they were constantly put in these shitty, God-awful storylines. If Stone Cold had thrown hissy fits about people destroying his property and acted like a little bitch, people would not have cared about him any more than they care about Rollins right now.


Absolutely. This is the PG era. And yes, Rock and Stone Cold would get over in any era to a certain degree, but would they get over if they were beaten like a drum like Dean Ambrose or Cesaro?

They wouldn't. And they sure as hell wouldn't be the huge draws they were in their era.

And that's the problem. The entire roster is filled with geeks. Cesaro is getting over? Just keep having him lose and people will eventually stop caring.

They're playing this obvious frakking game here. They don't want anyone getting over that isn't some handpicked guy. It's clear they don't want me as a fan, because I don't like Reigns or Cena. They're constantly sending me messages that i'm never going to get any satisfaction for being a fan of Ambrose or Cesaro or Bray Wyatt. They're even managing to ruin the ladies of NXT with their incompetence.

Why would I want to watch that? I don't want to see wrestlers I like eat pins and get treated poorly week after week. It's terribly depressing and there are far, far better things to do for three hours on a monday night than to be depressed watching a stale product.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

They should be OK next week. Eagles vs Falcons and Vikings vs 49ers aren't huge games.


----------



## Brodus Clay

KC Armstrong said:


> Fucking Cena was in the main event and apparently nobody wanted to see him, either. This is not about one guy, people need to realize that. You could have Rock & Austin in their prime on this show but they wouldn't be doing much better if they were constantly put in these shitty, God-awful storylines. If Stone Cold had thrown hissy fits about people destroying his property and acted like a little bitch, people would not have cared about him any more than they care about Rollins right now.


Things are actually simple, Seth Rollins was the focus of *ALL* of this low rating RAW, the guy is a cancer for WWE in order to let him have a long reign a lot of better talent have been putting him over and this it's not gonna stop until next Mania, If wasn't for WWE that had to drastically change the Reigns vs Bray feud for a remake of The Shield vs Wyatt family the ratings would be even lower.

The day Seth Rollins stop being pushed obviously the ratings are going to increase, stop excusing this over pushed hack.


----------



## KC Armstrong

> The day Seth Rollins stop being pushed obviously the ratings are going to increase, stop excusing this over pushed hack.



You can BELIEEEEVE TH... no, wait, actually you can't believe that because it's total bullshit. I'm not even a huge Rollins fan, but it's not about who's champion or who is the focal point of the show. If you give the title back to Cena, give it to Sting or Reigns... it doesn't matter. Unless they start coming up with more entertaining storylines and stop boring people to death for 3 hours, nobody will make a huge difference.


----------



## Brodus Clay

KC Armstrong said:


> You can BELIEEEEVE TH... no, wait, actually you can't believe that because it's total bullshit. I'm not even a huge Rollins fan, but it's not about who's champion or who is the focal point of the show. If you give the title back to Cena, give it to Sting or Reigns... it doesn't matter. Unless they start coming up with more entertaining storylines and stop boring people to death for 3 hours, nobody will make a huge difference.


Love how you call bullshit when you were the one that said Austin and The Rock on their prime wouldn't be able to elevate the ratings. things are fucking simple Rollins appeared a LOT on this RAW and got shit ratings, but whatever you gonna keep excusing your Cross fit Jesus and blindly believe he has 0 fault on this.


----------



## LilOlMe

This was the lowest rated RAW in almost 18 years, outside of July 4th, Christmas, or New Year's Eve shows.

From Meltzer's latest newsletter (September 14, 2015):


> Football destroyed Raw and Smackdown numbers, both reaching new modern era low marks.
> 
> A combination of Labor Day, and a strong Ohio State vs. Virginia Tech college football game, saw Raw fall to 3.37 million viewers. With the exception of shows that were on July 4th, or Christmas or New Year’s Eve, it drew the lowest audience since late 1997. Raw’s previous low was 3.43 million viewers on December 3, 2012. Labor Day in and of itself is usually not that bad, as the 2014 Labor Day show did 3.91 million viewers and the 2013 show did 3.94 million viewers, so it was a 14 percent annual drop. This is a really bad sign because even though the college football game did strong numbers, with 10.56 million viewers, that are not unusually big numbers when compared to what the NFL will do on Mondays, and next week starts the NFL season.
> 
> Smackdown on 9/3 set its all-time low on Syfy with the exception of the July 4, 2014 episode, doing a 1.42 rating and 1.98 million viewers (1.49 viewers per home), which was 11th place for the night on cable.


Vince needs to rethink the entire format of the show, but he'll just do little band-aids, if anything.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Brodus Clay said:


> Love how you call bullshit when you were the one that said Austin and The Rock on their prime wouldn't be able to elevate the ratings. things are fucking simple Rollins appeared a LOT on this RAW and got shit ratings, but whatever you gonna keep excusing your Cross fit Jesus and blindly believe he has 0 fault on this.


I don't know if you're having difficulty reading, but I just told you I'm not even a Rollins fan. He is certainly not "my Crossfit Jesus", no matter how many times you repeat it.


... and John Cena, the guy who has been the face of the company for the last 10 years, was in the main event. They lost half a million viewers from the 2nd to the 3rd hour. 

I totally stand by my Rock/Austin comment. In this environment they wouldn't be the guys we watched during the AE. They would be part of one lame storyline after another and they would be booked terribly (like everyone on the roster). You can make anyone look bad, no matter how talented the individual may be. This "creative team" certainly has the gift to make very talented guys look like the biggest fucking losers.


----------



## jim courier

Seth Rollins gets more airtime than Steve Austin did on Raw in 98 when he was the hottest act in history of course Seth should take a share of the blame along with the shitting writing and booking. Basically Vince, the writers and Seth all suck.


----------



## jim courier

Vince will blame the ratings on having black guys in the main event :vince5


----------



## Louaja89

LOL. But Sting ; but Edge and Christian , but Cena. :vince7:vince7:vince7


----------



## mwk360

Monday night Rollins dont draw hahaha

One of the worst shows ever, fell asleep the first time.
Rollins is a channel changer, enough is enough its time for change


----------



## Brodus Clay

KC Armstrong said:


> I don't know if you're having difficulty reading, but I just told you I'm not even a Rollins fan. He is certainly not "my Crossfit Jesus", no matter how many times you repeat it.
> 
> 
> ... and John Cena, the guy who has been the face of the company for the last 10 years, was in the main event. They lost half a million viewers from the 2nd to the 3rd hour.
> 
> I totally stand by my Rock/Austin comment. In this environment they wouldn't be the guys we watched during the AE. They would be part of one lame storyline after another and they would be booked terribly (like everyone on the roster). You can make anyone look bad, no matter how talented the individual may be. This "creative team" certainly has the gift to make very talented guys look like the biggest fucking losers.


So why you keep talking about Cena when I didn't do mention about him? and yes keep burying yourself saying Austin and The Rock on their prime wouldn't help increase the ratings lol.

I'm gonna see you as another ''Cross Fit Jesus'' fangirl until you accept he has some blame on this, stop putting all the blame on the booking yes the booking is not good but before the Rollins push it was already bad.


----------



## Undertakerowns

WWE is in weird spot. It needs to be either more sports oriented or more storyline driven show. Right now it's neither- no storylines just promos and wins/loses don't mean anything for championship contendership. 

Booking consistency. I feel like consistency with pushes would solve a lot of the problems. Rollins loses every week until ppv. 

You have the most legitimate fighter in wrestling and the way wrestling is booked he can't fight but 3 opponents because everyone else is treated like losers. 

I always hear from past employees that Vince always made people accountable for failures. Does he hold himself accountable?


----------



## tbp82

KC Armstrong said:


> You can BELIEEEEVE TH... no, wait, actually you can't believe that because it's total bullshit. I'm not even a huge Rollins fan, but it's not about who's champion or who is the focal point of the show. If you give the title back to Cena, give it to Sting or Reigns... it doesn't matter. Unless they start coming up with more entertaining storylines and stop boring people to death for 3 hours, nobody will make a huge difference.


Honestly I do believe that. While it is not the fault of the performer Rollins run as a focal point of the company has failed miserably. I'm not putting all the blame on him but, with the way things are right now WWE needs some kind of energy shot some kind of lightning bolt and other than a John Cena heel turn the next best thing is to revamp and refocus the show.


----------



## The XL

A 2.4 and a 1.4 is worse than the combined numbers of most Nitros and Thunders in 2000 and even 2001, and while they have competition, they don't have direct competition from another wrestling product, they're running unopposed in that regard. That's really bad when you look at it that way.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Yup, I got my friend Mark and we split, brother.


----------



## D.M.N.

Looking at the demographics from Showbuzz Daily....

P25-54 is actually *increasing* very slightly year-on-year.
P18-49 and P18-34 is staying at the same level trend wise as the viewership.
F12-34 is dropping more proportionally than the viewership.

However, M50+ has dropped off a cliff. But the way it has happened is weird.

Males 50+
27/04/15 - 2.01 rating
04/05/15 - 2.08 rating
11/05/15 - 1.50 rating
18/05/15 - 1.46 rating

Really bizarre the way it dropped like that, and has never recovered. What happened in early May?


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the SmackDown chart for this week:


----------



## Fandangohome

Rollins isn't drawing, Cena's not drawing, part timers aren't drawing. WWE are fucked, and it's all their own doing. 

Time to take a risk, and start pushing some different guys. I'm bored of Rollins/Sting, Rollins/Cena, Shield/Wyatts, Sheamus/Orton, and i'm guessing so is the rest of the audience, because the numbers fucking suck. 

NXT works, because you normally get different matches each week, rather than the same rehashed bullshit. 

Time to try a shock champion IMO, they need something to jolt some life back into the product. Have Rollins do an open challenge and lose to a lowercard guy, doesn't matter who, just someone you wouldn't expect. Just do something that will get people talking, and make people want to watch again. When in doubt, go for shock value.


----------



## DBCCD

Fandangohome said:


> Rollins isn't drawing, Cena's not drawing, part timers aren't drawing. WWE are fucked, and it's all their own doing.
> 
> Time to take a risk, and start pushing some different guys. I'm bored of Rollins/Sting, Rollins/Cena, Shield/Wyatts, Sheamus/Orton, and i'm guessing so is the rest of the audience, because the numbers fucking suck.
> 
> NXT works, because you normally get different matches each week, rather than the same rehashed bullshit.
> 
> *Time to try a shock champion IMO, they need something to jolt some life back into the product. Have Rollins do an open challenge and lose to a lowercard guy, doesn't matter who, just someone you wouldn't expect. Just do something that will get people talking, and make people want to watch again. When in doubt, go for shock value.*


I usually would hate this, but for once, just one time, I would love to see this.


----------



## Empress

*WWE NEWS: Smackdown TV ratings are in - how did Thursday's show fare vs. the NFL? *

WWE Smackdown TV Ratings 2015

-- September 10: For now, last Thursday's Smackdown was the low-point for WWE's second brand.

Thursday's show scored a 1.54 rating, improving on last week's historical low 1.42 rating.

Smackdown was also on the right side of 2.0 million viewers. The show drew 2.040 million viewers against the NFL Kick-off Game, versus 1.981 million viewers last week.

In the key demographic ratings, Smackdown was helped by an increase in males 18-49. Also, adults 18-49 was flat compared to last week. However, males 18-34 was down from last week's year-low.

- Overall on Thursday nights this year, Smackdown has averaged a 1.78 rating and 2.476 million viewers.

The average is down more than one stair-step from a 1.92 rating and 2.700 million viewers through the same period on Friday nights last year.

Caldwell's Analysis: Right now, it looks like Smackdown's water level for the Fall TV Season will be 2.0 million viewers. Just last year on Friday nights, Smackdown occasionally touched 3.0 million viewers, but now it's just trying to stay on the right side of 2.0 million viewers. It's similar to "Total Divas" and "Tough Enough" trying to stay on the right of 1.0 million viewers during summer TV programming. 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87449.shtml#.VfNQW_lVikp


----------



## Fandangohome

DBCCD said:


> I usually would hate this, but for once, just one time, I would love to see this.


I'd normally hate it too because it's Russo style booking, but they have to do something, they can't just keep alienating a lot of the fanbase, and it doesn't matter who they put in the main event because the product is so stale that nobody (even Cena) is a draw right now.


----------



## RatedR10

Fandangohome said:


> Rollins isn't drawing, Cena's not drawing, part timers aren't drawing. WWE are fucked, and it's all their own doing.
> 
> Time to take a risk, and start pushing some different guys. I'm bored of Rollins/Sting, Rollins/Cena, Shield/Wyatts, Sheamus/Orton, and i'm guessing so is the rest of the audience, because the numbers fucking suck.
> 
> NXT works, because you normally get different matches each week, rather than the same rehashed bullshit.
> 
> Time to try a shock champion IMO, they need something to jolt some life back into the product. Have Rollins do an open challenge and lose to a lowercard guy, doesn't matter who, just someone you wouldn't expect. Just do something that will get people talking, and make people want to watch again. When in doubt, go for shock value.


Well, people definitely bought the idea of Neville becoming champion a few weeks ago in their Raw match, so there's that avenue to possible go... it works, too, because Neville isn't a complete joke. It'd be similar to the 2000-Jericho title win on Raw where it was quickly reversed, unless they did give Neville a short reign.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Time to put the belt on Sheamus.


----------



## bigdog40

No for the idea of a shock title chance just to get a number. The WWE needs to save their best stuff for PPV's and WWE special events. Those 3 hours of Raw, 2 hours of Smackdown, are filler to be used for build up the big shows.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

Building a new star would do good for ratings. That should count as a shock, since they almost never do it.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Mifune Jackson said:


> Time to put the belt on Sheamus.


I actually like Sheamus. Would like him to have another finisher though. Something like a power bomb or a jackhammer.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Mifune Jackson said:


> Time to put the belt on Sheamus.


I know you were being sarcastic, but I bet Vince would actually pull the trigger on it. I'm dead serious when I say this... They'd be better off putting the strap on Big E.

Sheamus is a dead act at the top level. Has been for *years*. He's fine as a guy you use to put the champion over. But as THE top guy holding THE top belt in 2015, Sheamus would be a disaster.

If WWE wants to put the strap on him during football season and watch their ratings collapse even further then that's fine by me.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

Soul Man Danny B said:


> I know you were being sarcastic, but I bet Vince would actually pull the trigger on it. I'm dead serious when I say this... They'd be better off putting the strap on Big E.


Putting the title on New Day would probably do good ratings. They're the most entertaining act on the roster and they have huge modern appeal with all the vine and other references they do. Plus they are so charismatic it's insane.


----------



## OwenSES

Put the title back on The Miz!!! The most must see superstar is not a gimmick it's real dammit! I would love 45 mins of Miz TV every Monday and think of the entertainment, that's all I want entertainment! Ratings would go up just because people would be so bemused.


----------



## RatedR10

I can't wait to see the ratings for this show. I'm really hoping for an hour below 3-million, I gotta say.


----------



## Kabraxal

RatedR10 said:


> I can't wait to see the ratings for this show. I'm really hoping for an hour below 3-million, I gotta say.


I don't see how it wouldn't... especially since the MNF games covered the whole 3 hours. Even people that don't care normally would probably have rather MNF than whatever that was on Raw.


----------



## The XL

I fully expect Raw to get lower than the 2.4 they got last Monday.


----------



## LilOlMe

^Vince has a habit of doing better than he has any right to.

This was the September 15, 2014 RAW ratings. It was the go home show for NOC as well:


> Overall, the episode averaged 3.82 million viewers, down from 3.98 million last week.
> 
> The hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 3.90 million
> Hour two: 3.94 million
> Hour three: 3.62 million
> 
> That third hour is the lowest since late last year. For what it's worth, the Eagles-Colts game drew 14.9 million viewers. The competition from football is always stiff but these numbers are undoubtedly causing a few folks in Stamford to squirm.


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-2014-night-of-champions-go-home-show-viewers


----------



## The XL

LilOlMe said:


> ^Vince has a habit of doing better than he has any right to.
> 
> This was the September 15, 2014 RAW ratings. It was the go home show for NOC as well:
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-2014-night-of-champions-go-home-show-viewers


It's amazing how much their viewership has dropped from even a year ago.


----------



## Goldusto

BanningMeIsFutile said:


> Coincidence that this has happened while Seth Rollins is the champion? I think not
> 
> Seth Failings


he is one of the worst booked champions ever, but it is the show as a whole more than one guy.


----------



## Cliffy

Goldusto said:


> he is one of the worst booked champions ever, but it is the show as a whole more than one guy.


So does the show still suck when the ratings go up after seth drops the belt ?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Raw has been continuously losing viewers going back years now, that includes during Cena, Orton, Punk, and Brock reigns. The trend has simply continued with Rollins. People also like to ignore that the week before Labor day they almost hit 4 million viewers for EACH of the 3 hours of Raw, with two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+.


----------



## Empress

*RAW Twitter *

– Monday’s RAW ranked #2 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings, behind Dancing with the Stars. RAW had a unique audience of 1.121 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week’s 1.130 million. RAW had total impressions of 8.387 million, which represents the number of times the show was tweeted about. This was up from last week’s 8.108 million impressions.

Read more: http://www.pwmania.com/sting-owen-h...ay-dinner-with-fans-raw-twitter#ixzz3lpQyfoib


----------



## Old School Icons

Turned off RAW after the "Twin magic" finish in the Diva's Championship match. Let me know if there is anything worth coming back to after that. 

This show can only insult my intelligence so much. 

I predicted Nikki was beating the record months ago and I didn't really care either way but its a match for a Championship, surely they can come up with something less lame and cringe worthy than that? 

Nikki Bella has a bigger ass and much bigger tits and different hair to her sister yet apparently they look identical enough for a twin magic finish just like the Uso's. 

:Rollins

Any other finish would have been preferable to that garbage that we've ALREADY SEEN BEFORE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO

:fuckthis


----------



## Crasp

Old School Icons said:


> Turned off RAW after the "Twin magic" finish in the Diva's Championship match. Let me know if there is anything worth coming back to after that.
> 
> This show can only insult my intelligence so much.
> 
> I predicted Nikki was beating the record months ago and I didn't really care either way but its a match for a Championship, surely they can come up with something less lame and cringe worthy than that?
> 
> Nikki Bella has a bigger ass and much bigger tits and different hair to her sister yet apparently they look identical enough for a twin magic finish just like the Uso's.
> 
> :Rollins
> 
> Any other finish would have been preferable to that garbage that we've ALREADY SEEN BEFORE ONLY A FEW MONTHS AGO
> 
> :fuckthis


Precisely where I tuned out too. It was just the proverbial straw. I'm done now with main roster WWE for the time being. Giant waste of time. I'm tired of the disappointments and I'm tired of complaining.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

The XL said:


> It's amazing how much their viewership has dropped from even a year ago.


Yes. And they also provide quite a bit of context...


> Hour one: 3.90 million
> Hour two: 3.94 million
> *Hour three: 3.62 million*
> 
> *That third hour is the lowest since late last year.* The competition from football is always stiff *but these numbers are undoubtedly causing a few folks in Stamford to squirm.*


----------



## Empress

*Monday Cable Ratings: NFL Football Wins Night + 'SportsCenter', 'Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood', 'Rick & Morty' & More*

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ove-hip-hop-hollywood-rick-morty-more/467035/


WWE:
WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	8:00 PM	3290	1.1
WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	9:00 PM	3539	1.2
WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	10:00 PM	3363	1.1

*NFL’s ‘Monday Night Football’ Opener Ratings Steady For ESPN From 2014; Game 2 Surges Over Last Year*
http://deadline.com/2015/09/monday-...ons-eagles-espn-nfl-vikings-49ers-1201527725/


----------



## samizayn

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Yes. And they also provide quite a bit of context...


Stamford have been squirming for a while now. I was glad to tune in to RAW yesterday because I haven't had the means to for a while, and I found the "season premiere" gimmick so hilarious and sad. 20yrs of RAW and there's a season premiere (which would logically take place on the RAW after 'mania anyway) only now? :lol

On the micro level I actually found RAW quite enjoyable - the usual shining stars like Rusev, Cesaro and particularly New Day who have been killing it - but the overall outlook is just too bleak to sustain a wider audience. Doubt Sting is drawing as much as they thought he would either.


----------



## kendalag

Sasha Fierce said:


> *Monday Cable Ratings: NFL Football Wins Night + 'SportsCenter', 'Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood', 'Rick & Morty' & More*
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ove-hip-hop-hollywood-rick-morty-more/467035/
> 
> 
> WWE:
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	8:00 PM	3290	1.1
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	9:00 PM	3539	1.2
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	10:00 PM	3363	1.1
> 
> *NFL’s ‘Monday Night Football’ Opener Ratings Steady For ESPN From 2014; Game 2 Surges Over Last Year*
> http://deadline.com/2015/09/monday-...ons-eagles-espn-nfl-vikings-49ers-1201527725/


It seems hot shotting a Sting match on Raw means nothing anymore.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Sasha Fierce said:


> *Monday Cable Ratings: NFL Football Wins Night + 'SportsCenter', 'Love & Hip Hop: Hollywood', 'Rick & Morty' & More*
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...ove-hip-hop-hollywood-rick-morty-more/467035/
> 
> 
> WWE:
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	8:00 PM	3290	1.1
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	9:00 PM	3539	1.2
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	10:00 PM	3363	1.1
> 
> *NFL’s ‘Monday Night Football’ Opener Ratings Steady For ESPN From 2014; Game 2 Surges Over Last Year*
> http://deadline.com/2015/09/monday-...ons-eagles-espn-nfl-vikings-49ers-1201527725/


Thank you for posting this. Demo was steady, but their ratings are playing a game of limbo: how low can you go?


----------



## nosleep

ohh man!


----------



## LilOlMe

This year:
3.40 million total viewers (rounded up)

Last year:
3.82 million total viewers


Despite all of the negativity, and the horrid nature of the show, I thought it'd do better. I was thinking around 3.5 million. My rationale was that they'd get about 10% less than they did two weeks ago, since I was thinking that last week was an extreme case.

I guess not.


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the chart:










Viewership is almost the same as last week not even going past 3,5 milions, and this is only getting worse.


----------



## Chrome

They actually did slightly better than I thought they would tbh. Those ratings are still awful though, especially considering Sting had his first match ever on Raw.


----------



## The Bloodline

kendalag said:


> It seems hot shotting a Sting match on Raw means nothing anymore.


Especially when they present it in the form of a Big Show main event :kobefacepalm


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Averaging out the three hours from last night and the three hours from last week:

Last night: 3.397 million
Last week: 3.385 million

So, last night only did 12,000 more viewers than last week.


----------



## Wynter

:ha 

For fucks sake. Your go home show with Sting doing his first match on Raw. How in the world do you fuck up so badly that this isn't a big deal 

:ha


Oh well. Keep on keeping on WWE and see how far these viewership and ratings dip.


----------



## LilOlMe

ZeroFear0 said:


> Especially when they present it in the form of a Big Show main event :kobefacepalm


Yep. Way to immediately shit on something that could have been interesting. They are so stupid.

This year's show is an 11% drop from last year. From what I've been seeing, this has been a pretty consistent slide. "They'll always watch", though, right? :vince6

The consistency tells me that there's a large segment who have just shut WWE out for good lately. They _could_ get them back, but the audience has really turned away from them right now.


----------



## Empress

*RAW Ratings Drop Again, Season Premiere Fails To Improve Viewership*

The ratings woes for WWE and their weekly programming continues for yet another week.

Last night’s show did a 2.42 rating, down from last week. WWE’s weekly shows have been dropping in ratings and losing viewers for the past several weeks. This trend does not look to be changing any time soon, and the start of the fall season of network television will not make gaining and keeping viewers easy in the weeks to come. Raw ratings have fallen for three straight weeks now.

WWE lost the ratings battle to the NFL, Love & Hip Hop, and SportsCenter last night.

Source: TV By The Numbers
http://www.topropepress.com/news/14...-season-premiere-fails-to-improve-viewership#


----------



## DoubtGin

Two title matches, Stings first RAW match and they still fail to improve :ti


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Next week will be the post-NOC show with new champion Sheamus opening with a 20-minute promo, so I expect it to at least do better than this week's.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WWE better get used to it with the NFL back.


----------



## Wynter

It's real telling when after the New Day and Authority segment ended, I immediately thought "Welp, it's all downhill from here." 

WWE has trained me to expect mediocrity. What kind of fuckery is that? 

"Sting is having his first match on Raw! "

:mark: wow, that's so cool! 

" against the Big Show!"


----------



## The XL

Good lord, Sting in his first Raw match ever and they draw a 2.42, lower than last weeks horrid ratings. Football is going to anally rape these guys this year.


----------



## Chrome

"Aw yeah, 2 title matches and Sting wrestling his first match ever on Raw, let's see MNF compete with that shit!"











*Looks at the ratings the next day.


----------



## The Bloodline

At least half a million didnt just quit the show this week but low 3's are to be expected. Anything even close to 4 million is surprising these days. 

They hyped up a Sting Main Event but still made sure no one cared by putting him with Big Show. Unbelievable. I'm hoping some good could eventually come from the ratings taking a dive but USA seems committed to 3 hours.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Can't wait for that Sheamus title reign...

Not because I want Sheamus as champion, but because I want to see WWE get 2.8 million viewers in the first hour.


----------



## Empress

*WWE NEWS: Raw TV Ratings Report - "season premiere" of Raw does not rebound from Labor Day Raw, sets new low-mark *

WWE Raw TV Ratings

-- September 14: There was no rebound following last week's historically-low TV rating last Monday on Labor Day.

The "season premiere" of Raw scored a 2.42 rating, down slightly from last week's 2.44 rating.

The snapshot reflects a significant drop-off in 2015 ratings compared to previous years. This year's Raw against the Monday Night Football Week 1 doubleheader scored a 2.42 rating, down from a 2.88 rating last year, a 2.91 rating two years ago, and 2.98 rating three years ago.

- Raw averaged 3.397 million viewers, about the same as 3.385 million average viewers last week.

Hourly Break Down: 3.290 million first hour viewers with a slow start out of the gate, an increase to 3.539 million second hour viewers, and a drop-off to 3.363 million third hour viewers at the intersection of the first MNF game ending and the second game on the West Coast beginning.

The third hour included Sting's first-ever Raw TV match, which was not announced in advance. WWE made the announcement at the top of the first hour, which was the least-watched first hour of Raw this year. The previous low for the first hour was 3.362 million viewers on June 29.

- In the demographic ratings, Raw took a big hit in males 18-34 & 18-49. Both were down three-tenths of a rating from last week. Raw was also down 12 percent among all adults 18-49, likely impacted by the season premiere of "Dancing with the Stars" on ABC.

Another external contributor to the ratings decline might have ben the season finale of "American Ninja Warriors" on NBC, which won the broadcast TV night among adults 18-49 & 18-34, according to a press release. 
http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87487.shtml#.VfiRRPlVikp


----------



## Cliffy

vince was right

sting isn't a star

plucked from obscurity 

etc.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lower overall rating than last week.

:ti

No 40 minutes of Rollins to blame this week.

On top of the full timers, we now know Taker, Brock (from their brawl segment earlier in the summer which did nada for the ratings) and NOW Sting are not draws anymore, either. Time for WWE to do something exciting for the first time in years.


----------



## Chrome

That drop-off from last year to this year is really staggering.


----------



## Empress

To be blunt, why is Big Show still involved in all these main events in 2015? I could understand if he were in the mold of a Daniel Bryan workhorse or a Randy Savage who can bring it in every match. But it was just like watching an old episode of WCW. Ad he's also facing Brock Lesnar in a few weeks. I just don't get it.

I don't think advertising Sting/Big Show would've helped though. NFL and Dancing With the Stars was always going to cut into their ratings. And the WWE doesn't give viewers much to expect. Their summer was lukewarm and now we're headed into a cold fall. If they could consistently put on better programming, there would be more good will, patience and eyeballs to the shows. I know I was paying more attention to has been celebrities try to ballroom dance during the first two hours of RAW because they just can't get it together.


----------



## Louaja89

ShowStopper said:


> Lower overall rating than last week.
> 
> :ti
> 
> *No 40 minutes of Rollins to blame this week.*
> 
> On top of the full timers, we now know Taker, Brock (from their brawl segment earlier in the summer which did nada for the ratings) and NOW Sting are not draws anymore, either. Time for WWE to do something exciting for the first time in years.


This.


----------



## Fabregas

WWE's lazy ass product is starting to get the ratings it deserves. Can't wait for them to sink below 2.0.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> To be blunt, why is Big Show still involved in all these main events in 2015? I could understand if he were in the mold of a Daniel Bryan workhorse or a Randy Savage who can bring it in every match. But it was just like watching an old episode of WCW. Ad he's also facing Brock Lesnar in a few weeks. I just don't get it.
> 
> I don't think advertising Sting/Big Show would've helped though. NFL and Dancing With the Stars was always going to cut into their ratings. And the WWE doesn't give viewers much to expect. Their summer was lukewarm and now we're headed into a cold fall. If they could consistently put on better programming, there would be more good will, patience and eyeballs to the shows. I know I was paying more attention to has been celebrities try to ballroom dance during the first two hours of RAW because they just can't get it together.


Agree about Big Show. And guess what? A Kane return is seemingly right around the corner...

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## 4TEset

ShowStopper said:


> Raw has been continuously losing viewers going back years now, that includes during Cena, Orton, Punk, and Brock reigns. The trend has simply continued with Rollins. People also like to ignore that the week before Labor day they almost hit 4 million viewers for EACH of the 3 hours of Raw, with two 3.8+'s and one 3.9+.


This dumb bitch is still continuing her shtick?

Yes, we know that ratings have been declining for years. Thanks for pointing out something obvious that the majority of people have been aware of for years. You're not adding anything to the discussion.

The fact is that the ratings this year, primarily beginning in April, have declined at a significantly higher rate than in previous years. That all started after your charisma vacuum was crowned world champ.

Do everyone a favor and let your intellectual superiors do the thinking. You can go make me a sandwich or something, you silly cunt.


----------



## Hydra

Damn, I was really thinking last week was an anomaly and they would recover with Sting having his first match on RAW. Its going to be a rough Fall for the WWE even if they panic the belt to Sting or Cena. And the Nikki match instantly made me not care about the Divas Division. They just don't fucking get it. They don't get that its not just that we wan't to have a legit women's division, but also interesting feuds and storylines to go with it. All of the divas are just there, having random ass matches. Literally the only thing fun and interesting right now is New Day. They really do top themselves each and every week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheRockPwnsAll said:


> Damn, I was really thinking last week was an anomaly and they would recover with Sting having his first match on RAW. Its going to be a rough Fall for the WWE even if they panic the belt to Sting or Cena. And the Nikki match instantly made me not care about the Divas Division. They just don't fucking get it. They don't get that its not just that we wan't to have a legit women's division, but also interesting feuds and storylines to go with it. All of the divas are just there, having random ass matches. Literally the only thing fun and interesting right now is New Day. They really do top themselves each and every week.


Not just the Divas, but also most of the men just have random matches, as well these days.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

ShowStopper said:


> Lower overall rating than last week.
> 
> :ti
> 
> No 40 minutes of Rollins to blame this week.
> 
> On top of the full timers, we now know Taker, Brock (from their brawl segment earlier in the summer which did nada for the ratings) and NOW Sting are not draws anymore, either. Time for WWE to do something exciting for the first time in years.


It's time for WWE to go back to the drawing board. RAW is taking on water big time now.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Agree about Big Show. And guess what? A Kane return is seemingly right around the corner...
> 
> :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


I don't want to stop anyone from making an honest living. But Big Show and Kane should have office jobs at this point. Or be in the mid card if they're still physically able to move around in the ring. I did want Sting to touch the belt, but that won't do anything for the ratings. 

So, the WWE should start grooming more heels and especially faces. If Daniel Bryan comes back, I could see a genuine face/heel dynamic with him and Rollins. Now, I've felt that Daniel Bryan should be eased back into the main event scene given his injuries. But there are no other super over faces at the moment to feud with Seth. Unless you count Brock Lesnar who is a part timer.


----------



## Hydra

ShowStopper said:


> Not just the Divas, but also most of the men just have random matches, as well these days.


This is true as well. The mid-card has been in shambles for years.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> I don't want to stop anyone from making an honest living. But Big Show and Kane should have office jobs at this point. Or be in the mid card if they're still physically able to move around in the ring. I did want Sting to touch the belt, but that won't do anything for the ratings.
> 
> So, the WWE should start grooming more heels and especially faces. If Daniel Bryan comes back, I could see a genuine face/heel dynamic with him and Rollins. Now, I've felt that Daniel Bryan should be eased back into the main event scene given his injuries. But there are no other super over faces at the moment to feud with Seth. Unless you count Brock Lesnar who is a part timer.


I hear you. They need alot of changes. Rollins should drop the belt. Not because this is all his fault or anything close to that, but because WWE needs a complete and utter REBOOT. Get rid of Trips and Steph and the Authority as a whole. Stop putting Trips and Steph on TV every week. I would actually reboot all of the titles, now that I think about it and practically, for all intents and purposes, start all over. Couldn't hurt.


----------



## domotime2

the 3rd hour of raw hasn't been high in years so i don't care about the hourly breakdown anymore. No one can sit through 3 hours of raw and the final hour of raw/final match of raw has now turned into the least important. 

It's 2015, I don't know why they think a stale product is the way to go. I get that unfortunately we currently live in an walking on egg shell society, which is a real shame, but it's still 2015, SAFE isn't going to get you anywhere. It has nothing to do with who's champion or who's main eventing or anything of the sort, it's the overall boring tone of the entire product right now that's screaming YAWWWWWWWWNNNNN. No CM Punk, No Daniel Bryan, No Sex, No violence...just boring stale modern athletes wrestling scripted matches. Controversial and interesting is where it's at...and the WWE hasnt been that in quite some time.

Look at the internet boards and how excited we are about New Day. I think that says it all really. The New Day are funny and it's a good time, but boy oh boy, if this is the BEST THING YOU HAVE GOING...shit guys, we're in trouble. This reminds me of another era of WWE...another era where the best things going were comedy acts.... we had clowns, mounties, indians, vikings..funny acts, and a couple of stale boring main eventers (i'm a huge Bret mark too btw but i gotta call it like i see it)....and if im' not mistaken, the WWE was on its last breath then too.


----------



## Wynter

In before Cena wins the MITB case from Sheamus on Smackdown, beats Rollins for the U.S. belt and then successfully cashes in later that night.

GOTTA SAVE THE SHOW, DAMN IT!


----------



## Godway

What is really interesting about the ratings drop is that it proves what a nothing Sting is. So once again, HHH buried a WCW guy and cost the company potential money to be had. Pandering as hard as him and Stephanie did in that opening promo, only to continue TANKING in ratings is fucking amazing. I hope they continue ticking down over and over and over again until they finally understand that three hours is killing them.

And that yeah, your 'huge announcement' probably shouldn't ever be a WCW Thunder match in 2015. Or that any type of advertised announcement probably shouldn't ever feature the Big Show.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

What's a good show? Game of Thrones. what does that show have? Dragons... So WWE needs a dragon of sorts. Unfortunately the Lucha Dragons are international wrestlers. They need an American Dragon... American Dragon = Ratings.


----------



## JTB33b

A PG wrestling program does not sell. That's the bottom line.


----------



## domotime2

Godway said:


> What is really interesting about the ratings drop is that it proves what a nothing Sting is. So once again, HHH buried a WCW guy and cost the company potential money to be had. Pandering as hard as him and Stephanie did in that opening promo, only to continue TANKING in ratings is fucking amazing. I hope they continue ticking down over and over and over again until they finally understand that three hours is killing them.
> 
> And that yeah, your 'huge announcement' probably shouldn't ever be a WCW Thunder match in 2015. Or that any type of advertised announcement probably shouldn't ever feature the Big Show.


you think ratings are bad because of sting? or you're saying that with Triple H beating him at wrestlemania, it's completely negated any drawing power he could have?


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> I hear you. They need alot of changes. *Rollins should drop the belt.* Not because this is all his fault or anything close to that, but because WWE needs a complete and utter REBOOT. Get rid of Trips and Steph and the Authority as a whole. Stop putting Trips and Steph on TV every week. I would actually reboot all of the titles, now that I think about it and practically, for all intents and purposes, start all over. Couldn't hurt.


Drop it to who though? Daniel Bryan is the only superstar I could see the majority of the fans getting behind right now. This is assuming he's the third man at NOC and then decides he wants another crack at the top belt. He could say his career is winding down and wants what's his. Seth and Bryan could have some great matches. Outside of Dean, the WWE hasn't really given Seth a meaningful feud. 

In the background, you build up Reigns, Ambrose, Cesaro, Rusev, Owens, etc. A strong mid card is essential.

Once Rollins eventually turns face, there should be a dominant heel to take his place. 

And they need to stop spamming with all these Dusty finishes. 

Also, Stephanie and HHH need to decide what they are. They're heels, tweeners and straight up faces in one show. I'd blame creative but they are creative. :floyd1


----------



## domotime2

JTB33b said:


> A PG wrestling program does not sell. That's the bottom line.


It didn't sell in 1994....and it's not going to sell in 2015, it's just that simple. And we're not talking about just showing more tits and more blood, it's not just about that....it's about not having everything be so goddamn safe and simple and bleh.


----------



## Godway

domotime2 said:


> you think ratings are bad because of sting? or you're saying that with Triple H beating him at wrestlemania, it's completely negated any drawing power he could have?


I don't think Sting was ever going to draw well aside from a one-off Mania match against the Undertaker. Because he's arriving in WWE 15 years too late, and WWE fans don't really give a shit about him. Most of the casuals are cheering him because they think they have to, they don't even know who he is. While like 60% of the crowd is trying to do Sting chants, the camera was showing little kids doing YES chants thinking that's what people were chanting.

But yes, any and all drawing power he had when he came in VANISHED the moment he jobbed to HHH in his first WWE match. He's fucking worthless now and they're paying him for nothing.


----------



## domotime2

Sasha Fierce said:


> Drop it to who though? Daniel Bryan is the only superstar I could see the majority of the fans getting behind right now. This is assuming he's the third man at NOC and then decides he wants another crack at the top belt. He could say his career is winding down and wants what's his. Seth and Bryan could have some great matches. Outside of Dean, the WWE hasn't really given Seth a meaningful feud.
> 
> In the background, you build up Reigns, Ambrose, Cesaro, Rusev, Owens, etc. A strong mid card is essential.
> 
> Once Rollins eventually turns face, there should be a dominant heel to take his place.
> 
> And they need to stop spamming with all these Dusty finishes.
> 
> *Also, Stephanie and HHH need to decide what they are. They're heels, tweeners and straight up faces in one show*. I'd blame creative but they are creative. :floyd1


It's continuing with my narrative of them constantly playing everything so fucking safe. I hate this aspect a lot. Vince in the corporation, was a CHARACTER, an interesting/must watch tv character. Triple H and Steph are being..........themselves? That's not interesting or must watch tv. That's boring.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> Drop it to who though? Daniel Bryan is the only superstar I could see the majority of the fans getting behind right now. This is assuming he's the third man at NOC and then decides he wants another crack at the top belt. He could say his career is winding down and wants what's his. Seth and Bryan could have some great matches. Outside of Dean, the WWE hasn't really given Seth a meaningful feud.
> 
> In the background, you build up Reigns, Ambrose, Cesaro, Rusev, Owens, etc. A strong mid card is essential.
> 
> Once Rollins eventually turns face, there should be a dominant heel to take his place.
> 
> And they need to stop spamming with all these Dusty finishes.
> 
> Also, Stephanie and HHH need to decide what they are. They're heels, tweeners and straight up faces in one show. I'd blame creative but they are creative. :floyd1


I don't even know who he should drop the belt, too. Like you eluded to, they haven't built anyone up well recently. So, these problems are bound to continue. Cena will probably somehow, some way end up with the belt again, and we'll just repeat the same process all over again. But it doesn't even matter. The World title is far from their only or biggest problem.


----------



## Randy Lahey

Sasha Fierce said:


> *RAW Ratings Drop Again, Season Premiere Fails To Improve Viewership*
> 
> The ratings woes for WWE and their weekly programming continues for yet another week.
> 
> Last night’s show did a *2.42 rating,* down from last week. WWE’s weekly shows have been dropping in ratings and losing viewers for the past several weeks. This trend does not look to be changing any time soon, and the start of the fall season of network television will not make gaining and keeping viewers easy in the weeks to come. Raw ratings have fallen for three straight weeks now.
> 
> WWE lost the ratings battle to the NFL, Love & Hip Hop, and SportsCenter last night.
> 
> Source: TV By The Numbers
> http://www.topropepress.com/news/14...-season-premiere-fails-to-improve-viewership#


And people once thought CM Punk was the ratings killer. It can always get worse WWE. And there is no end in sight.


----------



## The Dazzler

I hope it keeps going down. We might get some changes then. >


----------



## domotime2

Godway said:


> I don't think Sting was ever going to draw well aside from a one-off Mania match against the Undertaker. Because he's arriving in WWE 15 years too late, and WWE fans don't really give a shit about him. Most of the casuals are cheering him because they think they have to, they don't even know who he is. While like 60% of the crowd is trying to do Sting chants, the camera was showing little kids doing YES chants thinking that's what people were chanting.
> 
> But yes, any and all drawing power he had when he came in VANISHED the moment he jobbed to HHH in his first WWE match. He's fucking worthless now and they're paying him for nothing.


I dont disagree with this. I thought his initial booking was brilliant, with him costing the authority their power at survivor series, but who knew that from then on it would go down hill for his entire stint.

Plus, I think even the biggest sting fans (like myself) sees this entire angle and just says "this is shit". It's shitty booking and Sting on name-brand recognition alone isn't going to cover it up.


----------



## Godway

domotime2 said:


> I dont disagree with this. I thought his initial booking was brilliant, with him costing the authority their power at survivor series, but who knew that from then on it would go down hill for his entire stint.
> 
> Plus, I think even the biggest sting fans (like myself) sees this entire angle and just says "this is shit". It's shitty booking and Sting on name-brand recognition alone isn't going to cover it up.


He should have never been working HHH to begin with. That was a stupid ass match and never had half the potential of a Sting/Taker match.


----------



## domotime2

Godway said:


> He should have never been working HHH to begin with. That was a stupid ass match and never had half the potential of a Sting/Taker match.


Hmm, I guess, I don't know if i totally agree with that. A big overall concept of Sting getting revenge for WCW against Tripe H sounded sweet in my head...an outsider finally stoping the authority for ruining the WWE. I liked it. It had a nice sound to it.

But low and behold, 2 weeks later they're back in power, and sting loses and it's all over.

Sting vs Taker would've been just a grudge match, which is fine, but I liked the idea of Sting constantly being a thorn in triple H's side.


----------



## PrinceofPush

4TEset said:


> This dumb bitch is still continuing her shtick?
> 
> Yes, we know that ratings have been declining for years. Thanks for pointing out something obvious that the majority of people have been aware of for years. You're not adding anything to the discussion.
> 
> The fact is that the ratings this year, primarily beginning in April, have declined at a significantly higher rate than in previous years. That all started after your charisma vacuum was crowned world champ.
> 
> Do everyone a favor and let your intellectual superiors do the thinking. You can go make me a sandwich or something, you silly cunt.


Well, guess we know who's getting humbled...


----------



## Chrome

Randy Lahey said:


> And people once thought CM Punk was the ratings killer. It can always get worse WWE. And there is no end in sight.


2.98 from 3 years ago doesn't sound too bad now huh? unk


----------



## The Tempest

Well, looks like not creating star power is biting Vince and Creative's pitiful and incompetent ass :ti RAW needs.... actually, WWE needs to restart from zero. The current formula doesn't work anymore and is hurting the already poor product.


----------



## DoubtGin

next champs will most likely be Sheamus, Cena and Reigns

yay


----------



## Kiz-sama

Authority themselves are not the problem. Authority without no purpose, story and a babyface opponent is the problem. The Authority was at its best and most fun to watch when there was Bryan and when there was Shield feuding against them. Coincidence? No, because back then they had a purpose, a story and opponent on the show. Right now, they are merely filling in for the pedantic "RAW GM" role and "The Authority" gimmick is just a prop(and they know it, this is why they are goofing around). You might as well bring back teddy long or Vickie Guerrero because those characters were just that, filler GMs with no purpose. 

What I'm saying is Triple H and Stephanie need be placed in proper feuds, its been way too long since they were. Because make no mistake about it, Trips and Steph are excellent heels with ton of credibility and massive heat magnets, these two can get any face over. They just need to be used well by WWE creative.


----------



## Marv95

Sasha Fierce said:


> Drop it to who though?


Sting, only to quickly drop it to HHH(or a heel Reigns) to begin a storyline leading up to Mania 32.

As far as the number, is that an all-time low? Expect it to get worse unless they *shake up the product and presentation*. A watered down, borderline TVG product won't sell, 3 hours or 2. I agree on a reboot but it shoulda been done long ago.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Somehow I can't help but feel this is somehow all Roman Reigns' fault.


----------



## DoubtGin

I don't think changing champions (although I think this should happen) will change anything as long as the overall product is as bland as it is.


----------



## Chrome

DoubtGin said:


> I don't think changing champions (although I think this should happen) will change anything as long as the overall product is as bland as it is.


Yeah it's not gonna change a thing. Whole show needs a format change.


----------



## The Bloodline

StraightYesSociety said:


> What's a good show? Game of Thrones. what does that show have? Dragons... So WWE needs a dragon of sorts. Unfortunately the Lucha Dragons are international wrestlers. They need an American Dragon... American Dragon = Ratings.


Or they could go full kayfabe and bring on the dragons like that other company :mark: :lol











Kiz-sama said:


> Authority themselves are not the problem. Authority without no purpose, story and a babyface opponent is the problem. *The Authority was at its best and most fun to watch when there was Bryan and when there was Shield feuding against them. Coincidence? No, because back then they had a purpose, a story and opponent on the show.* Right now, they are merely filling in for the pedantic "RAW GM" role and "The Authority" gimmick is just a prop(and they know it, this is why they are goofing around). You might as well bring back teddy long or Vickie Guerrero because those characters were just that, filler GMs with no purpose.
> 
> What I'm saying is Triple H and Stephanie need be placed in proper feuds, its been way too long since they were. Because make no mistake about it, Trips and Steph are excellent heels with ton of credibility and massive heat magnets, these two can get any face over. They just need to be used well by WWE creative.


Excellent point. The Authority has been useless since last year. They arent serving as a obstacle to any face. They're actually more of a issue for their own guy at the moment. Switching between face and heel roles for whatever situation they feel like seeing through that week. The brief time they were gone they filled the show with guest host which was even worst. Either scrap the Authority figures all together and come up with a new formula or give Trips and Steph a real purpose.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Steph and Trips going back and forth between heel and face like they're the Bellas or something... :drake1

I guess we know who books the Bellas..


----------



## Empress

Ambrose vs. HHH would've been money. It sets up Dean as a foe of the Authority and a strong babyface. Reigns could've been recruited as the corporate "muscle" and played mind games with Seth who becomes increasingly insecure about his place in the Authority. In the end, Reigns exacts his revenge over the Shield betrayal and takes Seth down. HHH could make stars out of all three but has tunnel vision. The Shield should've ascended together. Now Rollins is a champ in a rut while Dean and Roman are basically a tag team. 

Owens was a breath of fresh air this summer. Not capitalizing on the momentum was a mistake. 

If and when Bryan comes back, push him hard. He may not have long left in his career. Just go got it. And turn Cena heel dammit. 

Make the divas more than just eye candy. 

I do agree they changing champs just because is like rearranging the deck on the Titanic. It's still sinking. Vince should let the NXT writers, and not his creative crew from Hollywood, craft the stories. They should pay Austin, Foley and Edge top dollar to join creative. Let Heyman take the lead in booking. He can do more than just say, "My client..."

The ratings would rise. But all of this would require people setting aside their egos.


----------



## Godway

Kiz-sama said:


> Authority themselves are not the problem. Authority without no purpose, story and a babyface opponent is the problem. The Authority was at its best and most fun to watch when there was Bryan and when there was Shield feuding against them. Coincidence? No, because back then they had a purpose, a story and opponent on the show. Right now, they are merely filling in for the pedantic "RAW GM" role and "The Authority" gimmick is just a prop(and they know it, this is why they are goofing around). You might as well bring back teddy long or Vickie Guerrero because those characters were just that, filler GMs with no purpose.
> 
> What I'm saying is Triple H and Stephanie need be placed in proper feuds, its been way too long since they were. Because make no mistake about it, Trips and Steph are excellent heels with ton of credibility and massive heat magnets, these two can get any face over. They just need to be used well by WWE creative.


While you're right, they are literally just going out there each week to entertain themselves and don't give a fuck about any of this, that is THEIR fault. HHH is the one who wants to work this stupid fucking 'disappointed dad' storyline with Seth Rollins. If him and Stephanie wanted to be putting people over and doing something useful on screen, they would be. They're content doing absolutely nothing, and randomly switching from heel to face in order to get pops depending on their mood.


----------



## Stung like Sting

The Authority angle is a joke; right?!?


----------



## KingLobos

"stop blaming Seth"

Ok, go back to the midcard, drop the title and he can stop pretending to be "the man" who is losing viewers for the past 6 months.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> The Authority angle is a joke; right?!?


Been one for awhile now, yes.


----------



## Kiz-sama

Godway said:


> While you're right, they are literally just going out there each week to entertain themselves and don't give a fuck about any of this, that is THEIR fault. HHH is the one who wants to work this stupid fucking 'disappointed dad' storyline with Seth Rollins. If him and Stephanie wanted to be putting people over and doing something useful on screen, they would be. They're content doing absolutely nothing, and randomly switching from heel to face in order to get pops depending on their mood.


Its not really them. Its just WWE's age-old format of opening with promos with starpower and then typically end with some sort of tag match. WWE has designed their shows in that way for years, and for that they need starpower. Cena, Triple H and Stephanie, the champion Rollins and the part timers are the only ones with that certain level of starpower and credibility in WWE right now. They save Cena for the main event matches, the part timers hardly appear and this leaves either Triple H/Stephanie or Seth Rollins to open the show. Doing this everyweek leads to over-exposure and staleness of the respective characters on the show. This is the real issue.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*In spite of football, I expected a slight increase and no 500 k dropoff due to Seth getting no mic time and we got it. Now they've just got to start booking people right and making worthwhile matches on television.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIV said:


> Thank you for posting this. Demo was steady, but their ratings are playing a game of limbo: how low can you go?





LilOlMe said:


> This year:
> 3.40 million total viewers (rounded up)
> 
> Last year:
> 3.82 million total viewers
> 
> 
> Despite all of the negativity, and the horrid nature of the show, I thought it'd do better. I was thinking around 3.5 million. My rationale was that they'd get about 10% less than they did two weeks ago, since I was thinking that last week was an extreme case.
> 
> I guess not.





The Tempest said:


> Viewership is almost the same as last week not even going past 3,5 milions, and this is only getting worse.





Ramsay Bolton said:


> :ha
> 
> For fucks sake. Your go home show with Sting doing his first match on Raw. How in the world do you fuck up so badly that this isn't a big deal
> 
> :ha
> 
> 
> Oh well. Keep on keeping on WWE and see how far these viewership and ratings dip.


Also, this is down from last week:



> – Monday’s RAW ranked #2 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings, behind Dancing with the Stars. RAW had a unique audience of 1.121 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week’s 1.130 million.


----------



## Empress

I wonder if next week's RAW will get a post PPV bounce.


----------



## LordKain

You'd think they'd get it through their thick sculls that long drawn out heel champion reigns don't draw now wouldn't you? And they never have either. There's a reason why the WWF was doing 3 or 4 times the business that WCW/NWA did back in the 80's. 

As far as Rollins goes they should turned him babyface at SummerSlam yet they've done nothing with him out then constantly making him look like Triple H and Stephanie bitch which has killed all of his momentum from WrestleMania.

What hurts the most is that Vince, Dunn, Triple H and Stephanie are never going to blame themselves for the piss poor ratings that Raw's get now days either. It will always be either the poor writers they have working for them or the talent themselves.


----------



## LilOlMe

Sasha Fierce said:


> I wonder if next week's RAW will get a post PPV bounce.


I think so, especially if they give Sting the title. Then again, the Jon Stewart thing didn't seem to have ANY effect, so I don't know. I guess it's possible that ratings would have been even lower without it, but I don't know.

I just feel that some old casuals might come back for a bit, just to see what's happening with Sting holding the title. However, if they put on a typically crappy show, they're not gonna keep them around. 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

People talk about RAW declining for years, but it has not been anywhere near as steep as this year. I feel like I'm reading "one of the lowest rated RAWs" headlines every other week now. 

Throw in Smackdown's descent, and it's pretty clear that something especially negative is going on this year with the ratings.


Here are the final RAW ratings for the past few years, thru the Sept 15-17 week:


2.79 - 2015
3.04 - 2014
3.09 - 2013
3.13 - 2012


Source: Gerweck.net


2013 - 1.2% decline over yr before
2014 - 1.6% decline over yr before
2015 - 8.4% decline over yr before


So it's not just some "ratings have been sliding for years!" thing. Especially since it seems like in the summer it was especially free-falling, and it hasn't stopped since. It's a pretty consistent thing now.


----------



## Empress

@LilOlMe

It would be refreshing if the Rollins/Sting match ended clean. Almost every title defense Seth Rollins has been in has ended in some nonsense. Even the Dean Ambrose "win" was a bit tainted. If Sting wins (which I don't expect him to), it should be clean. That holds more appeal than another DQ, Dusty ending or screwball finish IMO. It could draw more eyes back to RAW to see how the WWE follows up. It would be a reset; a temporary one since a 56 year old is not someone you build a company around, but the WWE could use that window to get things. You set up Rollins/HHH, turn him face and start building towards Survivor Series. I'd have Reigns turn on Ambrose and set that bromance on fire. I'd position Ambrose as one of the top faces and Reigns as the top heel If Daniel Bryan comes back, push him hard (possibly against Rusev or Sheamus), initiate a Wyatt/Orton feud. Unlike the other Wyatt feuds, Orton would attack Wyatt as payback and Sheamus cashes in on Sting. Owens should get the IC belt.

By the Rumble, there are now some viable contenders: Ambrose, Reigns, Rollins, Bryan, Orton, Wyatt, Owens, Rusev. 

As for the Divas, put the belt on Charlotte and turn Becky heel afterwards. I thought Paige turning would be best, but Becky is in limbo. I'd give her an anchor. Paige can still be a viable face and she can be positioned against a returning Emma. Nikki/Sasha can feud. 

If I booked the WWE, I'd throw everything at the wall and see what sticks. It's crazy how Vince McMahon seems to lose his nerve. He didn't hesitant to have Roman Reigns win the Royal Rumble and put him in the main event of WM 31. Sometimes, you shake your head at his nerve but he's been the most successful just taking a risk. I'm not sure what he has to lose at this point. The ratings are already in a free fall. And Smackdown is about to get hit next week when the ABC shows return to the line up with new episodes.


----------



## LilOlMe

@Sasha Fierce, I think that Vince has his hand in so many business fires, that he's now gun-shy and lazy when it comes to creative.

I mean, I can see how they _tried_ to make this RAW seem special. That whole Authority promo was designed around making the show seem exciting, but the content SUCKED. It's shocking. How can you design everything around that promo being a gigantic marketing ploy, and then not deliver anything worth marketing?!

It was right away too! They sucked the air out of the room with that Big Show announcement.

How bad is it that I was actually kind of enjoying the Big Show/Sting match, and "Creative" somehow got even worse with the typical tag team bullshit?

Then I was thinking about it, and Vince loves Big Show. This motherfucker thought it somehow would get Reigns cheered if Big Show and Kane were the last two in the Rumble. WTF!!!! 

It shows you that he (and I believe that HHH is no great savior either) just doesn't know what he's doing. That's what he did to someone he LIKED. Imagine when he's trying to screw you over? Well, he is good at that.

I don't know if it's old age, because some older folks are still creative. However, it is a stereotype that older people get very stuck in their ways. That may be what's going on here. There's no reason why he couldn't have built other younger, big, guys, to take the place of the Big Shows of the world. Why couldn't Harper or Rusev have been involved in the Authority storylines?


Also, Stephanie and H are absolutely in love with themselves, and that's a huge issue too. WWE desperately needs some oversight and an editor. 

To this day I'm still annoyed that Stephanie had Lana back down to her character. The only other really alpha, dominant, female, at that time, and Steph still refused to sell for her. God forbid we make a woman in the WWE actually be a star, rather than sell for Rhonda Rousey. Ugh.


----------



## Badbadrobot

What is there to discuss ? Until wwe rectify their fucking awful booking, the product and the ratings will continue to bomb - simple


----------



## Y2Joe

I was hoping for under a 2.4, but I'll take it.

I just wonder how long it is before a USA exec contacts WWE and goes "Uh, hey guys ..."


----------



## CookiePuss

Imagine if Roman Reigns was the champion right now. 


Wonder he'd be blamed for the ratings.


----------



## Empress

CookiePuss said:


> Imagine if Roman Reigns was the champion right now.
> 
> 
> Wonder he'd be blamed for the ratings.


He was blamed for the RTW ratings and ones who afforded him any grace were his fans. All 10 of us. :hogan

Great points @LilOlMe I have to wait to give you more rep. :smile2: 

Older/established people do tend to take less risks. When you're young, hungry and back is pressed against the wall, you do whatever you have to. But the one intangible that remains is Vince is once again a billionaire. The product is bad from a viewing perspective, but it's still profitable. The ratings will have to catch up with the bottom line.


----------



## D.M.N.

For those who are saying that the demo was steady, it really, really wasn't...

*Week-on-Week*
Viewers = Up 0.4%
P18-49 = Down 11.7%
F12-34 = Down 9.1%
P18-34 = Down 17.5%
P25-34 = Down 12.7%
M50+ = Up 3.1%


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

> M50+ = Up 3.1%


*Old people tuned in to watch Sting :yay*


----------



## Kabraxal

LilOlMe said:


> I think so, especially if they give Sting the title. Then again, the Jon Stewart thing didn't seem to have ANY effect, so I don't know. I guess it's possible that ratings would have been even lower without it, but I don't know.
> 
> I just feel that some old casuals might come back for a bit, just to see what's happening with Sting holding the title. However, if they put on a typically crappy show, they're not gonna keep them around.
> 
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> 
> People talk about RAW declining for years, but it has not been anywhere near as steep as this year. I feel like I'm reading "one of the lowest rated RAWs" headlines every other week now.
> 
> Throw in Smackdown's descent, and it's pretty clear that something especially negative is going on this year with the ratings.
> 
> 
> Here are the final RAW ratings for the past few years, thru the Sept 15-17 week:
> 
> 
> 2.79 - 2015
> 3.04 - 2014
> 3.09 - 2013
> 3.13 - 2012
> 
> 
> Source: Gerweck.net
> 
> 
> 2013 - 1.2% decline over yr before
> 2014 - 1.6% decline over yr before
> 2015 - 8.4% decline over yr before
> 
> 
> So it's not just some "ratings have been sliding for years!" thing. Especially since it seems like in the summer it was especially free-falling, and it hasn't stopped since. It's a pretty consistent thing now.


The "hardcore" fans finally had enough and it just happened they are leaving in groups instead of a trickle. ANd it doesn't help you piss people off at the Rumble, then with the booking with Lesnar/Taker, then with Seth, then with the women, then with Cesaro, then with Owens th....... I honestly can't say the booking team has actually done one thing perfect this year. Not one single thing. 

It seems as if everything is designed to slap the wrestling fan around because "they'll always watch", but we can only take so much abuse.


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> The "hardcore" fans finally had enough and it just happened they are leaving in groups instead of a trickle. ANd it doesn't help you piss people off at the Rumble, then with the booking with Lesnar/Taker, then with Seth, then with the women, then with Cesaro, then with Owens th....... I honestly can't say the booking team has actually done one thing perfect this year. Not one single thing.
> 
> It seems as if everything is designed to slap the wrestling fan around because "they'll always watch", but we can only take so much abuse.


Does anyone know how much control USA can exert on WWE to change their storylines? I like shows like Scandal. But last year, the ratings dipped and ABC mandated some changes. They also recently fired the head writer of General Hospital due to months of bad ratings. Unless of course, USA is happy with 3-3.5 million.


----------



## The Tempest

Sasha Fierce said:


> Does anyone know how much control USA can exert on WWE to change their storylines?


Well, considering that NBC Universal owns pretty much all the right to broadcast WWE programming, RAW and next year SD that is, I'd be surprised if it doesn't have any control. USA can't be happy with the 3-3.5 milion range.


----------



## Chrome

Sasha Fierce said:


> Does anyone know how much control USA can exert on WWE to change their storylines? I like shows like Scandal. But last year, the ratings dipped and ABC mandated some changes. They also recently fired the head writer of General Hospital due to months of bad ratings. Unless of course, USA is happy with 3-3.5 million.


Don't know, but aren't they the ones who like the Authority and wanted WWE to keep the stable around? They're a part of the problem if that's true.


----------



## Kabraxal

Sasha Fierce said:


> Does anyone know how much control USA can exert on WWE to change their storylines? I like shows like Scandal. But last year, the ratings dipped and ABC mandated some changes. They also recently fired the head writer of General Hospital due to months of bad ratings. Unless of course, USA is happy with 3-3.5 million.


Considering USA's slate of shows right now and some cancellation decisions and what shows they promote.. don't have much hope they know much more than the WWE about what people want.


----------



## LilOlMe

D.M.N. said:


> For those who are saying that the demo was steady, it really, really wasn't...
> 
> *Week-on-Week*
> Viewers = Up 0.4%
> P18-49 = Down 11.7%
> F12-34 = Down 9.1%
> P18-34 = Down 17.5%
> P25-34 = Down 12.7%
> M50+ = Up 3.1%


lol, the one group advertisers care the least about. This is interesting, though, because someone posted a little while back that 50+ yr olds turned away from RAW in droves, and it all happened suddenly. 




Kabraxal said:


> The "hardcore" fans finally had enough and it just happened they are leaving in groups instead of a trickle. ANd it doesn't help you piss people off at the Rumble, then with the booking with Lesnar/Taker, then with Seth, then with the women, then with Cesaro, then with Owens th....... I honestly can't say the booking team has actually done one thing perfect this year. Not one single thing.
> 
> It seems as if everything is designed to slap the wrestling fan around because "they'll always watch", but we can only take so much abuse.


You're right. A perfect example is when they brought Brock back. This wasn't the worst thing in the world, because it turned out ok, but it could have been done in a much more exciting way.

He goes on the warpath, tears the place up, & gets suspended, which was one of the most buzzed about segments on RAW. Then what do they do? They just bring him back like nothing! They don't capitalize on that at all. They don't do an ongoing story of Brock trying to get back in, holding the show(s) hostage, tearing shit up. WHY would you not capitalize on one of the hottest angles you've done recently?!

Just lazy! 

They have something so hot that's right in their laps, and that takes minimal effort to promote & unleash, and they still don't do it.




Sasha Fierce said:


> Does anyone know how much control USA can exert on WWE to change their storylines? I like shows like Scandal. But last year, the ratings dipped and ABC mandated some changes. They also recently fired the head writer of General Hospital due to months of bad ratings. Unless of course, USA is happy with 3-3.5 million.


An ex-writer (Alex Greenfield) said that USA would send memos saying that they wanted to see more of the McMahons and more love story angles. The way it came across to me was as a recommendation, rather than a demand.

The chairwoman of USA, Bonnie Fuller, has been a close associate of Vince's for years and years, and I think that's part of the problem. IMO, it seems like she's a massive fan of the WWE, and therefore can't see the forest from the trees. I think that someone who has had less of a long-standing relationship with Vince, would probably be more of a hard-ass. 

FWIW, he also mentioned that Vince never brought up ratings in creative meetings, except to congratulate them when an angle was getting over in the ratings (he specifically mentioned something with Batista and Rey). He said that the only time that he remembers Vince bringing up bad ratings was when he was bitching that Saturday Night's Main Event ratings weren't good, but he blamed it on the network for not promoting it enough. That's what he was bitching about.


ETA: Vince does seem to respond to network recommendations. Greenfield said that Vince would act like "I'm not gonna do what they say!" in front of them, but then he would. So if the network demanded a complete overhaul, it sounds like Vince probably would please his masters. It probably would take new people in charge at USA for that to happen, though. Seems like there's a stagnating vision all around there. Continued bad ratings could change that, but let's not get our hopes up...


----------



## Empress

Thanks @Chrome and @LilOlMe

I think your replies suggest that what's taking place on screen is USA supported. Or at the very least, the WWE has a very liberal reign to do as they please. It's too bad that the execs in charge don't want to shake things up. In that case, they are very much part of the problem.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

WWE is only on USA because of decent ratings that bring USA up the ladder on charts. Soon as that stops bye bye WWE or they will demand changes. It will be cheaper for USA to air reruns of old shows or make ones for the same return. Its not like WWE commands high ad dollars either. Its seen as poor peoples entertainment.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's September 21, 2015 Newsletter:


> *Raw on 9/13 did a 2.42 rating and 3.39 million viewers* (1.46 viewers per home). The numbers were almost identical to the previous week. *It tied the non-holiday lowest since October 27, 1997* (which did a 2.3 but that was head-to-head with Nitro and Monday Night Football). Total viewers were up 20,000 from last week, making it the second lowest non-holiday number since 1997.
> 
> The 8 p.m. hour did 3.29 million viewers, the 9 p.m. hour did 3.54 million viewers and the 10 p.m. hour did 3.36 million viewers.
> 
> The Adonis Stevenson vs. Tommy Karpency boxing match on 9/11 on Spike drew 582,000 viewers.
> 
> *Smackdown on 9/10 drew a 1.54 rating and 2.04 million viewers (1.42 viewers per home), the second lowest non-holiday viewership since going on Syfy (in 2010 - my note),* up slightly from the 1.42 rating and 1.98 million viewers the week before.





> But if you look at the period from January through mid-September, the 2012 to 2013 decline was 1.2%. The 2013 to 2014 decline was 1.6%. The 2014 to 2015 decline is 8.4%. The idea that Smackdown would decline with a move from Friday to Thursday seemed unfathomable, but that happened.



On the bright side, Meltzer made this point:


> Since USA’s goal is to be No. 1 in cable ratings, it sacrifices higher ad revenue it can get with other programming because Raw, and next year Smackdown, will greatly help the station’s prime time average. USA has fallen greatly overall, not just because of wrestling, but because of a decline in its original programming, and as of the week of 9/13, was in third place behind ESPN and Fox News, up from fifth place the week before. Quite frankly, one can argue that even though wrestling is generating fewer viewers and the powerful advertisers steer clear of the show, it is actually more valuable to USA now than ever before. Even two years ago, USA would have been No. 1 even if Raw moved to another channel. Without Raw, last week USA would have been in 8th place on cable the week of 9/6 and 6th for the week of 9/13.
> 
> So, depending on how the television landscape changes over the next few years, even with the declining interest, WWE’s value to USA may be greater than ever, mitigating the negotiating leverage aspect of the significant ratings decline.


So basically, like I said before, USA wants RAW & Smackdown because it can help them brag about their network rating, even if it doesn't make them the money that it could with other shows.


Smackdown should also do better once it moves to USA, because USA has double the viewership that Syfy does:


> But Smackdown is also in a lame duck period, since it is scheduled to move to the USA Network in January, which, in theory, going to a far higher rated station (for the week ending 9/13, USA averaged 1,587,000 viewers in prime time; Syfy averaged 764,000), should greatly increase the ratings. In addition, the belief is there will be far more promotion and emphasis put on Smackdown, as well as running more Raw-to-Smackdown angles and more appearances by the bigger names on Smackdown at the time of the move.


----------



## Empress

Total Divas Tanks In The Ratings This Week

This week’s edition of Total Divas on the E! Network suffered a dramatic drop in viewership compared to last week’s airing.

The September 15 edition of Total Divas drew 804,000 viewers. Last week’s show drew an audience of 1.143 million viewers, so this week’s show lost nearly 30% of the audience from the week prior.

This week’s show featured Paige being proposed to by her boyfriend, but apparently that wasn’t enough to get viewers to tune in. You can check out a full recap of this week’s episode below.

http://www.topropepress.com/news/14333/total-divas-tanks-in-the-ratings-this-week

*Empire returns next week. It'll bury Total Divas in the ratings even more. *


----------



## Chrome

Seems like everything WWE puts on TV these days is tanking in the ratings.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Its a pity the rating was so bad cus it was a very good Raw but thats what happens when ppl are used to crap for so long.


----------



## The XL

People are tired of the bad product the wwe puts on


----------



## bigdog40

Y2Joe said:


> I was hoping for under a 2.4, but I'll take it.
> 
> I just wonder how long it is before a USA exec contacts WWE and goes "Uh, hey guys ..."






Simple, they won't. What Raw needs to do is shake up it's stale format, but until something drastic happens, they won't change things up, and that nelson ratings won't make them change. It's really an obsolete system that they used and before the monday night Raw, Raw or any other weekly WWE program wasn't exactly setting the TV world on fire.


----------



## King_Kool-Aid™

Chrome said:


> Seems like everything WWE puts on TV these days is tanking in the ratings.


There is little interest in pro wrestling in america nowadays. Its a niche as ever. Its just very off-putting to the average american. The way the show is structured and presented doesn't surprise me it would put people off. Its like watching Sesame Street WWE nowadays.


----------



## The Tempest

SmackDown chart for this week:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

They really didn't suffer too much with the competition unlike RAW.


----------



## Empress

*Following Scary RAW Rating, SmackDown Enjoys Rise In Numbers Against NFL Opener*

The Thursday, September 10th edition of WWE SmackDown scored a 1.54 cable rating, up a decent amount from last week’s 1.42 final draw.

Thursday’s SmackDown averaged 2.040 million viewers, which was also an increase from last week’s show. The September 3rd edition of WWE SmackDown drew 1.981 million viewers.

Oddly enough, following the disastrous 2.44 rating for Monday’s RAW, this week’s SmackDown numbers were up despite the fact that it was the first time this year that WWE faced the stiff competition from the NFL, as the season opening game between the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers drew 23.85 million viewers on NBC.

http://www.sescoops.com/following-s...ys-rise-in-numbers-against-nfl-opener/#repost


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Just to think the RAW ratings are down 16% from last year and we arent even in December yet. This is cancellation zone.


----------



## Drago




----------



## RatedR10

Sasha Fierce said:


> *Following Scary RAW Rating, SmackDown Enjoys Rise In Numbers Against NFL Opener*
> 
> The Thursday, September 10th edition of WWE SmackDown scored a 1.54 cable rating, up a decent amount from last week’s 1.42 final draw.
> 
> Thursday’s SmackDown averaged 2.040 million viewers, which was also an increase from last week’s show. The September 3rd edition of WWE SmackDown drew 1.981 million viewers.
> 
> Oddly enough, following the disastrous 2.44 rating for Monday’s RAW, this week’s SmackDown numbers were up despite the fact that it was the first time this year that WWE faced the stiff competition from the NFL, as the season opening game between the New England Patriots and the Pittsburgh Steelers drew 23.85 million viewers on NBC.
> 
> http://www.sescoops.com/following-s...ys-rise-in-numbers-against-nfl-opener/#repost


It was down again this week. 1.49 or whatever it was.



Y2Joe said:


> I was hoping for under a 2.4, but I'll take it.
> 
> I just wonder how long it is before a USA exec contacts WWE and goes "Uh, hey guys ..."


USA's idea of a WWE shakeup is putting Vince McMahon on TV to pop ratings for the short-term. I'm pretty sure it was USA who wanted Triple H to be a regular on TV back in 2014 as an authority figure.


----------



## bigdog40

RatedR10 said:


> It was down again this week. 1.49 or whatever it was.
> 
> 
> 
> USA's idea of a WWE shakeup is putting Vince McMahon on TV to pop ratings for the short-term. I'm pretty sure it was USA who wanted Triple H to be a regular on TV back in 2014 as an authority figure.





USA's ideas are bringing back old names, no way should USA have a say on what WWE should air on Raw. I think WWE has control anyway.


----------



## RatedR10

bigdog40 said:


> USA's ideas are bringing back old names, no way should USA have a say on what WWE should air on Raw. I think WWE has control anyway.


Of course, the last I read about it was last year or the year before, but USA has a pretty big hand in things. If they want so-and-so on the show, most likely, they'll end up on the show. The USA Network is just as clueless as the WWE brand.


----------



## hgr423

RatedR10 said:


> Of course, the last I read about it was last year or the year before, but USA has a pretty big hand in things. If they want so-and-so on the show, most likely, they'll end up on the show. The USA Network is just as clueless as the WWE brand.


maybe it's time to bring back jr in the commentary booth ... no one likes cole


----------



## dougfisher_05

hgr423 said:


> maybe it's time to bring back jr in the commentary booth ... no one likes cole


Not even bringing back JR is going to boost ratings. They need to completely shake up their format. They have been putting on the same exact format of show since 1997. 

Think about that. Other than technological and talent changes the look of the show has largely remained the same for almost 20 years. 

They totally need to shake up their format, how they conduct business, how they build storylines. More guys need them for one. There are like two stories that are ever progressed when there is room for like eight. 

It's a mess and they really need to wipe the slate clean and start all over. It's a shame their ego won't allow them to do that.


----------



## The XL

No title switch, no rise in the ratings.


----------



## LilOlMe

Last year's post-NOC RAW ratings (9/22/14):


> This week's show drew an average of 3.87 million viewers.
> 
> Here's the hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 4.00 million
> Hour two: 3.79 million
> Hour three: 3.84 million


Source.


----------



## Empress

*RAW SOCIAL MEDIA: Post-PPV episode delivers mixed bag results 
*

WWE Raw Social Media Tracking

-- September 21: It was a mixed bag for Monday's Raw following the Night of Champions PPV, according to Nielsen's Twitter TV Ratings.

Raw avoided setting a new 2015 low-point for the third consecutive week, upticking slightly from the previous two weeks.

However, the show fell one spot in the series & specials ranking to #3 behind "The Voice" on NBC and "Dancing with the Stars" on ABC.

Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.233 million, up slightly from 1.121 million last week.

Raw's total impressions were 7.675 million, which was down from 8.387 million last week.

In addition to ranking #3 among series & specials on Monday night, Raw also would have ranked #3 if compared to one-off sports programming. Raw would have trailed Monday Night Football and an AL East baseball battle between the New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays.

***

WWE Raw Social Media Scoresheet 2015

- Unique High: 3.563 million (3/30 post-WM31)
- Impressions High: 26.587 million (3/30 post-WM31)
- Uniques Low: 1.121 million (9/14) previous - 1.130 million (9/7), 1.234 million (1/5)
- Impressions Low: 7.127 million (6/8)

- Avg. Weekly Uniques: 1.879 million
- Avg. Weekly Impressions: 11.111 million
- Avg. Mon. Rank: #2 among series & specials 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87638.shtml#.VgG6O_lVikp


----------



## Empress

*RAW Rating*

WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	8:00 PM	3420	1.2
WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	9:00 PM	3368	1.1
WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	10:00 PM	3260	1.2

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...od-sportscenter-monday-night-raw-more/470489/


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Sasha Fierce said:


> *RAW SOCIAL MEDIA: Post-PPV episode delivers mixed bag results
> *
> 
> WWE Raw Social Media Tracking
> 
> -- September 21: It was a mixed bag for Monday's Raw following the Night of Champions PPV, according to Nielsen's Twitter TV Ratings.
> 
> Raw avoided setting a new 2015 low-point for the third consecutive week, upticking slightly from the previous two weeks.
> 
> However, the show fell one spot in the series & specials ranking to #3 behind "The Voice" on NBC and "Dancing with the Stars" on ABC.
> 
> Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.233 million, up slightly from 1.121 million last week.
> 
> Raw's total impressions were 7.675 million, which was down from 8.387 million last week.
> 
> In addition to ranking #3 among series & specials on Monday night, Raw also would have ranked #3 if compared to one-off sports programming. Raw would have trailed Monday Night Football and an AL East baseball battle between the New York Yankees and Toronto Blue Jays.
> 
> ***
> 
> WWE Raw Social Media Scoresheet 2015
> 
> - Unique High: 3.563 million (3/30 post-WM31)
> - Impressions High: 26.587 million (3/30 post-WM31)
> - Uniques Low: 1.121 million (9/14) previous - 1.130 million (9/7), 1.234 million (1/5)
> - Impressions Low: 7.127 million (6/8)
> 
> - Avg. Weekly Uniques: 1.879 million
> - Avg. Weekly Impressions: 11.111 million
> - Avg. Mon. Rank: #2 among series & specials
> 
> http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87638.shtml#.VgG6O_lVikp


Thanks for posting those. Can't really divine the success of the ratings though. Unsurprising that The Voice and Dancing would generate more buzz.


----------



## Empress

SHIV said:


> Thanks for posting those. Can't really divine the success of the ratings though. Unsurprising that The Voice and Dancing would generate more buzz.


I posted this week's RAW ratings. The highest hour was 8 p.m. and it went down from there.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Monday Night Football games don't start until 8:30PM. So, the first half hour of Raw is uncontested. Makes sense that the first hour is the highest, even if it is ever so slightly the highest.


----------



## LilOlMe

Sasha Fierce said:


> *RAW Rating*
> 
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	8:00 PM	3420	1.2
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	9:00 PM	3368	1.1
> WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	10:00 PM	3260	1.2
> 
> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...od-sportscenter-monday-night-raw-more/470489/


So a 3.35 million average vs. 3.87 million last year.

About a 12.5% drop.

It's crazy, because I remember last year that was considered a disappointment, and folks were saying get the title off of Lesnar, etc., etc. It just shows you that they can keep dropping in ratings lower and lower than what you'd ever expect.

I assume Vince put Cena in the main event to try to stop the bleeding, but why the hell would you center things around Kane then?

I give him credit if he has a long-term plan and is just sticking to it. That's kind of admirable, but goodness, at least make it be a _good_ long-term plan.


----------



## Hydra

RAW is creeping ever so close to being under 3 million viewers :maury


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Dont worry Kane will bring the ratings.


----------



## Goldusto

LilOlMe said:


> So a 3.35 million average vs. 3.87 million last year.
> 
> About a 12.5% drop.
> 
> .


down 500,000 people from last year, and that was suposed to be low. 

I like how they have all these twitter impressios etc, but you know only the nerdiest of the nerds really tal about wrasslin, there is nothing compelling at all to discuss now,

Bless his heart at his enthusiasm but even Mick Foley's facebook is starting to get cringeworthy, he is so optimistic, talking about divas this and stories that, but even he will start to get bored posting about same-old-shit and utter wasteful programming.


----------



## SóniaPortugal

The ratings went down faster and lower than I was expected
When will WWE will start doing something?


----------



## Empress

*WWE NEWS: Raw TV ratings are in - how did the post-Night of Champions episode fare?, plus historical comparison to the last three years *

WWE Raw TV Ratings

-- September 21: Like social media activity, Monday's Raw TV audience was a mixed bag the night after the "Night of Champions" PPV.

Raw upticked slightly to a 2.47 rating after 2.42 and 2.44 ratings the previous two weeks. It's still in historically-low territory, but at least this week's show did not decline.

However, viewership declined from last week's show. Raw averaged 3.349 million viewers, down slightly from 3.397 million viewers last week and 3.385 million viewers two weeks ago.

Hourly Break Down: 3.420 million first hour viewers (modest start for a post-PPV episode), decline to 3.368 million second hour viewers, and another decline to 3.260 million third hour viewers.

- It appears Raw was hurt in the demographics outside of the 18-49 window. This was likely due to the Monday Night Football game on ESPN, which drew a healthy 12.4 million viewers.

In the key demos, the m18-49 rating shot up three-tenths of a rating after dropping three-tenths of a rating last week. WWE also recovered one-tenth of a rating in m18-34 after falling hard the previous week.

Meanwhile, the demo of all adults 18-49 was flat compared to last week's season-low. Barring a shift in viewing habits, it looks like the a18-49 rating will stay this way against "Dancing with the Stars" and Fall TV competition.

- Raw's significant decline in TV ratings can be found in a year-over-year comparison to recent Fall TV premiere weeks...

Sept. 24, 2012: 2.72 rating
Sept. 23, 2013: 2.81 rating
Sept. 22, 2014: 2.69 rating
Sept. 21, 2015: 2.47 rating 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87639.shtml#.VgHPfPlVikq


----------



## Godway

Sasha Fierce said:


> *WWE NEWS: Raw TV ratings are in - how did the post-Night of Champions episode fare?, plus historical comparison to the last three years *
> 
> WWE Raw TV Ratings
> 
> -- September 21: Like social media activity, Monday's Raw TV audience was a mixed bag the night after the "Night of Champions" PPV.
> 
> Raw upticked slightly to a 2.47 rating after 2.42 and 2.44 ratings the previous two weeks. It's still in historically-low territory, but at least this week's show did not decline.
> 
> However, viewership declined from last week's show. Raw averaged 3.349 million viewers, down slightly from 3.397 million viewers last week and 3.385 million viewers two weeks ago.
> 
> Hourly Break Down: 3.420 million first hour viewers (modest start for a post-PPV episode), decline to 3.368 million second hour viewers, and another decline to 3.260 million third hour viewers.
> 
> - It appears Raw was hurt in the demographics outside of the 18-49 window. This was likely due to the Monday Night Football game on ESPN, which drew a healthy 12.4 million viewers.
> 
> In the key demos, the m18-49 rating shot up three-tenths of a rating after dropping three-tenths of a rating last week. WWE also recovered one-tenth of a rating in m18-34 after falling hard the previous week.
> 
> Meanwhile, the demo of all adults 18-49 was flat compared to last week's season-low. Barring a shift in viewing habits, it looks like the a18-49 rating will stay this way against "Dancing with the Stars" and Fall TV competition.
> 
> - Raw's significant decline in TV ratings can be found in a year-over-year comparison to recent Fall TV premiere weeks...
> 
> Sept. 24, 2012: 2.72 rating
> Sept. 23, 2013: 2.81 rating
> Sept. 22, 2014: 2.69 rating
> Sept. 21, 2015: 2.47 rating
> 
> http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87639.shtml#.VgHPfPlVikq


Looking at that 'decline' just says that wrestling itself is not popular. There isn't any steep decline there. Since 2012, their ratings have remained relatively the same. And when they take the belt off of Rollins, guess what? They'll stay right around these numbers as well, give or take a few ticks.

Because that's just the amount of popularity wrestling has nowadays. 

I fucking love that their ratings are doing historical lows, though. They fucking deserve it.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Godway said:


> I fucking love that their ratings are doing historical lows, though. They fucking deserve it.


It would be one thing if the company acted in good faith, they were trying really hard and it was just taking some time to build new stars or get them to click. I might actually feel some sympathy for them.

But no. It's the exact opposite. This is an arrogant, incompetent company doing what they do best.


----------



## Kabraxal

Godway said:


> Looking at that 'decline' just says that wrestling itself is not popular. There isn't any steep decline there. Since 2012, their ratings have remained relatively the same. And when they take the belt off of Rollins, guess what? They'll stay right around these numbers as well, give or take a few ticks.
> 
> Because that's just the amount of popularity wrestling has nowadays.
> 
> I fucking love that their ratings are doing historical lows, though. They fucking deserve it.


Why is this still a thing week after week? The show is absolute shit and that is why the ratings keep reaching new lows. It says nothing about wrestling overall because there is no mainstream channel that has a wrestling show that is also doing terribly. 

I mean, the most glaring historical parallel is the mid 90s when WCW and WWF were both faltering to the point you could say it wasn't popular... but then they busted out of stale booking and idiotic gimmicks and started to put out a product that was GOOD. 

Vince actually has lost the hardcore crowd, which is why there is a massive decline so quickly. He finally pushed it too far and now that "always there" crowd has started leaving in droves. And that crowd still wants wrestling.


----------



## LilOlMe

Godway said:


> Looking at that 'decline' just says that wrestling itself is not popular. There isn't any steep decline there. Since 2012, their ratings have remained relatively the same. And when they take the belt off of Rollins, guess what? They'll stay right around these numbers as well, give or take a few ticks.
> 
> Because that's just the amount of popularity wrestling has nowadays.
> 
> I fucking love that their ratings are doing historical lows, though. They fucking deserve it.


It _is_ a big decline.

This is what I posted before:


LilOlMe said:


> People talk about RAW declining for years, but it has not been anywhere near as steep as this year. I feel like I'm reading "one of the lowest rated RAWs" headlines every other week now.
> 
> Throw in Smackdown's descent, and it's pretty clear that something especially negative is going on this year with the ratings.
> 
> 
> Here are the final RAW ratings for the past few years, thru the Sept 15-17 week:
> 
> 
> 2.79 - 2015
> 3.04 - 2014
> 3.09 - 2013
> 3.13 - 2012
> 
> 
> Source: Gerweck.net
> 
> 
> 2013 - 1.2% decline over yr before
> 2014 - 1.6% decline over yr before
> 2015 - 8.4% decline over yr before
> 
> 
> So it's not just some "ratings have been sliding for years!" thing. Especially since it seems like in the summer it was especially free-falling, and it hasn't stopped since. It's a pretty consistent thing now.


People are just wrong when they act like this is how it's been every year, and it's just wrestling's popularity, etc.

The article a couple of posts ago was only talking about in the weeks of big fall season premieres, not the RAW averages throughout the year in general.

Even then, it's strange, because losing 500,000 viewers seems like A LOT.

And then throw in this:


> If WWE was hoping the buzz from the Night of Champions PPV was going to help them in the recent audience drain vs. Monday Night Football, they had their faith misplaced. The 9/21 edition of Raw, coming off the PPV, garnered just 3,349,000 viewers which is not only down from last week's 3,397,000 viewers, but *is the lowest audience for the series (beyond a Christmas holiday episode) since it expanded to a three hour version in July 2012.*
> 
> The audience dropped over the course of the three hours, showing that WWE's audience was not hooked by John Cena vs. Seth Rollins as the main event, nor the return of Kane to television. The 8 PM hour brought in 3,420,000 viewers for the first hour, then dropped to 3,368,000 viewers before bottoming out in the final hour at just 3,260,000 viewers.
> 
> The third hour would be the lowest audience for the 10-11 PM hour of Raw since the series expanded to three hours. Unless there was an error in how the audience was calculated last night, WWE has a lot of hard decisions to make in strategizing how they rebound from the onslaught of Monday Night Football.
> 
> Monday Night Football, by the way, brought in 12,479,000 viewers opposite Raw.


From Meltzer:


> *Raw set a new record low last night with 3.34 million viewers*, down slightly from the 3.39 million last week and 3.37 million the week before.
> 
> *The shows represent the three lowest audiences for Raw aside from a July 4th or a Christmas or New Year's Eve dating back to 1997.*
> 
> While expected that football would hurt numbers this fall and send them to some record lows, this has been worse than expected.
> 
> The New York Jets vs. Indianapolis Colts game did 12.48 million viewers, down from the prior week, but it was the New York market and that's a traditional strong WWE market where the home team will hurt Raw ratings worse than any other market.
> 
> Another difference is the second hour was no longer the highest. The first hour saw the initial 30 minutes before the game kicked off which gives it an edge now.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.42 million viewers 9 p.m. 3.37 million viewers 10 p.m. 3.26 million viewers.




Who thought that the days of 4 millionish viewership with Randy so-called "Ratings Killing" Orton would be looking good right about now?

I just hope that anyone who fixed their mouths to talk about that, aren't busy defending the ratings now. The tone of this board and their defenses depending on who is loved, is really quite something to behold.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

HAHAHAAHAHAHAHAAHAHA.

I hope it hits 2.0.

That's what they get for trying Big Show and Kane again.


----------



## checkcola

This Kane/Rollins program will, no doubt, turn things around


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I guess the solution is for WWE to act like the ratings don't matter to them anymore and that it's all about the Network rather than actually fixing the problem of the show not being compelling television anymore.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Mifune Jackson said:


> I guess the solution is for WWE to act like the ratings don't matter to them anymore and that it's all about the Network rather than actually fixing the problem of the show not being compelling television anymore.


Once I stopped watching Raw regularly, I cancelled my network subscription. I just didn't see the point.

I'm betting others will do the same.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Network is awesome for the old stuff alone. It's also really, really cheap, unless you're poor as hell.


----------



## Stung like Sting

When your NWO, your not NWO for life...

Raw is no longer WAR..

It is just the same old gunk over and over again.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

> Sept. 21, 2015: 2.47 rating


*Oh gee, it's almost as if nobody wants to fucking see Kane in the main event?*


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Its remarkable that WWE is so relaxed and composed. You would think by now they would be in panic mode. Maybe they are happy with the Network numbers. 

We all saw this coming. At least I did. They have been slowly declining in star power from the AE. Batista, Hardy, Cena and Punk/Edge are no Rock, HHH, Mick Foley. Rollins, Sheamus and Dolph Ziggler are no Cena, Batista, Hardy or Edge. 

The only guy they have created that I think is close to the AE was Daniel Bryan and he's finished.


----------



## Stung like Sting

Vince has made his billions; he doesn't care about the fans any more.

All he cares about is his rampant malicious ego.


----------



## Wynter

:ha fucking terrible 

Kane needs to go back to the pits of hell and drag out the good ratings and viewership that apparently took a trip there.


----------



## dougfisher_05

Stung like Sting said:


> When your NWO, your not NWO for life...
> 
> Raw is no longer WAR..
> 
> It is just the same old gunk over and over again.


Amen.


----------



## RatedR10

That final hour should tell WWE how interesting Cena vs. Rollins is.

The funny thing is it's just going to get worse heading into October when the NBA and NHL are back and more shows start returning. Honestly, the only reason I'm looking forward to seeing Sheamus cash in is to see what the ratings end up being.


----------



## The Bloodline

Ratings are sad and it's not just that ratings for shows are low all over. After mania proved they could still pop 5 million viewers. They just aren't interesting enough to keep audiences coming back weekly anymore. Anytime they get a bump they usually find a way to kill momentum. People are just completely giving up.


----------



## Hydra

ZeroFear0 said:


> Ratings are sad and it's not just that ratings for shows are low all over. After mania proved they could still pop 5 million viewers. They just aren't interesting enough to keep audiences coming back weekly anymore. Anytime they get a bump they usually find a way to kill momentum. People are just completely giving up.


Its sad indeed because the TALENT is there. They just either don't know how or refuse to use them. Instead we get Cena x1000 and soon the Reigns' push will be restarted. Rollins is getting inconsistent booking and then theres Kane and Big Show as a major part of the show fpalm. Prior to RAW nothing interesting was going on with the Divas, but hopefully things will turn around now. If the WWE wasn't so damn lazy and complacent we actually might have a good product.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

TheShieldSuck said:


> The only guy they have created that I think is close to the AE was Daniel Bryan and he's finished.


They didn't create him. The fans fucking did.



TheRockPwnsAll said:


> Its sad indeed because the TALENT is there.


Cesaro was starting to get over AGAIN... for the second consecutive year. The fans were giving WWE another chance. So what does WWE do? They bury him. AGAIN.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

RatedR10 said:


> That final hour should tell WWE how interesting Cena vs. Rollins is.
> 
> The funny thing is it's just going to get worse heading into October when the NBA and NHL are back and more shows start returning. Honestly, the only reason I'm looking forward to seeing Sheamus cash in is to see what the ratings end up being.


sheamus = 2.0


----------



## RatedR10

CenaBoy4Life said:


> sheamus = 2.0


I can't wait.


----------



## hgr423

Sounds like it's time for them to give creative control over to Paul Heyman. You keep a wrestling genius on your payroll for a reason.


----------



## Londrick

So Paige turns heel and ratings go up? :trips5


----------



## McCringleberry

Brie Mode said:


> So Paige turns heel and ratings go up? :trips5



Huh? You didn't read the thread before posting, now did you?


----------



## Londrick

McCringleberry said:


> Huh? You didn't read the thread before posting, now did you?


This weeks Raw did a 2.47. Which is a .03 and .05 *increase* from the previous two weeks.


----------



## Godway

LilOlMe said:


> It _is_ a big decline.
> 
> This is what I posted before:
> 
> People are just wrong when they act like this is how it's been every year, and it's just wrestling's popularity, etc.
> 
> The article a couple of posts ago was only talking about in the weeks of big fall season premieres, not the RAW averages throughout the year in general.
> 
> Even then, it's strange, because losing 500,000 viewers seems like A LOT.
> 
> And then throw in this:
> 
> 
> From Meltzer:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who thought that the days of 4 millionish viewership with Randy so-called "Ratings Killing" Orton would be looking good right about now?
> 
> I just hope that anyone who fixed their mouths to talk about that, aren't busy defending the ratings now. The tone of this board and their defenses depending on who is loved, is really quite something to behold.


In your breakdowns are you just looking at from 2012? Are you going 5 years back from 2012 to see how it declined until then? And so on and so on? Because ratings have been on the steady decline for 10+ years. They might fluctuate here and there, but WWE's audience has grown smaller and smaller since the Cena era began. 

I'm not making excuses for it. I outright said, good, they fucking deserve it. I don't really buy it as being a big deal though, wrestling is not popular at all, and that is as a whole. You factor in that they decided to run an ongoing angle with a heel champion that they book like a complete joke, and their trump card for that is bringing Kane back in a mask (as if anyone would care) or lolCenawins as per usual. What reason do fans have to tune in now that it's NFL season? 

Faces are supposed to be the difference maker in ratings. Who are the last faces pushed in WWE? CM Punk...gone. Daniel Bryan....gone. Roman Reigns....fail. And you're left with Rollins jobbing to Cena on a weekly basis, and now feuding with fucking Kane because there's no one else. 

You can't bash people who are put in a position to utterly fail, and that's pretty much where Rollins has been since day one of his title reign. WWE has dug themselves into a position where they need a Steve Austin to emerge from their talent pool, because that is the only thing that will bring on any kind of change in numbers. The Cena era is dead.


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the chart:


----------



## Fabregas

Brie Mode said:


> This weeks Raw did a 2.47. Which is a .03 and .05 *increase* from the previous two weeks.


Rating increased, viewership went down.



> Raw averaged 3.349 million viewers, down slightly from 3.397 million viewers last week and 3.385 million viewers two weeks ago.


----------



## Londrick

Fabregas said:


> Rating increased, viewership went down.


Not talking about the viewership so those numbers are irrelevant aige


----------



## Fabregas

Brie Mode said:


> Not talking about the viewership so those numbers are irrelevant aige


But surely those numbers are more important :draper2


----------



## Drago

TheShieldSuck said:


> Dont worry Kane will bring the ratings.


To hell! :vince$


----------



## Londrick

Fabregas said:


> But surely those numbers are more important :draper2


Actually the rating itself is more important.


----------



## amhlilhaus

hgr423 said:


> Sounds like it's time for them to give creative control over to Paul Heyman. You keep a wrestling genius on your payroll for a reason.


What could he do to bump ratings? He still would be over ruled by vince. Heyman with complete creative control would be interesting, but it would never happen.


----------



## KingLobos

Seth Main Evented again......

IWC "Give him another pass" :ha


----------



## A-C-P

KingLobos said:


> Seth Main Evented again......
> 
> IWC "Give him another pass" :ha


Main Event also featured John Cena :cena


----------



## KingLobos

A-C-P said:


> Main Event also featured John Cena :cena


I hate John more than anybody. But he's a proven draw in the past and he sells merch up the ass. Without him, the show would be doing worse.


----------



## A-C-P

KingLobos said:


> I hate John more than anybody. But he's a proven draw in the past and he sells merch up the ass. Without him, the show would be doing worse.


So then you are giving a pass to John Cena again for low ratings for a ME he was in?


----------



## KingLobos

A-C-P said:


> So then you are giving a pass to John Cena again for low ratings for a ME he was in?


Blame John, I don't care lol. Everyone knows he's not a mega star. The main storyline revolves around Seth and Kane. And in the past weeks it revolved around Seth and Sting... And before that Seth and ext ext ext.


----------



## A-C-P

KingLobos said:


> Blame John, I don't care lol. Everyone knows he's not a mega star. The main storyline revolves around Seth and Kane. And in the past weeks it revolved around Seth and Sting... And before that Seth and ext ext ext.


You are missing my point, I am not blaming John just pointing out how stupid it is to blame any one individual...


----------



## LordKain

Godway said:


> You can't bash people who are put in a position to utterly fail, and that's pretty much where Rollins has been since day one of his title reign. WWE has dug themselves into a position where they need a Steve Austin to emerge from their talent pool, because that is the only thing that will bring on any kind of change in numbers. The Cena era is dead.


Sadly that won't make a difference at this point either. The fans have had enough and pretty soon the live attendance's going to take a big hit as well.


----------



## Brodus Clay

Seth Rollins fucking sucks, HHH need to apologize for betting all on this hack that made WWE awful, loved how people want Vince to die and HHH to take over when in reality things are very HHH'ish, his pet Rollins has been in the main event for a year (half of it as a champion) and his past pet Sheamus it's holding the briefcase.

Damn with this present I wish HHH dies and Vince takes over.


----------



## LilOlMe

Godway said:


> In your breakdowns are you just looking at from 2012? Are you going 5 years back from 2012 to see how it declined until then? And so on and so on? Because ratings have been on the steady decline for 10+ years. They might fluctuate here and there, but WWE's audience has grown smaller and smaller since the Cena era began.
> 
> I'm not making excuses for it. I outright said, good, they fucking deserve it. I don't really buy it as being a big deal though, wrestling is not popular at all, and that is as a whole. You factor in that they decided to run an ongoing angle with a heel champion that they book like a complete joke, and their trump card for that is bringing Kane back in a mask (as if anyone would care) or lolCenawins as per usual. What reason do fans have to tune in now that it's NFL season?
> 
> Faces are supposed to be the difference maker in ratings. Who are the last faces pushed in WWE? CM Punk...gone. Daniel Bryan....gone. Roman Reigns....fail. And you're left with Rollins jobbing to Cena on a weekly basis, and now feuding with fucking Kane because there's no one else.
> 
> You can't bash people who are put in a position to utterly fail, and that's pretty much where Rollins has been since day one of his title reign. WWE has dug themselves into a position where they need a Steve Austin to emerge from their talent pool, because that is the only thing that will bring on any kind of change in numbers. The Cena era is dead.


I don't know, because to my knowledge, the only way to get numbers from Jan to Sept is to add up each individual week, and I certainly wasn't going to do that for more than what's necessary. It just shows that the "RAW sliding for years" excuse is too easy and inaccurate, because in comparative years (years in which 3 hour shows, the internet, DVRs, etc. all existed just as readily as they do today), RAW didn't slide as much as it has this year.

Throw in the fact that there are so many record low shows going on this year, and record low months going on since 1997, I think it's pretty safe to say that there's really no comparison. Especially with Smackdown tanking as well. 

Plus, I remember someone writing that you just know that things are tanking by a general feel. You don't even have to look at the ratings. My increased complete disinterest in Smackdown, to the point of not even looking for clips of heralded segments, says something about how much they're losing their audience. So I looked up the ratings because I had a feeling it was a general, shared, malaise. I was right. 

I didn't follow ratings, but I stopped watching Jersey Shore (don't judge me) at around the same time as everyone else did. When I started reading articles about their ratings, it was like "of course!" It's like en mass, people decided collectively that we were just over it.

This is what happens. There's a downward trajectory that happens with virtually every show, and then there's also the point where it really starts sliding down a cliff. That's what's happening with RAW this year.

Having said that, I am sure that they'll bounce back, because so many people watch RAW because it's something that's been ingrained in them for so long, and Vince could easily change things around.

I agree with you that there are a ton of things structurally wrong with RAW that have nothing to do with the champion, but it's mind-numbing to me to have read pages, and pages, and thread after thread, of people pouncing on "Ratings Killer" Orton shit, and Reigns "Worst RTWM ratings" shit, while many of the very same screennames rush in to Rollins' ratings threads to defend and "like" posts saying Rollins has nothing to do with it. 

There are so many rationalizations made for why the ratings are "worst in decades" terrible -- some rationalizations which I agree with, btw -- yet none of those same courtesies were extended when it was someone who the board decided that they didn't like.

The collectiveness of it is what I find astonishing. Reading that first page of that most recent Rollins/ratings thread was like some alternate universe, after witnessing what Reigns, Orton, and even Brock ratings threads looked like. Especially considering that these ratings are a whole lot worse!

I get it, threads like this one were basically designed for mark wars, and it's just human nature for people to defend their faves. I don't really have a problem with that, but you can do that without denying reality. If it's just "I don't think it's Rollins' fault because a), b), and c)" that's fine, and there will probably be a lot of good points made in that. But it bothers me when people act like what's happening isn't really happening, and it's the same as always, and "the ratings have always been falling" blah, blah, blah. It's like creating some fake reality. 

I guess the reason I find it most bothersome is because I feel it's a way to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, so there's an inherent dishonesty in that. Especially when people were pouncing all over other wrestlers when there's not even a comparison to how bad things are sliding now. 

I specifically have a problem with all of this because I feel it's what Vince's sycophants are probably deluding him into thinking, which is why we won't get change. That's the real problem! "Eh, ratings have always been sliding..." But not like this! The shit _sucks_, and there's only so long they should keep ignoring it. The mass amount of people collectively turning off RAW & Smackdown at once should be speaking volumes. It's disturbing if it's not.


----------



## Godway

LilOlMe said:


> I don't know, because to my knowledge, the only way to get numbers from Jan to Sept is to add up each individual week, and I certainly wasn't going to do that for more than what's necessary. It just shows that the "RAW sliding for years" excuse is too easy and inaccurate, because in comparative years (years in which 3 hour shows, the internet, DVRs, etc. all existed just as readily as they do today), RAW didn't slide as much as it has this year.
> 
> Throw in the fact that there are so many record low shows going on this year, and record low months going on since 1997, I think it's pretty safe to say that there's really no comparison. Especially with Smackdown tanking as well.
> 
> Plus, I remember someone writing that you just know that things are tanking by a general feel. You don't even have to look at the ratings. My increased complete disinterest in Smackdown, to the point of not even looking for clips of heralded segments, says something about how much they're losing their audience. So I looked up the ratings because I had a feeling it was a general, shared, malaise. I was right.
> 
> I didn't follow ratings, but I stopped watching Jersey Shore (don't judge me) at around the same time as everyone else did. When I started reading articles about their ratings, it was like "of course!" It's like en mass, people decided collectively that we were just over it.
> 
> This is what happens. There's a downward trajectory that happens with virtually every show, and then there's also the point where it really starts sliding down a cliff. That's what's happening with RAW this year.
> 
> Having said that, I am sure that they'll bounce back, because so many people watch RAW because it's something that's been ingrained in them for so long, and Vince could easily change things around.
> 
> I agree with you that there are a ton of things structurally wrong with RAW that have nothing to do with the champion, but it's mind-numbing to me to have read pages, and pages, and thread after thread, of "Ratings Killer" Orton shit, and Reigns "Worst RTWM ratings" shit, while many of the very same screennames rush in to Rollins' ratings threads to defend and "like" posts saying Rollins has nothing to do with it.
> 
> There are so many rationalizations made for why the ratings are "worst in decades" terrible -- rationalizations which I agree with, btw -- yet none of those same courtesies were extended when it was someone the board decided that they didn't like.
> 
> The collectiveness of it is what I find astonishing. Reading that first page of that most recent Rollins/ratings thread was like some alternate universe, after witnessing what Reigns, Orton, and even Brock ratings threads looked like. Especially considering that these ratings are a lot worse!
> 
> I get it, threads like this one were basically designed for mark wars, and it's just human nature for people to defend their faves. I don't really have a problem with that, but you can do that without denying reality. If it's just "I don't think it's Rollins' fault because a), b), and c)" that's fine, and there will probably be a lot of good points made in that. But it bothers me when people act like what's happening isn't really happening, and it's the same as always, and "the ratings have always been falling" blah, blah, blah. It's like creating some fake reality.
> 
> I guess the reason I find it most bothersome is because I feel it's a way to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, so there's an inherent dishonesty in that. Especially when people were pouncing all over other wrestlers when there's not even a comparison with how bad things are sliding.
> 
> I specifically have a problem with all of this because I feel it's what Vince's sycophants are probably deluding him into thinking, which is why we won't get change. That's the real problem! "Eh, ratings have always been sliding..." But not like this! The shit _sucks_, and there's only so long they should keep ignoring it. The mass amount of people collectively turning off RAW & Smackdown at once should be speaking volumes. It's disturbing if it's not.


People defend Rollins because he's done his part, and it's not right to blame him. He got better on the mic, he's probably the best in ring performer WWE has seen in years and outperforms every guy he's in the ring with. It is not his fault that he's a heel, and it's not his fault that since Mania he's been getting buried by HHH/Stephanie on a weekly basis, nor is it his fault that WWE suddenly decided to start using HIM to put John Cena over clean every week. After he jobs to Cena on the Network special (for the US title, not even the WWE title because Cena doesn't even want that worthless thing), that will mark the 4th time Rollins has jobbed to Cena in less than two months. 

And he's the WWE champion. I can't think of a champion who's ever been booked that pitiful. Heel champs in general tend to struggle with drawing, but we're talking about a heel champ who's also booked worse than the Miz. 

Randy was booked the same way when he was in the Authority, so I don't know why anyone would shit on him for it. He was fucked by HHH the same way Rollins is currently being. 

Getting rid of the Authority would probably help ratings, since they drag down everyone around them.


----------



## JBLoser

Godway said:


> Getting rid of the Authority would probably help ratings, since they drag down everyone around them.


Amen. So sick of it. It doesn't even serve a purpose anymore. This type of shit has been happening since 1997. That is, having an authority figure around. It just isn't necessary. Phase them out.


----------



## Godway

JBLoser said:


> Amen. So sick of it. It doesn't even serve a purpose anymore. This type of shit has been happening since 1997. That is, having an authority figure around. It just isn't necessary. Phase them out.


There's nothing wrong with having an Authority figure character. But having Authority figure character(s) who walk out and shit on their own performers and show on a weekly basis, and don't commit to playing heels or faces is about as worthless as you can get.


----------



## JBLoser

Yeah, true. In a "President Jack Tunney" role it serves a purpose as a matchmaker/booker or what have you. But what Stephanie and Triple H do on the regular is incomprehensible.


----------



## Empress

*‘Total Divas’ Ratings: 795,000 Viewers for “Some Like it Hot”*

Total Divas continued to slip in the ratings this week, drawing 795,000 viewers according to TV by the Numbers.

This is down from last week’s season low 804,000 viewers. This makes it the second lowest-rated episode since the season two episode “Red and Gold”.

In the 18-49 demo, the episode maintained last week’s 0.4 rating.

The sudden slip could be attributed to the start of the fall TV season, as the previous two episodes faced stiff competition from a number of series and season premieres.

The next episode is being advertised as the season four finale, so it will be interesting to see if that hype delivers stronger numbers next week.

http://www.diva-dirt.com/115407/total-divas-ratings-795000-viewers-for-some-like-it-hot/


----------



## A-C-P

All those "reality" shows on "E" have a shelf-life, and it looks like Total Divas may be getting close to the end of theirs..

And I do sort of fear that the WWE and E! are going to want to try some "out there" things to try and up the ratings back up for Total Divas, which is not going to be good for the Divas in terms of how it affects them on the WWE's wrestling shows with audiences.


----------



## JBLoser

Let it tank. Let it ALL tank.

Maybe we're close to not having to hear "the star(s) of Total Divas." Jeepers, what a miracle that would be.


----------



## FITZ

A-C-P said:


> All those "reality" shows on "E" have a shelf-life, and it looks like Total Divas may be getting close to the end of theirs..
> 
> And I do sort of fear that the WWE and E! are going to want to try some "out there" things to try and up the ratings back up for Total Divas, which is not going to be good for the Divas in terms of how it affects them on the WWE's wrestling shows with audiences.


I think they tried that last week. You had all the Divas in bikinis for most of the episode last night.


----------



## Empress

*Vince McMahon Not Happy Over WWE Ratings?
*
- Last night's WAGS, which airs after Total Divas on the E! network and features Kelly Kelly, drew 370,000 viewers. This is a big drop from last week's 678,000 viewers. As noted, Total Divas drew just 795,000 viewers, down from last week's 804,000 viewers.

- For what it's worth, Bryan Alvarez noted on Wrestling Observer Live today that Vince McMahon is apparently "freaking out" about the decline in WWE TV ratings, something that usually happens every year around this time. WWE usually makes some kind of big change when Vince is "freaking out" about the ratings.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0923/601958/vince-mcmahon-not-happy-over-wwe-ratings/


----------



## Stung like Sting

Vinnie Mac best look at his product.

It is a toilet cleaner.


----------



## JBLoser

Well if the panic is causing him to unearth more relics from the 1990s, it ain't gonna work.


----------



## LilOlMe

Here are the September 29, 2014 ratings for comparisons sake next week:


> WWE Raw ratings (Sept. 29, 2014): Back over 4 million viewers for Dean Ambrose led show
> 
> Last night's episode of Monday Night Raw emanated from the Allstate Arena in Chicago, Illinois and was, for all intents and purposes, the Dean Ambrose Show. He's in the midst of a strong push as the number two babyface in the company thanks to an injury suffered by Roman Reigns and WWE is giving him the ball to see how far he can run with it, at least in the short term.
> 
> So far so good.
> 
> For the first time since the NFL kicked off its Monday Night Football schedule, Raw averaged over 4 million viewers (4.04, to be exact). That's up from 3.87 million last week.
> 
> Even better, the hourly breakdown shows where the interest was, and it was paid off in the Ambrose chase for the Money in the Bank briefcase:
> 
> Hour one: 4.01 million
> Hour two: 4.22 million
> Hour three: 3.88 million
> 
> Raw is Ambrose, folks.


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...t-29-2014-4-million-viewers-dean-ambrose-show

So 4.04 million viewer average.

I believe that that was the "green goo" episode, and deservedly they were down the next week from there, lol.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Godway said:


> There's nothing wrong with having an Authority figure character. But having Authority figure character(s) who walk out and shit on their own performers and show on a weekly basis, and don't commit to playing heels or faces is about as worthless as you can get.


With the exception of Vince, NOBODY who is involved in creative or who has any backstage influence should have a role of authority figure for this very reason. 

The Authority should have been done after WM 30. Good god this could go on forever.


----------



## Godway

TheShieldSuck said:


> With the exception of Vince, NOBODY who is involved in creative or who has any backstage influence should have a role of authority figure for this very reason.
> 
> The Authority should have been done after WM 30. Good god this could go on forever.


You know, I absolutely agree with that. HHH has been doing this shit for years, playing an on screen character while controlling everything he does behind the scenes. If anyone else tried to pull the shit he pulls, they'd be getting jobbed on Main Event until their contract ran up. 

You'd think it would be a conflict of interest what him and Stephanie do.


----------



## bigdog40

TheShieldSuck said:


> With the exception of Vince, NOBODY who is involved in creative or who has any backstage influence should have a role of authority figure for this very reason.
> 
> The Authority should have been done after WM 30. Good god this could go on forever.




I much rather have a face authority figure, yet isn't really on TV since the heel authority figure doesn't draw anymore and has been done to death. What they should do is just change the formula of the show to make it feel fresh. However, Raw being 3 hours and it's just too long.


----------



## looter

TheShieldSuck said:


> Godway said:
> 
> 
> 
> There's nothing wrong with having an Authority figure character. But having Authority figure character(s) who walk out and shit on their own performers and show on a weekly basis, and don't commit to playing heels or faces is about as worthless as you can get.
> 
> 
> 
> With the exception of Vince, NOBODY who is involved in creative or who has any backstage influence should have a role of authority figure for this very reason.
> 
> The Authority should have been done after WM 30. Good god this could go on forever.
Click to expand...

Cena having the power to bring the authority back was one of the stupidest things ever. Wwe just die already


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

@Sasha Fierce









Smackdown with slightly above average ratings if I'm reading the chart correctly. I might watch it, or part of it, later on tonight.


----------



## Empress

*This Week's WWE SmackDown Rating Rises Against A Very Tough NFL Game - Details Inside*

WWE SmackDown took another step in climbing out of the hole that it fell into a couple of weeks ago. Thursday night’s episode of the show drew 2.083 million viewers and a 0.56 demographic. Those numbers are up 2% and 6% from last week’s 2.04 million and 0.53, and represent the best numbers since the August 27th episode brought in 2.195 million and a 0.65.

Also read: ​Thursday Night's WWE SmackDown Rating Drops To A New Low - Details Inside

The show held up well against an excellent Denver Broncos vs. Kansas City Chiefs NFL game. The show was up against the NFL game between Denver and Kansas City, which did a 5.3 demo rating with 16.02 million viewers on CBS and 4.162 million viewers and a 1.83 demo rating on the NFL Network. The real challenge will be to see how it does next week against a slew of returning broadcast network shows.

WWE SmackDown ranked #9 among cable originals for the night, with the NFL game leading the way. Only two shows above SmackDown weren’t football-related were Teen Mom II and Project Runway.

http://www.ewrestlingnews.com/news/...-against-a-very-tough-nfl-game-details-inside
@SHIV

_Smackdown held onto their usual numbers. I thought football and the returning TV shows would hurt their ratings even more. I haven't watched the episode yet either. _


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Thank [email protected] Fierce. It is interesting that Smackdown has found its core audience and is actually managing meager increases against fierce competition. I still wonder where the equilibrium point is with RAW, where they stabilize and wont fall any further. This Monday is a huge game with Green Bay hosting Kansas City and Green Bay is a proven ratings winner. The question of How low can they go? is still unanswered for RAW. DVR ratings might be their sole saving grace.


----------



## LilOlMe

Hmmm, I have a feeling RAW may get around 3.5 million this week. I don't know why I tend to be more positive than reality with my guesses, but Smackdown going up may mean that people were pleased with this week's RAW. They had record low's for RAW last week, but I don't think that anyone who tuned in last week will tune out next week. They can basically only grow from there.

I just can't imagine them getting any lower, especially if they're building off of last week story-line wise. 

I wonder if they'll start with the Cena open challenges again? From what I remember, that was one of the few things that really seemed to be drawing some ratings.


----------



## sarcasma

LilOlMe said:


> Here are the September 29, 2014 ratings for comparisons sake next week:
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...t-29-2014-4-million-viewers-dean-ambrose-show
> 
> So 4.04 million viewer average.
> 
> I believe that that was the "green goo" episode, and deservedly they were down the next week from there, lol.


Ive said all along, AMBROSE will draw if you give him free reign.


----------



## bigdog40

LilOlMe said:


> *Hmmm, I have a feeling RAW may get around 3.5 million this week.* I don't know why I tend to be more positive than reality with my guesses, but Smackdown going up may mean that people were pleased with this week's RAW. They had record low's for RAW last week, but I don't think that anyone who tuned in last week will tune out next week. They can basically only grow from there.
> 
> I just can't imagine them getting any lower, especially if they're building off of last week story-line wise.
> 
> I wonder if they'll start with the Cena open challenges again? From what I remember, that was one of the few things that really seemed to be drawing some ratings.




We don't know if that will happen, but if WWE is serious about improving the ratings, then the whole presentation of Raw has to change. It doesn't even matter who they put on the show, or what happens on the show. If something big happens and we miss it live, we can just look at the WWE mobile app or youtube and the clip would be up in minutes.


----------



## DoubtGin

Those SD numbers are still awful.


----------



## MaybeLock

You knew this would be a tough year when the numbers were so shit through the Road to Wrestlemania. If you ask me, I believe it was there when they lost a big chunk of their viewers. After that, it's just the usual drop you get after Mania season, which gets way worse after Summerslam. 

The product certainly needs much better storylining although they will obviously blame a certain wrestler. It's specially a shame since they're the ones who make this worth watching sometimes.


----------



## Randy Lahey

MaybeLock said:


> You knew this would be a tough year when the numbers were so shit through the Road to Wrestlemania. If you ask me, I believe it was there when they lost a big chunk of their viewers. After that, it's just the usual drop you get after Mania season, which gets way worse after Summerslam.
> 
> The product certainly needs much better storylining although they will obviously blame a certain wrestler. It's specially a shame since they're the ones who make this worth watching sometimes.


WWE permanently lost about 500,000 viewers due to Roman Reigns push at the Royal Rumble. After WWE made that decision to push him, a % left and have never came back.


----------



## Londrick

Everyone tuned into SD to see the fallout of Paigesus' promo.


----------



## Monterossa

KingLobos said:


> I hate John more than anybody. But he's a proven draw in the past and he sells merch up the ass. Without him, the show would be doing worse.


He draws a lot of new audiences but he lost millions of viewers way more than the amount of new kids he's drawing.

before the PG era, WWE used to have like 4.XX ratings and more than 5 million viewers.


----------



## CJ

JBLoser said:


> Well if the panic is causing him to unearth more relics from the 1990s, it ain't gonna work.


It's definitely not gonna work.


----------



## DoubtGin

after reading through the preview, I can only hope that the ratings drop even further


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Tonight RAW goes against Kansas City a Green Bay. That is going to be a highly rated MNF game. RAW is going to be hard pressed not to drop again tonight.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

This is the L+7 ratings for cable from September 7-13. Raw was on the seventh.
http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Tvbythenumbers/~3/UtKdxS578YU/

So a couple of hours had a modest gain in the demo while one hour made the top 25 in absolute increase and went from 3.564 million to 4.178million viewers so it gained over 600,000 in viewers. I would like to see the L_7 numbers each week to see just how much of an audience doesnt watch live.


----------



## Wynter

So I'm just gonna laugh in advance for the terrible ratings and viewership I know is coming. That third hour drop gonna be :banderas 


:ha 

:lose


----------



## Goldusto

SHIV said:


> This is the L+7 ratings for cable from September 7-13. Raw was on the seventh.
> http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/Tvbythenumbers/~3/UtKdxS578YU/
> 
> So a couple of hours had a modest gain in the demo while one hour made the top 25 in absolute increase and went from 3.564 million to 4.178million viewers so it gained over 600,000 in viewers. I would like to see the L_7 numbers each week to see just how much of an audience doesnt watch live.


Doctor who in the UK got really low viewers for the overnight viewing, but when they added the +7 days, it jumped an extra 2 million. so overnights here in the UK are kind of inaccurate.

also apparently the crowd was dead a lot of the time because some retard didn't put the live action on the Titantron, so like 1/3rd of the arena couldn't see what the fuck was going on half the time. crowd went insane for the roman/wyatt match since they turned it back on for then.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

It might help RAW that the MNF game devolved into a rout rather quickly. We'll see later today.


----------



## Empress

*WWE NEWS: Prelim Summerslam PPV buys - another increase in PPV buys *


Despite WWE Network expanding its reach, there was an increase in the number of PPV buys for the second straight month - this time for Summerslam in August.

WWE released their monthly business figures this week. Included are four different metrics that give conflicting information on the exact number of preliminary PPV buys.

However, it's clear that PPV buys went up both domestically and internationally from Battleground in July. It's not clear by how much.

Based on the numbers reported for Battleground, the range of total buys for Summerslam is 150,000-200,000 buys, which would top the Royal Rumble in January.

2015 PPV Buys Trend

- Jan: Royal Rumble - 145,000 buys
- Feb: Fast Lane - 46,000 buys
- Mar: WM31 - 259,000 buys
- Apr: Extreme Rules - 56,000 buys
- May: Payback - 57,000 buys
- June: MITB - 57,000 buys
- July: Battleground - 76,000 (prelim)
- Aug.: Summerslam - 150-200k (prelim) 

http://pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87750.shtml#.VgrDYHpVikp


----------



## DoubtGin

Waiting for the ratings is more interesting than watching RAW nowadays.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Who the fuck is still buying PPV's?


----------



## Empress

*RAW - Twitter Ratings*

- Monday's RAW ranked #2 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Daily Show. RAW had a unique audience of 1.340 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.223 million. RAW had total impressions of 7.416 million, which represents the number of times the show was tweeted about. This was down from last week's 7.675 million impressions.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...tlinginc_wwe_news+(WrestlingInc.com+WWE+News)


----------



## Cosine

Those PPV buys for SummerSlam are fantastic, considering PPVs are now available for just $10 on the Network. It nearly matched WM in terms of PPV buys for fuck's sake. I can only assume that the Network numbers increased as well just prior to SS as a result.

So much for the idiots who claimed that part timers don't draw. That entire event was built around Lesnar/Taker. Rollins was pushed down the card, and rightfully so because he has killed the product. And you see the results of having actual stars in the main event, as opposed to mid card level talent like Rollins.


----------



## The Tempest

Here's the RAW chart:









Average is 3,33 milions, still at all time low zone. This is great.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

That 3rd hour

:ti

Can they stop doing rematch (going on months now) main events now, please?


----------



## Cosine

3.33 million average and 3.188 in hour 3. 

LOL

Sub 3 million hour is coming soon.


----------



## A-C-P

:habryanlol:tysonlol:maury:maisielol:reneelel:HA:ti:duck


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Viewership Takes A Hit With Roman Reigns Vs. Bray Wyatt Main Event, Sets Record Low Audience*

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, with the Roman Reigns vs. Bray Wyatt in the main event, drew 3.333 million viewers. This is down 0.5% from last week's 3.349 million viewers and a new non-holiday low going back to July 2012 when RAW went to three hours.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.476 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.326 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.188 million viewers.

RAW was #3 for the night in viewership behind SportsCenter and the NFL's Monday Night Football, which drew 13.514 million viewers. RAW was #4 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind the NFL, SportsCenter and Love & Hip-Hop.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/201...-takes-a-hit-with-roman-reigns-vs-bray-wyatt/


----------



## The Tempest

@Wynter! :ha


----------



## Wynter

:ha at wwe giving us that shit show and expecting no one to tune out 

Should have dropped to under 3.0. They deserve that


----------



## Cosine

It appears that Reigns is still as terrible of a draw as Rollins is. Not much has improved there.


----------



## Louaja89

LOL . Wonder who people are going to blame this week ?


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Cosine said:


> 3.33 million average and 3.188 in hour 3.
> 
> LOL
> 
> Sub 3 million hour is coming soon.


That will happen when they make Sheamus champion.

And based on how many matches he's been losing lately, that time is coming soon.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Maybe they'll stop doing the same main events over and over again. Even Rollins/Cena did better last week, and that feud/match is played out as fuck, too. And last night's football game was a fucking blowout, too.


----------



## Cosine

Louaja89 said:


> LOL . Wonder who people are going to blame this week ?


The world champion who started this significant down trend, and Reigns who failed to do any better than him when given an opportunity.


----------



## Hydra

:heston

A few more RAWs like yesterday will push it under 3 mil. 100k less to go fpalm fpalm.


----------



## A-C-P

Louaja89 said:


> LOL . Wonder who people are going to blame this week ?


Well considering I have been told it is the fault of whomever is in the Main Event, I guess this week it is Reigns' fault :draper2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

This show deserved an even lower rating than that. Anyone who didnt change the channel after the Kane debacle is purely a masochist. Reigns and Bray worked well together, but the damage of this rancid RAW had been done.So much for my hopes that a football rout would slow RAW's freefall.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Louaja89 said:


> LOL . Wonder who people are going to blame this week ?


Creative. As anyone with a brain would do.


----------



## Wynter

That show was complete and utter shit. I was as even tempted to skip out by the third hour. I should have joined. Brawl was cool and all, but why should I expect anything good to happen in the main event when the first 2 hours and 40 minutes were trash. 

Almost under 3. Keep testing, WWE :banderas


----------



## Cosine

ShowStopper said:


> Maybe they'll stop doing the same main events over and over again. Even Rollins/Cena did better last week, and that feud/match is played out as fuck, too. And last night's football game was a fucking blowout, too.


Oh shut the fuck up. It did a 3.26 vs a 3.188. Well within the margin of error.

Rollins and Reigns are both equally terrible.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

A-C-P said:


> Well considering I have been told it is the fault of whomever is in the Main Event, I guess this week it is Reigns' fault :draper2


Nah. Only when it's certain people in the ME.

:cena5


----------



## Louaja89

ShowStopper said:


> Creative. As anyone with a brain would do.


Which means that a lot of people on this forum won't do that.


----------



## Cosine

ShowStopper said:


> Creative. As anyone with a brain would do.


Creative also booked/wrote SummerSlam, which did an incredible # of buys on PPV. Only difference is there was actual star power in the main event. 

Creative is to blame for choosing the worst young guys to push.


----------



## The XL

Roman and Bray drawing them ratings.


----------



## Cosine

Exactly 1 year ago, despite creative's shitty booking and all of the cringe worthy storylines, RAW had about 4 million viewers, possibly even more, with Ambrose being the main focus. 

I win again.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Impossible to win when you re-join a wrestling message board twenty times per day and no one even talks to you anymore..

Hate to be the bearer of bad news there...

:yikes

But yeah, Dean is the answer to WWE's problems

:ti


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Maybe they'll stop doing the same main events over and over again. Even Rollins/Cena did better last week, and that feud/match is played out as fuck, too. And last night's football game was a fucking blowout, too.


I'm not defending this rating. It was bad. But Reigns/Bray haven't been in a singles main event on RAW in quite some time. They've been in a never ending feud, but Stardust/Neville would be a match that's been done to death on RAW.


----------



## Cosine

ShowStopper said:


> Impossible to win when you re-join a wrestling message board twenty times per day and no one even talks to you anymore..
> 
> Hate to be the bearer of bad news there...
> 
> :yikes


You just did, by addressing me.

I do indeed win. I always win.

WWE chose the wrong Shield guys to push.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> I'm not defending this rating. It was bad. *But Reigns/Bray haven't been in a singles main event on RAW in quite some time.* They've been in a never ending feud, but Stardust/Neville would be a match that's been done to death on RAW.


That's even worse then. If the one on one hadn't been done that much, you'd think more people would want to see it..

EDIT: Sorry guys, I slipped up. I'm done, promise.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

You heard the oft expressed idiom that this must have looked good on paper. Well the only paper this crapfest was suitable to be written on was toilet paper.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> That's even worse then. If the one on one hadn't been done that much, you'd think more people would want to see it..
> 
> EDIT: Sorry guys, I slipped up with Dean stalker. I'm done, promise.


I know I was ready to tune out last night. But I thought a Roman heel turn was turning. So, I kept watching. 

I want to say Cena helped the first hour but last week's first hour did good as well. Or maybe it was because the NFL game hadn't started.


----------



## RatedR10

Cosine said:


> It appears that Reigns is still as terrible of a draw as Rollins is. Not much has improved there.


Tell me who the hell is a draw aside on the current-day product? The entire product is shit. NO ONE is drawing on this roster and with the product being presented.


I can't wait until this show has an hour where it drops below 3 million. It's so close to happening. If last night's show was what Vince is doing as a reaction of "panic" to the declining ratings, I don't think I want to see what he puts on TV when an hour drops below 3. Oh... and Susan G. Komen month is coming up soon. That means more Today Show hosts dancing in the ring and eating up time most likely.


----------



## Wynter

That Raw gave me no reason to think the main event would be worth shit. Not even Heyman sounded great. I expected more shitty booking and fuckery by interference. 

Lead a whole Raw with D+ booking and expect people to want to see two guys who are in a stale ass midcard feud main event, WWE :lmao 

Shame since the last five minutes was well received. 

How low can you go. Next week, 2.9 :mark:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Sasha Fierce said:


> I know I was ready to tune out last night. But I thought a Roman heel turn was turning. So, I kept watching.
> 
> I want to say Cena helped the first hour but last week's first hour did good as well. Or maybe it was because the NFL game hadn't started.


They will put the segment they want seen the most in the first hour before kickoff has occurred. It makes good sense but it also hurts the rest of the show. Cena's challenge and New Day have been two oases in the wasteland of a 3 hour RAW, and by doing them first, there wasn't a whole lot left to look forward to.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> I know I was ready to tune out last night. But I thought a Roman heel turn was turning. So, I kept watching.
> 
> I want to say Cena helped the first hour but last week's first hour did good as well. Or maybe it was because the NFL game hadn't started.


Oh, I watched it, too. Always will as a diehard fan, unless the Giants are playing on Monday Night, which they are in a couple of weeks. Raw keeps getting a couple of hours in the 3.5 neighborhood. I don't think it's so much one person, but just their core audience, that leaves as the show goes on and on.


----------



## Cosine

RatedR10 said:


> Tell me who the hell is a draw aside on the current-day product? The entire product is shit. NO ONE is drawing on this roster and with the product being presented.
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this show has an hour where it drops below 3 million. It's so close to happening. If last night's show was what Vince is doing as a reaction of "panic" to the declining ratings, I don't think I want to see what he puts on TV when an hour drops below 3. Oh... and Susan G. Komen month is coming up soon. That means more Today Show hosts dancing in the ring and eating up time most likely.


No one, because WWE relies on part timers who barely show up, and they push all the wrong young guys.

Rollins and Reigns have failed, and nothing will ever fix that. They don't have "it."

There are others who have shown potential who have been inexplicably depushed. 

Creative was just as terrible last year, the story lines were just as cringe worthy, yet Ambrose being inserted into multiple segments and being the main focus still did far better numbers than the trash we're getting now.


----------



## Hydra

WWE really needs to shake things up. They may be living off of the Network right now, but these shitty ratings are going to catch up to the Network numbers if they already haven't. Cut this 3 hr RAW shit, especially if we aren't getting anything exciting for the vast majority of it. They need to go with the creative format NXT has. Let the wrestlers have more freedom, don't overly script promos and let them sink or swim on their own. Push people the audience gets behind and not ones that you want people to like. Its really not that hard. Maybe they will finally wake up looking at ratings under 3 mil.


----------



## Blade Runner

after that ambulance segment, I wouldn't blame anyone for switching the channel..... and never coming back..... ever........


----------



## Empress

RatedR10 said:


> Tell me who the hell is a draw aside on the current-day product? The entire product is shit. NO ONE is drawing on this roster and with the product being presented.
> 
> 
> I can't wait until this show has an hour where it drops below 3 million. It's so close to happening. If last night's show was what Vince is doing as a reaction of "panic" to the declining ratings, I don't think I want to see what he puts on TV when an hour drops below 3.* Oh... and Susan G. Komen month is coming up soon. That means more Today Show hosts dancing in the ring and eating up time most likely.*


The WWE makes me feel like such a heel for rolling my eyes at their cancer initiatives. The matter hits close for me, but that Koda and Kathie Lee segment is still traumatizing. In fact, all of their good will campaigns are so cringe. The Connor stuff rubs me the wrong way now.

I bet Vince will get Brock to appear on RAW next week for a quick bump in the ratings.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Vince must be so sad that last nights main event did even worse than last weeks. :lol I LOVE it.


----------



## The Bloodline

Pretty sure the top of the 3rd hour was the last straw for most people. I hope it falls under 3 million next week. Until they figure out in the long run keeping the show 3 hours is going to ultimately keep losing fans. It's too damn long for any company. I don't even wanna see 3 hours of my favorite shows weekly. Quality over quantity always.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> The WWE makes me feel like such a heel for rolling my eyes at their cancer initiatives. The matter hits close for me, but that Koda and Kathie Lee segment is still traumatizing. In fact, all of their good will campaigns are so cringe. The Connor stuff rubs me the wrong way now.
> 
> *I bet Vince will get Brock to appear on RAW next week for a quick bump in the ratings.*


Brock doesn't draw anymore, either. That awesome two segment brawl he had with Taker before SummerSlam didn't even provide a bump.


----------



## A-C-P

Sasha Fierce said:


> *The WWE makes me feel like such a heel for rolling my eyes at their cancer initiatives. The matter hits close for me, but that Koda and Kathie Lee segment is still traumatizing. In fact, all of their good will campaigns are so cringe. The Connor stuff rubs me the wrong way now.
> *
> I bet Vince will get Brock to appear on RAW next week for a quick bump in the ratings.


I know this same feeling ALL to well, and am to worried about what the WWE is going to be throwing on TV in October this year.

I wouldn't be surprised to see Brock on TV next week, depending on how much it is going to cost Vince. I mean he is already reportedly paying Brock extra for HIAC so not sure how much we can expect to see him on TV leading up.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

You know Seth started the 3rd hour. That's when I just stopped watching and turned off the TV. By the look of those ratings I wasn't the only one who did that.


----------



## tboneangle

I used to always want a 3 hour show. But they don't have the brains to pull it off at this time. And to be honest, at least 30 minutes of that extra hour is MID MATCH COMMERCIALS!!!!


----------



## Cosine

JonMoxleyReborn said:


> You know Seth started the 3rd hour. That's when I just stopped watching and turned off the TV. By the look of those ratings I wasn't the only one who did that.


It's not just these ratings. The sample size is much larger. It's been ever since he won the title.

The ratings decline has been significantly higher since WM than it has been in previous years.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Brock doesn't draw anymore, either. That awesome two segment brawl he had with Taker before SummerSlam didn't even provide a bump.


I think it was a small bump, but not the huge one we were all expecting. But you're right. Brock probably won't move the ratings, especially not against the NFL.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

That Taker/Brock brawl has 11 million views on YouTube. Tell me again how Brock isn't a draw.


----------



## The True Believer

The Tempest said:


> Here's the RAW chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Average is 3,33 milions, still at all time low zone. This is great.


TANK, BITCH! TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK!

:mark: :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

if Demon Kane were to win the title, is there any chance his first defense might be against Corporate Kane? After all, last night clearly showed they aren't the same person. :eyeroll. Vince's senility is finally overriding whatever common sense he has left.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Using Youtube views as a drawing metric.

HAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> I think it was a small bump, but not the huge one we were all expecting. But you're right. Brock probably won't move the ratings, especially not against the NFL.


I forget, but either the Raw before it or after it actually did better.


----------



## Rex Rasslin

RAW was still the third most seen show on tv while running live? :lol Did I understand this correct?

:damn


----------



## Blade Runner

WWE dodging all of those GOOD creative ideas in it's grueling race to break the previous all time low record for RAW









-----> Dec 23, 96 (1.5)


----------



## Chrome

Gonna be a fun day when they finally get under 3 million views. Might happen too with the Susan G. Komen shit starting up next month. Got the popcorn on deck.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> I forget, but either the Raw before it or after it actually did better.


I found the exact rating for the Brock/Undertaker brawl. This was the Battleground fallout episode as well. So, that factored in. RAW's low ratings made the below look like post Wrestlemania ratings.


Hour one: 3.84 million
Hour two: 4.03 million
Hour three: 3.54 million

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...up-for-undertaker-return-battleground-fallout

So, Brock and Undertaker are draws. Just maybe not as big as the WWE may have hoped for. Although, I can't name one person who is that magic bullet for the long haul. Unless the WWE starts developing their talent better.


----------



## Fighter Daron

A-C-P said:


> Well considering I have been told it is the fault of whomever is in the Main Event, I guess this week it is Reigns' fault :draper2


Last time I checked Roman was not alone in that ring.


----------



## A-C-P

Fighter Daron said:


> Last time I checked Roman was not alone in that ring.


Either was Rollins every time I was told the low 3rd hour was his fault b/c he was in the Main Event.

Either way the post you quoted was total sarcasm :quimby


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> I found the exact rating for the Brock/Undertaker brawl. This was the Battleground fallout episode as well. So, that factored in. RAW's low ratings made the below look like post Wrestlemania ratings.
> 
> 
> Hour one: 3.84 million
> Hour two: 4.03 million
> Hour three: 3.54 million
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...up-for-undertaker-return-battleground-fallout
> 
> So, Brock and Undertaker are draws. Just maybe not as big as the WWE may have hoped for. Although, I can't name one person who is that magic bullet for the long haul. Unless the WWE starts developing their talent better.


They actually did a better rating the following or previous week, I believe. People made it sound like they would save Raw, and they went out with a wimper, instead.


----------



## Bret Hart

Only way they would draw more than 6 or 7 million viewers would be if they had Wrestlemania on USA.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> They actually did a better rating the following or previous week, I believe. People made it sound like they would save Raw, and they went out with a wimper, instead.


It was the week of Aug.10.

Hour one: 3.79 million
Hour two: 3.94 million
Hour three: 3.77 million

Those are damn good numbers for today's product. All three hours were above 3.5. Even the third hour was very healthy. 

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...0-2015-viewers-up-seth-rollins-vs-randy-orton


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Sasha Fierce said:


> It was the week of Aug.10.
> 
> Hour one: 3.79 million
> Hour two: 3.94 million
> Hour three: 3.77 million
> 
> Those are damn good numbers for today's product. All three hours were above 3.5. Even the third hour was very healthy.
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...0-2015-viewers-up-seth-rollins-vs-randy-orton


Oh, I agree, they were good for sure. I was just surprised it did better than a Raw with Brock and Taker. Anyway, even when Raw were doing those numbers you posted above, people were still complaining about the ratings, though.


----------



## LilOlMe

SHIV said:


> This show deserved an even lower rating than that. Anyone who didnt change the channel after the Kane debacle is purely a masochist. Reigns and Bray worked well together, but the damage of this rancid RAW had been done.So much for my hopes that a football rout would slow RAW's freefall.


On phone, so haven't read back much, but wasn't the Kane/Seth segment programmed at a time to get halftime viewers? It went from 9:50 to 10:09, so that must be the case.

I don't know why anyone's blaming (just) the main event when that was the lead-in for the third hour, and was the thing used to try to gain from NFL viewers.

I guess they didn't learn from the "Daniel Bryan's having an affair" debacle. Although maybe those ratings did great, I don't know.

I remember a Vickie performance review doing great, so maybe they were hoping for that. They should know by now that there's no interest in any of this shit, though. Kane and Seth to hold NFL viewers?

They lost 700,000 viewers from this time last year. The good news is that I think that was the high water mark (and this is the low water mark...it seems that around 3.33 million is their "always watch" base, but who knows), so the gap should be closer in the upcoming weeks.

What were the first hour numbers last week?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> I don't know why anyone's blaming (just) the main event


Because that's what people do every week.


----------



## RiC David

Sasha Fierce said:


> The WWE makes me feel like such a heel for rolling my eyes at their cancer initiatives. The matter hits close for me, but that Koda and Kathie Lee segment is still traumatizing. In fact, all of their good will campaigns are so cringe. The Connor stuff rubs me the wrong way now.
> 
> I bet Vince will get Brock to appear on RAW next week for a quick bump in the ratings.


Well if it makes you feel any better (and it should make you feel a lot worse!) Susan G Komen is a pretty controversial charity, it's not as bad as I'd previously believed but it's at least as questionable as WWE's whole nauseating and shameless approach to charity. 

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/komen.asp
http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509#.Vgr-QexViko

See at first they benefit from the natural and understandable reaction of "This is a good cause, how can anyone criticise such a good cause, for shame for shame" but it's all so self congratulatory and ultimately such a transparent publicity campaign that exploits good causes and does enough good to make it feel wrong to criticise them.

Philanthropy is the future of brand building, as is putting Stephanie McMahon in everything. It's good to raise donations for charity, doesn't mean you can't do it for the wrong reasons or that you can't be a shameless prick about it who's primarily concerned with putting themselves over.

Childhood cancer is the most tragic thing I care to imagine and their lack of dignity or humility is stomach turning at times. I've also been really uncomfortable with the way Connor's death was used as a 'roller coaster ride' where people almost brag about how "I totally cried at that! Oh you've got to watch it but bring a hanky, it's a real tearjerker!" like you might post about laughing at a funny comedy or being spooked by a horror. I know most people don't mean it in that way but that's how it looks and feels and that's by design. I don't like the 'tragedy popcorn' element because death is fucking horrible and to even breach the topic of childhood death calls for some semblence of tact.


----------



## Y2Joe

pwtorch.com:



> WWE Raw TV Ratings
> 
> -- September 28: Monday's Raw scored a *2.33 rating*, down from a 2.47 rating last week to establish a new historical low for Raw.
> 
> Raw has not been at this point since the mid-1990s before the ramp-up of the Monday Night Wars.
> 
> Particularly concerning is a steady drop-off in the key demographics against Monday Night Football, which drew a healthy 13.5 million viewers on ESPN, and against general Fall TV programming.
> 
> - Males 18-34: 2.03 rating on 8/31; 1.59 rating on 9/28.
> - Males 18-49: 1.86 rating on 8/31; 1.68 rating on 9/28.
> - Adults 18-49: 1.40 rating on 8/31; 1.13 rating on 9/28.
> 
> - Raw averaged 3.330 million viewers, down half-a-percent from last week's audience to establish a new year-low. The hourly break down followed the exact same pattern as last week...
> 
> Hourly Break Down: 3.476 million first hour viewers, decline to 3.326 million second hour viewers, and decline to 3.188 million third hour viewers.
> 
> - One year ago this week, Raw scored a 2.83 rating (five-tenths of a rating higher than this week's show). Two years ago this week, Raw scored a 2.68 rating.
> 
> Caldwell's Analysis: There has to be a change. Not a cosmetic one-week "change" like hot-shotting a bunch of title changes, but wholesale changes to try to set up for a rebound next year. It looks like they're in too deep of a hole with the current product to get back on-track this year against football. Sure, the Legends Night in October should help - presumably - but then it's back to the same thing in November when the part-timers go back on the shelf and the over-exposed, under-developed main roster stars try to fill three hours while the live crowd tries to stay engaged.


:sodone


----------



## The XL

A 2.3? Lmfao, holy shit.


----------



## Empress

RiC David said:


> Well if it makes you feel any better (and it should make you feel a lot worse!) Susan G Komen is a pretty controversial charity, it's not as bad as I'd previously believed but it's at least as questionable as WWE's whole nauseating and shameless approach to charity.
> 
> http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/komen.asp
> http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=search.summary&orgid=4509#.Vgr-QexViko
> 
> See at first they benefit from the natural and understandable reaction of "This is a good cause, how can anyone criticise such a good cause, for shame for shame" but it's all so self congratulatory and ultimately such a transparent publicity campaign that exploits good causes and does enough good to make it feel wrong to criticise them.
> 
> Philanthropy is the future of brand building, as is putting Stephanie McMahon in everything. It's good to raise donations for charity, doesn't mean you can't do it for the wrong reasons or that you can't be a shameless prick about it who's primarily concerned with putting themselves over.
> 
> Childhood cancer is the most tragic thing I care to imagine and their lack of dignity or humility is stomach turning at times. I've also been really uncomfortable with the way Connor's death was used as a 'roller coaster ride' where people almost brag about how "I totally cried at that! Oh you've got to watch it but bring a hanky, it's a real tearjerker!" like you might post about laughing at a funny comedy or being spooked by a horror. I know most people don't mean it in that way but that's how it looks and feels and that's by design. I don't like the 'tragedy popcorn' element because death is fucking horrible and to even breach the topic of childhood death calls for some semblence of tact.


Yeah, I knew all this regarding Susan G. Komen. It's primarily why I can't stand the org but the issue of cancer is important to me. The WWE just turns all of their efforts into cheap pandering.

I don't know if others saw this last night, but that moment of Stephanie & HHH dancing with New Day was spliced into the Connor video. These two can't even have a genuine moment without there being an ulterior motive. They've leeched onto this child who is no longer here. 

I feel guilty for having such a skeptical view of their efforts, but it just comes across as for publicity.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Sasha Fierce said:


> These two can't even have a genuine moment without there being an ulterior motive. They've leeched onto this child who is no longer here.


It obviously wasn't nearly as disgusting, but they exploited Daniel Bryan's injury so that they could get shots of the crowd cheering "Yes!" for Vince in that ridiculous promo.

WWE really is a scumbag company that shouldn't get a dime of your money... for reasons that have nothing to do with their shitfest of a product.


----------



## Fabregas

You have to go back to September 1997 to find a lower (non holiday) rating.


----------



## RiC David

Y2Joe said:


> pwtorch.com:
> 
> 
> 
> :sodone


To think that they actually put out a Monday Night War series that focused around WWF being in a slump and doing piss poor ratings - soon they'll be looking at those saying "Oh boy I wish we had Man Mountain Rock and The Patriot back so we could pull in those 2.0s!"

But hey, what do a bunch of product consumers on the internet know? I've locked up with a total of zero people whereas Vince McMahon...isn't a wrestler either but he's the most successful wrestling promoter of all time so it's literally impossible for him to be wrong here.

Don't see that argument so much anymore do you? Shame that!

_[Edit] I love how the quote makes it look like PWTorch's article was just a gif of Mark Henries who are so done._


----------



## Empress

Soul Man Danny B said:


> It obviously wasn't nearly as disgusting, but they exploited Daniel Bryan's injury so that they could get shots of the crowd cheering "Yes!" for Vince in that ridiculous promo.
> 
> *WWE really is a scumbag company that shouldn't get a dime of your money... for reasons that have nothing to do with their shitfest of a produc*t.


A part of me wants to cancel The Network. I only watch it for NXT, specials and PPV's. I honestly forget I have it at times. But it's $10 for a lot of stuff.

I wonder how Bryan feels about all this exploitation. The WWE uploaded yet another video yesterday.






It makes me so uncomfortable that they're going to use cancer to goose up the ratings next month.


----------



## Chrome

Wow, that's horrific. Hilarious though, and serves them right. Product needs a reboot in the worst of ways.


----------



## JBLoser

Holy shit :lmao :lmao :lmao 

SPORTSCENTER outdrew them? I know SC typically will get a good lead in audience from Monday Night Football. But cripes. That's so bad :lmao :lmao :lmao

They deserve every bit of this shit that they've dug themselves into though. Make no mistake about it. Let the tanking continue!


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

JBLoser said:


> Holy shit :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> SPORTSCENTER outdrew them? I know SC typically will get a good lead in audience from Monday Night Football. But cripes. That's so bad :lmao :lmao :lmao
> 
> They deserve every bit of this shit that they've dug themselves into though. Make no mistake about it. Let the tanking continue!


Now you know why Vince wants Sportscenter moments because he's realized more viewers will see it than RAW :bryanlol

Coach needs to come back now as the mega heel from ESPN trying to bring Vince's ratings down.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Lol Roman the Ratings Killer. Should've swapped him and Slater's spots months ago when they still had the chance. :lmao


... but seriously, yeah, sucks for WWE.


----------



## Wynter

It's sad that I can't even be excited for a "backed against the wall" Vince. Usually when you push him in a corner hard enough, he fights back with a vengeance and quality (ala when WCW had him against the ropes. He started swinging until he got that KO). But hell, look at this terrible Raw he gave us AFTER hitting record lows. He just went on and delivered an even more terrible show that broke the previous record for shit ratings :lmao

Vince has lost that fire and passion. He's complacent in his money and has squashed all his opponents. His arrogance is too damn high and he's REALLY testing the "They'll be back/won't leave!" theory. When I don't have ONE ounce of excitement for my favorite? When I debate whether it's worth watching their segments? You're losing me.

Shame. This roster is so STACKED. But so misused :no:


----------



## JBLoser

Wynter! said:


> *It's sad that I can't even be excited for a "backed against the wall" Vince*. Usually when you push him in a corner hard enough, he fights back with a vengeance and quality (ala when WCW had him against the ropes. He started swinging until he got that KO). But hell, look at this terrible Raw he gave us AFTER hitting record lows. He just went on and delivered an even more terrible show that broke the previous record for shit ratings :lmao
> 
> Vince has lost that fire and passion. He's complacent in his money and has squashed all his opponents. His arrogance is too damn high and he's REALLY testing the "They'll be back/won't leave!" theory. When I don't have ONE ounce of excitement for my favorite? When I debate whether it's worth watching their segments? You're losing me.
> 
> Shame. This roster is so STACKED. But so misused :no:


A good Twitter follow I have had a few thoughts about this.

Urgh. Stupid coding. Head to www.twitter.com/tapemachines


----------



## The RainMaker

Like Cornette said..Wrestling is DEAD. At least in the mainstream. What WWE has to worry about is keeping the hardcore base happy, so they don't drown even farther. Thats why when you see guys like Kane and Big Show in the main event in 2015, it's just absolutely ridiculous. Guys like Kane and Big Show are DEAD to the mainstream audience. They're relics. They have no effect. Likewise, the hardcore internet fan who pays 9.99 a month for the network, doesn't want to see them either. They literally appeal to..NO ONE. I just don't understand how someone could write this show in 2015 and think it's good in any way shape or form.


----------



## SóniaPortugal

WWE needs to do something
WWE have to focus on different people and stories
WWE has good players but are playing badly


----------



## Empress

JBLoser said:


> A good Twitter follow I have had a few thoughts about this.
> 
> Urgh. Stupid coding. Head to www.twitter.com/tapemachines


I've thought this as well. Vince does seem rather ashamed that he is a wrestling promoter. The 80's were over the top and the 90's were full on Jerry Springer. But he's gone out into Hollywood rather than letting the attention come to them. I laughed when they tried to scrub Youtube when Linda ran for office. iper1

I don't think creative will change much until Vince takes a hit in the wallet. $$$> ratings is probably how Vince sees it and they are still very profitable. 

Here is the Connor video I was referring to for those that didn't see RAW. 


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/648639689046396929

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/647093134992642048


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Sad it wasn't much lower. Oh well.


----------



## Goldusto

Sasha Fierce said:


> I've thought this as well. Vince does seem rather ashamed that he is a wrestling promoter. The 80's were over the top and the 90's were full on Jerry Springer. But he's gone out into Hollywood rather than letting the attention come to them. I laughed when they tried to scrub Youtube when Linda ran for office. iper1
> 
> I don't think creative will change much until Vince takes a hit in the wallet. $$$> ratings is probably how Vince sees it and they are still very profitable.
> 
> Here is the Connor video I was referring to for those that didn't see RAW.
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/648639689046396929
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/647093134992642048



the cause is great and all but the video of everyone dancing

omf jesus christ paiges boobs are magnificent:trips8:trips8:trips8 :banderas :banderas


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Sasha Fierce said:


> Yeah, I knew all this regarding Susan G. Komen. It's primarily why I can't stand the org but the issue of cancer is important to me. The WWE just turns all of their efforts into cheap pandering.
> 
> I don't know if others saw this last night, but that moment of Stephanie & HHH dancing with New Day was spliced into the Connor video. These two can't even have a genuine moment without there being an ulterior motive. They've leeched onto this child who is no longer here.
> 
> I feel guilty for having such a skeptical view of their efforts, but it just comes across as for publicity.


You are right to feel that way. Its disgusting.


----------



## Marv95

Don't be surprised if it drops even lower before the year is over. 

It needs a reboot. The 3 hours haven't helped but Nitro did much better with 3 hours against competition so that's no longer the excuse.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*I hope the ratings keep falling.:draper2*


----------



## Fandangohome

Deadman's Hand said:


> *I hope the ratings keep falling.:draper2*




Same, the worse they do, the better it is for wrestling as a whole. The board will hopefully start feeling a little nervous soon, and Vince might have some tough questions to answer. Anything to get him fired is good with me.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer:


> WWE Monday Night Raw ratings fall to record lows
> 
> By Dave Meltzer | [email protected] | @davemeltzerWON | Sep 29, 2015 2:32 pm
> 
> In what seems to be a weekly pattern this fall, the September 28, 2015 episode of Raw set another record low, drawing 3.32 million viewers last night. With the exception of a Christmas Eve show in 2012, it was the lowest viewership for an episode of the show since 1997.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.48 million viewers
> 9 p.m. 3.33 million viewers
> 10 p.m. 3.19 million viewers
> 
> It was the second lowest audience, even including holidays, for a third hour of Raw in the history of the three-hour long show.



Also, this is interesting:


> From the Sports Media Watch site:
> 
> The Week 3 Chiefs/Packers Monday Night Football game drew an 8.9 overnight rating on ESPN, down 3% from Bears/Jets last year (9.2), down 14% from Raiders/Broncos in 2013 (10.3) and the lowest Week 3 MNF overnight since at least 2008.


So it's not even like the football competition was especially stiff. Last year's RAW went up against a higher rated football game, and still outdrew this year's RAW so heavily.


----------



## Fandangohome

If numbers keep falling at the same rate, by my estimation, the 3rd hour in 2 weeks will drop below 3 million viewers. :lmao


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wow. Even football ratings fell alittle.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Looking forward to the Rise and Fall of WWE DVD


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Looking forward to the Rise and Fall of WWE DVD


You gotta admit, that would probably be the best documentary they've ever done. Not only the documentary part, but the match compilation part would have some serious potential, too.


----------



## KC Armstrong

I'm a die hard WWE fan who will sit through any bullshit show, but even I couldn't take it anymore last night. Watched the Packers game after Show vs. Henry and that atrocious divas segment.

I'm just annoyed by all this talk of "Brock/Rollins/Reigns/xyz isn't a draw". If you think one man's mere presence can save this show you are really missing the point. Let's say they advertise Brock for a certain episode. Why would a casual fan, who might want to see Brock, sit through this shitty show until Brock appears for 5 minutes? Earlier in the thread someone was ridiculed for bringing up YouTube views, but in my opinion that's a very relevant factor. Apparently a lot of people wanted to see Brock and Taker, but they would never sit through an otherwise shitty show. If something interesting happens or someone I like to see appears on the show, I'll just watch those highlights on the internet the next day.

If you want people to actually watch the whole thing live on the USA Network, you have to ENTERTAIN them for the entire show. Not 1 or 2 good segments in 3 hours, that just ain't worth watching it live. That's just a huge waste of time. That is why they have lost almost 25% of their audience compared to last year. If you give people an entertaining product rather than boring them to death, they will watch the show regardless of who is main eventing, who is the champ, any of that shit. If the show sucks, nobody will "bump" their ratings, not Cena, not Brock, not Taker, NOBODY.


----------



## Y2Joe

Honestly, what would it take for Triple H to abandon WWE and take the NXT wrestlers with him? Yes, Hunter has loyalty to both WWE and Vince, but how long will it be before he seriously considers breaking away?


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Y2Joe said:


> Honestly, what would it take for Triple H to abandon WWE and take the NXT wrestlers with him? Yes, Hunter has loyalty to both WWE and Vince, but how long will it be before he seriously considers breaking away?


I dont think HHH would be a good successor to Vince. Look at the Authority and how much Steph and him have been on TV despite ratings telling him to fuck off. Look how he has booked himself against Rock at WM32. 

What WWE needs is someone who doesn't have the ego of someone who wants to be on TV or who has family in WWE. It needs to be someone objective and willing to fire Steph and HHH.


----------



## Y2Joe

TheShieldSuck said:


> I dont think HHH would be a good successor to Vince. Look at the Authority and how much Steph and him have been on TV despite ratings telling him to fuck off. Look how he has booked himself against Rock at WM32.
> 
> What WWE needs is someone who doesn't have the ego of someone who wants to be on TV or who has family in WWE. It needs to be someone objective and willing to fire Steph and HHH.


I've actually been wondering, if things get so bad, is there a board or people that can vote Vince out of power in real life? How does that work?


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Y2Joe said:


> I've actually been wondering, if things get so bad, is there a board or people that can vote Vince out of power in real life? How does that work?


He's the majority shareholder so barring mental incapacity or fraud Vince can be CEO indefinitely.


----------



## PeepShow

Never like to see wrestling struggle, but they really do deserve it with the product they've put out the last few months.


----------



## dazzy666

TheShieldSuck said:


> I dont think HHH would be a good successor to Vince. Look at the Authority and how much Steph and him have been on TV despite ratings telling him to fuck off. Look how he has booked himself against Rock at WM32.
> 
> 
> 
> What WWE needs is someone who doesn't have the ego of someone who wants to be on TV or who has family in WWE. It needs to be someone objective and willing to fire Steph and HHH.



You do know that it's USA network that want the authority figure and Vince that wants rock/hhh rather than rock/Brock. 

I think the rock doesn't want to work with Brock either tho (in my opinion)


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Armani

Well deserved. The current roster has more heels than big babyfaces. They use the old farts for their storylines. Wrestlers who should have retired long time ago, irrelevant. Tell me who's over as a babyface? Nobody, there is nobody in the current roster that is loved by both the smarks and casuals since Punk and Bryan.


----------



## RatedR10

You already know WWE is going to put Lesnar on next week's show and they still won't pop 3.4 million viewers.

These guys, as usual, may provide a short-term boost, but what about in November when they all leave again? Or December? Or January? What about the Road to Wrestlemania? What's stopping that from sinking in ratings again, like it did this year with the constant 2.7 - 2.9 ratings?

It's a matter of time until an hour drops below 3 million viewers, and sadly, the reaction I expect from the company now is to give us an even worse show. Last night was the first time where I barely watched. I watched that dumb Kane/Rollins segment at the top of the 3rd hour, went to hockey, and then watched the overrun with the Reigns/Wyatt brawl. None of it was particularly exciting to me, and the Kane/Rollins segment was absolutely asinine. That is what they put on their show after the low ratings from the previous week.


----------



## HHHbkDX

A 2.3 rating. LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I don't know why that makes me happy, but it does.

Well deserved. Get your fucking heads out of your asses WWE. You guys are an embarrassment.


----------



## Ya Ho Wah 13

Biggest main event flop in history :rollins

Get the belt off this useless cunt.


----------



## samizayn

TheShieldSuck said:


> He's the majority shareholder so barring mental incapacity or *fraud *Vince can be CEO indefinitely.


Someone needs to get to work on framing him. Surely can't be that hard.


----------



## Chrome

samizayn said:


> Someone needs to get to work on framing him. Surely can't be that hard.


I think proving he's mentally incapable would be a lot easier, but that's just me.


----------



## Chrome

Isn't it past your bedtime Brownian?


----------



## Seafort

*Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

On December 23rd, 1996 Monday Night RAW achieved its lowest rating ever, a 1.5. A week later it followed that mark up with a 1.6. This two week span represented the lowest ebb in the Monday Night Wars.

Since WrestleMania 31 ratings have been on a slow but steady decline that has been unimpeded despite the return of The Undertaker and Sting. Many of the posts here talk about what WWE needs to do to draw interest and turn things around. But let's presume the opposite...that the objective is to get to a 1.5 as quickly as possible. What steps would WWE need to take to achieve this? And doing nothing does not count - yes, they'll eventually get there by not changing a thing, but let's avoid that answer for this exercise.

A few suggestions to start off with:

1) Follow the 14 month heel reign of Lesnar/Rollins with a heel Sheamus cash-in, followed by a Rollins victory at the subsequent PPV.

2) Have Roman Reigns defeat Seth Rollins for the World Heavyweight Championship in a panic move this fall, then book Reigns to retain the title against Rollins at WrestleMania. Have Reigns hold the belt for at least the amount of time necessary needed to surpass CM Punk (this means he's retaining at WrestleMania 33 as well against Cena).

3) Have John Cena break Lex Luger's record as US Champion. And defend his title every week on Smackdown and RAW.

4) Have Rusev turn against Bulgaria and announce his desire to become an American. A returning Jim Duggan or Zeb Coulter can assist him on his weekly trek to become a US citizen. Then job him out.

5) Announce a move to a TV-G rating.


----------



## chronoxiong

I have to admit, I hope the ratings keep dropping. Something has to be done in order to seriously cause some change and excitement into the product. It's a chore to watch RAW and Smackdown nowadays.


----------



## redapple

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

TV-G rating? nah i thnk the low rating are because of the PG rating. MMA and boxing fan see WWE as a kids show . it needs to be PG 13. bring back the blood!


----------



## MarkovKane

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

You crack me up:

-WWE change rating to Rated G, I don't think much will change, plus I think its PG cause of the "violence" so it can't be Rated G (then again WWE does things I never thought possible), Curb Stomp was too PG-13. 

-Let John Cena keep doing the same damn thing, make everyone with steam face Cena to knock them back down. 

-Let John Cena beat Braun at Wrestlemania after going undefeated

-Give Nikki the belt back, and have repeat everything she did on last reign, including doing like 5-6 PPV's without defending. Have her break her own record

-Make Sheamus cash in a faliure. Letting Rollins have the belt all the way to WM32.


----------



## LSF45

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Turn it into a variety show. That's pretty much what Vince seems to want anyway.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

They just need to stay the course.Keep pushing part timers and having no new stars created. Just keep the status quo and watch the ratings keep falling.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Add in a laugh track so the audience can get a cue to laugh at all of the ridiculous shit on this show.


----------



## MarkovKane

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



KO Bossy said:


> Add in a laugh track so the audience can get a cue to laugh at all of the ridiculous shit on this show.


Bro I was watching last Smackdown and was busy working at my desk, and I hear a keyed into "clap track".

Is it just me or do they put in fake audience or something cause it was cheers for everything they want you to cheer, then boos, as if I was watching "Recorded in front of Live audience" TV show.


----------



## Seafort

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



KO Bossy said:


> Add in a laugh track so the audience can get a cue to laugh at all of the ridiculous shit on this show.


That is absolutely brilliant! 

All that would be missing adding a silhouette of a lonely man in outer space watching and commentating on the show, with his two robot friends.


----------



## Seafort

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



MarkovKane said:


> Bro I was watching last Smackdown and was busy working at my desk, and I hear a keyed into "clap track".
> 
> Is it just me or do they put in fake audience or something cause it was cheers for everything they want you to cheer, then boos, as if I was watching "Recorded in front of Live audience" TV show.


Smackdown sweetens their audio pretty heavily. WCW used to do this as well. I remember going to a Nitro in Houston in December 1998 and they piped in crowd noise into the AstroDome during one particular quiet spell in a match. It was quite obvious in person.


----------



## KO Bossy

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



Seafort said:


> That is absolutely brilliant!
> 
> All that would be missing adding a silhouette of a lonely man in outer space watching and commentating on the show, with his two robot friends.


People have done it for TNA...








So why not WWE? Its just as bad...


----------



## Cobalt

Haven't posted on here for a few weeks.

All I can say is and I can't believe I am saying this, but whenever part timers are around I have a slight interest in watching otherwise I struggle through every week of watching Raw.

Honestly, even having Sting around, Taker etc it is still a struggle to watch.

Without them currently the product is disgusting. I would be lying if I said what I think it is because I simply cannot watch it enough anymore.

One thing I do know is that since the departure of mainly Punk and Bryan's injury they have failed to build any new stars.

Been a problem for years now due to their nostalgic obsession, they just simply do not know how to push and build stars and who the right ones are.


----------



## Funaki7

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Have you guys run it. The biggest merch seller of all time fired, and Cesaro as the world champ.


----------



## IceTheRetroKid

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

If you removed no.2 and just left Sheamus as WWE champ at 1, yes, this would be the ultimate way to destroy the Monday Night Raw ratings.

Having Roman Reigns as champ would imply that at least a draw is going to be champ with some kind of appeal, having Sheamus as champ would mean there's no redeeming draw factor.


----------



## chemical

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

*1. *Cancel the Divas division and assign each of the women to the bigger draws to the company as valets.
*2.* Have Randy Orton become GM and open up every RAW and SmackDown with a 15 minute promo.
*3. *Have a Big Show vs. Mark Henry match directly after Randy Orton's promos.
*4. *Turn Paul Heyman face and have him whisper his promos from this point forward.
*5. *Lastly, reunite The Shield and break them up every other week.

:shrug


----------



## IceTheRetroKid

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



chemical said:


> *1. *Cancel the Divas division and assign each of the women to the bigger draws to the company as valets.
> *2.* Have Randy Orton become GM and open up every RAW and SmackDown with a 15 minute promo.
> *3. *Have a Big Show vs. Mark Henry match directly after Randy Orton's promos.
> *4. *Turn Paul Heyman face and have him whisper his promos from this point forward.
> *5. *Lastly, reunite The Shield and break them up every other week.
> 
> :shrug


Hire Vince Russo and he'll do no.5 in spades and do the same with The New Day too.

Then he would mix and match the stables until it's one big grey undefinable alignment to make viewers not care

:russo


----------



## Chrome

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Honestly, just keep doing what they're doing. :shrug

They already got a 2.3 for Monday's debacle, not too far from a 1.5. Maybe they'll get in on the holiday episode this year, since they're already getting numbers usually only reserved for holiday episodes.


----------



## Funaki7

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

"Cancel the divas division".

Lmao cause yeah Paige has the walls bursting with people these days eh?


----------



## Hawkke

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

The show opens with 30 minutes of Miz TV talking to one or more members of the rest of the show, which consists of: 1 hour 6 man tag of Dolph Ziggler, Cena, and Reigns Vs Sheamus, Big Slobber, and Miz. A half hour 6 Diva tag with.. Whoever.. with a full hour of the same annoying anti-smoking ads in the show.. Show closes every week with the announcers giving a 10 minute overrun whoring the network. Repeat this every week and you have a grade A formula for near 0 ratings in 3 weeks or less.


----------



## Necrolust

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



Seafort said:


> That is absolutely brilliant!
> 
> All that would be missing adding a silhouette of a lonely man in outer space watching and commentating on the show, with his two robot friends.


Yes Yes Yes!!

MST3K is what WWE needs. Get wrid of the 3 stooges, they cannot connect with the audience anyway to save their 9.99 behinds.


----------



## Blade Runner

TheShieldSuck said:


> Looking forward to the Rise and Fall of WWE DVD


or a Kickstarter for the unauthorised Self-Destruction of Vincent K. McMahon DVD brought to you by Phil Mushnick


----------



## sean 590

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Put the belt on the Big Show

Lots more celebrity involvement, guest hosts every week

Bring back Hornswoggle

Get rid of the Divas Revolution and bring "dance offs" and costume contests for the divas

Open every show with a big long Authority promo that has no point other than to set up the Main Event, which could easily have just been announced by the commentators.

Have a fake "CM Punk" similar to the fake Diesel and Razor

Cena buries an up and comer every week in 2-3 minute US Championship squash match

Lots of TV time for Sheamus

Tie more stories in with Total Divas

Make Daniel Bryan a jobber

Make sure all the old guys except Sting never lose

Lots of air time for Michael Cole

Lots of flogging the app and network


----------



## Randy Lahey

A 2.33 rating? Wow. Wrestling really is dead.


----------



## plibige

I think raws lowest rating was actually a 0.7 on 3/3/97 which is still a long way off where we are now


----------



## LousyBastard

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

A few years ago with the WWE story creator or whatever it was on Smackdown vs raw 2010, I created a month long story that involved Big Show looking for someone who ruined his birthday. Opens up with him on a podium, sharing his hopes for what was going to be one heck of a bash, only to have someone steal his pinata and beer, or something like that. Michael Cole, who was the GM in my storymode, came out to order Big Show back to his office right away so that they can discuss the matter in private (J.R on commentary: "Sounds like Big Show's in for a Big spanking", Big Show then gulps, his eyes in fear and uncertainty). 

Back stage Big Show learns that Michael Cole has been a secret birthday detective for 20 years, and it just so happens that Big Show's birthday disaster is similar to a case he has been tracking for many years, even loosing touch with his family due to the crazed obsession. So he of course agrees to help, sending out possible suspects each week (Goldust, while being stomped on by an angry Big Show after match: "No! Stop! I'm allergic to birthdays!")

One evening as Big Show walks to the ring, Kane pops out from underneath the ring, later revealing that he's a "Birthday Fiend!" and that he has been ruining birthdays for 20 years (and in response, a week later, as Kane walks to ring for match, Big Show flues off the titantron to surprise attack him). Michael Cole banishes him to the moon, until Big Show convinces that having a match with him before being sent to the moon would work best. An inferno match, so that Kane can be fired literally. After that match Michael Cole celebrates with Big Show in ring as Big Show gives a speech about how that was for all the ruined birthdays.

Was gonna follow that up with Kane hitching an asteroid back to Earth with new super birthday destroying powers (JR: "By God! Mecha Pinata's been stolen!" Michael Cole falls to knees, shakes fist in air "KAAAAANE!"


----------



## egnuldt

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

- Start each RAW/SD with a 15 minute backstage promo from Ryback that is delivered verbatim through a teleprompter

- Replace 'Miz TV' with 'Neville TV' where Neville interviews either: 1) Members of the Diva division, 2) Michael Cole, 3) Lesnar
----> These interviews consist of a no less than 10 minute segment that never gets confrontational. 

- Limit each move set per non main event match to only include: Russian leg sweeps, rollups/small packages, and rebound clotheslines 

- Every non main event match ends in a rollup finish following a distraction from Sheamus


- While Sheamus is distracting one wrestler, the other one always performs Roman Reigns pre superman punch dance (where he cocks his arm and hits his hand into the ground) during the distraction. This is followed up by a rollup finish with 100% success rate. 

- Every wrestler comes out to the Big Shows theme. 

- Every RAW/SD main event consists of a 20 Minute 'Rebound clotheslines only' match with Michael Cole as the special referee/scorekeeper. The most rebound clotheslines successfully executed wins. Every match ends in a 2-2 draw to keep everyone strong. 

- To showcase diversity, every show ends by having all the wrestlers come to the ring and perform/sing the United States national anthem in the Russian, French, and Spanish languages one after the other. (The transliteration's are on the jumbotron so every in the audience can participate.


----------



## I'm a Mercenary

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



redapple said:


> TV-G rating? nah i thnk the low rating are because of the PG rating. MMA and boxing fan see WWE as a kids show . it needs to be PG 13. bring back the blood!


----------



## sarcasma

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



KO Bossy said:


> People have done it for TNA...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So why not WWE? Its just as bad...


JOKER STING might be the most underrated character in the history of wrestling. 

"Scottie...DOUBLE BI"......LOL!!!


----------



## CJ

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

They don't need any help from us :lol


----------



## The Ultimate Warrior

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

More Hoda and Kathy Lee


----------



## Japanese Puroresu

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



Thurston Renaldo said:


> Step 1 all the way to 1000: Keep the belt on Rollins for at least another year - that alone will suffice.
> 
> It's sad that there's 23 posts that precede this one yet no one has already stated this. But teh wurkrayt, right
> 
> Face it - he's a massive fucking failure. The biggest main event flop in history.


The ratings have fallen no matter who has been champion. Punk kept them stable during his run, that's the only person who's had any effect in that 15 years.


----------



## Dawnbreaker

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Put the belt on the Big Show and have him break Punk's modern record as champ; no, have him go all the way and break Sammartino's record. Along the way he can squash the upstarts like Rollins and Ambrose, as well as have lengthy feuds with Kane and Mark Henry.


----------



## LOL Mic Skills

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



Seafort said:


> That is absolutely brilliant!
> 
> All that would be missing adding a silhouette of a lonely man in outer space watching and commentating on the show, with his two robot friends.


:clap

you win the internet!!!!

How fitting to even bring up MST3K since it feels like we are forced to watch the crappiest product imagineable every damn week! 

us fans are nothing more than a bunch of Mike Nelson's being forced by Dr Vincent Kennedy Forrester and his sidekick TVs Frank Dunn to watch some of the crappiest programming ever created for a few hours 



"We'll send you cheesy storylines
The worst we can book!
La La La"


----------



## amhlilhaus

The Ultimate Warrior said:


> More Hoda and Kathy Lee


Oh, theyre coming


----------



## PurityOfEvil

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

If WWE went TV-G, I for one would stop watching.

Dealing with it being PG is bad enough.


----------



## Brodus Clay

Shitty ratings? yes Seth Rollins strikes again.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



SHIV said:


> They just need to stay the course.Keep pushing part timers and having no new stars created. Just keep the status quo and watch the ratings keep falling.


This.
It's still eerie how WWE resembles WCW late 1999. Nash, Hulkamania, Flair, Sid, Hart ... Undertaker, Rock, Triple H, Batista ... 

The point of no return has arrived. Seth Rollins is WWE's Jeff Jarrett.


----------



## RiC David

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

This is so fucking embarrassing but that's never stopped me before so:

Last night I actually dreamed of...THE DEMON KANE. Look man, say what you will and I'll say it right along with you but bullshit of that magnitude leaves its mark on the mind. So what I dreamed is that Ka..The Demon Kane is able to turn into some sort of ghost/hologram which allows him to appear at any time,_ in any segment_.

Therefore I propose that The Demon Kane becomes The Demon-Ghost Kane (or The Ghost-Demon Kane, have JBL argue with Mahgle about it while Kevin Owens jobs to The Big Show). The best part is that now The Demon-Ghost/Ghost-Demon Kane can appear alongside Corporate Kane thus allowing them BOTH to be present in every segment of every show.

Russo ain't got shit on me, brothers and sisters.


...I imagine he gets his best ideas the same way though


----------



## Lucifer The Dark

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Why are the tv ratings relevant in 2015 when they have the Network?


----------



## wwe4universe

Lol when raw ratings hit below 3.0, it shouldve been a warning sign. But ppl would use excuse saying football, or illegal streaming were the cause. Product annually declines. Its evident wwe cant make stars, produce better storyline etc


----------



## Drago

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



SHIV said:


> They just need to stay the course.Keep pushing part timers and having no new stars created. Just keep the status quo and watch the ratings keep falling.


----------



## Crasp

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*


----------



## Reptilian

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

-Give divas more screen time
-Let divas main event a RAW


----------



## Paul E

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

They don't really need to do anything different from how they're already screwing up.

Champion made to look like a joke every week? Check!
Stale characters put over interesting ones every week? Check!
Absolutely clueless writing for the women's division, where we break up a stable, put it back together, then have everyone act shocked the one who turned on her teammates turns on them again? Check!
Giving the Bellas a mic literally ever? Check!
Randomly booking pointless 6-man tags during commercial breaks? Check!
Giving Reigns lengthy singles matches? Check!

Just keep doin' what you doin', WWE.


----------



## Algernon

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Pretty much stay the course and have Sheamus cash in and win. But its going to take more than the WWE booking to drive the ratings down.

- Both the Chicago Cubs and New York Yankees are in the playoffs. Both would have to meet in the World Series and you would need game 7 to be rained out and played on Monday night

The Bills and Patriots play Monday night game Thanksgiving week. If the Patriots are still undefeated that will be a big draw. The monday night schedule is actually pretty weak. Vince and HHH may very well amp up this show with has beens that wont advance any storylines and put anyone over like they're doing for the Oct 19 show. 

I think any of these scenarios plus Sheamus being WWE world champion would have a shot to push the RAW rating down to 1.5.


----------



## The One Man Gang

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

pushing Kane and Big Show, oh wait.


----------



## A-C-P

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Why do we need steps to continue lowering the ratings? It seems all they would need to do is continue as they are and they will eventually get there :thumbsup


----------



## Fabregas

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Put Cesaro and Ryback in the main event.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

How long are we going to keep doing this not trying to create new stars myth?


----------



## HarHar

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



Seafort said:


> A few suggestions to start off with:
> 
> 1) Follow the 14 month heel reign of Lesnar/Rollins with a heel Sheamus cash-in, followed by a Rollins victory at the subsequent PPV.
> 
> 2) Have Roman Reigns defeat Seth Rollins for the World Heavyweight Championship in a panic move this fall, then book Reigns to retain the title against Rollins at WrestleMania. Have Reigns hold the belt for at least the amount of time necessary needed to surpass CM Punk (this means he's retaining at WrestleMania 33 as well against Cena).
> 
> 3) Have John Cena break Lex Luger's record as US Champion. And defend his title every week on Smackdown and RAW.
> 
> 4) Have Rusev turn against Bulgaria and announce his desire to become an American. A returning Jim Duggan or Zeb Coulter can assist him on his weekly trek to become a US citizen. Then job him out.
> 
> 5) Announce a move to a TV-G rating.


no one gives a shit about steps 1-5 except hardcore wrestling fans. All they gotta do is keep doing what they're doing and the ratings will continue to slide, it's that easy.


----------



## BRITLAND

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Getting rid of Cena :cena5 :troll


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Don't do anything different, they are on their way to 1.5 as it is now.


----------



## OwenSES

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Errr just keep giving Rollins 40 minutes of TV


----------



## D.M.N.

With quarter three (July to September) finished for 2015, here are how things are compare percentage wise. The +/- is an average of the comparison between (i.e. for Q3 2015):

- the previous quarter (Q2 2015)
- one year earlier (Q3 2014)
- two years earlier (Q3 2013)

The most successful quarter two's in recent years were:

-0.7% = 2012
-2.7% = 2014
-8.1% = 2013
-8.6% = 2015

From a year perspective:

Q3 2010 = 4.60 million
Q3 2011 = 4.45 million (down 3.2%)
Q3 2012 = 4.47 million (up 0.5%)
Q3 2013 = 4.00 million (down 10.7%)
Q3 2014 = 4.11 million (up 2.9%)
Q3 2015 = 3.62 million (down 12.0%)

The average of 3,618,974 for Q3 2015 is lower than Q2 2015, meaning it now is the lowest quarter since at least the mid 1990s for WWE Raw.

I suspect I'll be repeating the same sentence in three months time, replacing 'Q3 2015' with 'Q4 2015'... it's pretty clear the audience is tanking. The warning signs were there, but it is now alarmingly clear.


----------



## GAD247

Vince could/should use this as an angle on Raw to reset some of the current egregious booking and roster placement on the show. 

But he's too far gone now and incapable of making good decisions. I fully expect the next show to be much much worse than the last two.


----------



## Empress

*Backstage Talk On Vince McMahon And The WWE RAW Ratings, *

- The Wrestling Observer Newsletter notes that the September 21st WWE RAW rating, which was a new record low, directly caused Vince McMahon to put "enormous pressure" on the WWE creative team, more than the previous two low numbers. With this week's RAW numbers lower than the September 21st show, you can bet Vince wasn't happy on Tuesday. We noted recently that Vince is known to make major changes when WWE starts panicking about the ratings.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...alk-on-vince-mcmahon-and-the-wwe-raw-ratings/

---

- Last night's WWE Total Divas season four finale drew 1.158 million viewers on the E! network, according to ShowBuzzDaily. This is a big jump from last week's 795,000 viewers.

Below is a breakdown of viewers for season four:

July 7th - 975,000
July 14th - 1.031 million
July 21st - 995,000
July 28th - 1.083 million
August 4th - 1.012 million
August 11th - 1.176 million
August 18th - 1.031 million
August 25th - 920,000
September 1st - 1.020 million
September 8th - 1.143 million
September 15th - 804,000
September 22nd - 795,000
September 29th - 1.158 million
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/0930/602192/how-did-the-wwe-total-divas-season-finale-do/


----------



## Blade Runner

Sasha Fierce said:


> *Backstage Talk On Vince McMahon And The WWE RAW Ratings, *
> 
> - The Wrestling Observer Newsletter notes that the September 21st WWE RAW rating, which was a new record low, directly caused Vince McMahon to put "enormous pressure" on the WWE creative team, more than the previous two low numbers. With this week's RAW numbers lower than the September 21st show, you can bet Vince wasn't happy on Tuesday. We noted recently that Vince is known to make major changes when WWE starts panicking about the ratings.


I would give my right testitcle to eavesdrop on one of these corporate meetings after the ratings tank, in my own sick way it makes me all giddy inside to see Vince panicking over his forcefed sh^tty product FINALLY being rejected by his core audience


----------



## A-C-P

Vince makes MAJOR changes when he panics about the Ratings? Well I guess we can expect to hear these 3 phrases at HIAC then....

The Winner and STILL WWE UNITED STATES CHAMPION...John Cena :CENA

The Winner and NEW WWE INTERCONTINENTAL CHAMPION....John Cena :cena5

The Winner and NEW WWE WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT CHAMPION...John Cena :cena6

:cena


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Hornswoggle return confirmed. 
Natalie to reprise her farting gimmick.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I'm trying to remember the last time Raw had anything even remotely considered a "major" change. The only thing I can think of is maybe Punk turning heel or Brock's return. 

I guess there was also Punk's segment and the Nexus in 2011 and 2010 respectively, but those were so good they had to have been accidents, or things WWE Creative had little input on.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Mifune Jackson said:


> I'm trying to remember the last time Raw had anything even remotely considered a "major" change. The only thing I can think of is maybe Punk turning heel or Brock's return.
> 
> I guess there was also Punk's segment and the Nexus in 2011 and 2010 respectively, but those were so good they had to have been accidents, or things WWE Creative had little input on.


I think WWE has been trying to step it up recently with the pipe bomb but nothing is working.


----------



## Redzero

LoL Reigns.


----------



## ElTerrible

2.33 LOL. Awesome. That show deserved it. Dumb from top to bottom.The only people that still watch do other stuff on the side and enjoy cracking jokes in the Raw thread here.

Also Vince makes drastic changes, when the ratings decline. LOL: They have been declining for 15 years and the McMahons, Big Show and Kane still dominate Raw. If those are drastic changes I don´t even wanna know what slow changes are in WWE. :grin2:


----------



## ElTerrible

TheShieldSuck said:


> I think WWE has been trying to step it up recently with the pipe bomb but nothing is working.


Of course not if she teams up with the same people next week. That seems so fucking stupid you can hardly put it in words.


----------



## P.H. Hatecraft

Notice how the boss is nowhere to be seen in this thread?

I fucking wonder why.


----------



## The_Jiz

The fact that 3 million people still tune in every week tells me pro wrestling is still a draw and I'll explain. 

Because not only is Raw the worst wrestling show right now, its one of the worst fucking shows I've ever seen on television (bottom of the barrel). Reality shows are actually better because they are at least coherent. 

You have an audience that literally watches out of habit and WWE fails to sell alcohol to alcoholics.


----------



## BrownianMotion>WF

Chrome said:


> Isn't it past your bedtime Brownian?


I'm not Brownian, but like I say any time I'm accused of being him: Thank you, I'm flattered 

It's like, in some people's minds I'm actually The GOAT himself. Makes me feel special. 

(Oh, you're special alright...)


----------



## BrownianMotion>WF

Redzero said:


> LoL Reigns.


LOL Rollins - he's the champion, not Reigns - the onus of increasing the ratings is placed mostly on who's champion - an honour which decrees whoever's holding the title as the most important man in the company.


----------



## Rasslor

Really no surprise ratings are in the shitter. Couple of weeks ago they have Sting wrestle for the first time ever and to maybe promote it weeks in advanced with a big opponent like Cena they announce it the day of the show and his opponent is Big Show ffs. 
Can't wait for the ratings to dip into the 1's.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

From 3.7 to almost 2.3 in the space of 6 months.


----------



## murder

TheShieldSuck said:


> From 3.7 to almost 2.3 in the space of 6 months.


Well, the 3.7 number was a one time deal the day after Mania as usual. But the September average is among the lowest in the 23 year Raw history, which is even worse.


----------



## ironyman

As long as they keep shoveling tired old shit like John (forever a face) super Cena, Kane, the Big Show and all of the other cringe-worthy, carnival reject level writing, then it will only get worse. Wrestling as it is today is a fading product and needs a firm kick in the ass and a new, more believable, controversial and edgy direction. Something that will make people want to tune in just to see what in the hell will happen next. Until Vince can find his balls again and deliver that shocking, historical *moment* that will kick start an entirely new and radically different era, then WWE will just keep on fading.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

murder said:


> Well, the 3.7 number was a one time deal the day after Mania as usual. But the September average is among the lowest in the 23 year Raw history, which is even worse.


I would say the 3.7 represents all the viewers who were disillusioned and came back to see the fallout. I still think 3.4 each week is achievable. Imagine if the Dudleys debuted after Mania and Seth v Brock in a cage match for the next week was announced. Taker could have then interfered with Brock Lesnar and started the feud there.


----------



## Bret Hart

TheShieldSuck said:


> I would say the 3.7 represents all the viewers who were disillusioned and came back to see the fallout. I still think 3.4 each week is achievable. Imagine if the Dudleys debuted after Mania and Seth v Brock in a cage match for the next week was announced. Taker could have then interfered with Brock Lesnar and started the feud there.


They need to have Brock wrestle on a couple Raw shows. The 'Christmas everyday' comparison is bullshit.


----------



## A-C-P

The_Jiz said:


> The fact that 3 million people still tune in every week tells me pro wrestling is still a draw and I'll explain.
> 
> Because not only is Raw the worst wrestling show right now, its one of the worst fucking shows I've ever seen on television (bottom of the barrel). Reality shows are actually better because they are at least coherent.
> 
> *You have an audience that literally watches out of habit and WWE fails to sell alcohol to alcoholics.*


They are not only failing to sell alcoholics alcohol they are even turning some of the alcoholics sober :lol


----------



## SóniaPortugal

One thing that is confusing me is the people that put all the blame on John Cena
John Cena in the past year only had one match or promo, he takes 10 to 15 minutes maximum on Raw and never appears on Smackdown

When was the last time that a RAW was about John Cena?


----------



## Mifune Jackson

SóniaPortugal said:


> One thing that is confusing me is the people that put all the blame on John Cena
> John Cena in the past year only had one match or promo, he takes 10 to 15 minutes maximum on Raw and never appears on Smackdown
> 
> When was the last time that a RAW was about John Cena?


The only time Cena has been the dominating force on the show was probably in the leadup to SummerSlam, but even that was counterbalanced by all of the Brock/Taker stuff, and it was clear Cena/Rollins wasn't the main event.

And before that, it was the Rumble, but again, he was counterbalanced with all of the Roman Reigns hype heading into the Rumble.

The last time he was absolutely the main story without another big main event was probably Brock/Cena at SummerSlam 2014, and that was only because Daniel Bryan got injured. They've actually been slowly trying to groom a successor to Cena for the last 2 years, but have had to go back to him out of necessity more than anything else.

Beyond that, Cena's been dominant in the midcard/semi main event level with some great feuds and matches without all of the pressure of carrying the show, yet people still point the finger at him.

The Authority carries far more blame than Cena.


----------



## FITZ

It's the whole show that's failing. Nothing ever happens on Raw. I like wrestling and if I miss Raw it means nothing. I watch their PPVs and other Network specials and I usually have Raw on as background noise.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's latest newsletter:


> Raw on 9/28 did a 2.32 rating and 3.32 million viewers (1.50 viewers per home), once again setting a new non-holiday mark for the show dating back to 1997, just under the 3.34 million viewers on 9/21 but well below the non-holiday record lows of a 2.42 rating set on 9/7 and 9/14.
> 
> The new record low they're heading toward, which would be the lowest including holidays, would be a 2.24 rating and 3.14 million viewers for a show that aired on Christmas Eve in 2012. The last time Raw did a 2.3 rating non-holiday was October 27, 1997, a night they went not only against the NFL, but also against a Nitro show that did a 4.6 rating. *If you want to think of it in another way, Nitro, as horrible as it was in 1999, never came close to a 2.3 until the summer of 2000, and that was against a Raw show that did a 5.3 rating.*


Does anyone know if the football game next week is an anticipated type of game? Do you think the game will do better or worse than this week's game?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I don't think WWE cares that much about ratings anymore. If they did, they'd be making MAJOR changes to the show ie; storylines, format, announcers, champions, the set, EVERYTHING. Yet, every Monday night, Thursday night, and PPV comes and goes and literally nothing changes..


----------



## Goldusto

FITZ said:


> It's the whole show that's failing. Nothing ever happens on Raw. I like wrestling and if I miss Raw it means nothing. I watch their PPVs and other Network specials and I usually have Raw on as background noise.


ONE WORD summs up Raw :

Inconsequential. 

just as you said, there is nothing on show that a 5 minute promo at a PPV can't cover. you have 12-20 hours of programming inbetween PPVS, they should be treated like season finales, all the plot and development coming to a head and they just aren't .


----------



## PunkShoot

It's not Rollins fault at all, but it's clear as day they need to get the title off him. Somehow get the MOTB off of shaemus, and put it on somebody like Cena.

Make a shield 2.0 Reunion turning rollins face, fued them with Wyatts.

Have cena cash the title on Rollins at a big PPV, and Have cena hold the title for the year.


----------



## PunkShoot

My idea to save WWE Ratings. (New Feuds / Storylines)
1 - Sami Zayn is close to returning, Have him feud with John cena for the US Title.
2 - Have Seth Rollins lose the title in a feud with HHH.
3 - HHH Then will have a feud with Rollins for a few months, slowly turning Rollins Face. Getting screwed over by the authority.
4 - HHH Then cuts a promo after rollins feud saying he is basically the GOAT and the ROCK comes back (Rumored he is back really soon). Start the HHH vs Rocky Feud
5 - Remake Shield 2.0 with Rollins turning complete Face vs the Wyatts.
6 - Continue the Dudley Boys vs The new day feud, Make it end by WM.
7 - Have Kevin owens feud with Shaemus, winner gets his MITB briefcase. If Owens losses he goes back to the indies. Have owens win the MITB.
8 - Owens cashes in the MITB vs the winner of Rock vs HHH at WM or before that.
9 - Have Lesnar Feud with stone cold (as reported), if austin can't go, Have Lesnar feud with a new comer like Baron Corbin (creating a star), Or do the david vs goliath match with Daniel bryan (Can bryan handle the suplexes tho?). Make the entire storyline about how DB knows how to counter the suplexes, and he can't touch him, to fast. etc
10 - Make a fatal four way match between Paige, Charlotte, Becky, Sasha for the title. Have Charlette retain to add credibility. Eventually leading to Sasha winning the title at WM.
11 - Have Rusev + Summer vs Ziggler and Lana in a tag team match. Eventually leading to a ziggler heel turn, and Lana falling for rusev again, Summer joining Ziggler.

This is how I would book some big events, I have no doubt ratings would increase.


----------



## Draykorinee

Cut raw by an hour, other than that, I can't see it being 'saved' its a downward spiral until some serious massive shake ups.

I don'#t believe for a second Rollins is at fault, its all in the booking and in the writing there just seems to be no freedom anymore.


----------



## Brodus Clay

This colossal drop on ratings made me remember when Seth Rollins said this stupid shit:


*
” In the ring, we move so fast. We take so many more bumps than those guys did, and we do so much more high-risk stuff. We’re athletes now. We’re not cartoon characters.”

– Seth Rollins to Men’s Journal*

It's wrestling we actually need cool characters not a phony athlete yelling with his geek voice that hes the future each Monday.


----------



## bigdog40

ShowStopper said:


> I don't think WWE cares that much about ratings anymore. If they did, they'd be making MAJOR changes to the show ie; storylines, format, announcers, champions, the set, EVERYTHING. Yet, every Monday night, Thursday night, and PPV comes and goes and literally nothing changes..






The WWE hasn't cared about ratings in years. Hell nobody cared about ratings til the monday night wars. The WWE has had TV shows for years before Monday Night Raw. Plus with the WWE pimping out the WWE Network so their Raw and Smackdown are just merely props to promote the network shows.


----------



## Empress

*Vince Russo's 'Nuclear Heat': Low WWE RAW Rating, Why Seth Rollins Is Not Over, TNA Announcement*






Vince Russo's 'Nuclear Heat': Low WWE RAW Rating, Why Seth Rollins Is Not Over, TNA Announcement
On the very first episode of Nuclear Heat, former pro wrestling writer / producer / performer Vince Russo takes a deep look into the ratings issues facing the WWE today. Having written wrestling shows for almost 2 decades, Vince looks at the pitfalls in the WWE Creative, and talks about what needs to be done to correct the issue. From there, he discusses what could be Dixie Carter's "big announcement" this coming Monday. He's loud, he's opinionated, but if he believes it he says it - no matter whose feathers are gonna be yanked!

In this episode, Russo talks about:

- WWE RAW hitting a 2.3 rating on Monday
- His problems with the WWE product
- What Vince McMahon once told him about ratings
- WWE booking for a 70 year old multi-millionaire
- UFC taking the WWE pay-per-view audience
- Why Seth Rollins is not over
- TNA's "big" announcement on Monday
http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/1001/602233/vince-russo-nuclear-heat-low-wwe-raw-rating/


*Paul Heyman on the long term solution to WWE's ratings problems*
WWE performer Paul Heyman spoke with Scott Fishman of Channel Guide about fixing WWE's ratings woes. "A long-term solution is with a number of brand new stars, all in compelling situations with riveting storylines and new match-ups," Heyman said. "That is what will bring an upswing to the ratings ever so slowly to where the average rating goes up a little bit each month. Then a couple of years from now the erosion have taken place of the people that have left being fans and a new generation or group or crop of fans has come in. It's natural evolution of any form of entertainment."
http://prowrestling.net/article.php...nar-appearing-on-the-Stone-Cold-Podcast-44263


----------



## TheRadicalDreamer

The 3 hour format, 50-50 booking and overexposure of the same wrestlers/feuds every week will eventually turn away even the most loyal viewers--especially with MNF in season. Serves them right for thinking Kane, Big Show and CENAWINSLOL can keep fans tuned in during football season in 2015. Good thing for YouTube, I can watch the enjoyable segments without sitting through the half-assed filler material that's been done to death.


----------



## Empress

*WWE NEWS: Smackdown TV ratings are in for Thursday's show *

WWE Smackdown TV Ratings 2015

-- October 1: Thursday's show scored a 1.57 rating, down slightly from a 1.61 rating.

Smackdown drew 2.132 million viewers, just about the same as 2.138 million viewers last week.

Since football began on Thursday nights, Smackdown has settled into a range of 1.5-1.6 ratings and 2.0-2.2 million viewers. The range is well-below where the show was earlier this year, but the show appears to have found its footing without falling below 2.0 million viewers again.

- Overall on Thursday nights this year, Smackdown has averaged a 1.76 rating and 2.447 million viewers.

The 2015 average continues to fall further away from the average through the same period last year on Friday nights - 1.91 rating and 2.690 million viewers. 
http://www.pwtorch.com/artman2/publish/WWE_News_3/article_87820.shtml#.Vg8CQXpVikp


----------



## The Tempest

Chart:


----------



## Chrome

Think WWE probably regrets moving back to Thursday nights. It's funny people were laughing at TNA moving away from Thursdays but TNA was smart to avoid the NFL juggernaut. Too bad they suck too.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Chrome said:


> Think WWE probably regrets moving back to Thursday nights. It's funny people were laughing at TNA moving away from Thursdays but TNA was smart to avoid the NFL juggernaut. Too bad they suck too.


There are more available viewers on a Thursday night, but in the fall the NFL is killer competition.


----------



## Chrome

SHIV said:


> There are more available viewers on a Thursday night, but in the fall the NFL is killer competition.


True, but they probably should've thought about Wednesdays or even live on Tuesdays. Now they basically job to the NFL twice a week.


----------



## Empress

Chrome said:


> True, but they probably should've thought about *Wednesdays* or even live on Tuesdays. Now they basically job to the NFL twice a week.


They'd get destroyed by Empire on Wednesday's. Thursday also has the ABC line up.

I think Russo has a valid point about the WWE scripting Seth Rollins as a Sybil. But I'm not sure that the WWE has been catering to the IWC.


----------



## Chrome

Sasha Fierce said:


> They'd get destroyed by Empire on Wednesday's. Thursday also has the ABC line up.
> 
> I think Russo has a valid point about the WWE scripting Seth Rollins as a Sybil. But I'm not sure that the WWE has been catering to the IWC.


Yeah, I actually ended up watching that whole Russo video and agreed with mostly everything he said, except about WWE catering to the IWC. If WWE was really catering to us, Reigns would be a heel, Cesaro would be beating Show and not the other way around, and somebody would've already beaten Cena for the US title by now. And the show would be A LOT better too. They throw us a bone every now and again, but no way do they cater to us. I don't really know who they're catering to with the crap they put on every week tbh.


----------



## The Tempest

I'm no expert of ratings, but that 0.35 in the 12-34 demo sounds bad, like really bad. WWE really made a huge mistake thinking SmackDown would be safe on Thursday Nights, even prior to the NFL, the show was still drawing less numbers than Friday Nights. Just goes to show you that people aren't really that dumb and they are really going away.

So much for the "They'll still watch" huh :vince2


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Chrome said:


> Yeah, I actually ended up watching that whole Russo video and agreed with mostly everything he said, except about WWE catering to the IWC. If WWE was really catering to us, Reigns would be a heel, Cesaro would be beating Show and not the other way around, and somebody would've already beaten Cena for the US title by now. And the show would be A LOT better too. They throw us a bone every now and again, but no way do they cater to us. I don't really know who they're catering to with the crap they put on every week tbh.


*They're really just half assing the entire show and doing whatever they want to do. They're creating the illusion that they're catering to the IWC with these pointless 20 minute workrate fests featuring Cesaro and company, when in reality, it's doing nothing for anyone in the long term.*


----------



## Wonderllama

I'm watching football instead of RAW. Not that I hate RAW like everyone here, but football is more entertaining to me right now. I still catch up with the YouTube clips they upload.

Smackdown on Thursday was such a mistake. Battling the NFL on both days was NEVER going to work out.

I think what could happen is WWE and USA admit defeat and push RAW/Smackdown to Tuesday/Friday during football season. NFL is getting more popular every year... and WWE is not.


----------



## Kabraxal

Wonderllama said:


> I'm watching football instead of RAW. Not that I hate RAW like everyone here, but football is more entertaining to me right now. I still catch up with the YouTube clips they upload.
> 
> Smackdown on Thursday was such a mistake. Battling the NFL on both days was NEVER going to work out.
> 
> I think what could happen is WWE and USA admit defeat and push RAW/Smackdown to Tuesday/Friday during football season. NFL is getting more popular every year... and WWE is not.


I think it's actually because the WWE is pissing off the fans that would rather watch wrestling, but the shows are so bad they turn to the NFL. I know I'm one of them. THere is only one thing that would win a remote war with wrestling when it's good... the first football. And that is only a few set teams. 

So the WWE is fucking itself hard by chasing away fans.


----------



## youmakemeleery

TV Ratings are pointless. 

The decline means nothing.


----------



## Ajay West

youmakemeleery said:


> TV Ratings are pointless.
> 
> The decline means nothing.


It baffles me how this day and age they are still recorded via a sample of homes. Whether me or you watch Raw makes no difference to ratings.


----------



## Annihilus

Can't wait to see the rating for this week, they deserve another 2.3 or worse for putting on another BORING and missable show. This is supposed to be entertainment, why are we getting the same segments/matches every week?


----------



## GetDown

Annihilus said:


> Can't wait to see the rating for this week, they deserve another 2.3 or worse for putting on another BORING and missable show. This is supposed to be entertainment, why are we getting the same segments/matches every week?


If you don't like something, stop watching instead of bitching on the internet. Nobody can tun your TV/PC off for you unkout


----------



## Annihilus

GetDown said:


> If you don't like something, stop watching instead of bitching on the internet. Nobody can tun your TV/PC off for you


I don't watch every week, and when I do its background noise while I do other things. I paid more attention this week hoping to see WWE put on a good show to win people back, given the ratings drop, and the show was sleep-inducing.

You actually think they're putting on a quality product right now..? the main angle being Kane vs. Rollins is proof that they're just coasting during these months of filler PPV's. Also you don't have to tell people to 'stop watching', thats exactly what's happening if you haven't noticed.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

Expecting the second hour to be the lowest.


----------



## The Tempest

It's Chart time!










Viewership average is 3,378 milions. Guess Cena isn't a draw after all huh :mj


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

2nd hour the highest...

:Cocky

Cena in the main event didn't draw. That first hour is horrendous.


----------



## JBLoser

Oh man that third hour is awful.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Tempest said:


> It's Chart time!
> 
> 
> Viewership average is 3,378 milions. Guess Cena isn't a draw after all huh :mj


Yup. And the first hour considering Brock, Heyman, and that long 6 man tag with the Shield and Wyatt's didn't do great either, especially when you take into consideration the football game doesn't even start until 30 minutes into Raw.


----------



## Hydra

Deserved lower than that, imo. That show was pretty boring. Nothing much is happening to advance what stories they do have. And I wanted to throw a brick at my TV when Steph was on. She brought the show down a lot.


----------



## Tardbasher12

Hoping for a record low.


----------



## Chrome

Looks like a very slight improvement from last week. But you expect something better when they bring Lesnar back.


----------



## RatedR10

Literally no one should be surprised that Cena doesn't draw viewers anymore. No one. 

What is (somewhat, but not really considering the WWE product) is that Lesnar and Heyman barely popped the number and weren't even apart of the highest rated hour. Again, it's only somewhat surprising considering the state of the product.


----------



## Stone Hot

Woot woot they are up from last week! Still not that good



And it looks like Kane vs Seth is the program people want to see.

What a world we live in


----------



## TheShieldSuck

3.47 hr 1 Sep
3.32 hr 2
3.18 hr 3

3.47 hr 1 Oct
3.49 hr 2
3.16 hr 3

Slight improvement from last week. 

So thats what? Around 2.4 rating?


----------



## JBLoser

RatedR10 said:


> Literally no one should be surprised that Cena doesn't draw viewers anymore. No one.
> 
> What is (somewhat, but not really considering the WWE product) is that Lesnar and Heyman barely popped the number and weren't even apart of the highest rated hour. Again, it's only somewhat surprising considering the state of the product.


Heyman and Lesnar are always fun but from a personal standpoint, I'm fatigued and just so sick of the traditional openings to RAW with lengthy promos to start and then a match. Changing it up every now and then would provide at least _something_ of substance. Again, just my vantage point, but even last night before Heyman even talked I was like, "Oh great. It's THIS shit again. Someone's starting off RAW with a promo."


----------



## The5star_Kid

I was looking at the UK ratings and raw was on par with what TNA gets on a channel called "challenge". And, in the last couple months, the show which has garnered the most views on a single showing was...SMACKDOWN!!!

What is happening? lol


----------



## BingPredicts

Low 3 million - the new norm thanks to their sleep inducing champion.


----------



## BingPredicts

RatedR10 said:


> Literally no one should be surprised that Cena doesn't draw viewers anymore. No one.
> 
> What is (somewhat, but not really considering the WWE product) is that Lesnar and Heyman barely popped the number and weren't even apart of the highest rated hour. Again, it's only somewhat surprising considering the state of the product.


It's not surprising at all. Go back and look at the historical data. The only time Brock has popped a number on TV was when he returned. Brock doesn't draw on TV. He helped boost the SummerSlam buys (which were very good) and they drew about 19,000 at MSG for a show he headlined. That's where Brock's drawing power becomes evident. The guy does literally nothing on RAW.

Also, half time of the MNF game was during the 2nd hour.


----------



## RatedR10

JBLoser said:


> Heyman and Lesnar are always fun but from a personal standpoint, I'm fatigued and just so sick of the traditional openings to RAW with lengthy promos to start and then a match. Changing it up every now and then would provide at least _something_ of substance. Again, just my vantage point, but even last night before Heyman even talked I was like, "Oh great. It's THIS shit again. Someone's starting off RAW with a promo."


That's my feeling about it all as well. It's such a tired opening. It doesn't help that not many people want to see Lesnar vs. Undertaker again and Heyman has to build that shit, and then you have to throw in video packages in the middle of the promo. It was fucking weird and it's a tired formula just like the entire show is.

No one can save this sinking ship. That little legends night they're doing in two weeks with Austin, HBK, Undertaker in the arena? I doubt that pops 3.5 million viewers. And that's a generous prediction that they do pop the numbers slightly. The entire product needs a overhaul.


----------



## Fabregas

Lesnar had no effect on ratings. 
:heston

I guess we'll see a Rock return soon.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

The5star_Kid said:


> I was looking at the UK ratings and raw was on par with what TNA gets on a channel called "challenge". And, in the last couple months, the show which has garnered the most views on a single showing was...SMACKDOWN!!!
> 
> What is happening? lol


Aint WWE on Sky Sports? if so you have to pay extra to watch.


----------



## Draykorinee

TheShieldSuck said:


> Aint WWE on Sky Sports? if so you have to pay extra to watch.


Yeah TNA has done well because its completely free, Sky Sports is a stupid price, like £30-40 a month its a joke.


----------



## The5star_Kid

TheShieldSuck said:


> Aint WWE on Sky Sports? if so you have to pay extra to watch.


yeah I know, but how do over a 100k people even know TNA is on Challenge? And how in the blue bajoojoo do more people tune in for SD. It must be that it's on at 10pm in Skysports.


----------



## Wynter

:ha


We all can lay off Seth now. Because that terrible drop off shows its the terrible show itself. Not that we all didn't know that. But we had a field day shitting on Seth :lol

That "increase" :lmao 

@ShowStopper


----------



## The XL

Not good but Bork probably prevented a record low number.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

As great as Brock is he hasn't been a ratings draw for WWE since he's been on this dominant run. The RAW after Summerslam 2014 (the night he killed Cena) drew a lower rating than the go-home episode the week before. WWE needs to start using Brock to put over other talent. He's gone over Taker, Cena, and dominated everyone else yet it hasn't really produced much.


----------



## The True Believer

There's only one man who can save us now. 

:reigns :mj


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wynter! said:


> :ha
> 
> 
> We all can lay off Seth now. Because that terrible drop off shows its the terrible show itself. Not that we all didn't know that. But we had a field day shitting on Seth :lol
> 
> That "increase" :lmao
> 
> 
> @ShowStopper




Told ya'll. Seth is no draw either, but neither is anyone else right now, either. And that's on CREATIVE. That's all I've been saying. They even managed to make no one care about CENA and BROCK. Last weeks main event and this weeks had nothing to do with Seth and neither main event drew. This is all I've been saying..

:justsayin


----------



## TheShieldSuck

The Boy Wonder said:


> As great as Brock is he hasn't been a ratings draw for WWE since he's been on this dominant run. The RAW after Summerslam 2014 (the night he killed Cena) drew a lower rating than the go-home episode the week before. WWE needs to start using Brock to put over other talent. He's gone over Taker, Cena, and dominated everyone else yet it hasn't really produced much.


Lesnar and all the part timers just need to fuck off. I am fed up of having to wait for them to get to fucking work and having the schedule revolve around them. 

WWE is a real mess. It may not be the worst year in history but WWE itself has never had so many problems are ZERO absolutely ZERO stars who are over.


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> Told ya'll. Seth is no draw either, but neither is anyone else right now, either. And that's on *VINCE*. That's all I've been saying. They even managed to make no one care about CENA and BROCK. Last weeks main event and this weeks had nothing to do with Seth and neither main event drew. This is all I've been saying..
> 
> :justsayin


*Fixed.

We don't even really know how "creative" Creative is because Vince just constantly changes shit up all the time.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

My bigger issue with Lesnar is that I don't really care if he beats up Big Show or just shows up to let Paul Heyman talk. Furthermore, I don't care about rehashed feuds with Cena/Show/HHH (and now Rollins). He's an interesting personality who isn't doing anything near interesting enough to maintain my interest. It's just not worth the scattered appearances he makes if they're all wasted.

The core of everything is a broken creative team that can't write compelling television.


----------



## BingPredicts

SUPERIOR said:


> There's only one man who can save us now.
> 
> :reigns :mj


It really must be killing Vince. He went with Rollins because the hardcore fans rejected Reigns and he thought this would be better for the product. That resulted in Rollins absolutely killing the ratings and pushing a large portion of the viewers away.

If he was going to have shit ratings regardless, he may as well have gone with the guy he originally wanted to. There is no way Reigns would have been any worse than the monumental failure currently holding the title.

Both are absolute dog shit though.


----------



## Louaja89

Cena SUCKS . He is a terrible draw , I hope they bury him soon. >>


----------



## The Boy Wonder

My issue with Brock's booking is that they are only utilizing him against guys who really don't need to exposure from working with him. Since he's been back Brock has worked with Cena, Triple H, Big Show, Taker and Punk.

He worked with Reigns and Rollins. But both of those feuds were cut short.


----------



## The Tempest

Chrome said:


> *Fixed.
> 
> We don't even really know how "creative" Creative is because Vince just constantly changes shit up all the time.


It looks like this past RAW was the perfect example of Vince being afraid of ratings and micro-managing even further pretty much everthing, oh joy I can't wait when this show drops below 3 milions and I'll sooo gonna laugh :lmao It shouldn't be so far away :banderas


----------



## The Boy Wonder

WWE needs a huge storyline in order to peak interest. After HIAC they need to end some of these feuds. Taker/Brock and Bray/Reigns will both be over in a few weeks. I think the Dolph/Cena feud has a lot of potential if they involve Nikki. A feud like that will get mainstream attention. And they need to do a better job using Randy Orton and Dean Ambrose. They are both being wasted.


----------



## Chrome

The Boy Wonder said:


> My issue with Brock's booking is that they are only utilizing him against guys who really don't need to exposure from working with him. Since he's been back Brock has worked with Cena, Triple H, Big Show, Taker and Punk.
> 
> He worked with Reigns and Rollins. But both of those feuds were cut short.


There's one guy he hasn't worked with yet.









Although Bryan really doesn't need it tbh. Ambrose or Cesaro certainly could though.


The Tempest said:


> It looks like ths past RAW was the perfect example of Vince being afraid of ratings and micro-managing even further pretty much everthing, oh joy I can't wait when this show drops below 3 milions and I'll sooo gonna laugh :lmao It shouldn't be so far away :banderas


Probably happens sometime in November or December.

Got the popcorn on deck.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Chrome said:


> There's one guy he hasn't worked with yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Although Bryan really doesn't need it tbh. Ambrose or Cesaro certainly could though.


Yeah it's too bad we didn't see that match at Summerslam 2014. I would have loved to have seen the reaction to Brock dominating him.


----------



## RatedR10

The truth is there's only one guy who's really proven he can pop viewership numbers in any significant fashion and it is Daniel Bryan, whether people want to admit that or not. The proof is there from the numbers on Smackdown when we was World champion to his run on Raw. 

Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RatedR10 said:


> The truth is there's only one guy who's really proven he can pop viewership numbers in any significant fashion and it is Daniel Bryan, whether people want to admit that or not. The proof is there from the numbers on Smackdown when we was World champion to his run on Raw.
> 
> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


Its because people are tired of the same act over and over again. The guy doesn't even speak. He's not interesting at all accept when it comes to him suplexing the crap out of people but even that has gotten as old as kicking out of finishers 3 times a match.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

RatedR10 said:


> The truth is there's only one guy who's really proven he can pop viewership numbers in any significant fashion and it is Daniel Bryan, whether people want to admit that or not. The proof is there from the numbers on Smackdown when we was World champion to his run on Raw.
> 
> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


If you add the best TV draw and the best PPV draw, in a story line that sells itself. No matter how you slice it, Daniel Bryan vs Brock Lesnar is a compelling story. The biggest underdog vs the biggest beast. They can book it where Bryan doesn't go over clean. Basically an Iron Match where Bryan gets beat until Brock blows up. 

Before that you have the WWE not wanting to clear him. Then they finally do and it's vs Brock so he would get killed.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> The truth is there's only one guy who's really proven he can pop viewership numbers in any significant fashion and it is Daniel Bryan, whether people want to admit that or not. The proof is there from the numbers on Smackdown when we was World champion to his run on Raw.
> 
> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


WWE won't clear him, though.

:mj2


----------



## Winter's cooling

The Boy Wonder said:


> As great as Brock is he hasn't been a ratings draw for WWE since he's been on this dominant run. The RAW after Summerslam 2014 (the night he killed Cena) drew a lower rating than the go-home episode the week before. WWE needs to start using Brock to put over other talent. He's gone over Taker, Cena, and dominated everyone else yet it hasn't really produced much.





RatedR10 said:


> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...slam-go-home-brock-lesnar-hulk-hogan-birthday
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-18-2014-summerslam-fallout-show-viewers-down


The Raw before Summerslam had the Hogan Birthday celebration on top of Lesnar vs Cena.

The following week, the first two hours did well (with the first having an increase over last week) and only the third fell hard.Which was apparently main-evented by Rollins and Ambrose.


Anyway, how are any of you surprised that Lesnar doing nothing for 5-10 minutes while letting his manager do the talking, doesn't bring RAW to new heights?

On the other hand, didn't The Beast in the East show and Lesnar in MSG do great?


----------



## Goldusto

* WWE needs a vince style angle, reignight corporation, rock is corparate rock supporing vince,but vince is the face and it sets up wm32 hhh vs rock representing vince, if[ rock loses Vince is out of office, Set it all up like DALLAS, feuds and animosity amongst the vince supporters and nxt/trips , sheamus is a hhh guy so is heel /B]*


----------



## The Boy Wonder

RatedR10 said:


> The truth is there's only one guy who's really proven he can pop viewership numbers in any significant fashion and it is Daniel Bryan, whether people want to admit that or not. The proof is there from the numbers on Smackdown when we was World champion to his run on Raw.
> 
> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


This is true but there was also a ratings upswing when he vacated the title. For a good portion of 2014 the ratings in hour 3 were always the lowest. Once Bryan vacated the title the ratings in hour 3 started to be the highest hour of the show. I think it had a lot to do with intrigue with the title picture. I'm not sure how it's worked in the past, but having controversy around the WWE Championship probably helps a lot. That's why I think they should hold the WWE Championship up at the Royal Rumble after some controversy. That will add a lot of intrigue to RAW going into the new year.


----------



## The_Jiz

They killed Brock the moment he came back. How easy was it to book the "who can stop Bork?" angle. That would be the draw. 

But instead Brock loses his first match back AFTER Cena loses to The Rock so Brock is just like any other 'superstar'. 

Another case for WWE not wanting anything to be over.


----------



## dougfisher_05

In my opinion Lesnar cooled off the minute Vince tightened the purse strings and wouldn't pay him for more dates last year. Thus you had a champion that was gone for great lengths of time in between defenses. He wouldn't have cooled off nearly as much had he been on TV more. 

Lesnar really needs to be on TV more than once a month for him to move the ratings. And he really needs to do more than stand behind Paul Heyman for 10 minutes. 

Just saying.


----------



## Chrome

dougfisher_05 said:


> In my opinion Lesnar cooled off the minute Vince tightened the purse strings and wouldn't pay him for more dates last year. Thus you had a champion that was gone for great lengths of time in between defenses. He wouldn't have cooled off nearly as much had he been on TV more.
> 
> Lesnar really needs to be on TV more than once a month for him to move the ratings. And he really needs to do more than stand behind Paul Heyman for 10 minutes.
> 
> Just saying.


Some fresh matchups and feuds would be nice too. Gets boring when he wrestles the same 2-3 guys over and over again.


----------



## IceTheRetroKid

Ratings went up this week.


----------



## LordKain

RatedR10 said:


> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


Probably because that match (along with the Brie/Stephanie) buried not only Cena but everyone in the company as well and nothing has been the same since.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

It should be noted that there was a strong ratings trend for many weeks leading Summerslam where the ratings increased hour by hour. That trend ended when Stephanie and Brie closed out two RAW's. To this day the hour by hour increased has not occurred.


----------



## dddsssccc

dougfisher_05 said:


> In my opinion Lesnar cooled off the minute Vince tightened the purse strings and wouldn't pay him for more dates last year. Thus you had a champion that was gone for great lengths of time in between defenses. He wouldn't have cooled off nearly as much had he been on TV more.
> 
> *Lesnar really needs to be on TV more than once a month for him to move the ratings. And he really needs to do more than stand behind Paul Heyman for 10 minutes. *
> 
> Just saying.


That's the part that's key to me. I could be wrong but to me part timers are not going to move the ratings needle much, at least not consistently and that's because casual fans aren't going to watch every show for that one random Raw that a part timer will show up. Not to mention the casuals also don't follow the product intensely enough to know ahead of time when that part timer will show up on a Raw. 

Part timers probably can move the PPV/Network buy rates since their appearances for those shows are advertised very far in advance and people also know they're going to get an actual match from those part timers on PPV and not just some boring Raw promo.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

*Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*










September 2011: Punk/Triple H build up
September 2012: Punk/Cena feud
September 2013: Bryan vs The Authority
September 2014: Brock vs Cena
September 2015: Rollins vs Cena, Sting

What is the reason for lower ratings? I think a big reason is the overexposure of Seth Rollins. Another reason is that it's possible fans don't buy Rollins as champion because Brock was never really defeated. To me Brock is still hovering over that championship. So Rollins seems like the "disputed" champion. I think it's important that Brock is cleany defeated in a WWE Championship match, otherwise it will hurt the championship and any program/feud they have for it.


----------



## TheManof1000post

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

the most heavily featured guy on the show (Seth Rollins) has been booked to look like he's not even close to being on the level of Cena, HHH, Brock etc, gets beat on Raw/SD almost weekly its going to turn off casuals.. 

they see this guy who is virtually a jobber booking wise (when was the last time he won a match and looked strong in the process? The matches against Ambrose at MITB?) taking up half of the air time and just tune out. There needs to be a legit Brock vs Rollins match, that last match was basically Lesnar killing Rollins until UT came out.. Seth stole the title from Brock & Reigns and they both don't even care at this point.

Doesn't help that the rest of the show is filled with gimmicks that aren't over, and interesting potential story lines like a monster heel Reigns or an Ambrose push where he comes off as a bad ass or Bray Wyatt actually fulfilling something he rambles on about all the time get pushed to the side for who knows what reason.

oh and the arguably the most over face in years isn't on the show expect to stand in the ring for 10 minutes while his manager rambles on about the same thing for the thousandth time.


----------



## BrettSK

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Everyone but Cena and Lesnar are booked like they don't matter, which is why they have hardly any top stars and the face of the company is still the same guy from 2005.


----------



## TheManof1000post

WCW's Thunder was getting better ratings in 2000

let that sink in


----------



## Catsaregreat

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Ive stopped watching Raw because Rollins has been champ for way too long and is pretty dull. Im sure most casuals feel the same way.


----------



## Genesis.

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

1. Shitty story
2. Shitty wrestlers
3. Shitty viewers
4. Seth doesn't draw


----------



## CJ

Chrome said:


> Some fresh matchups and feuds would be nice too. Gets boring when he wrestles the same 2-3 guys over and over again.


It's beyond boring at this point. Who the fuck wanted to see Lesnar vs Big Show in 2015.


----------



## McCringleberry

:lol "Ratings. We don't need no stinking ratings."

This is too funny, especially when you consider that WWE had/has the best story line available to them already. Do what Paul Heyman wanted to do if he had taken over TNA. The plan then was for Bryan to come in and submit everybody with Cattle Mutilation, ultimately ending in a major feud with Kurt Angle. Substitute Lesnar for Angle and you have your story line....straight from the mind of Paul Heyman and not WWE's joke of a creative department.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Or maybe the overall product is just plain shit right now and fans are sick of it :draper2


----------



## Oxidamus

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Jesus the amount of people who started caring about ratings increased tenfold in the last year. Why do you care so much? It really is such a non-issue. Ironically it's one of the most smarky things you can do, OP, who hates smarks so illogically.


----------



## MinistryDeadman95

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Blame Vince. The guy's lost his mind. I feel like I'm beating a dead horse with this.


----------



## Drago

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

So I have expected something new than lolsethfault :mj2

I don't give a shit about ratings too, but if that's so important for some of you - I do hope Seth will break Punk's record.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

This is on Vince and his creative vision. He will eventually drive those ratings under 3 million. Thing is the tepid product richly deserves the ratings they are getting.


----------



## 260825

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

*The show is simply, not entertaining.

It's commonly said that WWE has no competition, & this is true & WWE has seen the benefits of it since WCW's demise. But that was 15 years ago.

WWE has an equally worse competitor nowadays, it's called "doing something better with ones time".*


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

A dull and badly booked WWE Champ that seems to get half the total TV time of Raw.


----------



## JimCornette

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Brock should be champion.


----------



## Shadowcran

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Blah blah is to blame due to blah blah factors that blah blah moon is in jupiter blah blah blah.

The entire show is shit, plain and simple. 

"Why is our dog food not selling? We've the best packaging. We've the best advertising. We've got the best pitch men touting it. We've even got top celebrities endorsing it. Why won't it sell?"

Answer: The Dogs don't like it.

Viewers are tuning away because nothing on this turd is entertaining. Stop blaming this or that guy.


----------



## Reservoir Angel

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

I know why the ratings are down: Because WWE is terrible at writing stories. They just are. Months and months of back-and-forth fighting, trading pointless win after pointless win, largely based on essentially nothing, among guys who never seem to actually have any proper resolutions for what they're doing because nobody except John Cena (and Brock Lesnar when they bother to have him turn up) is ever really allowed to properly go over anyone else.


----------



## Takes2Two Fandango

*The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

So something just came to mind and i wanted to see peoples opinions on it

Now we've been in the "PG Era" family friendly product for 7 years now which has been their target audience not us adults, but has the issue become that these kids they were targeting have grown up now turning or well into there teenage years now who may want a more edgier show if that's the right way to put it, grown out of it or just realised it's fake

The ratings are some of the lowest since 1995 a dark period for the company and for people like me in there 20's and 30's we had just come off Hogan in the 80's which is comparable to their version of Cena into a cartoon-ish goofy characters and as the older we got the more we thought this isn't cool anymore. So back to 2015 maybe these teenagers now who are us 20 years ago thinking i don't want to see a man dressed in a fucking bunny outfit or midget in a bull costume twerking with JBL shouting down the mic every time "THE BULLS TWERKING MAGGLE" 

So maybe it is time to usher in a new Era i'm not saying Attitude Era 2.0 because i don't think work in this day and age


----------



## BarrettBarrage

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

Not necessarily.

Even a five year old would be bored of this shit after a while.


----------



## luckyfri

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

well there are new young kids.
wwe does not actually need now grown kids to get edgier again.

in that case wwe should make a brand split. an edgy raw which is adult.
and sd at weekends morning as a kids morning show. 
wrestlers promote from sd to raw when they win there.
kids could jump to the more adult programm if old enough.


----------



## Paladine

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

I don't think it's the kiddies that are the issue. Kids want adult orientated products too. 

It's the corporations who want a family friendly product to sell toys and merchandise to pc sensitive parents.

It is eerily similar to how wrestling was when I was a kid. I grew up with world class championship wrestling and it was awesome. Then it went out of business and wwf took over the mainstream. It was so lame with captain lou albino and junkyard dog and just stupid characters. As a teenager I wouldn't watch that crap.

Then one night I came back from partying at the club and I see wrestling on. I see stone cold flipping off mike tyson and I was hooked. It was finally cool.

So you have a good point op. If I was a kid back in the beginning of the pg era and grew up still seeing the cena era going strong I'd tune out too.

Too bad wwe already ran off most of its adult fans. Losing the teenagers is going to be a hard blow for them to come back from. Adding attitude in this political correct era is going to be hard. Doubt they could pull off another attitude era.


----------



## Horsetooth Jackass

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

The share holders want a family friendly product same with the USA network, it has nothing to do with fans getting older.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

Nah, their target audience just got bored and are watching other stuff on Monday nights now.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

Yes that's partly it, but in these last 7, or say 10 years, we have still had some truly spectacular moments. At least 3 or 4 times a year we applaud something they do, even if it's relatively small in the long run.

This shows you can still be entertaining with a PG product. The entire problem lies with the consistency. IE, there is no consistent entertainment. We get 52 episodes of Raw a year and you can count on one hand the amount of good episodes. There just seems to be a lack of solid direction.

There is no longer any spontaneity or unpredictability, and they are the main elements that are missing.

Another thing, it might be starting to sound cliche, but the adverts ruin everything. Not just the volume of adverts, but the positioning of them. The Orton/Ambrose/Reigns v Wyatts match this week was interrupted by *three* seperate advert breaks. Why should the audience care anymore?

I mean, all TV shows need adverts, *BUT*, in an episode of say, The Walking Dead, would you get three advert breaks in quick succession, breaking up an important scene? No. And whats worse is, this isn't like studio TV, because that picks up right where it left off. With WWE, you miss over half of the action. And then they wonder why people are tuning out.


----------



## Takes2Two Fandango

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

That's what i meant in the OP that they are switching off now because they're just interested in it anymore for the various reason i mentioned, but there isn't necessarily a huge number of new kids tuning in now take kids shows like Power Ranger & Pokemon (probably a bad example best i can thing of on top of my head) but they were huge among kids but as the years went on ideas ran out the new generation of kids didn't seem to care anymore which i think is the real problem with wrestling at the moment there's only so must you can do with a restriction


----------



## StylinProfilin

Too many sponsors. Too many restrictions. Too many cooks. Etc.

Oh and too many hours


----------



## BigRedMonster47

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

It doesn't help when you have the same Cena shit every week, I'm sure the show is better when he's not around.


----------



## sunnysidee

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

no OP it's not that simple. It's just a combination of no new stars and an extremely poor thought out filler filled show that is just bad every Monday as the ratings drop.

Also to those who don't think an attitude like era comeback wouldn't work are being very close minded. I point you in the direction of Game of Thrones, Sons of anarchy, the walking dead. Shows that pull in massive ratings with edgy content. 

Wrestling will never be as popular as it was in the 90's but to say an edgier show wouldn't work is definitely false in my opinion.


----------



## UntilDawn

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

No matter what age you are you'll get bored of something that is done badly, sure we've grown up but their target audience is still kids.


----------



## troubleman1218

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

WWE shouldn't have went family friendly in the first place. Now WWE has dug themselves in such a deep hole to the point that we most likely won't ever see an edgy product again because of the sponsors they're affiliated with, their shareholders, soccer moms, etc. Which is why I hardly watch anymore.


----------



## Foz

TheManof1000post said:


> WCW's Thunder was getting better ratings in 2000
> 
> let that sink in


Hahahahahaa. Ew.


----------



## chemical

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

I don't know why they won't try a TV-14 rating for a couple of years. If things don't improve, then go back.

What would it hurt?

:shrug


----------



## Shadowcran

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

No, I think the audience is just "fed up".


----------



## HBK65

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*



BigRedMonster47 said:


> It doesn't help when you have the same Cena shit every week, I'm sure the show is better when he's not around.


Actually kids really enjoy the Cena crap. They love larger than life hero types, something that they can aspire to be someday. It's what drew me in as a 7 year old, but my Cena was Sammartino. The youth demographic is one that the company always counted on. Without entertainers to bring new kids in, the company is going to die, it's that simple. Kids don't give a rats ass about chain wrestling or side Russian leg sweeps. Kids want larger than life heroes and villians, doing incredible feats of strength or athleticism.


----------



## NasJayz

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*



StylinProfilin said:


> Too many sponsors. Too many restrictions. Too many cooks. Etc.
> 
> Oh and too many hours


Also


----------



## LaMelo

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

All of the kids grew up.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

WWE's largest demo are middle-aged men who probably don't fest too much about ratings and who draws. Many are probably more interested in having fun with their kids when watching WWE.


----------



## ka4life1

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

Its a mixture of many different things that just being one of the many i think OP.
Sorry for going off on a tangent OP.

Certainly the things that are pushing me away from Raw in particular coming from a 25 year old man whose favourite Mania is Mania 9 (arguably the worst ever) are

1) Cena bores me silly.
He kills the momentum of everyone he comes up against.
Ambrose,Owens,Rollins,Neville,Rusev, and that is just this year.
I don't enjoy his open challenge matches because i know he is going to win so it takes all the investment and unknowingness away from the match in my opinion, because i know that Cena will always win.
Even when he doesn't he comes back the following week and dominates just like he did to Owen's and Seth.
You can have all the good matches you want but if i know the outcome it means nothing to me.

2) To much mic time for everyone (especially Bray)
Miz TV, Bray Wyatt promo, New Day promo, backstage promos, square videos in the corner of the screen during the entrance promos, Commentary plugging the network,Plugging charities, Plugging bands no one cares about, Mountain Dew plugs, recaps of stuff we have all seen a dozen times, recaps of recaps, It just seems that everyone has a mic in their hand these days, It drives me crazy..... You are supposed to tell the story through your actions in the ring.
NOT YOUR WORDS.

3) The Bella's. They honest to god make my skin crawl. The sound of their voices the way they 'act' the way they wrestle, I just find them vile.
Its not heat either.
I dislike the Miz and New Day they have heat because i want to see them get drilled through a table.
But the Bella Twins just no get off my TV screen.
They are 100% the type of role model that we need to stop young girls from looking up to.
They dominate every single match they are in no one ever looks strong against them, 
Nikki hits that stupid forearm move which looks about as realistic as her tits and the divas division is never going to grow all the time you have amazing looking athletes like Charlotte and Sasha having to look weak against Brie Bella whose arms look thinner than Tamina's little finger.
They are just so forced and contrived it drives me mad that more people cant see it.

4) The Storylines suck....
Honestly who thinks Kane is going to beat Seth ? No one i imagine.
The whole show is far to predictable.
Its not must watch TV if you announce a PPV main Event 4 or 5 weeks before it is due.
So now we know exactly what the corre of the show is going to entail for the next 4 to 5 weeks. So if the people are not invested in the main event why are they going to watch Raw if they know the majority of the show is going to be taken up by people they are not interested in.
One of the my favourite moments in the last few years was when Erick Rowan joined Team Cena. because it was so off the cuff and i never once saw it coming.

Other than that Raw is predictable.

It hardly ever starts with a match.
You just get invested in a match then it cuts away to adverts and when it returns the guy who had the momentum is now in a sleeper hold. So it feels like you have missed a massive chunk of the match.
The Set is more stale than Cena.
Change the colour of the canvas or the ropes or the ramp anything to just freshen it up a little.
Matches mean nothing anymore...
We need number 1 contender matches back.
everyone beats everyone so everyone just stays the same, and if someone does improve they get fed to Cena.

5) A new broom needs to sweep clean.
I like all the guys in this list but i don't want to see them on TV every week.

Big Show.
The Dudley boys.
Kane
Triple H (my favourite of all time)
Steph.
Alicia Fox.
Ziggler.
Sheamus.

They all just seem so stale because we have seen them year after year and even the ring music is exactly the same for a lot of them...

Honestly they are the reasons i am seriously considering not watching anymore.
I cant talk for a 5 or 6 year old kids point of view, But from my point of view the product is garbage at the moment.

Nothing seems to matter or mean anything and the upper tier of guys and girls is filled with the same old faces we have been seeing for years.

As great as they where
Even i got bored of Austin and Ministry Taker in the end.

Things have to change and evolve to the world around it, But raw is just stagnant and bringing back The Rock and others like him will only make it worse (in my opinion)

The Future starts now.
the Future is NXT its a shame everyone see that except for the people that matter.


----------



## -Skullbone-

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

I think it's letting the company off for their lack of quality output by just saying the kiddies have grown up and moved on. Furthermore, I think the company philosophy of "no one watches this shit forever" can be to their detriment if they don't pay enough respect to their life-long fans. Key indicators suggest that men in particular of an older age bracket are the most loyal fans. You don't want to keep testing your most dedicated fans and their patience by neglecting them.

The reality is viewership numbers of been decreasing as a steady rate for quite some time now. Also, although I can't find the exact graph (it's somewhere in the ratings thread) there was a bit of discussion about a massive drop off in the younger demo that happened fairly recently, and with no real explicable reason for it happening. Hoping someone could shed light on this? I know what I've said is a bit ambiguous due to the lack of facts, but it's a loss the WWE haven't been able to rectify thus far.


----------



## Godway

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

I don't know if I'd say it's the audience growing up, more along the lines of WWE refusing to adapt to the times with a top guy. It's going on 2016 and you're still running the John Cena show, when fans have been booing it pretty much since 2005. No one outside of kids relate to John Cena.


----------



## Fighter Daron

RatedR10 said:


> Like someone said, Lesnar's weird in the sense that he's this huge star and is a huge name but he doesn't draw nearly as much as he did before he squashed Cena at Summerslam.


Why would he though? Why would Lesnar increase the ratings just being there in the ring listening to Paul Heyman's promos?

Everything is on creative, even Lesnar not drawing.


----------



## Drago

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

You can't insult your audience on the weekly basis and keep high ratings. It's that simple. :draper2


----------



## Issues_Sunshyne

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

I don't know, on the one hand it makes sense that their audience is growing and they aren't growing with their audience, but on the other hand there will always be new kids. Then, on a third mutated hand you have the majority of us lot: we aren't in their apparently target age range but watch anyway, and have never really been a part of their target audience at the right time but we continue to watch.

WWE would get higher ratings if it suddenly changed into an 18+ show, but it wouldn't be wrestling, if it became Saturday Morning Slam aged at under 10s it would sell huge amounts of Merch but wouldn't be wrestling (as we know it, for both of them).

The problem with WWE is that it isn't evolving. It's not just the wrestlers or the writing, everything about the WWE main roster now feels tired and we are immune to it. It's why NXT is such a success, it's WWE but WWE-different, and that's a positive. Some drastic changes are needed on their entire outlook to improve things to an extent for them to be considered a major success again, and the in ring product is never the problem... NXT can have 5* matches and only wrestling fans who know what they are will enjoy them. 

It's a vicious cycle, WWE needs new fans and part-time watchers to be hooked to be stronger so pander to them, but the real fans are the ones who suffer. Potentially that's what's happening at the moment, the real fans are turning their back and they are seeing their guaranteed numbers fall, and for WWE that's a negative but for us as fans that's a good thing in theory, but then when they put the belt back on John Cena and bring back The Rock, the part-time fan comes back and that's what WWE deem a success. 

It's an interesting period for wrestling. It will always be a multi-million dollar company the WWE, but that wont resonate with the actual entertainment of their shows if they're catered toward a fan who only watches what they know they'll enjoy without seeking out what might be better for them.

Growing up is something we all did as fans of WWE but we stayed with them, it's just it hasn't really evolved enough to tick all the boxes currently and it's a stale product.

There's the fact that Wrestlemania was 30 years ago too and there isn't a lot New in wrestling anymore to pique peoples interest.


----------



## Stone Hot

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

PG era is not the problem, tv 14 is not the answer.

The problems are 
Too scripted 
Too many talking segments 
And 3 hour Raws


----------



## TripleG

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

As far as quality goes, PG is not the problem and has never been the problem. You can still put on a good show and have it be family friendly (cough cough NXT cough cough). The problem is the stupid ass way they present their show which is boring, repetitive, and just un-fun to watch. 

Speaking in terms of ratings, there are several factors at play here. They have heavy competition on Monday Nights. Monday Night Football, Big Bang Theory, and Gotham, just to name a few. Are the kids going away and growing up. Possibly. I LOVED He-Man and the Masters of the Universe as a kid, but after a 130 episodes of the same old, same old, that stuff is going to wear thin. It did with me and I moved on to something else. I don't know how any child can have the attention span to sit through an entire Raw uninterrupted. At age 8, I would have been bored out of my skull if this was the weekly show I was given.


----------



## RatedR10

Looking at data I compiled for two different time periods of the year, the build to WM (January 1 - April 30) and the SS-Fall season (August 1 - November 30), the highest average TV rating for the SS-Fall season took place in 2013 when Daniel Bryan was firmly in the WWE Title picture, challenging Cena and then against Orton. Keep in mind that this was when Orton was having matches 30 minutes passed the top of the hour because of how poorly he was drawing as champ at that time. The average rating for August 1, 2013 - November 30, 2013 was 2.87 (2.91 up to the week of October 7, 2013 for comparative reasons up to this year). Second place was 2012, where Bryan and Kane were playing a big part of WWE TV as Team Hell No in the tag division (2.83 average from August 1, 2012 - November 30, 2012//2.89 for week up to October 8, 2012).

Daniel Bryan's RTWM where he won the title at Wrestlemania 30 was averaged a 3.2 rating from January 1, 2014 - April 30, 2014. The only RTWM since 2012 that surpassed that was the one where The Rock was WWE champion heading into the event and WWE had Rock/Cena II, Taker/Punk and Lesnar/HHH II as triple-main events, and even then, the difference between Rock's championship reign RTWM (2013) and Daniel Bryan's RTWM (2014) was only 1.54%, the smallest change in averages between the years.

*DIFFERENCES*

% of difference compiled from average ratings for shows from dates used to calculate date, therefore: Road-to-Wrestlemania dates use January 1 - April 30 and SS-Fall TV season use August 1 - November 30.

*RTWM DIFFERENCES*
2012 (3.16 avg.) --> 2013 (3.25 avg.) difference: +2.58%
2013 (3.25 avg.) --> 2014 (3.20 avg.) difference: -1.54%
2014 (3.20 avg.) --> 2015 (2.92 avg.) difference: -8.75%

*SS-FALL DIFFERENCES*
NOTE: Differences here were used to calculate the difference from August 1 - the current week of this year (used only October 8, October 7, October 6 & October 5 editions of Raw to calculate averages for 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 respectively so data is accurate to represent changes in viewership).

2012 (2.89 avg.) --> 2013 (2.91 avg.) difference: +.7%
2013 (2.91 avg.) --> 2014 (2.85 avg.) difference: -2.1%
2014 (2.85 avg.) --> 2015 (2.55 avg.) difference: -10.5%

The total averages: 2012 (2.83), 2013 (2.87) and 2014 (2.82).


*What this data shows:* The worst has yet to come for WWE. For 2012-2014, late October and November has brought the average down from the current week we're in now for each year, so the worst has yet to come for WWE ratings and unless major, major changes occur, or the pattern somehow shifts, WWE will be seeing 2.2s and 2.1s for Raw very soon. 2015 has also represented the biggest drop off for each time period data was compiled in (RTWM and Fall season), showing significant shifts in either viewing patterns, or WWE using the "hardcore fans will always watch" thinking too much to the point that it has now backfired on them because these hardcore fans are tuning out. The data also shows that, yes, Daniel Bryan is the biggest viewership draw of anyone on the current full-time roster at the moment, and only The Rock's Road-to-Wrestlemania championship run popped bigger numbers, although, by the smallest average difference of all the other RTWM periods. 

The build to Wrestlemania 31 showed the biggest drop off, as the event was headlined by Lesnar/Reigns build, Wyatt doing a one-man build to carry a match with the streak-less Undertaker, and Triple H vs. Sting, while Daniel Bryan was included in a multi-man IC Title angle.

The Fall 2015 period has shown the biggest drop off, at more than 10% from this time last year, and, as indicated, the worsts has yet to come for WWE's ratings if the pattern sticks.


----------



## JBLGOAT

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

The problem is passing. Say what you will about Vince Russo but the guy knew how to pace a show.

In the attitude era, if you hated a segment it was fine because it was probably over soon.

In today's show it drags with recaps, filler, etc. They need to write a four hour show and cram it into three hours. But instead they have to put stuff on the network, the app, the youtube channel, etc.

Vince micromanagement is slowly everything down. the problem isn't the talking segments it's that the segments run too long. The creative team feels like they have to earn their pay by writing long talking segments when it should be shorter.

Imagine a three hour raw filled with the app interviews, the youtube shows, a minisegment with part of the legends of JBL or the Monday Night War, Tough Enough, etc. It would probably be pretty good.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RatedR10 said:


> Looking at data I compiled for two different time periods of the year, the build to WM (January 1 - April 30) and the SS-Fall season (August 1 - November 30), the highest average TV rating for the SS-Fall season took place in 2013 when Daniel Bryan was firmly in the WWE Title picture, challenging Cena and then against Orton. Keep in mind that this was when Orton was having matches 30 minutes passed the top of the hour because of how poorly he was drawing as champ at that time. The average rating for August 1, 2013 - November 30, 2013 was 2.87 (2.91 up to the week of October 7, 2013 for comparative reasons up to this year). Second place was 2012, where Bryan and Kane were playing a big part of WWE TV as Team Hell No in the tag division (2.83 average from August 1, 2012 - November 30, 2012//2.89 for week up to October 8, 2012).
> 
> Daniel Bryan's RTWM where he won the title at Wrestlemania 30 was averaged a 3.2 rating from January 1, 2014 - April 30, 2014. The only RTWM since 2012 that surpassed that was the one where The Rock was WWE champion heading into the event and WWE had Rock/Cena II, Taker/Punk and Lesnar/HHH II as triple-main events, and even then, the difference between Rock's championship reign RTWM (2013) and Daniel Bryan's RTWM (2014) was only 1.54%, the smallest change in averages between the years.
> 
> *DIFFERENCES*
> 
> % of difference compiled from average ratings for shows from dates used to calculate date, therefore: Road-to-Wrestlemania dates use January 1 - April 30 and SS-Fall TV season use August 1 - November 30.
> 
> *RTWM DIFFERENCES*
> 2012 (3.16 avg.) --> 2013 (3.25 avg.) difference: +2.58%
> 2013 (3.25 avg.) --> 2014 (3.20 avg.) difference: -1.54%
> 2014 (3.20 avg.) --> 2015 (2.92 avg.) difference: -8.75%
> 
> *SS-FALL DIFFERENCES*
> NOTE: Differences here were used to calculate the difference from August 1 - the current week of this year (used only October 8, October 7, October 6 & October 5 editions of Raw to calculate averages for 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 respectively so data is accurate to represent changes in viewership).
> 
> 2012 (2.89 avg.) --> 2013 (2.91 avg.) difference: +.7%
> 2013 (2.91 avg.) --> 2014 (2.85 avg.) difference: -2.1%
> 2014 (2.85 avg.) --> 2015 (2.55 avg.) difference: -10.5%
> 
> The total averages: 2012 (2.83), 2013 (2.87) and 2014 (2.82).
> 
> 
> *What this data shows:* The worst has yet to come for WWE. For 2012-2014, late October and November has brought the average down from the current week we're in now for each year, so the worst has yet to come for WWE ratings and unless major, major changes occur, or the pattern somehow shifts, WWE will be seeing 2.2s and 2.1s for Raw very soon. 2015 has also represented the biggest drop off for each time period data was compiled in (RTWM and Fall season), showing significant shifts in either viewing patterns, or WWE using the "hardcore fans will always watch" thinking too much to the point that it has now backfired on them because these hardcore fans are tuning out. The data also shows that, yes, Daniel Bryan is the biggest viewership draw of anyone on the current full-time roster at the moment, and only The Rock's Road-to-Wrestlemania championship run popped bigger numbers, although, by the smallest average difference of all the other RTWM periods.
> 
> The build to Wrestlemania 31 showed the biggest drop off, as the event was headlined by Lesnar/Reigns build, Wyatt doing a one-man build to carry a match with the streak-less Undertaker, and Triple H vs. Sting, while Daniel Bryan was included in a multi-man IC Title angle.
> 
> The Fall 2015 period has shown the biggest drop off, at more than 10% from this time last year, and, as indicated, the worsts has yet to come for WWE's ratings if the pattern sticks.


I have been saying for ages. The only way serious change will be made is if they get a sub 2.0 and Vince Russo agrees.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

The problem is their main audience is men over 50. They need to expand the younger audience while not alienating the older audience. It's a tough proposition for WWE and they have failed with the goofy Kane/Rollins angle.


----------



## PurityOfEvil

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

PG is a problem, maybe not the biggest problem, but definitely one of them.

It's possible to have a good wrestling show that's family friendly, but it's way more difficult.

Here's some reasons why:

1) No blood
2) No colourful language
3) Storylines possibilities are restricted
4) Wrestlers can't be themselves and develop their own characters (again because of restrictions)
5) It's alot more difficult to get talent over because of the above reasons

Turning the product TV-14 again wouldn't solve all WWE's problems but it would definitely be a step in the right direction.

It doesn't need to be the second coming of the Attitude Era, far from it. However, PG has been around long enough and it's clearly not working. It's time WWE moved on.

We don't need to see wrestlers blading. How about blood capsules instead?

We don't need to see wrestlers taking chairshots to the head. How about putting their hands up to protect themselves? How about using plastic gimmick chairs instead so we can get headshots back without brain damage risks?

We don't need characters like the Godfather and Val Venis. Just let wrestlers be themselves, have more freedom, and use a bit of colourful language when it can add to promos and make it have a bigger imapct.

Basically what I'm saying is, move on with the times but still try and make the show as believable and as entertaining as it can be.


----------



## Johncena-hhh

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*



PurityOfEvil said:


> PG is a problem, maybe not the biggest problem, but definitely one of them.
> 
> It's possible to have a good wrestling show that's family friendly, but it's way more difficult.
> 
> Here's some reasons why:
> 
> 1) No blood
> 2) No colourful language
> 3) Storylines possibilities are restricted
> 4) Wrestlers can't be themselves and develop their own characters (again because of restrictions)
> 5) It's alot more difficult to get talent over because of the above reasons
> 
> Turning the product TV-14 again wouldn't solve all WWE's problems but it would definitely be a step in the right direction.
> 
> It doesn't need to be the second coming of the Attitude Era, far from it. However, PG has been around long enough and it's clearly not working. It's time WWE moved on.
> 
> We don't need to see wrestlers blading. How about blood capsules instead?
> 
> We don't need to see wrestlers taking chairshots to the head. How about putting their hands up to protect themselves? How about using plastic gimmick chairs instead so we can get headshots back without brain damage risks?
> 
> We don't need characters like the Godfather and Val Venis. Just let wrestlers be themselves, have more freedom, and use a bit of colourful language when it can add to promos and make it have a bigger imapct.
> 
> Basically what I'm saying is, move on with the times but still try and make the show as believable and as entertaining as it can be.


I agree with you

Everything is restricted

No epic feud

No Blood

No good storyline

white ropes so boring 

Nothing special is the same every week


----------



## silverspirit2001

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

Remember when you stopped believing in Santa Claus?
Remember you first swear word...ie shit, fuck, et al? 

Well the internet makes children wise to that 2 years before you did. Parents are such pussies nowadays, pretending their children are angels.

WWE does not appeal to children over the age of 5 - or 10 for those home schooled children of strict nutty creationist christians. SCSA was a liberal icon, flipping of the authority. Cena appeals to bible thumpers. 


And my first swearword was well....Had a spelling test with words beginning with sh.... you guess.


----------



## hbgoo1975

Does it take a situation like a mass murder shooting on the Authority like what happened in 2012 at that school in the arena to get people interested in watching wrestling!


----------



## StraightYesSociety

RatedR10 said:


> Looking at data I compiled for two different time periods of the year, the build to WM (January 1 - April 30) and the SS-Fall season (August 1 - November 30), the highest average TV rating for the SS-Fall season took place in 2013 when Daniel Bryan was firmly in the WWE Title picture, challenging Cena and then against Orton. Keep in mind that this was when Orton was having matches 30 minutes passed the top of the hour because of how poorly he was drawing as champ at that time. The average rating for August 1, 2013 - November 30, 2013 was 2.87 (2.91 up to the week of October 7, 2013 for comparative reasons up to this year). Second place was 2012, where Bryan and Kane were playing a big part of WWE TV as Team Hell No in the tag division (2.83 average from August 1, 2012 - November 30, 2012//2.89 for week up to October 8, 2012).
> 
> Daniel Bryan's RTWM where he won the title at Wrestlemania 30 was averaged a 3.2 rating from January 1, 2014 - April 30, 2014. The only RTWM since 2012 that surpassed that was the one where The Rock was WWE champion heading into the event and WWE had Rock/Cena II, Taker/Punk and Lesnar/HHH II as triple-main events, and even then, the difference between Rock's championship reign RTWM (2013) and Daniel Bryan's RTWM (2014) was only 1.54%, the smallest change in averages between the years.
> 
> *DIFFERENCES*
> 
> % of difference compiled from average ratings for shows from dates used to calculate date, therefore: Road-to-Wrestlemania dates use January 1 - April 30 and SS-Fall TV season use August 1 - November 30.
> 
> *RTWM DIFFERENCES*
> 2012 (3.16 avg.) --> 2013 (3.25 avg.) difference: +2.58%
> 2013 (3.25 avg.) --> 2014 (3.20 avg.) difference: -1.54%
> 2014 (3.20 avg.) --> 2015 (2.92 avg.) difference: -8.75%
> 
> *SS-FALL DIFFERENCES*
> NOTE: Differences here were used to calculate the difference from August 1 - the current week of this year (used only October 8, October 7, October 6 & October 5 editions of Raw to calculate averages for 2012, 2013, 2014 & 2015 respectively so data is accurate to represent changes in viewership).
> 
> 2012 (2.89 avg.) --> 2013 (2.91 avg.) difference: +.7%
> 2013 (2.91 avg.) --> 2014 (2.85 avg.) difference: -2.1%
> 2014 (2.85 avg.) --> 2015 (2.55 avg.) difference: -10.5%
> 
> The total averages: 2012 (2.83), 2013 (2.87) and 2014 (2.82).
> 
> 
> *What this data shows:* The worst has yet to come for WWE. For 2012-2014, late October and November has brought the average down from the current week we're in now for each year, so the worst has yet to come for WWE ratings and unless major, major changes occur, or the pattern somehow shifts, WWE will be seeing 2.2s and 2.1s for Raw very soon. 2015 has also represented the biggest drop off for each time period data was compiled in (RTWM and Fall season), showing significant shifts in either viewing patterns, or WWE using the "hardcore fans will always watch" thinking too much to the point that it has now backfired on them because these hardcore fans are tuning out. The data also shows that, yes, Daniel *Bryan is the biggest viewership draw of anyone on the current full-time roster at the moment,* and only The Rock's Road-to-Wrestlemania championship run popped bigger numbers, although, by the smallest average difference of all the other RTWM periods.
> 
> The build to Wrestlemania 31 showed the biggest drop off, as the event was headlined by Lesnar/Reigns build, Wyatt doing a one-man build to carry a match with the streak-less Undertaker, and Triple H vs. Sting, while Daniel Bryan was included in a multi-man IC Title angle.
> 
> The Fall 2015 period has shown the biggest drop off, at more than 10% from this time last year, and, as indicated, the worsts has yet to come for WWE's ratings if the pattern sticks.












For some reason the fans gravitated towards him. I'll be honest, I loved The American Dragon but didn't think he was a fit for WWE. I'm glad I was wrong. I also think he transcended the booking. When other guys lost it was because they lost but when Bryan lost it was because they (WWE) made him lose. Which is why when they tried to cool him off it failed.


----------



## Brodus Clay

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

RAW as been focusing on Seth Rollins since he got the briefcase, when that shit ends logically the ratings are going to recover, now... getting ratings ala attitude era gonna be impossible with Vince and HHH old ideas that are heavily influenced by political backstage bullshit.


----------



## southrnbygrace

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

From what I see posted here on this forum, their target audience will _never _grow up.


----------



## bigdog40

It doesn't really matter what the ratings are unless USA threatens them to pull their show which is highly unlikely. If the WWE was concerned about ratings, they would either have Rollins drop the strap or do something dramatic to try to shake the show up. Clearly they don't care as much about the ratings as some of the fans do. Even though the format of Raw is predictable, and they will place who they want pushed, opening segment, beginning of hour two, beginning of hour 3, and closing segment. They won't do some crazy shit just to pop a number or book their show for ratings anymore when in reality they don't really have to.


----------



## Zigglar

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*

oh my... so many theories so little time...

im gonna go with maybe the parents just being tired of wwes bullshit, while american pussification is VERY real and here to stay... 

id imagine sooner or later even the most liberal/conservative extremists christians would have to pull their children to the side and say "we think youve had enough of that john cena for awhile".... "you simply cant have everything handed to you because you insult everyone and follow the insults up with "never giving up"

over the next year some kids will find better things to do, some will watch wwe again but have a grip on reality, and the rest will become delusional lifetime fans/experts who make accounts on here.... hating everything new (whether it sucks or not) and claiming "cena era was best era" because its their piece of nostalgia.... 

nailed it
:tripsscust


----------



## eskymi

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

If you go back to WM you can see that ratings have been blah pretty much since then and that's because of their choice of champion. I watched RAW religiously but probably have missed 8-10 epsiodes since Rollins became champion. I might read reviews but his title reign is becoming as bad (for me anyway) as when JBL held the title. Never really "won" matches...always had help, or some BS shenanigans to help him win. Just never clean wins which makes it suck.

Sure there is a certain group that loves Rollins cause of his background etc. But I don't believe the people that tune in when Cena is champ are tuning in for Rollins.


----------



## Reptilian

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Ratings don't matter.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Ratings don't matter so who cares. The WWE probably doesn't even know, remember, or care what they drew in a 2004 edition of Raw. Until USA threatens to pull Monday Night Raw, (which they probably won't) then it doesn't matter. They have other arenas of revenue that generates money for them so Vince isn't exactly desperate for money.


----------



## Bookockey

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*



Shadowcran said:


> Blah blah is to blame due to blah blah factors that blah blah moon is in jupiter blah blah blah.
> 
> The entire show is shit, plain and simple.
> 
> "Why is our dog food not selling? We've the best packaging. We've the best advertising. We've got the best pitch men touting it. We've even got top celebrities endorsing it. Why won't it sell?"
> 
> Answer: The Dogs don't like it.
> 
> Viewers are tuning away because nothing on this turd is entertaining. Stop blaming this or that guy.


 This is the best explanation I have seen. Plus, WWE had no other suitors except USA Network last time the contract was up. Next time they may be in a real mess with declining ratings. Yet USA wants 3 hours of the show every Monday which does not help when there isn't enough quality product to fill one hour right now.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*



Bookockey said:


> This is the best explanation I have seen. Plus, WWE had no other suitors except USA Network last time the contract was up. Next time they may be in a real mess with declining ratings. *Yet USA wants 3 hours of the show every Monday which does not help when there isn't enough quality product to fill one hour right now*.





Bingo, you nailed it right here. It's USA that wants 3 hours of Raw. That third hour was really hurt them and even the most hardcore of fans tunes out by then. It's ok to have a 3 hour PPV, but a 3 hour weekly wrestling show is just too long.


----------



## Joshi Judas

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

If you have Seth take up so much airtime, atleast book him more competently. Or write better angles for him and don't let him be an idiot trying to figure out if Corporate and Demon Kane are the same person. Also, don't have him be the Authority's bitch.

He's booked like a joke. The casuals see a joke taking up so much airtime, they'll naturally tune out. If the show revolves around the champion, WWE should be smart enough to book the champion like a star.


Other than that, there's not a single engrossing feud/rivalry that the fans can sink their teeth into. There's literally zero reason to care about any storyline. I love the New Day but I have no desire to see them face the Dudleys again. KO/Ryback/Rusev/Owens are all doing stuff that doesn't really matter, Stardust/Neville are in a neverending feud, Ambreigns/Wyatts is getting dull, Sheamus is MITB, Barrett is back doing fuck all, LolDivasRevolution, Stephanie emasculating everyone, Lesnar who was becoming a megaface stuck with Taker who's acting heelish when he shouldn't, Rusev/Summer Rae/Ziggler/Lana. What the fuck is going on? Who writes this shit?


----------



## The Tempest

Chart:


----------



## IceTheRetroKid

On the first night of the yellow middle rope for Connor's Cure, ratings went up.

On the first night of the pink middle rope for Susan G. Komen cure for Breast Cancer, the ratings went up again.

Imagine what would happen if all three ropes were colored, the ratings would skyrocket by 200k viewers instead of 30-50k viewers.

The bland white ropes are the problem, on both first nights on Raw, with a different colored middle rope, the ratings went up because the middle rope interested viewers more than usual.

The anti-white rope movement makes sense and it will work for the ratings and more colorful WWE product!


----------



## Drago

*Re: The Ratings Issues - Has Their Target Audience Just Grown Up*



southrnbygrace said:


> From what I see posted here on this forum, their target audience will _never _grow up.







:kid


----------



## Drago

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*



PENTAGON said:


> If you have Seth take up so much airtime, atleast book him more competently. Or write better angles for him and don't let him be an idiot trying to figure out if Corporate and Demon Kane are the same person. Also, don't have him be the Authority's bitch.
> 
> He's booked like a joke. The casuals see a joke taking up so much airtime, they'll naturally tune out. If the show revolves around the champion, WWE should be smart enough to book the champion like a star.
> 
> 
> Other than that, there's not a single engrossing feud/rivalry that the fans can sink their teeth into. There's literally zero reason to care about any storyline. I love the New Day but I have no desire to see them face the Dudleys again. KO/Ryback/Rusev/Owens are all doing stuff that doesn't really matter, Stardust/Neville are in a neverending feud, Ambreigns/Wyatts is getting dull, Sheamus is MITB, Barrett is back doing fuck all, LolDivasRevolution, Stephanie emasculating everyone, Lesnar who was becoming a megaface stuck with Taker who's acting heelish when he shouldn't, Rusev/Summer Rae/Ziggler/Lana. What the fuck is going on? *Who writes this shit?*


[sending new scripts to Vince]


----------



## ellthom

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

The low rating thing is wrestling as a whole. There's not a single likable person on Raw right now except New Day... AND THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HEELS!!!!!

2012 - 2013 were great years of this era, you had CM Punk, Daniel Bryan and the Shield totally tearing up things on the show, you had people you could get behind! 

I can't get behind anyone on the show now, not even favorites like Ambrose, Rollins, Reigns, Ziggler Owens and Paige, because they have been so poorly booked and capable of more yet WWE force them into horrible storylines and force them to spew horrible scripts they don't connect well with them as a person! Its just horrible the whole thing

Then you look at NxT a developmental product and realise its doing a job miles better than anything the main roster can produce. Thats not supposed to be how it works!!!

I have been watching WWE since 1991 and this is so far becoming the worst year in WWE's history since 2009 - 2010. 1995 is looking like a good year compared to this year!!!


----------



## Algernon

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

There's no money babyface, not even for casual fans. Even Punk and Bryan got to the point to where they were over with casual fans. People here, or mostly haters, are in denial of how big of a loss Punk and Bryan are. They were the two guys that got over in the Cena era when it wasn't planned that way. They lost two guys they could put in that top babyface role, which would have made it easier to transition to a future top face.

Also the way they book Brock, he needs to be there every week to have any kind of impact. You can't have the top babyface be a part time a guy. And Im not talking house shows, just RAW and PPV's. 

The network has hurt ratings too. For me, its easier than ever to shut off the product when I can get my wrestling fill from network content. You don't have to be an indie fan or non-WWE wrestling fan to get you're wrestling fill.

Then theres the cord cutters. You can watched the condensed version of RAW on Hulu the next day. A lot of people who DVR RAW like to do that anyways.

Then of course, being three hours. Outside of live sports, it's a chore to watch anything for three hours. There are no tv shows that are three hours long and most movies aren't that long.


----------



## OwenSES

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

The main event story overshadows the show and it's usually really bad. All of Seth Rollins wwe title feuds have been underwhelming and while Rollins is part of the problem, it's mostly the never ending Authority story which drags everything and everybody down.


----------



## Tamaur

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

Well, there is no reason to care about the matches recently since you usually know the results in advance. You know that Seth Rollins is going to lose or run away, the world champion always represent the company, he is your product and if you treat him bad, your product will most of the time be bad.

Also, what happened in 2013 ? I watched the WWE but I don't remember anything major that happened to justify that drop...


----------



## TheMenace

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*



Tamaur said:


> Also, what happened in 2013 ? I watched the WWE but I don't remember anything major that happened to justify that drop...


Cena was out for about two months due to elbow surgery.


----------



## UntilDawn

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

I'd say the ratings drop now is caused from the bad booking of your main champion where you want to beat creative over the heads with a stick.


----------



## Beermonkeyv1

*Re: Sept RAW Ratings (2011-2015)*

the product is dire 

same old stuff each and every week.

they leave people like cesaro on superstars and push kane and big show down our throats


----------



## JBLoser

Welp. Cubs-Cardinals did a 3.8 last night and had a 22.3 HH rating in Chicago, and Mets-Dodgers did a 3.5 per Turner Sports PR's Twitter account. Monday Night Football probably did better than those, so... this could be ugly today.

*EDIT:* Word on the street is MNF did an 8.5 overnight. RAW is fucked, lol.


----------



## Blade Runner

I wouldn't be surprised if the ratings were horrendous. if they can drain the life out of a Chicago crowd, just imagine how the viewers at home felt......


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Hope the ratings are worse than usual. Even with the bad Raws, there's usually at least one segment where I can point out and say, "Well, at least that segment was decent." Not the case last night. Shitshow from start to finish. Also not even one standout performer. 'Storylines' sucked. The talent sucked. Just a complete uninspired night from everyone.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Was there an egg ball game on last night?


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> Hope the ratings are worse than usual. Even with the bad Raws, there's usually at least one segment where I can point out and say, "Well, at least that segment was decent." Not the case last night. Shitshow from start to finish. Also not even one standout performer. 'Storylines' sucked. The talent sucked. Just a complete uninspired night from everyone.


Don't worry, with MNF and playoff baseball on last night, I'm expecting more "lowest since 1997" records to be set.


----------



## JBLoser

> - Above is full video from Stephanie McMahon's recent chat at the Experian Marketing Services 2015 Client Summit in Las Vegas with Ashley Johnston, Experian's SVP of Global Marketing.
> 
> Stephanie talks about what makes WWE so special, how she enables the special feeling for each consumer and the key to WWE's success - the fans. She also discusses the importance of storytelling, using her reach & voice for good, and asserting her vision in a male-dominated profession.
> 
> *In regards to engaging consumers, Stephanie said, "The audience today doesn't want to be dictated to, they want to be entertained."*
> 
> *Stephanie also noted that the WWE Universe acts as a live focus group for new characters and ideas, voicing their opinions in the arenas and on social media.*
> 
> Read more at http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe...Fans_Want_Today_More.html#wQcdvftcPmAqBLya.99


Yeah. If only you actually listened...

Got a real rise out of "using her reach & voice for good, and asserting her vision in a male-dominated profession" too.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Was there an egg ball game on last night?


Football AND Playoff baseball.


----------



## RatedR10

I'm guessing ratings will be delayed because of Columbus Day?


----------



## JBLoser

Chart's here!










That third hour...


----------



## Chrome

Yeah, they're getting closer and closer to under 3 million. It's like people saw what they were offering in the 1st hour and said "fuck this!" and didn't bother tuning back in.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

This week: 
3.518 hr 1
3.254 hr 2
3.082 hr 3

Last week:

3.47 hr 1 
3.49 hr 2
3.16 hr 3

So this maybe the lowest rated RAW in history.

I'm guessing a 2.2


----------



## WindowsUpdate

Not surprising that hour 1 was by far their best hour. Despite currently being an irrelevant mid carder and being involved in a bad feud, Ambrose is still their biggest full time draw.

Meanwhile, Rollins is doing his best to make sure he delivers a sub 3 million hour for the WWE. He is well on his way.


----------



## Wynter

:ha


WWE crapping the bed week by week. Viewership and ratings are steadily declining and Vince's old tricks fail him.

And I'm just like 










More old established stars next week in Vince's desperate attempt for the temporary gains :lmao


----------



## Kabraxal

Chrome said:


> Yeah, they're getting closer and closer to under 3 million. It's like people saw what they were offering in the 1st hour and said "fuck this!" and didn't bother tuning back in.


Or saw football and baseball and wisely chose to stick with those. I didn't even switch to raw even after the cubs won. And reading the thread i made the right choice!


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Chrome said:


> Yeah, they're getting closer and closer to under 3 million. It's like people saw what they were offering in the 1st hour and said "fuck this!" and didn't bother tuning back in.


Prob realised it was Kane v Rollins in the main event and said fuck it. 

What the hell are WWE doing with Kane? He's finished. He should be nowhere near the final hour.


----------



## RatedR10

Holy. Shit. :lmao


----------



## JBLoser

TheShieldSuck said:


> This week:
> 3.518 hr 1
> 3.254 hr 2
> 3.082 hr 3
> 
> Last week:
> 
> 3.47 hr 1
> 3.49 hr 2
> 3.16 hr 3
> 
> *So this maybe the lowest rated RAW in history.*
> 
> I'm guessing a 2.2


By comparison here was the hourly breakdown of the record-low RAW from September 28 when they hit numbers they hadn't hit since 1997:

3.48 million
3.33 million
3.19 million 

So the 9pm and 10pm hours were worse this time around... yeah... They very well might have hit another record-low.


----------



## Peerless

Ambrose and Orton opening the show got a higher 1st hour rating than Lesnar and Heyman did last week?

:rockwut


----------



## Chrome

Putting Kane in a WWE title feud in 2015 against MNF was a great idea wasn't it WWE?


----------



## JBLoser

Already confirmed to be the lowest rated RAW of 2015.

http://www....................com/wwe-sets-new-yearly-low-raw-audience/


----------



## WindowsUpdate

Peerless said:


> Ambrose and Orton opening the show got a higher 1st hour rating than Lesnar and Heyman did last week?
> 
> :rockwut


Why does that surprise you? Lesnar doesn't do shit on RAW.

Also, Ambrose > Lesnar.


----------



## Peerless

WindowsUpdate said:


> Why does that surprise you? Lesnar doesn't do shit on RAW.
> 
> Also, Ambrose > Lesnar.


Because one's booked like the final boss of a video game and is a 'special attraction' while the other looks like a meth junkie and is booked like a geek.


----------



## A-C-P

NEW RECORD LOW :WOO


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I skipped RAW. Felt nice. I am going to watch Roman's interview because I heard it was interesting,to say the least. Speaking of least, how 'bout that third hour? Vince emptying out the rest home in an attempt to salvage the ratings sinking ship.Glad to see that Vince is so full of fresh ideas to turn RAW around. :heston


----------



## WindowsUpdate

Peerless said:


> Because one's booked like the final boss of a video game and is a 'special attraction' while the other looks a meth junkie and is booked like a geek.


True, but as I stated earlier in the thread, Ambrose is still their best asset despite being booked like an utter geek. Imagine if they actually pushed him.

The last time the ratings were decent in football season was when Ambrose was main eventing last year. The last time the ratings were around 4 million somewhat consistently in 2015 was when Ambrose was main eventing. He sells a lot of merchandise. He is over.

But by all means, let them continue to book him like a geek, so that I may laugh at how miserably their guys (Rollins and Reigns) fail.


----------



## The Tempest

JBLoser said:


> Chart's here!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That third hour...


How dare you stealing my job :goofy Anyway the average is 3,284 milions. That third hour is horrendous, this RAW set a new record :booklel Keep bringing part times back, they sure will help raise the ratings :ti



































































:ha


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Anyone noticed how last RAW everyone seemed to leave early?


----------



## Chrome

TheShieldSuck said:


> Anyone noticed how last RAW everyone seemed to leave early?


Didn't watch, but did that really happen? :lol


----------



## Cliffy

Cowboys MNF next week :mark:

Edit: wrong week:lol


----------



## PurityOfEvil

What was the rating then?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Vince remembers The A-Team because of Mr. T, so he'll probably want to hire them to save his ratings. Next week, though, he is going to use The Aged Team, and sadly, it might go up, for their segment at least.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Ambrose/Orton pretty much took up half of the first hour? What else happened there? Seems that they did pretty good... well... "good" by today's standards.

And that third hour... jeez. Both Reigns/Strowman and Rollins/Kane were advertised throughout the show (Rollins/Kane specifically was announced at the very start of the show, with the former announced before the show and at several points throughout). Not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, it's booking above all else, believe that.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Ambrose/Orton pretty much took up half of the first hour? What else happened there? Seems that they did pretty good... well... "good" by today's standards.
> 
> And that third hour... jeez. Both Reigns/Strowman and Rollins/Kane were advertised throughout the show (Rollins/Kane specifically was announced at the very start of the show, with the former announced before the show and at several points throughout). Not pointing fingers at anyone specifically, it's booking above all else, believe that.


Seemed a pretty bog standard Blandy Boreton spamfest match.


----------



## Undertakerowns

We will see if the ratings increase next week. Next week seems like a pretrial to Wrestlemania to see how much interest there is. If next week doesn't get at least 3.8m viewers or higher then they are going to have to start paying people to go to Wrestlemania to beat that attendance record.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

TheShieldSuck said:


> Seemed a pretty bog standard Blandy Boreton spamfest match.


Sorry, I meant what else happened in the hour (besides the match) that could have possibly lead to the first hour being the highest viewed hour?


----------



## RatedR10

Undertakerowns said:


> We will see if the ratings increase next week. Next week seems like a pretrial to Wrestlemania to see how much interest there is. If next week doesn't get at least 3.8m viewers or higher then they are going to have to start paying people to go to Wrestlemania to beat that attendance record.


Don't expect 3.8. Seriously. I'm hardly expecting a 3.4m average for next week, to be honest. The hole is way too deep and part-timers are a huge reason for it.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

First hour these past few weeks have been rated the highest. It's because the Football game doesn't start until 8:30, leaving the first half hour of Raw uncontested.

Anyway, I was hoping for a worse rating considering both Football and Playoff baseball was on (including in NY, WWE's biggest market). They need to sink alot more than that.


----------



## CptRonCodpiece

This is what happens when you don't build new stars, and the ones you do try and build, you make them look like idiots.


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> First hour these past few weeks have been rated the highest. It's because the Football game doesn't start until 8:30, leaving the first half hour of Raw uncontested.
> 
> Anyway, I was hoping for a worse rating considering both Football and Playoff baseball was on (including in NY, WWE's biggest market). They need to sink alot more than that.


Yeah, we need to start seeing the attendance numbers get lower. It's pretty obvious they don't seem to care about the ratings. They've been setting record lows all year and the product still sucks.


----------



## Kejhill

Guess is kinda sad when i feel more interested in waiting the ratings at the end of every Raw then speaking about any possible segment saw on TV.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> First hour these past few weeks have been rated the highest. It's because the Football game doesn't start until 8:30, leaving the first half hour of Raw uncontested.


That hasn't been the case in 3 out of the last 5 weeks.

You're wrong as usual.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Chrome said:


> Yeah, we need to start seeing the attendance numbers get lower.


House show business has been cold since August and they didn't sell out Raw last night.


----------



## The True Believer

TAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANK!!!!!!!!!

:mark: :mark: :mark: :mark:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> That hasn't been the case in 3 out of the last 5 weeks.
> 
> You're wrong as usual.


So, half the time out of 5 weeks, it has. As usual, you're a troll whose going to be banned pretty soon. Bye bye.

Oh and I didn't say 5. I said few.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> So, half the time out of 5 weeks, it has. As usual, you're a troll whose going to be banned pretty soon. Bye bye.


40% isn't half of the time.


----------



## RatedR10

Chrome said:


> Yeah, we need to start seeing the attendance numbers get lower. It's pretty obvious they don't seem to care about the ratings. They've been setting record lows all year and the product still sucks.


From what I've read, house show numbers have dropped significantly in September and attendance numbers for both televised shows have dropped.


Also, the final rating is a 2.33, down from last week's 2.35.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

You tell him, WindowsUpdate!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> 40% isn't half of the time.


I didn't say the last "5 weeks." You did. I said "last few weeks." Poor reading comprehension.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> Oh and I didn't say 5. I said few.


You tried to attribute it to football. Football is 5 weeks into its season, therefore the 5 week time period is relevant.


----------



## JBLoser

Soul Man Danny B said:


> House show business has been cold since August *and they didn't sell out Raw last night.*


Unsurprising news considering the fact that the Cubs playoff game was going on.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> You tried to attribute it to football. Football is 5 weeks into its season, therefore the 5 week time period is relevant.


5 doesn't equal few. If I meant from the start of football, I would've said "Since Week One", which I did not.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

JBLoser said:


> Unsurprising news considering the fact that the Cubs playoff game was going on.


They've run against the Blackhawks in the Stanley Cup Finals and had no trouble selling out that arena. That's a very strong market for wrestling in general and the WWE.

You can tell Smackdown is cold by the way they've been pushing it. They're desperate. WWE usually doesn't behave that way.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I'm hearing it did a 2.33 rating which id disappointingly high.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> 5 doesn't equal few. If I meant from the start of football, I would've said "Since Week One", which I did not.


So then it's not attributable to football in general?


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

WindowsUpdate said:


> So then it's not attributable to football in general?


There is a drop every year when the NFL starts running. This year, the drop has been more severe. The drop has been on the order of ~10% instead of 2%. That, combined with declines in other metrics can only lead one to conclude these ratings are more than just the result of football.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> So then it's not attributable to football in general?


Why I said few today?

Check out the scores of the last 3 weeks of Monday night games:

Week 3: Packers 38 Chiefs 28 (Packers are a huge draw)

Week 4: Seahawks 13 Lions 10 (Very close game, Seahawks have been in the Super Bowl the past 2 seasons)

Week 5 (last night): Steelers 24 Chargers 20 (Steelers won on the last play of the game)

All close games with big market teams involved. Week 2's game was a 13 point game, not as close. Monday Night Football has had a combo of good games and teams playing. Next week will be even worse for WWE with the Giants and Eagles playing for first place in the NFC East. I myself will be missing Raw for that one. Big game for the Giants. New York and Philly markets will be MIA from Raw next week.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

Soul Man Danny B said:


> There is a drop every year when the NFL starts running. This year, the drop has been more severe. The drop has been on the order of ~10% instead of 2%. That, combined with declines in other metrics can only lead one to conclude these ratings are more than just the result of football.


That's not what I meant. Of course there is a drop every year during football season.

I was responding to someone who claimed that the 1st hour is usually highest because MNF starts at about 8:20. Well, since the NFL season has started (5 weeks ago) 3 out of those 5 weeks that has not been the case.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> Why I said few today?
> 
> Check out the scores of the last 3 weeks of Monday night games:
> 
> Week 3: Packers 38 Chiefs 28 (Packers are a huge draw)
> 
> Week 4: Seahawks 13 Lions 10 (Very close game, Seahawks have been in the Super Bowl the past 2 seasons)
> 
> Week 5 (last night): Steelers 24 Chargers 20 (Steelers won on the last play of the game)
> 
> All close games with big market teams involved. Week 2's game was a 13 point game, not as close. Monday Night Football has had a combo of good games and teams playing. Next week will be even worse for WWE with the Giants and Eagles playing for first place in the NFC East. I myself will be missing Raw for that one. Big game for the Giants. New York and Philly markets will be MIA from Raw next week.


But last week the 1st hour was not the highest, despite the close game. 

Week 1 had a very close game too.

Also, week 2 wasn't really out of reach. Many people were interested to see if Luck could lead a comeback or if he would continue to suck after a terrible opener vs Buffalo. And NY is a big market.


----------



## Chrome

RatedR10 said:


> From what I've read, house show numbers have dropped significantly in September and attendance numbers for both televised shows have dropped.
> 
> 
> Also, the final rating is a 2.33, down from last week's 2.35.


Sounds good. Wonder how much lower they have to go before Vince hits the panic button?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> But last week the 1st hour was not the highest, despite the close game.
> 
> Week 1 had a very close game in the 8:20 slot too.
> 
> Also, week 2 wasn't really out of reach. Many people were interested to see if Luck could lead a comeback or if he would continue to suck after a terrible opener vs Buffalo.


Week 1 had two games on Monday night. The early game was close, the second game was a blowout.

Either way, this is why I said the "last few weeks" and not the entire season. The last few weeks has had better games. And next week's will be a dousy (praying the Giants win).


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> Week 1 had two games on Monday night. The early game was close, the second game was a blowout.
> 
> Either way, this is why I said the "last few weeks" and not the entire season. The last few weeks has had better games. And next week's will be a dousy (praying the Giants win).


NFCE games are always boring as shit. Though two big markets will make for a high rating.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WindowsUpdate said:


> NFCE games are always boring as shit. Though two big markets will make for a high rating.


I agree. Division sucks this year and has for quite a few years now. It was a tough division in the mid 2000s, though. And yeah, WWE is going to get MURDERED in NY and Philly next week.


----------



## RatedR10

Chrome said:


> Sounds good. Wonder how much lower they have to go before Vince hits the panic button?


When the legends fail to pop a number higher than 2.4 next week, that may be the beginning.

We got close this week... I'm expecting the third hour is below 3 million next week.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

ShowStopper said:


> I agree. Division sucks this year and has for quite a few years now. It was a tough division in the mid 2000s, though. And yeah, WWE is going to get MURDERED in NY and Philly next week.


Well, the Giants may not win the SB this year, but I think they have a "firm grip" on the 2015 Amputee Trophy.


----------



## JBLoser

Soul Man Danny B said:


> They've run against the Blackhawks in the Stanley Cup Finals and had no trouble selling out that arena. That's a very strong market for wrestling in general and the WWE.
> 
> You can tell Smackdown is cold by the way they've been pushing it. They're desperate. WWE usually doesn't behave that way.


I'm not here to deny that WWE has attendance problems and what not because by the numbers they do. But no disrespect to the Blackhawks, but the Cubs are a *COMPLETELY* different beast. This was the first home playoff game for the Cubs in seven years. Wrigley's capacity is also double that of the United Center, lest we not count people that were likely in SRO. Add that to the fact that the game did a 22.3 HH rating in Chicago, with people likely opting to watch the game at bars or at their house over going to RAW, and you have what happened yesterday. 

It's really a combination of the low attendance figures and that the Cubs game was going on. Chicago, while consistently drawing well for Blackhawks games (near the top in the NHL since like, 2009), was likely WAY more Cubs-crazy this time around.

Of course, there also is the fact that the game bled into about an hour and a half of RAW so who really knows?


----------



## Chrome

RatedR10 said:


> When the legends fail to pop a number higher than 2.4 next week, that may be the beginning.
> 
> We got close this week... *I'm expecting the third hour is below 3 million next week.*


Think that'll happen sometime in November or December. Be pretty funny though if it happened next week with all those legends set to appear.


----------



## Born of Osiris

But ratings mean nothing amirite? 8*D


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> Yeah, we need to start seeing the attendance numbers get lower. I*t's pretty obvious they don't seem to care about the ratings. They've been setting record lows all year and the product still sucks.*


And they still aren't making any changes. Whether it be to their champions, the storylines, the format of the show, the announcers, or even the asthetics of the show with the set and the overall look and atmosphere of the show. They have a chance every week to make just ONE change...and they still don't do it. This is what leads me to believe they don't care about the ratings as much as they used to. If they did, then how do they not make at least ONE change?


----------



## Dec_619

Three hours is just too damn much.

I guarantee you'll see the ratings climb if they moved back to, two hours. 

It won't happen though.


----------



## Stone Hot

IDK why people are happy about low ratings. Its not going to change anything


----------



## Born of Osiris

Because they're getting what they deserve ^


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Sounds good. Wonder how much lower they have to go before Vince hits the panic button?


In your own mind. What does Vinces panic button consists of?


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Stone Hot said:


> IDK why people are happy about low ratings. Its not going to change anything


The ratings are the most entertaining thing about WWE.


----------



## The_Jiz

These new record lows deserves its own thread.


----------



## Stone Hot

Daniel Bryan wont bring the ratings up. Just saying


----------



## EireUnited

I hope to GOD that the ratings crash even lower when they bring all the pensioners in next week.

I want Rock, Brock, Taker and HHH getting a 2.2.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Stone Hot said:


> Daniel Bryan wont bring the ratings up. Just saying


No one mentioned him. But anything to bait right? :hayden3


----------



## Stone Hot

Shala☆Frost;53169170 said:


> No one mentioned him. But anything to bait right? :hayden3


I can read peoples minds. I know some are so tempting to say it so I thought i just come out say it and get it over with.


----------



## jim courier

EireUnited said:


> I hope to GOD that the ratings crash even lower when they bring all the pensioners in next week.
> 
> I want Rock, Brock, Taker and HHH getting a 2.2.


Those guys are actual stars not vanilla midgets so I doubt it.


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> I can read peoples minds. I know some are so tempting to say it so I thought i just come out say it and get it over with.


the only mind that can be read is yours. you've been hellbent on undermining pretty much all things Bryan everytime there's a segment involving him. it's almost reaching The Boy Wonder levels by now. no one even mentioned him and you somehow have to make this thread about him lel


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> the only mind that can be read is yours. you've been hellbent on undermining pretty much all things Bryan everytime there's a segment involving him. it's almost reaching The Boy Wonder levels by now. no one even mentioned him and you somehow have to make this thread about him lel


Im actually a Daniel Bryan fan so.. idk where you getting this from.


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> Im actually a Daniel Bryan fan so.. idk where you getting this from.


I always see you making snide/thinly-veiled remarks about Bryan and his fans when something related to him comes up. you even told me that you liked playing the devil's advocate and that you liked to troll the Bryan defenders -- i'm just wondering where the determination and persistance comes from if you're such a fan of his. behavior denotes character and motivations

bringing him up now is almost a form of instigating because he had nothing to do with last night's ratings


----------



## The Tempest

Stone Hot said:


> I can read peoples minds. I know some are so tempting to say it so I thought i just come out say it and get it over with.


Reading people's mind and saying you're a Bryan fan when you've shitted on him plenty of times :ti talk about being extremely delusional. No one was talking about Bryan, not a single person mentioned his name, but I guess any chance to bait is right for you amirite? :gaga1


----------



## PurityOfEvil

Stone Hot said:


> IDK why people are happy about low ratings. Its not going to change anything


Some things need to get worse before they can get better.

As soon as the ratings fall into the 1's they'll be forced to change stuff. USA Network will demand it.


----------



## P.H. Hatecraft

Stone Hot said:


> IDK why people are happy about low ratings. Its not going to change anything


Because it's cathartic when a company that sucks is doing bad?


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Im actually a Daniel Bryan fan so.. idk where you getting this from.


No you're not. Warren says he's a "fan" too, but then says stuff like a Bryan/Lesnar match isn't believable and that Bryan would make a great Cruiserweight champion because he's a vanilla midget. No "fan" of Bryan tries to patronize his marks like you do too. You can drop the act now.


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I always see you making snide/thinly-veiled remarks about Bryan and his fans when something related to him comes up. you even told me that you liked playing the devil's advocate and that you liked to troll the Bryan defenders -- i'm just wondering where the determination and persistance comes from if you're such a fan of his. behavior denotes character and motivations


Because everyone agreeing with each other on a message board is not fun. There are many Bryan defenders so I don't need to be one of them. Doesn't mean Im not a fan of his. And like you said I love to play Devils advocate


----------



## Stone Hot

PurityOfEvil said:


> Some things need to get worse before they can get better.
> 
> As soon as the ratings fall into the 1's they'll be forced to change stuff. USA Network will demand it.


true true


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> No you're not. Warren says he's a "fan" too, but then says stuff like a Bryan/Lesnar match isn't believable and that Bryan would make a great Cruiserweight champion because he's a vanilla midget. No "fan" of Bryan tries to patronize his marks like you do too. You can drop the act now.


No act to drop. You can believe what you want but I am a fan of his. I just don't live in a fantasy land where Bryan is going to be the #1 guy like so many are/were hoping him to be. Thats why I wasn't here bitching and complaining when he wasn't getting his "chance" at the main event this year cause I know when to be realistic and learn to except that wwe is never give him that. It makes things a lot easier to not get your fuckin hopes up and believe me i have gotten my hopes and let down so many fuckin times.


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> Because everyone agreeing with each other on a message board is not fun. There are many Bryan defenders so I don't need to be one of them. Doesn't mean Im not a fan of his. And like you said I love to play Devils advocate


nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate once in a while, but if it becomes a pattern then it can easily be perceived as you being a contrarian. you seem to be fixated on this Reigns/Bryan dynamic and it's very see-through. it's like if you were pissed about how things went down after the Rumble and now you're out to prove a point. if you were as big a fan of Bryan as you say you are, you'd be a little more objective than that


----------



## Fabregas

People always talk about how ratings are in 1997 territory, but if you look at ratings for 1995 they're not much different, so WWE is actually doing 1995 ratings. LOL


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> nothing wrong with playing devil's advocate once in a while, but if it becomes a pattern then it can easily be perceived as you being a contrarian. you seem to be fixated on this Reigns/Bryan dynamic and it's very see-through. it's like if you were pissed about how things went down after the Rumble and now you're out to prove a point. if you were as big a fan of Bryan as you say you are, you'd be a little more objective than that


I wanted Reigns to get his chance thats why I was and still am very pro Reigns. I was a huge Reigns defender during the RTWM because i wanted to see him get his chance just like Bryan did the year before.


----------



## PurityOfEvil

Fabregas said:


> People always talk about how ratings are in 1997 territory, but if you look at ratings for 1995 they're not much different, so WWE is actually doing 1995 ratings. LOL


That's probably because the product is very close to being (or arguably is) worse than it was in 1995.

They're getting the ratings that they deserve. You'd think they'd have learned from that, but obviously not.


----------



## RatedR10

Chrome said:


> Think that'll happen sometime in November or December. Be pretty funny though if it happened next week with all those legends set to appear.


If it happens next week with the legends, forget about November or December. :lmao 2.7 million viewers at some point would surely happen.


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> I wanted Reigns to get his chance thats why I was and still am very pro Reigns. I was a huge Reigns defender during the RTWM because i wanted to see him get his chance just like Bryan did the year before.


you can be pro Reigns without turning Bryan into the Yang to his Yin :wink2: it's funny how this Bryan/Reigns rivalry really stems from the fans of both guys when in reality they're both friends backstage and have a strong respect for each other. Bryan himself spent countless hours talking with Reigns backstage about life and coaching him on how to evolve as an in-ring competitor -- in Reigns' own words. if there was any animosity between them then I doubt Reigns would've called Bryan "the best"

if anyone is to blame for the Rumble fiasco, it's the WWE themselves with their asinine booking


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> I wanted Reigns to get his chance thats why I was and still am very pro Reigns. I was a huge Reigns defender during the RTWM because i wanted to see him get his chance just like Bryan did the year before.


Reigns had his chance and failed.









Now they either need to turn him heel or risk messing up his career even more if they try to push him again next year as the same stale face he's been for awhile now.


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> you can be pro Reigns without turning Bryan into the Yang to his Yin :wink2: it's funny how this Bryan/Reigns rivalry really stems from the fans of both guys when in reality they're both friends backstage and have a strong respect for each other. Bryan himself spent countless hours talking with Reigns backstage about life and coaching him on how to evolve as an in-ring competitor -- in Reigns' own words. if there was any animosity between them then I doubt Reigns would've called Bryan "the best"
> 
> if anyone is to blame for the Rumble fiasco, it's the WWE themselves with their asinine booking


Of course and the Bryan vs Reigns feud was the best feud of the year IMO and if Bryan ever wrestles again I want to see them go at it again


----------



## sarcasma

LilOlMe said:


> Here are the September 29, 2014 ratings for comparisons sake next week:
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...t-29-2014-4-million-viewers-dean-ambrose-show
> 
> So 4.04 million viewer average.
> 
> I believe that that was the "green goo" episode, and deservedly they were down the next week from there, lol.





TheShieldSuck said:


> This week:
> 3.518 hr 1
> 3.254 hr 2
> 3.082 hr 3
> 
> Last week:
> 
> 3.47 hr 1
> 3.49 hr 2
> 3.16 hr 3
> 
> So this maybe the lowest rated RAW in history.
> 
> I'm guessing a 2.2


Bottom line, AMBROSE drew and fans saw Seth in main event and tuned out/turned off.


----------



## sarcasma

JBLoser said:


> By comparison here was the hourly breakdown of the record-low RAW from September 28 when they hit numbers they hadn't hit since 1997:
> 
> 3.48 million
> 3.33 million
> 3.19 million
> 
> So the 9pm and 10pm hours were worse this time around... yeah... They very well might have hit another record-low.


Who was in the 9 to 10 hour this week.


----------



## sarcasma

Peerless said:


> Ambrose and Orton opening the show got a higher 1st hour rating than Lesnar and Heyman did last week?
> 
> :rockwut


Im telling you AMBROSE draws. He was getting 4's back during when he was WHITE HOT.


----------



## Food for Free

Biggest fucking main event flop in history :rollins 

Take the goddamn belt off this turd now! Seth Flopins.


----------



## KC Armstrong

sarcasma said:


> Bottom line, AMBROSE drew and fans saw Seth in main event and tuned out/turned off.



I can't take this shit anymore, seriously. The WHOLE FUCKING SHOW is significantly worse and less entertaining than it was a year ago (didn't think that was possible at the time). The entire show sucks, stop pinning this disaster on one person. For the record, I don't even care about Rollins, but stop acting like he's responsible for everything. If the show was good overall or even decent and only Seth's segments sucked, you might have a point, but that's not the case.

Also, Ambrose fans bragging about 40.000 more viewers in the first hour compared to last week? Really? 40.000 viewers? That is such a small increase, it's completely insignificant. 

I'm not saying Ambrose can't draw as a main event player, but people are really reaching this week.


----------



## thedeparted_94

*WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

f4wonline -


> The combination of NFL football and baseball playoffs, combined with a less-than-interesting product in recent weeks, saw Raw fall to a new non-holiday low of 3.27 million viewers last night. The only episode of the show since 1997 that did worse was a Christmas Eve show in 2012 that did 3.14 million viewers.
> 
> The main culprit was the combination of a Pittsburgh Steelers vs. San Diego Chargers game on ESPN that did 12.18 million viewers, a lower number than football has done the last few weeks, and baseball. TBS aired the Chicago Cubs vs. St. Louis Cardinals against the first half of Raw, which did 5.78 million viewers. They aired the Los Angeles Dodgers vs. New York Mets against the second half of Raw, which did 3.96 million viewers.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.52 million viewers
> 
> 9 p.m. 3.25 million viewers
> 
> 10 p.m. 3.08 million viewers


We're breaking new records every week maggle :jbl


----------



## lectoryo

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*


----------



## DesoloutionRow

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I blame that Colby Borins fellow.


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Wrestling is dying. The next generation prefer to play video games over watching fake fighting.


----------



## Stephen90

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



FriedTofu said:


> Wrestling is dying. The next generation prefer to play video games over watching fake fighting.


Can't blame them Trevor Philips is a way better character than Seth Rollins.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

KC Armstrong said:


> For the record, I don't even care about Rollins, but stop acting like he's responsible for everything. If the show was good overall or even decent and only Seth's segments sucked, you might have a point, but that's not the.


^ But his segments do suck and the hour he's in ( which most of the time is the whole hour ) gets the lowest ratings of the night.


----------



## Chrome

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I hear that "worst since 1997" thing so much it's almost like it's a parody at this point. :Jordan

But yeah, shitty show deserves record low ratings.


----------



## Loudon Wainwright

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Time for a Sheamus cash in to save us all.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti

Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
:ha


----------



## Reaper

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I think people need to admit just how important Cena really was to the show. Even though with him the ratings were still declining, had he not been as successful as he was with the kiddies, the WWE would've sunk to TNA level low by now. 

The fans here won't admit it, but John Cena is the only legit draw the company has. 

Yes, it's completely their fault for not creating and keeping a #2 , #3 and #4 to Cena and they should pay for it through even lower ratings ... but that doesn't mean that Cena was not important to the product. Like we've all been saying .. Cena draws a different demographic to the product --- but they need guys like Punk, Bryan and Owens in mega-draw spots just like Cena because it draws the rest. 

Now that the company has none of these guys, their ratings are going to sink even lower. 

I thought that 2014 was mid-90's level bad .... 2015 has surpassed the worst the WWE has ever been.


----------



## Paladine

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


So you'd prefer Reigns losing all the time as champion, while Rollins would be killing it in the midcard with Wyatt?


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Stephen90 said:


> Can't blame them Trevor Philips is a way better character than Seth Rollins.


Seth Rollins in WWE2K is a better character than Seth Rollins.


----------



## Born of Osiris

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Good thing we have Kane in a WHC title match in 2015.


It's like playing Mario and dying to Goombas and wondering what the fuck is wrong when the solution is so easy :Jordan


----------



## Achilles

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> *I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now *:ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


Yeah, because Vince listening to the opinions of others is the main issue. :ambrose2


----------



## Badbadrobot

Can we stop blaming wrestlers please people!!!

FFS it's the goddam booking


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Solution:


----------



## Kratosx23

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Stephen90 said:


> Can't blame them Trevor Philips is a way better character than Seth Rollins.


Yes he is.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


Yeah, and I'll bet if Reigns was in Seth's spot, the ratings would be even lower. Did you SEE that segment on Monday?

Oh, and Reigns is a Triple H guy. I hate to break it to you, but, he is. He's a Vince guy too, but let's not pretend that Triple H is groaning when Reigns is being pitched to win Rumbles and world titles.


----------



## lectoryo

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


Lirl. 

Reigns = Ratings...


----------



## Embracer

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Good. I hope they draw even lower ratings the upcoming shows to at least make some major changes. The last hour drew the lowest what a surprise, get that Kane bullcrap out of the main event for crying out loud.


----------



## Hawkke

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

The amount of blame not going where it belongs in this thread is laughable. Do you blame the soup, or do you blame the cook?


----------



## Kabraxal

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Hawkke said:


> The amount of blame not going where it belongs in this thread is laughable. Do you blame the soup, or do you blame the cook?


There are some that either just want to bash the "IWC" guys or just can't stand that the proof is there for everyone to see... Vince has lost it. Of course, all this is starting to show that, creatively, he really never had it. He just had people that would filter his stupidity and come up with better ideas he would then go with.

He was a great business man, but he was never the best creatively. Now he is failing at both as the business is taking hit after hit.


----------



## chronoxiong

They just keep setting new records. This rating is going to reach below 2.0 soon. Lol. I seriously want change.


----------



## Kabraxal

JonMoxleyReborn said:


> ^ But his segments do suck and the hour he's in ( which most of the time is the whole hour ) gets the lowest ratings of the night.


Did you expect Kane v anyone to draw? Be serious please, because that matchup there is a business killer.


----------



## LordKain

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



The Apostate said:


> I think people need to admit just how important Cena really was to the show. Even though with him the ratings were still declining, had he not been as successful as he was with the kiddies, the WWE would've sunk to TNA level low by now.
> 
> The fans here won't admit it, but John Cena is the only legit draw the company has.
> 
> Yes, it's completely their fault for not creating and keeping a #2 , #3 and #4 to Cena and they should pay for it through even lower ratings ... but that doesn't mean that Cena was not important to the product. Like we've all been saying .. Cena draws a different demographic to the product --- but they need guys like Punk, Bryan and Owens in mega-draw spots just like Cena because it draws the rest.
> 
> Now that the company has none of these guys, their ratings are going to sink even lower.
> 
> I thought that 2014 was mid-90's level bad .... 2015 has surpassed the worst the WWE has ever been.


This.^

The sooner this carny sideshow circus dies the better I say because at least then the industry has a proper chance to start over with a clean slate.


----------



## Botchy SinCara

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*










let them keep going. I wanna see where this train wreck is heading...and still trying to blame Seth for booking problems..Yeah Seth is booking himself in this horrible Kane feud


----------



## Kevin0wens

Haven't genuinely loved WWE since early 2014. NXT is the only thing I'll go out of my way to watch these days.


----------



## Demoslasher

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



The Apostate said:


> I think people need to admit just how important Cena really was to the show. Even though with him the ratings were still declining, had he not been as successful as he was with the kiddies, the WWE would've sunk to TNA level low by now.
> 
> The fans here won't admit it, but John Cena is the only legit draw the company has.
> 
> Yes, it's completely their fault for not creating and keeping a #2 , #3 and #4 to Cena and they should pay for it through even lower ratings ... but that doesn't mean that Cena was not important to the product. Like we've all been saying .. Cena draws a different demographic to the product --- but they need guys like Punk, Bryan and Owens in mega-draw spots just like Cena because it draws the rest.
> 
> Now that the company has none of these guys, their ratings are going to sink even lower.
> 
> I thought that 2014 was mid-90's level bad .... 2015 has surpassed the worst the WWE has ever been.


This is not backed up by the facts sadly. The vast majority of people who watch wrestling right now are grown adults. Most of them are holdouts from the attitude Era. Yeah kids watch Cena for a few years, then they grow up a little, and they stop watching wrestling almost all together. The teenage demographic is almost nonexistent in the ratings right now when it used to be the major powerhouse demographic of pro Wrestling. Furthermore even that kids demographic he caters to has been decreasing for nearly his entire run, basically parents don't want to watch him so the kids don't watch it either.

What is the bigger issue with Cena is that his booking style, writing, mic work favoritism, and frustrating habit of no selling every aspect of his opponent, have all blocked every potential new star over the past decade from ever getting over. Wrestling has always been a attraction driven industry, and the driving force behind attraction driven industry is NEW ATTRACTIONS! You must always have fresh faces, new gimmicks, new angles, new, new, NEW!! John Cena has been doing the same fucking bullshit for a decade, and his presence has made it so the show is nearly the exact same thing it was ten years ago. He never loses when it matters, he buries anyone with any level of heat by politicking himself to go over them in every way. How many "monster heels" have had to do that tired ass over done skit where Cena calls them out, takes his shirt off ready to fight and they roll out of the ring like a scared little bitch? How can you recover from a guy basically punking you out in the middle of the ring? Also how many times has Cena no sold 30 minutes of his opponents offense including normally 2-3 of his opponents finishing moves only to pop up, do five moves, slap on his ugly STF and the guy taps out frantically in seconds despite zero previous set up for that submission hold. Then he pop to his feet and no sells the entire match by running around smiling and carrying on like the match never happen. For god sakes limp a little!!! Hold your ribs like one might expect from a man that got his ass kicked for 25 minutes! Then after he is done beating them multiple times in a row clean, they go to the mid card and its clear that wwe only cares about this endless john Cena push. 

I think it's going to be a situation in a couple years where people will write books about just how much he used his position with the top brass to fuck over countless top guys. People aren't talking now because they don't want to burn their bridge with the wwe, but I know some people that have worked there, and it is coming 

I think the ratings have more to do with WWE just being way out of touch with what people want, and sadly they have this annoying Ego about it. They think they are doing nothing wrong, and get overly pissed off when people point out that they are not. Vince seems unable to admit his mistakes with his handling of numerous talent and stories over the last few years. Best example is he still doesn't understand why people protest both, batista winning the rumble over guys like bryan or reigns that were red hot, and Lesnar going over Taker at mania in a last second booking change. Both are obvious and both are still talked about today as some of the dumbest booking in WWE history. He is too old, and seems like he no longer looks at bigger pictures in favor of short term solutions. He forgot what made him a global powerhouse was not doink the clown or the bushwackers, it was Stone Cold and the attitude Era. The NWO forced him to do it. He needs to realize this kid bullshit is what almost killed the company in the early 90s also and it's killing it today.


----------



## JimCornette

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Wow looks like Seth Rollins really is Shawn Michaels re-incarnated.


----------



## Joff

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

ratings have sucked for what seems like a decade 

AE proving to be an outlier


----------



## Snake Plissken

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

and this why the WWE will probably go out of business in 10 years, it's just going to keep getting worse, Vince can bring back Taker but even if Taker does boost ratings, it's only temporary, same goes for Brock and Rock. How is WWE going to thrive when those guys don't want to Wrestle anymore. Have faith in the current roster, make sure they have a personality to get them over, stop restricting them, write compelling storylines, get rid of those awful Stage sets and give RAW and SmackDowm identities again. Vince it's time to retire.

WWE will continue to take the easy route though, The Rock wil be getting a phone call soon and I love The Rock but he's not a long term solution, he's a busy man with his movies. WWE are also just admitting that the product is garbage by saying "hey guys, we'll bring back The Attitude Era stars because that's when we cared about putting on a great product". They don't want to invest in the current stars, the lazy writing proves this.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Demoslasher said:


> This is not backed up by the facts sadly. The vast majority of people who watch wrestling right now are grown adults. Most of them are holdouts from the attitude Era. Yeah kids watch Cena for a few years, then they grow up a little, and they stop watching wrestling almost all together. The teenage demographic is almost nonexistent in the ratings right now when it used to be the major powerhouse demographic of pro Wrestling. Furthermore even that kids demographic he caters to has been decreasing for nearly his entire run, basically parents don't want to watch him so the kids don't watch it either.
> 
> What is the bigger issue with Cena is that his booking style, writing, mic work favoritism, and frustrating habit of no selling every aspect of his opponent, have all blocked every potential new star over the past decade from ever getting over. Wrestling has always been a attraction driven industry, and the driving force behind attraction driven industry is NEW ATTRACTIONS! You must always have fresh faces, new gimmicks, new angles, new, new, NEW!! John Cena has been doing the same fucking bullshit for a decade, and his presence has made it so the show is nearly the exact same thing it was ten years ago. He never loses when it matters, he buries anyone with any level of heat by politicking himself to go over them in every way. How many "monster heels" have had to do that tired ass over done skit where Cena calls them out, takes his shirt off ready to fight and they roll out of the ring like a scared little bitch? How can you recover from a guy basically punking you out in the middle of the ring? Also how many times has Cena no sold 30 minutes of his opponents offense including normally 2-3 of his opponents finishing moves only to pop up, do five moves, slap on his ugly STF and the guy taps out frantically in seconds despite zero previous set up for that submission hold. Then he pop to his feet and no sells the entire match by running around smiling and carrying on like the match never happen. For god sakes limp a little!!! Hold your ribs like one might expect from a man that got his ass kicked for 25 minutes! Then after he is done beating them multiple times in a row clean, they go to the mid card and its clear that wwe only cares about this endless john Cena push.
> 
> I think it's going to be a situation in a couple years where people will write books about just how much he used his position with the top brass to fuck over countless top guys. People aren't talking now because they don't want to burn their bridge with the wwe, but I know some people that have worked there, and it is coming
> 
> I think the ratings have more to do with WWE just being way out of touch with what people want, and sadly they have this annoying Ego about it. They think they are doing nothing wrong, and get overly pissed off when people point out that they are not. Vince seems unable to admit his mistakes with his handling of numerous talent and stories over the last few years. Best example is he still doesn't understand why people protest both, batista winning the rumble over guys like bryan or reigns that were red hot, and Lesnar going over Taker at mania in a last second booking change. Both are obvious and both are still talked about today as some of the dumbest booking in WWE history. He is too old, and seems like he no longer looks at bigger pictures in favor of short term solutions. He forgot what made him a global powerhouse was not doink the clown or the bushwackers, it was Stone Cold and the attitude Era. The NWO forced him to do it. He needs to realize this kid bullshit is what almost killed the company in the early 90s also and it's killing it today.


Dude... If you expect me to read that, please break it up into paragraphs or give me a TL; DR version. 

I typically don't mind reading a lot but I draw the line when it starts hurting my eyes.


----------



## Dan Rodmon

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Stop making guys like Kane and Big Show the focal point.

You're paying for part timers? Well have them step up and help by showing up and actually doing shit.

Hire a new creative team that knows the business...oh wait you have a pretty good team if you open your eyes (Heyman and Colter).

Make *new* stars.

Not a fan of his, but bring back Bryan already. Dude is over as fuck.

Push Wyatt/The Family to end the awful Authority bullshit already :harper


----------



## Botchy SinCara

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Dan Rodmon said:


> Stop making guys like Kane and Big Show the focal point.
> 
> You're paying for part timers? Well have them step up and help by showing up and actually doing shit.
> 
> Hire a new creative team that knows the business...oh wait you have a pretty good team if you open your eyes (Heyman and Colter).
> 
> Make *new* stars.
> 
> Not a fan of his, but bring back Bryan already. Dude is over as fuck.
> 
> Push Wyatt/The Family to end the awful Authority bullshit already :harper



*some generic remark about you being a IWC smark or something*


----------



## CJ

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

They're getting the ratings they deserve :shrug


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Dan Rodmon said:


> Stop making guys like Kane and Big Show the focal point.
> 
> You're paying for part timers? Well have them step up and help by showing up and actually doing shit.
> 
> Hire a new creative team that knows the business...oh wait you have a pretty good team if you open your eyes (Heyman and Colter).
> 
> Make *new* stars.
> 
> Not a fan of his, but bring back Bryan already. Dude is over as fuck.
> 
> Push Wyatt/The Family to end the awful Authority bullshit already :harper


Stop complaining you IWC smark.




Botchy SinCara said:


> *some generic remark about you being a IWC smark or something*


There 




Dan Rodmon said:


> Stop making guys like Kane and Big Show the focal point.
> 
> You're paying for part timers? Well have them step up and help by showing up and actually doing shit.
> 
> Hire a new creative team that knows the business...oh wait you have a pretty good team if you open your eyes (Heyman and Colter).
> 
> Make *new* stars.
> 
> Not a fan of his, but bring back Bryan already. Dude is over as fuck.
> 
> Push Wyatt/The Family to end the awful Authority bullshit already :harper


All seriousness, I agree with what you said.

It really pisses me off when those part timers don't show up every week for a feud. It's not like they have a second job, WWE should pay for them to be there every week.
Also, the billion video packages they air on RAW are even more annoying.

As for bringing Bryan back, if he was 100% WWE would've brought him back.


----------



## Captain Edd

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Maybe we should get Big Show in the feud with Kane and Rollins :vince


----------



## sunnysidee

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Demoslasher said:


> This is not backed up by the facts sadly. The vast majority of people who watch wrestling right now are grown adults. Most of them are holdouts from the attitude Era. Yeah kids watch Cena for a few years, then they grow up a little, and they stop watching wrestling almost all together. The teenage demographic is almost nonexistent in the ratings right now when it used to be the major powerhouse demographic of pro Wrestling. Furthermore even that kids demographic he caters to has been decreasing for nearly his entire run, basically parents don't want to watch him so the kids don't watch it either.
> 
> What is the bigger issue with Cena is that his booking style, writing, mic work favoritism, and frustrating habit of no selling every aspect of his opponent, have all blocked every potential new star over the past decade from ever getting over. Wrestling has always been a attraction driven industry, and the driving force behind attraction driven industry is NEW ATTRACTIONS! You must always have fresh faces, new gimmicks, new angles, new, new, NEW!! John Cena has been doing the same fucking bullshit for a decade, and his presence has made it so the show is nearly the exact same thing it was ten years ago. He never loses when it matters, he buries anyone with any level of heat by politicking himself to go over them in every way. How many "monster heels" have had to do that tired ass over done skit where Cena calls them out, takes his shirt off ready to fight and they roll out of the ring like a scared little bitch? How can you recover from a guy basically punking you out in the middle of the ring? Also how many times has Cena no sold 30 minutes of his opponents offense including normally 2-3 of his opponents finishing moves only to pop up, do five moves, slap on his ugly STF and the guy taps out frantically in seconds despite zero previous set up for that submission hold. Then he pop to his feet and no sells the entire match by running around smiling and carrying on like the match never happen. For god sakes limp a little!!! Hold your ribs like one might expect from a man that got his ass kicked for 25 minutes! Then after he is done beating them multiple times in a row clean, they go to the mid card and its clear that wwe only cares about this endless john Cena push.
> 
> I think it's going to be a situation in a couple years where people will write books about just how much he used his position with the top brass to fuck over countless top guys. People aren't talking now because they don't want to burn their bridge with the wwe, but I know some people that have worked there, and it is coming
> 
> I think the ratings have more to do with WWE just being way out of touch with what people want, and sadly they have this annoying Ego about it. They think they are doing nothing wrong, and get overly pissed off when people point out that they are not. Vince seems unable to admit his mistakes with his handling of numerous talent and stories over the last few years. Best example is he still doesn't understand why people protest both, batista winning the rumble over guys like bryan or reigns that were red hot, and Lesnar going over Taker at mania in a last second booking change. Both are obvious and both are still talked about today as some of the dumbest booking in WWE history. He is too old, and seems like he no longer looks at bigger pictures in favor of short term solutions. He forgot what made him a global powerhouse was not doink the clown or the bushwackers, it was Stone Cold and the attitude Era. The NWO forced him to do it. He needs to realize this kid bullshit is what almost killed the company in the early 90s also and it's killing it today.


Too much logic here that most people wont bother to read it. I've already written what you've said multiple times but people here rather just make arguments that fit their agenda. Vince and Cena are why the ratings are the way they are.


----------



## TKOK

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Damn, I don't pay any attention to ratings,so besides knowing they were low i didn't know anything. But those are HBK 1996 low.


----------



## TheGimmickKiller

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

This is probably the most depressing time to be a wrestling fan. I can't say they don't deserve this, because they do -- if you put out shitty content, you'll get low ratings like these. But at the same time, it's sad as hell to see something I grew up loving so much do so poorly.


----------



## Demoslasher

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



The Apostate said:


> Dude... If you expect me to read that, please break it up into paragraphs or give me a TL; DR version.
> 
> I typically don't mind reading a lot but I draw the line when it starts hurting my eyes.


1. John Cena is crap, and can be directly linked to the current situation 

2. His use of politics will be talked about more when he retires to avoid pushback 

3. It's not entirely his fault though because Vince is just plain old, stubborn, and out of touch.

4. Vince and dunnpushing kid friendly stuff almost killed them in the 90s until the NWO forced the attitude Era


----------



## Erik.

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

How much money do they make though? That should be the talking point.

Ratings have been decreasing all year and Vince and co have done NOTHING about it. Probably because they still make a shit load of money.


----------



## Food for Free

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Is it a coincidence that this is happening during Seth Rollins' reign? I think not.


Seth Floppins - Biggest fucking main event failure in history :brie1:rock5:vince3flabbynsting:evaloser:sasha3:rollins3

Man, I never cease to enjoys rubbing Rollins' failures in his retarded marks faces LMFAO


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

wait...what happens if it hits the 2s?


----------



## BigRedMonster47

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Well I don't think Rollins is helping with this turmoil of a title reign, maybe now that Cena will be out after HIAC we will see the ratings push up a bit. Hopefully they'll push Ambrose and Cesaro.


----------



## Genesis.

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Erik. said:


> How much money do they make though? That should be the talking point.
> 
> Ratings have been decreasing all year and Vince and co have done NOTHING about it. Probably because they still make a shit load of money.


They will lose a shit ton of money with the loss of viewers due to less people watching commercials. This explains why WWE has been putting out tons lately to cover the loss.


----------



## Genesis.

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Sheamus_ROCKS said:


> wait...what happens if it hits the 2s?


Once WWE RAW reaches below 3 million viewers.

1. Less money due to commercial loss 
2. Smackdown loses viewers since it's the B brand
3. Poor ticket sales during WWE events
4. USA Network pressure to stay on the USA Network 
5. The loss of $$ will affect most likely superstars, etc


----------



## Erik.

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Genesis. said:


> They will lose a shit ton of money with the loss of viewers due to less people watching commercials. This explains why WWE has been putting out tons lately to cover the loss.


Now is it possible to answer the question?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I can imagine Vince talking up RAW's ratings in a press release:

*We are experiencing record ratings on RAW this quarter!!!* :vince5


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

Kabraxal said:


> Did you expect Kane v anyone to draw? Be serious please, because that matchup there is a business killer.


Kane is actually the only good thing about those segments. His mic skills are great. 

And don't try and act like Rollins has only been getting low ratings as champion now that he is feuding with Kane. This has been going for a long time.


----------



## 260825

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

*Makes you wonder what would happen if WWE suddenly had serious competition ala WCW in the same timeslot every week.*


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Paladine said:


> So you'd prefer Reigns losing all the time as champion, while Rollins would be killing it in the midcard with Wyatt?


You know damn well Reigns wouldn't be losing all the time. Hell I don't even know if he's ever been pinned clean before. 

I think both options are bad seeing how both of them can't talk and are very uncharismatic. I just find it ironic how all the people who shit on Reigns saying he would kill the ratings are now Rollins' apologists blaming it solely on the booking when his hour gets the lowest ratings.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Genesis. said:


> Once WWE RAW reaches below 3 million viewers.
> 
> 1. Less money due to commercial loss
> 2. Smackdown loses viewers since it's the B brand
> 3. Poor ticket sales during WWE events
> 4. USA Network pressure to stay on the USA Network
> 5. The loss of $$ will affect most likely superstars, etc


:mj2


----------



## theidealstranger

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

This looks like a job for :supercena


----------



## EyeZac

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I'm convinced that Cena gets the title back before 2015 comes to an end. I thought he would get the title back at Survivor Series which could still happen but I doubt it at this point. I don't blame Rollins because it's the overall company that is failing to draw and not one individual. Also remembering that if you can use this as an excuse for Rollins that it cannot be used as an argument against Cena or any other top star who had ratings decline during their title reign.

WWE really needs stars at the moment but the constant strong booking of Big Show and Kane isn't going to attract new viewers or keep the loyal customers happy considering it's 2015 and these guys are way past their prime.


----------



## BrettSK

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

When a loyal die-hard fan like myself is frustrated and contemplating DVR'ing the show instead, they deserve the problems they have.


----------



## Stone Hot

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Only 1 man can save this show




:HHH2


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



BrettSK said:


> When a loyal die-hard fan like myself is frustrated and contemplating DVR'ing the show instead, they deserve the problems they have.


Couldn't agree more. Im finding myself watching less and less. I was watching the Steelers on Monday instead, and I wasn't even the least bit curious what was happening on RAW. Vince and Co. deserve the low ratings.

It's times like this that I wish they had decent competition.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

People talk about this like it's something new but Raw ratings have been ranging from 3.0 to 3.5 for the better part of a decade. There might have been the odd instance of a 4 somewhere. This really doesn't have to do with the superstars but the industry as a whole, people don't want to watch wrestling on a regular basis anymore. Not to mention the company has never and probably will never recover from losing Rock and Austin so quickly. 

Can the WWE create new stars? Yes, there is an abundance of talent for that, with the likes of Rollins, Rusev and Owens, if used correctly. Can those stars be as big as the names in the 80s and 90s? Probably not.


----------



## Bobholly39

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I've been a fan since WM3 era (i was a little kid). Watched religiously during the AE and years after, never missed a ppv (we used to order them in groups), or RAW.

But for years now i've become a DVR' fan.

I don't even watch Raw. Instead, i read results as they happen, or the next day, and if i hear or something interesting i go check it out. most of the time, i delete without even turning it on.


WWE needs to give me something interesting to make me turn it on. I would even watch it live if i was excited ahead of time about what would happen. Something exciting could be:

- Rock, or Stone Cold returns. They're fun, so screw you guys if you don't like them.

- Daniel Bryan returns. I like him, and it's especially extremely fun to watch the show when the crowd goes bonkers over a wrestlers

-CM Punk returns. I know this isn't happening in the short term and maybe ever, but it would still work for me as crowd would also go bonkers and it would be unexpected

- John Cena turns heel. Has to be done right though, in a way that's entertaining. 


- Someone grows an attitude. Reigns. Rollins? Ambrose? Could be someone else. All the characters are so "vanilla". Have Reigns become a badass, talk shit to people (like Rock did) and then destroy. Or have Ambrose do it, or Rollins....give wrestlers a bit of an edge. Have me as a fan think "OMG i wonder what he will do or say next"


----------



## Hennessey

So fucking sad what happened to this company. I don't even watch the show most of the time. I just go to WWE.com and read results then watch the 3 minute clip of the match or segment that interested me.


----------



## OwenSES

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

This is the least enthusiastic I've been about Raw probably ever. I think it's depressing because there is a good roster at the moment but everything is so lazy and uninspired.


----------



## zonetrooper5

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

It's the same shitty stale format every week which is just part of the reason why the ratings are getting lower amongst other things:


Lack of character progression
Non existent storylines
Formulaic matches on both Raw and Smackdown
Same wrestlers facing each other every week
Six man tag matches being overused
Championship belts mean nothing
Showing the same match on PPV then again on Raw
White ropes
Same stage setup used on every PPV/Raw/Smackdown
3 hour Raws

The whole of the product just needs to be redone from the ground up but that would require someone new who has a vision and a desire to change things.


----------



## Miss Sally

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Wrestling has been in a decline for ten years, AE was the exception not the rules. 

WWE fails to make new stars, stars that get over are made to lose to unpopular wrestlers. We've seen this with Cesaro, Swagger, Ambrose and many, many others. Instead of keeping these men in upper midcard and then having them take the title when a change is needed, they make them jobbers. They ruin the credibility of their own wrestlers.

Cena's nonsense has ruined the WWE, guys like Reigns will never be accepted because WWE doesn't know moderation, moderation to them if they were in the dating world would be to snort a line of cock, take 10 viagras, pop you a ruffy and give you unlubed anal sex without permission. Then after getting mad they're like "LOL WHUT?" They don't know how not overexpose someone. I'm beginning to think Austin and Rock were just freak chances.

There is no variety to the matches, people who should win the match, lose. People who should lose, win. People who should be strong heels are cowards, people who should be training more are pushed to the top of the card. It's backwards!

3 hours is too long!

Shitty diva matches, nobody wants to see the divas 90% of the time, especially with that awful booking.

Heels cannot be heels and faces have no edge.

There are so many problems that I could write a huge essay on it.


----------



## DJ2334

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I didn't watch, but from the results it sounded like a pretty shitty Raw. No surprise, really. Kane vs Rollins for the World title being the main feud when both have been booked as jokes for the past half year. Who the hell is going to become invested in that? Have Lesnar and Taker show up on Raw and I'll take time to catch those segments.


----------



## Stipe Tapped

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Good. They deserve it. I'd have some sympathy if they were actually trying to listen to the people and give them what they want, but no, Vince knows best, as always. He's going to run this company into the ground, and when the day comes to shut it all down, there'll be no-one to blame but himself. I'd have thought that a company would be pretty safe when they've essentially monopolised their industry, but evidently not. Says a lot about the shit they're churning out. It's literally never been worse. Never. It's been bad before, but never on this level.


----------



## Reaper

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Demoslasher said:


> 1. John Cena is crap, and can be directly linked to the current situation
> 
> 2. His use of politics will be talked about more when he retires to avoid pushback
> 
> 3. It's not entirely his fault though because Vince is just plain old, stubborn, and out of touch.
> 
> 4. Vince and dunnpushing kid friendly stuff almost killed them in the 90s until the NWO forced the attitude Era


But that's what I said so we're not in disagreement :shrug


----------



## witchblade000

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Does anyone else feels that all the main roster talent should go on strike against creative, Vince, and Dunn? 

Or at least refuse to work on the main roster and go to NXT til things improve?

But Cena needs to stay away from NXT though.


----------



## Mr Heisenberg

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Man I fucking *LOVE* this!! I LOVE that WWE is doing absolute SHIT and is going downhill, because it is all deserved. I've paid my dues, went to the last 2 wrestlemanias live, went to Summerslam in Brooklyn, I'm subscribed to the network and have a lot of shirts from WWE....

I used to watch it every week on Mondays up until about 5 weeks ago....such a weird feeling that I haven't watched in that long, but one day last week I walked into my brother's room and Raw was on, and Seth was put through a table I think and Kane's music was playing, and I immediately knew why I stopped watching. 

The sad thing is, is that it's fixable, but Vince needs to either finally leave or die (sorry smarks), creative needs an entire revamp, and it needs to go back to being 14A, no more PG. That's the truth....with guys like Owens and Zayn and Balor and Crews, the future stars look SICK AS FUCK but with the creative team and management, it doesn't matter how incredible the employees of the company is, if they aren't put in a situation to at least flourish and succeed, the company as a whole will never be successful.

WWE deserves all of this bullshit, so I'm glad they're doing garbage numbers. They brought it onto themselves. I really do believe one major spike in ratings will happen (Attitude Era style) ONLY because I see the potential in it....and believe in HHH - but more so, in the talent. I'm also very hopeful - maybe false hope, but I do believe it will go back to being edgier.

This is a blessing in disguise for the company, this entire downhill spiral and decreasing numbers, because WWE will have to do something to fix their entire company and image, and this will be as important to WWE as WCW and competition was to WWF.

We shall see


.


----------



## thegockster

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

John Cena is the problem, He has made millions of people switch channels, He now stops matches to milk a marriage proposal, He's the real cancer of the show


----------



## Stinger Fan

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


Reigns as champion would not have prevented the ratings from going down, especially during this time when the NFL season started and the MLB playoffs are on. Not to mention, the ratings were falling when Reigns was the focal point of RAW every week and that was without the NFL going on. So no, Reigns would not be the savior by any means. Also, pinning the entire blame on one person in 2015 really is silly, especially when the show is 3 hours long.


----------



## amhlilhaus

TheGimmickKiller said:


> This is probably the most depressing time to be a wwe fan. I can't say they don't deserve this, because they do -- if you put out shitty content, you'll get low ratings like these. But at the same time, it's sad as hell to see something I grew up loving so much do so poorly.


Fixed. Wrestling is doing alright.

Wrestling, not wwe. Record profits? Doesnt matter really. It takes time before apathy hits the bottom line. Wwe is a porcelin doll: pretty on the outside(record profits, strong network numbers, nxt) but its hollowed out and soulless.

Wrestling has freat stuff going on, lucha underground, roh and most important, new japan making inroads in the us and new japan world.

I feel sorry for you wwe fans. If youre that bad off, try some other things. Dont like it? Enjoy wwes decline


----------



## TripleG

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

The sad thing is that Seth is going to get blamed for it, but the show is just awful. It doesn't really matter who the champion is. The main story of the week for the last 5 or 6 shows has been "Corporate Kane plays nice, comes out as Demon Kane and kills Rollins, all the while they act like the two Kanes are different people". Does that make for compelling TV week after week? Heck, it wasn't compelling the first time they did it.


----------



## anirioc

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



The Apostate said:


> I think people need to admit just how important Cena really was to the show. Even though with him the ratings were still declining, had he not been as successful as he was with the kiddies, the WWE would've sunk to TNA level low by now.
> 
> The fans here won't admit it, but John Cena is the only legit draw the company has.
> 
> Yes, it's completely their fault for not creating and keeping a #2 , #3 and #4 to Cena and they should pay for it through even lower ratings ... but that doesn't mean that Cena was not important to the product. Like we've all been saying .. Cena draws a different demographic to the product --- but they need guys like Punk, Bryan and Owens in mega-draw spots just like Cena because it draws the rest.
> 
> Now that the company has none of these guys, their ratings are going to sink even lower.
> 
> I thought that 2014 was mid-90's level bad .... 2015 has surpassed the worst the WWE has ever been.


you nailed it.


----------



## The5star_Kid

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



amhlilhaus said:


> Fixed. Wrestling is doing alright.
> 
> Wrestling, not wwe. Record profits? Doesnt matter really. It takes time before apathy hits the bottom line. Wwe is a porcelin doll: pretty on the outside(record profits, strong network numbers, nxt) but its hollowed out and soulless.
> 
> Wrestling has freat stuff going on, lucha underground, roh and most important, new japan making inroads in the us and new japan world.
> 
> I feel sorry for you wwe fans. If youre that bad off, try some other things. Dont like it? Enjoy wwes decline


This is what I don't understand about some so called "hardcore" fans who quote indies but probably never watch them. For any sport, even a scripted one such as this, to be successful, it's premier brand has to be good. For football to be great in the UK, we need a strong PL and we have one and so on. 

The WWE is that equivalent for wrestling and in all honesty, often provides a better product than, say, ROH. You can say "nu-uh, that's not true, ROH so cool" but that's utter BS and you know it. You have a 1 or 2 hour show with a bunch of fluff, some absolutely rubbish characters, most of whom are cut outs of the CM Punk/Bryan template. That's it. There are goofy sections that make WWE seem like high art and the matches are just spot fests with no story and very little engagement. It's symptomatic of the whole industry, not just the WWE. 

Yes, ROH and Japan can throw up some cool things and make the industry interesting at times, on a personal level, I always enjoy a bit of AJ Styles or some of the more physical attributes of Japan. I really got into the whole LU approach, a crime drama wrapped up in a world of wrestling, the best alternative to the WWE in fact. But it's never consistent because wrestling has a whole has suffered in the new millennium.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Hawkke said:


> The amount of blame not going where it belongs in this thread is laughable. Do you blame the soup, or do you blame the cook?


Every chef will tell you that its the ingredients that makes the food special, such as how fresh it is and where it was sourced from. Otherwise you could make a robot to make the food for you perfect. 

Not saying the hierarchy is not to blame, it certainly is, but the roster just isnt as good as the AE or RA. They lack personality and the wrestling is too gymnastic.


----------



## Stone Hot

JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?


And if Reigns was champion right now he wouldn't be losing at all.


----------



## EireUnited

lol Kane is DREADFUL. The kind of scripted, boring, "Chief Executive Assistant" (or whatever), talking about corporate behaviour and office values etc, NONE of that resonates with fans. Not casual fans, not IWC, not young kids, not older people. NOBODY. It appeals solely to Vince, Stephanie and possibly HHH because it is the world they have been introduced to in recent years. It appeals to NOBODY else.


----------



## Drago

Badbadrobot said:


> Can we stop blaming wrestlers please people!!!
> 
> FFS it's the goddam booking


Let them have their delusions, that their favourites as champions would bring 4.0 ratings in space of a month.


----------



## Frost99

Well color me SHOCKED, I mean how could people NOT want to watch worthless filler matches, the LOLCENAWINS weekly open, NO Character development, piss poor promo's "This is real life son", a Divas regression & a main event where the guy without a mask put a mask on to pin clean the so called face of the company.

Yep some how people want to be ENTERTAINED, which means they DON'T watch Monday Night BORE.....

#howLOWcantheWWEgo


----------



## T0M

Superb news. I just pray it keeps on falling.


----------



## truelove

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I actually watched the Mets win and option 2 was football. New Day opening up and knowing Kane and Rollins was the main event already told me the show was gonna be shit from 8:30 on


----------



## Mr.Amazing5441

Everyone says that roh or njpw is alot better than WWE, WWE the show where the matches are all high spots and no psychology, I watched a roh show and it the same fucking thing, the commentary is God awful as well, njpw I tried to watch but the product is mostly all matches, not too much character in depth, my personal favorite show is LUCHA fucking Underground.

Now on topic, seriously WWE deserve this crap, the storylines are trash, there is no edge to anyone or anything, the star power is below zero to help you grasp into a match, the matches are also very predictable and have the same routine, the raw set is just bland, the song is also atrocious. Your Champion is a coward heel who gets beat up more than an Asain or Black kid does from his parents, he is feuding for the title against a demon who turned corporate, then back to demon, then back to corporate and has been a midcarder since 1997, your second main feud is between two youngsters who both need wins, one who is a charismatic, mic working machine who gets treated like shit from stars who don't need wins, and the other is the next face of the company who is being booked like the old face of the company who everyone is sick of. Your face of the company is someone is hated by his fans, and is not an amazing WRESTLER and is just plain boring and stale, one of your top faces who is over is being booked like shit, losing matches from left and right and isn't allowed to use his talents to his advantage, and is on the FUCKING PRE SHOW FOR THE NEXT PPV. That is a problem with everyone that is. Now your main event made two part timers who are for some reason the only interesting part of the show the never come to. And your show is opened or closed by a comedy stable that isn't taken seriously by anyone. They fucking deserve everything coming to them.


----------



## Ratedr4life

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

This has nothing to do with Seth Rollins' ability. He's reign just coincides with one of the most un-creative periods in the last 5 years. His main feud in 2015 is KANE!!

Cena is still featured heavily on the show, the Authority angle is STILL going on, should have died a year ago.

They promote Brock/Taker as the star attraction and make any time they appear a big deal (look at them promoting them next week). What does that say about your product "Hey don't worry about this week, nothing interesting happens, tune in next week for Brock, Taker, HBK and Flair!!!"

The creative process needs a serious overhaul and it has nothing to do with the PG rating.


----------



## The_It_Factor

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

WWE may be good again once USA stops seeing a need to invest in them. I've said it so many times that I'm being annoying with it, but if there was one 2 hour Raw each week and no Smackdown, programming would be infinitely better. It would be easier to book storyline-wise AND easier to book in that they wouldn't have to recycle matches so much. Also, a three hour show is a lot to watch. PPV's were always something where I'd grab some food and "settle in" for the show, now I'm expected to sit through 3.25 hours every Monday night (which I don't do anymore), plus the PPV's and supercards that they've been doing on the Network. If ratings tank low enough, USA will have a reason to cut at least an hour of primetime from WWE.

I don't care who the "superstars" are, a two-hour show each Monday night with the right bookers would make WWE so much better. Give Heyman and JR roles in booking, and voila. 

At this point it's just like watching a 3 hour rerun every week (sometimes multiple times per week).


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I bet Vince is regretting listening to Hunter and going with Seth instead of Reigns now :ti
> 
> Remember the countless threads saying that once Reigns becomes champion the ratings will tank lower than ever before and his spot should be given to someone like Rollins?
> :ha


Yes, because the ratings would be significantly different if Reigns was champion instead. You are basing that of course on absolutely nothing.

The ratings are going to continue to decline, regardless of who is champion. One guy doesn't change the ratings scale. They can help, but they aren't going to stop a downward trend of ratings and they aren't going to start an upward trend either. The Rock didn't do it and neither did Austin.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



AlternateDemise said:


> Yes, because the ratings would be significantly different if Reigns was champion instead. You are basing that of course on absolutely nothing.
> 
> The ratings are going to continue to decline, regardless of who is champion. One guy doesn't change the ratings scale. They can help, but they aren't going to stop a downward trend of ratings and they aren't going to start an upward trend either. The Rock didn't do it and neither did Austin.


You along with countless others don't get it. I never said Reigns would do better ratings. Vince didn't go with Reigns at Wrestlemania because he thought it would fail and the ratings would die, so he listened to Hunter and the IWC by going with Rollins instead, a guy who ultimately failed. If Vince would have just went with his idea, the ratings would be down but atleast he'd be happy with Reigns and we would have a new star, a hated one but a star no less. 

All I did was show the irony of how everyone who claimed Reigns would kill the ratings and Seth should take his spot are now trying to use every excuse in the book in order to cover for Rollins doing exactly what people said Reigns would do.


----------



## HankHill_85

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

There comes a time when the argument of "wrestling popularity is cyclical" gets thrown right out the window. That time has come.


----------



## The Caped Crusader

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

B-b-b-but CM Punk/Daniel Bryans/insertsuperstar here could have created enough buzz for a new boom period! A new boom period! :lmao

This isn't a surprise. I've been saying this for years now. WWE's product is pretty crap, and has been since 5-6 years ago. It's just a slow decline, that will get worse until they manage to fix their creative issues, and create a new batch of superstars. They need to be aiming for stability, rather than anything else. They do have that for the most part to be honest, but ratings have a lot of factors involved which will only make things harder.


----------



## Blade Runner

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

just curious, what record did they break? the lowest rating ever for RAW was in december of 1996 and it's STILL the lowest rating ever


----------



## Bazinga

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

I'm starting to wish TNA succeeded on 4th January 2010 to give WWE some competition.

Any form of legit competition is needed to give WWE the shot in the arm it needs.


----------



## Tiger Driver '91

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

damn. not surprised much though. I fell asleep during it this week.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*


----------



## Elly Elephant

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Stephen90 said:


> Can't blame them Trevor Philips is a way better character than Seth Rollins.


their both the same........

both had strong starts, average middles and terrible endings.......

seth in shield = trevor up until he arrives at los santos

seth vs ambrose = trevors highlights in the middle half of the game

seth vs sting = the back half of trevors story.... illogical and completely removed from where it began.......

both characters started 8/10 and are now 4/10......


sad fate for both.....


----------



## theboxingfan

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*

Ratings don't show the whole story in 2015. 

People watch on the internet these days like I do if I ever watch Raw.

Plus those damn commercials.


----------



## Elly Elephant

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Bazinga said:


> I'm starting to wish TNA succeeded on 4th January 2010 to give WWE some competition.
> 
> Any form of legit competition is needed to give WWE the shot in the arm it needs.


Their biggest mistake was not using hogan as an enhancement talent, What i mean is... instead of making him a g.m and having him their every week, 

Have him turn up for big occasions... like a big world title match, maybe a heels going to far so hogan turns up to politic in the faces defence, shit like that, 

what i'm getting it here is the talent would always be the focus but you can use hogan and foley to ''sell'' your stars and product, 

have hogan/ foley/sting ect, suck tna talent off..... not bury them...... 

but i'm just stating the obvious.......


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> You along with countless others don't get it.


Yes we do. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I never said Reigns would do better ratings. Vince didn't go with Reigns at Wrestlemania because he thought it would fail and the ratings would die, so he listened to Hunter and the IWC by going with Rollins instead, a guy who ultimately failed.


1. He went with Rollins because Rollins was ready for a main event push. Reigns clearly was not, and the fans were not willing to accept him as a main eventer. 

2. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Rollins was going to get a world title reign at some point in the near future. That plan simply got moved up to Wrestlemania because WWE needed to back themselves out of a corner...again.

3. Again, how has Rollins ultimately failed? I keep hearing people say this and no one has given me any reasonable explanation for why he's a failure apart from just saying it. He wasn't going to bump up the ratings. He wasn't going to change WWE's culture. What he did do was manage to get people to dislike him and his title reign. I'd say that's pretty good for him considering how, oh I don't know, he's a heel? As I said before, one man isn't going to bring up the ratings. Saying Rollins is a failure because of that is both illogical and lolworthy.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> If Vince would have just went with his idea, the ratings would be down but atleast he'd be happy with Reigns and we would have a new star, a hated one but a star no less.


Wait what?

:ha

I'm sorry, but how the hell would Vince be happy? The guy he wants to replace John Cena as the face of the company would have his first world title reign be an utter disaster. Fans would hate him tremendously and no new fans would be brought in because Vince would quickly realize that Reigns isn't good at anything and thus is going to fail. Vince wouldn't be happy, he would probably kill half of his crew members out of anger. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> All I did was show the irony of how everyone who claimed Reigns would kill the ratings and Seth should take his spot are now trying to use every excuse in the book in order to cover for Rollins doing exactly what people said Reigns would do.


But here's the part you aren't getting. Rollins isn't doing that. And even if he was, you don't have anything to show for it. None of the people here who continue to spew bullshit about Rollins being a ratings killer have nothing to show for it. And they can claim it all they want, that's perfectly fine with me, because they will continue to embarrass themselves when they try to prove it and realize why what they're trying to argue doesn't make any sense.


----------



## murder

As far as I remember, people didn't want Rollins in Reigns' spot, they wanted Bryan in that spot.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



AlternateDemise said:


> Yes we do.
> 
> 
> 
> 1. He went with Rollins because Rollins was ready for a main event push. Reigns clearly was not, and the fans were not willing to accept him as a main eventer.
> 
> 2. I'm not sure if you realize this or not, but Rollins was going to get a world title reign at some point in the near future. That plan simply got moved up to Wrestlemania because WWE needed to back themselves out of a corner...again.
> 
> 3. Again, how has Rollins ultimately failed? I keep hearing people say this and no one has given me any reasonable explanation for why he's a failure apart from just saying it. He wasn't going to bump up the ratings. He wasn't going to change WWE's culture. What he did do was manage to get people to dislike him and his title reign. I'd say that's pretty good for him considering how, oh I don't know, he's a heel? As I said before, one man isn't going to bring up the ratings. Saying Rollins is a failure because of that is both illogical and lolworthy.
> 
> 
> 
> Wait what?
> 
> :ha
> 
> I'm sorry, but how the hell would Vince be happy? The guy he wants to replace John Cena as the face of the company would have his first world title reign be an utter disaster. Fans would hate him tremendously and no new fans would be brought in because Vince would quickly realize that Reigns isn't good at anything and thus is going to fail. Vince wouldn't be happy, he would probably kill half of his crew members out of anger.
> 
> 
> 
> But here's the part you aren't getting. Rollins isn't doing that. And even if he was, you don't have anything to show for it. None of the people here who continue to spew bullshit about Rollins being a ratings killer have nothing to show for it. And they can claim it all they want, that's perfectly fine with me, because they will continue to embarrass themselves when they try to prove it and realize why what they're trying to argue doesn't make any sense.


1. Vince never saw that Reigns wasn't ready, he was going to win the title until like a few hours before the match. Hunter obviously changed his mind with Rollins winning cause it would be best for business. It wasn't. 

2. I don't see how this has anything to do with Vince wanting Reigns on top. Obviously they saw Seth as a future world champ but that is completely unrelated to what I'm saying. 

3. He is a failure, plain and simple. Not even bringing the ratings into this (which would be a whole other thing by itself) One of the hardest pushed guys in the history of WWE yet feels and presents himself like a midcard, has the mic skills of a jobber during the AE and is just boring. Crowd chanting boring like 2 times in a show at your WORLD CHAMPION and you don't consider that a failure?

And as if Vince cares about his golden boys getting booed, if he did Cena would definitely not be on top for this long. Reigns would be exactly what he wanted, a Cena jr. and he would be happy, fan reaction be damned. He would of made a star that night and would probably make another the moment someone beat Reigns. Instead we have a show full of geeks and part timers who are starting to look like geeks as well. 

So Rollins as champion hasn't driven the ratings to record lows, but if Reigns was champion it would? May I guide you back to my original post because you obviously don't see the irony here. And no evidence? Have you taken a look at the ratings thread ever since Seth became champion? Or what about Raw is Rollins, the night he had two matches along with countless promos, one being a 20 minute one ( which got boring chants ) and the show did horrible. Seth as you guessed it was promoted for the main event and there was actually a 500k viewership lost between the second and third hour. Ofcourse, blame it on booking when it's your favorite but when it's someone like Reigns, it's his fault.
:ha


----------



## krillep

*WWE RAW RATINGS - BREAKS 17 YEAR RECORD LOW*

All-time low. It's not just the product, how they have treated the wrestlers, the fans, people have lost some respect for WWE and the product. 

It's not the PG Era, more like the Boring Era. Maybe that's the same thing when the biggest chant on RAW is RKO(who people hated and Boreton) and now he got over because of internet memes. lol, that says it all really about todays disorientated product/fanbase/writers etc.



> The only episode of the show since 1997 that did worse was a Christmas Eve show in 2012 that did 3.14 million viewers.


http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/wwe-raw-ratings-10-12-breaks-17-year-record-low-199671


----------



## CM Buck

*Re: WWE RAW RATINGS - BREAKS 17 YEAR RECORD LOW*

There's a ratings thread man. Go to the raw and smackdown it's a sticky thread


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: WWE RAW RATINGS - BREAKS 17 YEAR RECORD LOW*

I have a feeling that it will get lower too.


----------



## Suck It

*Re: WWE RAW RATINGS - BREAKS 17 YEAR RECORD LOW*



Freelancer said:


> I have a feeling that it will get lower too.


Hopefully. nothing will ever change unless something drastic like that happens.


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> 1. Vince never saw that Reigns wasn't ready, he was going to win the title until like a few hours before the match. Hunter obviously changed his mind with Rollins winning cause it would be best for business. It wasn't.


It was definitely a better option business wise than having Reigns win the title. This is an indisputable fact. Having a guy who is actually ready is always a better option than a guy who isn't ready.

Regardless, I remember there being countless reports stating that Vince decided that Reigns simply wasn't ready to be the new WWE champion (but I can't find any reports about it at the moment, so hold me out on it because you might be right).



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> 2. I don't see how this has anything to do with Vince wanting Reigns on top. Obviously they saw Seth as a future world champ but that is completely unrelated to what I'm saying.


Because you are acting like Seth becoming world champion was only a possibility because of Hunter, when that simply isn't the case. If they had plans for him to become champion in the future, then it's pretty obvious he had more than Hunter's support.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> 3. He is a failure, plain and simple. Not even bringing the ratings into this (which would be a whole other thing by itself)


Again, how do you know this is the case? You and many others keep on saying this and you have nothing to show for it. In other words you're proving my point. 

Overall ratings don't tell us the story, especially without ratings breakdowns. For all we know, the moments of Raw that have its highest ratings are when Rollins is on the show. I don't know, you don't know, so going back to this argument just means you're looking for a reason to hate on Rollins and his title reign. You know what they call that? Grasping straws. And you're doing it very well.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> One of the hardest pushed guys in the history of WWE yet feels and presents himself like a midcard


:kobe Care to be a little more specific about this?



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> has the mic skills of a jobber during the AE and is just boring.


This isn't the Attitude Era. These are different times now. I don't know why you think bringing up the AE proves anything, but you're wasting your time at this point if you think it does. What worked then isn't going to work now. WWE can't just go back to those times. They do have to change up their whole product like they did when they started the AE, I agree with that, but if they try to replicate that era again it's not going to be met with the same results as before. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Crowd chanting boring like 2 times in a show at your WORLD CHAMPION and you don't consider that a failure?


When did this happen?



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> And as if Vince cares about his golden boys getting booed, if he did Cena would definitely not be on top for this long.


Yes he would, because John Cena has been their top draw for the past decade now. WWE knows that he's still responsible for a good amount of the fans watching. When John Cena first became WWE champion, do you think he was being booed everywhere he went? In case you don't know, no he wasn't. He and Batista were the hottest thing going for WWE at that point. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Reigns would be exactly what he wanted, a Cena jr. and he would be happy, fan reaction be damned.


I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this. One of the reasons why Reigns isn't WWE champion now is because of the reactions he got from the fans. You can't just say complete bullshit like this and expect me to buy it. It simply isn't true. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> He would of made a star that night and would probably make another the moment someone beat Reigns.


I'm not sure if I should even continue this any further. Winning that match would have made Reigns even more hated than before. I don't know where you got your facts from in regards to making stars, but that's not how a star is born. That's not how Cena became a star, that's not how Punk became a star, and it's not how Bryan became a star. They had a huge fanbase to support them. Reigns does not. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Instead we have a show full of geeks and part timers who are starting to look like geeks as well.
> 
> 
> 
> JonMoxleyReborn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Seth as you guessed it was promoted for the main event and there was actually a 500k viewership lost between the second and third hour. Ofcourse, blame it on booking when it's your favorite but when it's someone like Reigns, it's his fault.
> :ha
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not surprised to see someone go back to this point. Three things
> 
> 1: The ratings ALWAYS go down during the third hour. This isn't an uncommon occurrence.
> 
> 2. Who was Seth's opponent? Why is it only Seth's fault? I could use your logic and say that one person in a MITB match is the reason that PPV didn't get good buys.
> 
> 3. Between the second and third hour. That's an entire hour. So I guess Seth's hour long main event killed the ratings. Oh wait, Seth's match wasn't an entire hour. It wasn't even 1/4th of that hour, was it?
> 
> In other words, no, you don't have evidence. If we had a ratings breakdown, it would be much easier to determine whether or not you're right. But all you're doing once again is grasping at straws. Give me some actual evidence. Otherwise you're pretty much wrong entirely on the matter.
Click to expand...


----------



## almostfamous

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



theboxingfan said:


> Ratings don't show the whole story in 2015.
> 
> People watch on the internet these days like I do if I ever watch Raw.


Tell that to the USA Network.


----------



## almostfamous

The ratings will go back up around the Royal Rumble and the RTW like always, but it's impossible to ignore the downward trend.

The product needs a revamp in nearly every aspect, but especially creative. How many fresh ideas can a 70 year old man have at this point? Install a new show runner like a normal show--for example, Vince Gilligan is revered a creative genius, but I can guarantee he would run out of material after writing Breaking Bad for 40 years.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

The entire show needs restructure. 3 hours is just to long to devote for a scripted tv show.

Its not a real sport. People are not talking to friends, family, and co-workers about RAW the next day like with football. You cant tell someone about a super cool match and feud and expect them to jump into it. It could be on any part of the 3 hours with all that crap in-between.
Because its so long and tedious its going to be extremely hard to for them to bring in new viewers which is what they desperately need. RAW is bleeding old viewers and not replenishing them with new viewers.

Who wants to jump into a 3 hour show of junk with no season breaks? You have no idea whats going on. You can't binge watch to catch up. Its not new fan friendly at all. 

Then the third hour of RAW is at 10-11pm when kids are asleep!! They aim their show towards kids but the kids are not even awake for half of it. yikes its just a mess.

If TNA could just hang on WWE might lower to their level in the future. instead of passing WWE they could just tie.


----------



## JonMoxleyReborn

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



AlternateDemise said:


> Because you are acting like Seth becoming world champion was only a possibility because of Hunter, when that simply isn't the case. If they had plans for him to become champion in the future, then it's pretty obvious he had more than Hunter's support.


He definitely wasn't gonna win it at this years Wrestlemania if it wasn't for Hunter. Who knows, he might of even had an unsuccessful cash in, as there were reports of them trying to break Punk's record. 




> Again, how do you know this is the case? You and many others keep on saying this and you have nothing to show for it. In other words you're proving my point.
> Overall ratings don't tell us the story, especially without ratings breakdowns. For all we know, the moments of Raw that have its highest ratings are when Rollins is on the show. I don't know, you don't know, so going back to this argument just means you're looking for a reason to hate on Rollins and his title reign. You know what they call that? Grasping straws. And you're doing it very well.


Suuuure, it's just a coincidence that even though, " Rollins has the highest rated segment " his hour is usually the one that does the worst. The only one grasping straws here is you trying to prove that Rollins is not a failure of a champ, even though the only thing his reign has brought us other than boring promos is record low ratings. 



> :kobe Care to be a little more specific about this?


First NXT champ, beat Evolution, MITB winner, Beat Lesnar, beat Reigns, beat Sting, beat Cena, 6 month world title reign, US and WWE champ at the same time, featured the most on Raw. Nobody has gotten a bigger push than Rollins has in a very long time. Him losing on random smackdowns and house shows mean nothing. 




> This isn't the Attitude Era. These are different times now. I don't know why you think bringing up the AE proves anything, but you're wasting your time at this point if you think it does. What worked then isn't going to work now. WWE can't just go back to those times. They do have to change up their whole product like they did when they started the AE, I agree with that, but if they try to replicate that era again it's not going to be met with the same results as before.


I resembled Rollins horrifically average and boring mic skills to a jobber during the days where mic skills were praised. 



> When did this happen?


The recent Rollins 20 minute boring opening promo. He got them twice in the night where he was featured for almost a whole hour. 





> Yes he would, because John Cena has been their top draw for the past decade now. WWE knows that he's still responsible for a good amount of the fans watching. When John Cena first became WWE champion, do you think he was being booed everywhere he went? In case you don't know, no he wasn't. He and Batista were the hottest thing going for WWE at that point.


Cena started getting booed in 2006, if Vince cared about fan reactions to someone he sees as the next face of the company Cena wouldn't still be at the top 9 years later. It wasn't like the company depended on Cena in 2006 either. Vince just saw his next golden boy and stuck to it, fan reactions be damned, and he was happy from it. 





> I can't believe you're actually trying to argue this. One of the reasons why Reigns isn't WWE champion now is because of the reactions he got from the fans. You can't just say complete bullshit like this and expect me to buy it. It simply isn't true.


Like I said, Hunter convinced him otherwise, Vince was gonna go with Reigns until hours before the match. And now he's just waiting till Wrestlemania to give Reigns the title. Seems like Reigns can't win the title anywhere else. 



> I'm not surprised to see someone go back to this point. Three things
> 
> 1: The ratings ALWAYS go down during the third hour. This isn't an uncommon occurrence.
> 
> 2. Who was Seth's opponent? Why is it only Seth's fault? I could use your logic and say that one person in a MITB match is the reason that PPV didn't get good buys.
> 
> 3. Between the second and third hour. That's an entire hour. So I guess Seth's hour long main event killed the ratings. Oh wait, Seth's match wasn't an entire hour. It wasn't even 1/4th of that hour, was it?
> 
> In other words, no, you don't have evidence. If we had a ratings breakdown, it would be much easier to determine whether or not you're right. But all you're doing once again is grasping at straws. Give me some actual evidence. Otherwise you're pretty much wrong entirely on the matter.


The viewership usually goes down in the third hour that's true, but ever heard it go down by 500k?

Seth was promoted for the main event of Raw for the whole show and as a result, people knew what to expect from Rollins and didn't waste their time. 

Seth was actually featured on that show for atleast an hour. From his 20 minute boring promo to his two 15 minute matches to his countless backstage promos. 
The show broke record low ratings and they haven't featured Rollins that much since. 

But all of this is irrelevant. Seth, like Reigns was a huge mistake but from both of those mistakes, Vince wanted Reigns but was convinced otherwise. All I'm saying is that he probably regrets this decision seeing how Rollins hasn't worked out like he was told he would.

Man I bet if Reigns was champion and getting these horrific ratings you'd be here claiming it's his fault.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



The Caped Crusader said:


> B-b-b-but CM Punk/Daniel Bryans/insertsuperstar here could have created enough buzz for a new boom period! A new boom period! :lmao
> 
> This isn't a surprise. I've been saying this for years now. WWE's product is pretty crap, and has been since 5-6 years ago. It's just a slow decline, that will get worse until they manage to fix their creative issues, and create a new batch of superstars. They need to be aiming for stability, rather than anything else. They do have that for the most part to be honest, but ratings have a lot of factors involved which will only make things harder.





WWE's product has been crap since 2001, with some good and bad in between. They maybe losing a little bit in TV revenue, but now TV revenue is only a tenth of their income so they aren't actually hurting from this ratings decline.


----------



## LilOlMe

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



bigdog40 said:


> WWE's product has been crap since 2001, with some good and bad in between. They maybe losing a little bit in TV revenue, but now TV revenue is only a tenth of their income so they aren't actually hurting from this ratings decline.


Where the hell are you getting that from? They make $150 million off of tv revenue. That's like 30% of their business. Of course it matters.


----------



## WindowsUpdate

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



AlternateDemise said:


> 3. Again, how has Rollins ultimately failed? I keep hearing people say this and no one has given me any reasonable explanation for why he's a failure apart from just saying it. He wasn't going to bump up the ratings. He wasn't going to change WWE's culture. What he did do was manage to get people to dislike him and his title reign. I'd say that's pretty good for him considering how, oh I don't know, he's a heel? As I said before, one man isn't going to bring up the ratings. Saying Rollins is a failure because of that is both illogical and lolworthy.


He has failed by being awful at his job. He was given 40 minutes of screen time per episode, most of which consisted of long, monotonous, and poorly delivered promos from a guy who lacks verbal skills and charisma, which turned people off of the main event scene.

And no, a heel's job is most certainly not to get everyone to hate his title reign to the point where they just stop watching. Only in the mind of an idiot is that the case.


----------



## The Tempest

Chart:


----------



## AlternateDemise

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> He definitely wasn't gonna win it at this years Wrestlemania if it wasn't for Hunter. Who knows, he might of even had an unsuccessful cash in, as there were reports of them trying to break Punk's record.


He wasn't going to win at Wrestlemania if it wasn't for Reigns failing as a face. Apparently you aren't getting this.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Suuuure, it's just a coincidence that even though, " Rollins has the highest rated segment " his hour is usually the one that does the worst.


I'm not saying Rollins did have the highest segment, I'm saying that you do not know this. And you don't have sufficient evidence to prove otherwise.



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> The only one grasping straws here is you trying to prove that Rollins is not a failure of a champ, even though the only thing his reign has brought us other than boring promos is record low ratings.


Except once again, he hasn't brought us record low ratings. Monday Night Raw has brought record low ratings. Again, we do not know that Rollins is the main reason.

If you want to say Rollins is a failure, then by all means do so, but have some legitimate evidence to support the matter. If you're giving me crap like you are now, I'm going to point it out. I'm not grasping at straws, I'm questioning the bullshit you're presenting in your argument. 




JonMoxleyReborn said:


> First NXT champ, beat Evolution, MITB winner, Beat Lesnar


Um, when did Rollins "beat" Lesnar? I understand he pinned Reigns in a match that involved Lesnar to win Lesnar's WWE title, after cashing in his briefcase. But I wouldn't necessarily call that "beating" Lesnar. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> I resembled Rollins horrifically average and boring mic skills to a jobber during the days where mic skills were praised.


Actually you compared. Resembled is something you would do when talking about their appearance. 




JonMoxleyReborn said:


> The recent Rollins 20 minute boring opening promo. He got them twice in the night where he was featured for almost a whole hour.


I'll have to look this up. 



JonMoxleyReborn said:


> Cena started getting booed in 2006, if Vince cared about fan reactions to someone he sees as the next face of the company Cena wouldn't still be at the top 9 years later. It wasn't like the company depended on Cena in 2006 either. Vince just saw his next golden boy and stuck to it, fan reactions be damned, and he was happy from it.


Like two previous people before me, you have made a claim so incredibly outrageous and wrong that I'm not going to bother with reading the rest of your post. Hopefully there's nothing else worse than what you're saying here.

But let me break it down into detail so you understand why this is incredibly wrong.

1. Cena started getting booed in 2005 when Christian was calling him out. Then the boos became more noticeable during his feuds with Jericho and Angle. Both of these feuds happened before 2006.

2. Vince cared a lot about those fans booing him. It bothered the shit out of him. It's one of the reasons why Christian was never pushed. It's why Vince added a submission move to Cena's moveset during his feud with Angle. It's why they portrayed Cena as a guy who had to overcome the odds and wasn't necessarily a great wrestler. What WWE didn't take into account was that this would actually backfire against them because Wrestling fans are smarter than they think. They even had Cena be the first person to pin and submit Khali, a guy who was universally hated at the time. And, guess what? That backfired. 

3. "If Vince cared about fan reactions, Cena wouldn't be on top 9 years later". If Vince didn't care about fan reactions, why did Daniel Bryan main event Wrestlemania 30 and win the World title (and don't say because CM Punk left because that just allowed Bryan to face Triple H, not to be in the main event)? If he didn't care about fan reactions, why was Jack Swagger suddenly built up as Rusev's biggest threat after he gained great fan support for turning face? If Vince didn't care about fan reactions, then why on gods green earth did he fucking Vickie Guerrero around for as long as he did? I'll give you a hint, it wasn't because of her looks. You know what, fuck it, I'll give you the answer, it's because of the reaction she got from the fans.

But here's the thing you are failing miserably to understand, and this goes into the final point.

4. "It wasn't like the company depended on Cena in 2006 either. Vince just saw his next golden boy and stuck to it, fan reactions be damned, and he was happy from it. "

You need to do some research. This is literally as far from the truth as you can possibly get. In 2004, before even getting a main event push, Cena was already one of WWE's top draws. He was over big time and people loved him. He had a great gimmick and was basically carrying Smackdown at this point. Unlike Roman Reigns, who doesn't have anything remotely close to this, Cena was one of WWE's top draws. And guess what? Cena was also good at something. I like Reigns, but he currently isn't. 

So no, Vince didn't just pick out Cena randomly and ran with it. Sure Cena got booed about two years later, but he still had an incredible following of fans and guess what? He still does. Cena was carrying the company on his back at this point, and was helping contribute to the ratings actually going up rather than going down. He was the clear and obvious choice to make the face of the company going forward. 

Two people repped me telling me to stop wasting my time on you. I guess they were right, so I'm ending it on this. You can sit here and deny what I said to you all you want, but at some point you're going to have to start accepting facts.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

So they strategically placed a legend at the top of each hour. Hour one should get a pop on the ratings as that was the most stacked. I would've had Shawn say something like "Rollins you're one of the most talented guys on the roster but your attitude sucks and that's why you're not living up to your potential." There you have one of the best wrestlers compliment your champion while scolding him for his heel ways. Instead you call him a cheap version of Shawn who doesn't cut it. Barring Cena and Reigns, they create this perception that non of the guys are as good as the legends. 

P.S. I didn't really see Raw and I'm hoping Rollins looked better than what I read.


----------



## Old School Icons

RAW was better this week. Not difficult.

Starting off with Stone Cold was great. Its a shame Taker and Austin didn't share a few words for old times sake.

The Shield/Wyatt's thing being in the same arena as their all time classic six man last year was nice but why go the trouble of doing that if its not the same line up and Harper in there instead of Strowman.

Also... Eric Rowan will be nominated for most anti-climatic return in WWE history after this RAW :Rollins


----------



## RatedR10

Bring on these numbers, baby.


I've become a casual viewer thanks to WWE's shitty programming. I tuned in for the opening (Austin, Taker, Lesnar), tuned out... came back at 9pm (HBK, Rollins), tuned out... came back at 10pm and saw Roman cutting a promo, so I tuned out and I came back for that weak main event, for some reason. WWE has turned someone who use to be a hardcore fan that watched no matter what to being an ultra-casual viewer and very close to completely losing me. I watched the Canadian Election coverage over the show. I watched baseball over the show.

Good job, WWE. The only thing related to WWE nowadays that I look forward to is these ratings.

I sincerely hope this week's number is absolute shit, too, because then Vince might realize that part-timers aren't going to fix this.


----------



## DoubtGin

the most exciting time of the week :mark:


----------



## Tardbasher12

When do the numbers come out?


----------



## D.M.N.




----------



## A-C-P

3.6 thats all the Bump it got and right back to normal for the last 2 hours?

:ha:maury:bryanlol:maisielol:tysonlol:reneelelfrankielel:HA:duck


----------



## The Tempest

Average is 3,356 milions, not even going past 3,5 :lmao :lmao :lmao :ha :ti RAW's dead brehs :frankielel


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

BRING BACK THE PART TIMERS AND RETIRED LEGENDS THEY SAID. IT'S ALL ON ONE GUY, THEY SAID.


:lmao :lmao :lmao

:rollins


----------



## Chrome

Well it went up a little bit at least. :larry





















:mj4


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Well, even the elderly cant draw. Vince's ratings have fallen and they can't get up. :HA :ha :bryanlol


----------



## Stone Hot

Not bad this week could do better but improvement non the less and People please enough with all the gifs. Your Over saturating them.


----------



## RatedR10

I fucking knew this was going to happen. :lmao 3.6 and then right back to normal. That 3.6 probably saved the show from falling below 3 million in the final hour. :lmao


----------



## Stone Hot

They should have Austin Taker and Brock more towards the end instead of blowing them all in the first hour. Spread them out. 

Doesn't matter wwe is not going anywhere people


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Not bad this week could do better but improvement non the less and People please enough with all the gifs. Your Over saturating them.


Feel free to leave the thread anytime if you don't like the gifs. Hope you're getting a sweet gift card from all the defending of WWE you do.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Looks like they might have to start writing a better show, poor souls


----------



## Born of Osiris

WWE :lose :lose :lose :lose :lose :lose :lose :ti :Jordan :haha :HA :ha :aryalol :Jordan2 :lose :lose :lose


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Feel free to leave the thread anytime if you don't like the gifs. Hope you're getting a sweet gift card from all the defending of WWE you do.


Na I don't think I'm going to do that and I'm just being honest. Don't like well tough love. Go ahead and give me all the Negatives you want.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

3.52 (last week)
3.25
3.08


3.600 (this week)
3.347
3.123


Not bad. Wasnt there a big game on yesterday? If so it proves legends to draw a bit but not much.


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Na I don't think I'm going to do that and I'm just being honest. Don't like well tough love. Go ahead and give me all the Negatives you want.


Then don't complain about the gifs then. :draper2


----------



## The Tempest

Stone Hot said:


> Not bad this week could do better but improvement non the less and People please enough with all the gifs. Your Over saturating them.


No one is forcing you to stay here ut

Now excuse us, :ha :ti :bryanlol :frankielol :frankielel :reneelel :LOL :nikkilol :HA :lose


----------



## Stone Hot

TheShieldSuck said:


> 3.52 (last week)
> 3.25
> 3.08
> 
> 
> 3.600 (this week)
> 3.347
> 3.123
> 
> 
> Not bad. Wasnt there a big game on yesterday? If so it proves legends to draw a bit but not much.


Exactly.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Then don't complain about the gifs then. :draper2


Just saying you're over saturating them and their starting to not mean anything anymore.


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Just saying you're over saturating them and their starting to not mean anything anymore.


Cool, no one cares. Go make a Rant if you're this mad about it.


----------



## JBLoser

LOL. A negligible bump of about 72K viewers. That's NOTHING. That's a problem, and folks aren't even tuning in for the part-timers anymore in droves. It's damning of an entire product and they're such a mess right now in short week planning AND long-term planning. Christ.

They have completely run out of things to do to bump up the numbers. It's astounding really.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

See now this is what happens when you put Reigns front and center for his team's side of the main event advertisement card.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Cool, no one cares. Go make a Rant if you're this mad about it.


Not mad just stating the obvious


----------



## TheShieldSuck

JBLoser said:


> LOL. A negligible bump of about 72K viewers. That's NOTHING. That's a problem, and folks aren't even tuning in for the part-timers anymore in droves. It's damning of an entire product and they're such a mess right now in short week planning AND long-term planning. Christ.
> 
> They have completely run out of things to do to bump up the numbers. It's astounding really.


Even if they managed to double the quality of RAW it wouldn't stop the decline IMO. People just dont want 3 hours of wrestling. Hell even I before I go to the cinema look for the running time and only watch 3hr films if its something big like the Dark Knight. The 3hrs is killing the fans passion for wrestling by oversatuating it with it. This is dangerous stuff. This is what brought about the collapse of the gaming industry back in the 80s because there was too much shite on the market.


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Not mad just stating the obvious


Nah you definitely mad, otherwise you wouldn't be in here complaining about them. It's not even that bad tbh unless your internet connection is super slow or something.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Nah you definitely mad, otherwise you wouldn't be in here complaining about them. It's not even that bad tbh unless your internet connection is super slow or something.


Na I'm really not mad at all. I'm just stating the obvious.


Anyways yeah I agree 3hours need to go. 5 hours of wwe on prime time is way to much. you don't want to spoil the audience


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Na I'm really not mad at all. I'm just stating the obvious.
> 
> 
> Anyways yeah I agree 3hours need to go.


Let's be honest though, if people were posting smiley gifs like crazy praising the WWE, you wouldn't be complaining at all and would likely be joining them if anything. You simply don't like people criticizing your beloved WWE. If you're gonna keep posting here, you're gonna have to accept the fact that the majority here don't like the WWE, and bad ratings is going to cause excitement among us.


----------



## Swissblade

Fucking good. Maybe now they'll actually start doing something with the younger guys. Y'know, the guys who actually show up every Monday and will be carrying your shows for the next couple of years?


----------



## Badbadrobot

TheShieldSuck said:


> Even if they managed to double the quality of RAW it wouldn't stop the decline IMO. People just dont want 3 hours of wrestling. Hell even I before I go to the cinema look for the running time and only watch 3hr films if its something big like the Dark Knight. The 3hrs is killing the fans passion for wrestling by oversatuating it with it. This is dangerous stuff. This is what brought about the collapse of the gaming industry back in the 80s because there was too much shite on the market.



Look the reasons are manifold:

3 hr programming

Poor booking and creative

No new stars

Reliance on part timers

Continuing with an authority story line

Etc etc

It's never as simple as one thing


----------



## Badbadrobot

ShadowKiller said:


> Fucking good. Maybe now they'll actually start doing something with the younger guys. Y'know, the guys who actually show up every Monday and will be carrying your shows for the next couple of years?


What you don't want to see old guys come out and talk and add nothing to any of the storylines?!?

I'm in the minority but i thought yesterday's raw perfectly encapsulated so much that is wrong with the product


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Let's be honest though, if people were posting smiley gifs like crazy praising the WWE, you wouldn't be complaining at all and would likely be joining them if anything. You simply don't like people criticizing your beloved WWE. If you're gonna keep posting here, you're gonna have to accept the fact that the majority here don't like the WWE, and bad ratings is going to cause excitement among us.


 I never said you can't criticize WWE it has been shit lately I agree. all I'm saying is the gifs are oversaturated that's the only point was trying to make criticize wwe all you want we need it so We can finally write better storyline to make a better product. Also lol why do you keep putting yourself through it every night if you hate it so much. Just stop watching if you do and don't say you don't watch cause you do.


----------



## Chrome

Badbadrobot said:


> Look the reasons are manifold:
> 
> 3 hr programming
> 
> Poor booking and creative
> 
> No new stars
> 
> Reliance on part timers
> 
> *Continuing with an authority story line*
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> It's never as simple as one thing


That's probably one of the biggest reasons why the ratings suck tbh. Authority should've never came back late last year.


----------



## Annihilus

The rating is still pathetic, this is them stacking the show with Austin/Undertaker/Lesnar/etc and it barely moved the needle compared to last week. Also just comparing to last week is irrelevant, we need to be comparing it to two weeks ago, a month ago, and even further back. This monday's show drew 3.356 million, the Raw from a month ago drew 3.349 million, virtually identical, and nothing special happened on the show a month ago. This is just a continuing downward spiral for WWE. 

Ratings will rise again a bit when the Rumble and WM come around again, but then they'll plummet even lower after WM. This decline of the general public's interest in wrestling over the last decade should be raising a lot of concerns for WWE. It doesn't even matter if they could pop a rating by bringing every living, breathing legend back on a weekly basis, that's just a temporary bandaid and doesn't address the fact that none of the current roster is a draw, thanks to Cena being the only one booked strongly for 10 years.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Badbadrobot said:


> Look the reasons are manifold:
> 
> 3 hr programming
> 
> Poor booking and creative
> 
> No new stars
> 
> Reliance on part timers
> 
> Continuing with an authority story line
> 
> Etc etc
> 
> It's never as simple as one thing


Actually it can be reduced to one thing: Lack of accountability AKA Vince McMahon. As long as the CEO and creative are McMahons and they are majority shareholders then the product will never be for the fans but for the McMahons ego. Even HHH will become like Vince in time simply because he has Stephanie on his back and there is no accountability. 

That 3hr RAW though is the most pressing issue. I disagree with JR saying that fans would tolerate 3hrs if "they were getting what they want". There is a limit and 3hrs is just too much. Besides make a product for 3hrs is a huge ask regardless of who is writing.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Good to see alot of people realize that the 3rd hour is a big factor here. And like others have said, even if the Raw product was good right now, 3 hours is FAR too long still. Especially when you take into consideration that this is the generation of ADD and short attention spans. So, to force a 3 hour show on them every Monday night (and then 2 hours every Thursday night) is absolutely overkill. USA Network can eat a dick for paying WWE extra for that 3rd hour because their Network is so shit with creating their own shows that they have to beg WWE to expand their content in order to make up for the USA Networks' shortcomings. Losers. And fuck WWE for their greediness of willing to accept the money for that extra hour and not caring that it's one of the big things that are killing their product. Pieces of shit all around.


----------



## LiterallyNothing

Basically people watched for Taker/Brock then didnt give a fuck about the rest.

I dont blame them


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LiterallyNothing said:


> Basically people watched for Taker/Brock then didnt give a fuck about the rest.
> 
> I dont blame them


Barely. And that shit sucked, too.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

As I predicted (and everyone else I'm sure) hour one was going to be the best. A 2% increase in the average is within the margin of error though. I wouldn't start a parade just yet.


----------



## Winter's cooling

LiterallyNothing said:


> Basically people watched for Taker/Brock then didnt give a fuck about the rest.
> 
> I dont blame them


That was just like 5 minutes, right?And it was uploaded on youtube, so people can just as easily watch it there instead.

If Vince wants the legends to bring up the overall ratings, he is going about it all wrong.When Taker and Lesnar had their huge brawl before Summerslam, it broke 4 million views (only in that 1 hour though).But apparently he doesn't care as much for ratings as people think he does.


----------



## Wynter

Yup, that's what I expected. Vince is so desperate to do it his way instead of just giving us a good fucking product. He thinks it's still the 80's and early 90s and shit. I'm ecstatic every trick that used to work for him has failed him now. Stone Cold couldn't even pop a 4.0 :ha

Vince even tried to pull a "Shield back together for the main event!" Something that should have felt like a big moment...fell flat because it reeked of throwing shit at the wall and hoping it sticks for a TEMPORARY ratings pop. Which, didn't work because everyone knew fuckery was coming and Seth was gonna walk out. 

Party's over grandpa. Get your shit together. 

Owens, Cesaro, Ambrose, Roman, Seth, Harper, Bray, Ziggler, New Day etc. How do you have such an ensemble and still fail so damn hard????

Maybe...GASP, Vince is out of touch??!!










Naaaaaaah. It's those damn millennials and those pesky fans!


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShadowKiller said:


> Fucking good. Maybe now they'll actually start doing something with the younger guys. Y'know, the guys who actually show up every Monday and will be carrying your shows for the next couple of years?


Wait a sec......

So you guys think that Stone Cold (arguably the biggest star in the AE era), Taker, HBK, and Flair not giving them huge ratings spikes is going to force them to do more with guys who are their every week who were drawing even lower ratings than them every week previously? Excuse me for a second...






























:maury:maury:maury:maury:maury

Do you guys actually watch what you're bitching about week in and week out or what?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Wait a sec......
> 
> So you guys think that Stone Cold (arguably the biggest star in the AE era), Taker, HBK, and Flair not giving them huge ratings spikes is going to force them to do more with guys who are their every week who were drawing even lower ratings than them every week previously? Excuse me for a second...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :maury:maury:maury:maury:maury


Barely lower than what the legends and part timers provided last night, tbh. And what other choice do they have but to write a good show and utilize these guys better?? Should they close up shop or beg all of the retirees to come back and wrestle in their 50s? :lol


----------



## Honeymoon

validreasoning said:


> WWE released their 2nd quarter average full ratings to the sec last friday. these numbers are live viewership *plus dvr playback* for the period 1st april 2015 to june 30th 2015..makes for some interesting reading (or not ) when compared to the previous years..only went back to 2007 as wwe started defining their business year from january to december then as opposed to may till april before that.
> 
> 2015, raw = 3.2, smackdown = 2.2
> 2014, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 2.2
> 2013, raw = 3.3, smackdown = 2.1
> 2012, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 2.0
> 2011, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 1.8
> 2010, raw = 3.4, smackdown = 1.9
> *2009, raw = 3.8, smackdown = 1.9*
> 2008, raw = 3.4, smackdown = 2.4
> 2007, raw = 3.8, smackdown = 2.6


The year queen Michelle McCool got her push.. coincidence? I think not.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Good to see alot of people realize that the 3rd hour is a big factor here. And like others have said, even if the Raw product was good right now, 3 hours is FAR too long still. Especially when you take into consideration that this is the generation of ADD and short attention spans. So, to force a 3 hour show on them every Monday night (and then 2 hours every Thursday night) is absolutely overkill. USA Network can eat a dick for paying WWE extra for that 3rd hour because their Network is so shit with creating their own shows that they have to beg WWE to expand their content in order to make up for the USA Networks' shortcomings. Losers. And fuck WWE for their greediness of willing to accept the money for that extra hour and not caring that it's one of the big things that are killing their product. Pieces of shit all around.


As much as I admire your devotion to Seth Rollins its quite clear that he is not over and the ratings show that since becoming champ the ratings have declined so dramatically that it is not JUST 3hr RAW that is the problem. The fans simply dont want Seth as champion.


----------



## Swissblade

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Wait a sec......
> 
> So you guys think that Stone Cold (arguably the biggest star in the AE era), Taker, HBK, and Flair not giving them huge ratings spikes is going to force them to do more with guys who are their every week who were drawing even lower ratings than them every week previously? Excuse me for a second...


Yeah, it's the young guy's faults that the ratings are terrible. It definitely has nothing to do with the garbage product.

The old guys completely flopped in improving the ratings and people are _still_ blaming the young guys and not the idiot in charge and the shit writers. Excuse me for a second...

:maury :maury :maury :maury


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> As much as I admire your devotion to Seth Rollins its quite clear that he is not over and the ratings show that since becoming champ the ratings have declined so dramatically that it is not JUST 3hr RAW that is the problem. The fans simply dont want Seth as champion.


No one said it was just the third hour. We said it is one of the big problems. It doesn't matter whose champion. They've put Cena in the main event, Reigns in the main event, Amrbose, Wyatt, you name 'em, and for all of those main events the third hour experienced a huge drop, as well. No one is drawing. But I am more than fine with Rollins dropping the belt. Hell, I was happy with a 5 month reign. Give someone else the belt, that's cool with me. But unless the show gets better from top to bottom, it'll only be a small bump (like every world title change gets) and one that won't last unless they make dramatic changes to the product and possibly even the format of the show which also needs changes.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShowStopper said:


> Barely lower than what the legends and part timers provided last night, tbh. And what other choice do they have but to write a good show and utilize these guys better?? Should they close up shop or beg all of the retirees to come back and wrestle in their 50s? :lol


Utilize the guys better? Every champ on the roster sans John Cena is a young guy LOL. The entire raw is built around your boy Seth "I'm on the TV for atleast an hour of the 3 hour show" Rollins, New Day, Bray/Ambrose/Reigns, and now even the Divas are getting more airtime than ever. It's literally a bunch of young guys all over, with Kane just 3 weeks ago getting air time.. This is what you guys wanted, it's drawing absolute shit ratings and now you're gonna sit here and act like it's their fault for giving you what you want? I never actually read this thread but holy shit :lmao


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShadowKiller said:


> Yeah, it's the young guys faults that the rating are terrible.
> :maury :maury :maury :maury












If you're on the show every week, and it's tailor made specifically for your younger guys, yeah i'm going to blame the young guys because none of them are interesting enough to draw ratings. You think the ratings are all of a sudden going to take off if Cesaro got more airtime and "better storylines"?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Utilize the guys better? Every champ on the roster sans John Cena is a young guy LOL. The entire raw is built around your boy Seth "I'm on the TV for atleast an hour of the 3 hour show" Rollins, New Day, Bray/Ambrose/Reigns, and now even the Divas are getting more airtime than ever. It's literally a bunch of young guys all over, with Kane just 3 weeks ago getting air time.. This is what you guys wanted, it's drawing absolute shit ratings and now you're gonna sit here and act like it's their fault for giving you what you want? I never actually read this thread but holy shit :lmao


You must not watch the show, either, then. Because outside of Cena, everyone is booked like shit. Rollins loses too much and should be a face at this point, Ambrose is a complete after-thought, Reigns is protected but is being booked like mini-Cena and people ALREADY see right through it, and he should be a heel, Bray??? The guy who loses every feud he's in? 

The show 'revolves' around meaningless matches (mostly of the tag variety), meaningless long promos, recaps, Breast Cancer, Cena still beating everyone in sight just under disguise as the US Champion. The young guys are there but the way they are being used leaves ALOT left to be desired. Anyone who watches Raw every week can see that very easily..


----------



## Chrome

And I thought Stone Hot was gonna be the worst poster in this thread today. But then TyAbbotSucks came through.


----------



## The Renegade

Not sure why people still blame the talent pool for the ratings and not creative. Its almost like they don't realize that the majority of the Attitude Era's stars were also featured on WWE television in '96..


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShowStopper said:


> You must not watch the show, either, then. Because outside of Cena, everyone is booked like shit. Rollins loses too much and should be a face at this point, Ambrose is a complete after-thought, Reigns is protected but is being booked like mini-Cena and people ALREADY see right through it, and he should be a heel, Bray??? The guy who loses every feud he's in?
> 
> The show 'revolves' around meaningless matches (mostly of the tag variety), meaningless long promos, recaps, Breast Cancer, Cena still beating everyone in sight just under disguise as the US Champion. The young guys are there but the way they are being used leaves ALOT left to be desired. Anyone who watches Raw every week can see that very easily..


Seth Rollins has beaten everyone on the damn roster not named Brock Lesnar miss me with that shit. You guys were fine with his whole little chicken shit act so of course he's gonna lose matches not to mention he's on TV more than anyone and this was happening before he even won the belt. Don't try and pin this on Cena either he is on for his weekly 2 minute promo, does his match and then is gone. What are you going to say when he drops the belt Sunday to another young guy, takes his mini vaca and people still aren't watching? 

It has nothing to do with how they're being used it's literally about them, you guys just use booking as a cop out because you don't want to admit the young guys you love so much can't draw. If they did they wouldn't be begging for guys like Rock to come back every week to get people interested.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

Chrome said:


> And I thought Stone Hot was gonna be the worst poster in this thread today. But then TyAbbotSucks came through.


I've been called much worse by much better, i'll be good brah wens


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Seth Rollins has beaten everyone on the damn roster not named Brock Lesnar miss me with that shit. You guys were fine with his whole little chicken shit act so of course he's gonna lose matches not to mention he's on TV more than anyone and this was happening before he even won the belt. Don't try and pin this on Cena either he is on for his weekly 2 minute promo, does his match and then is gone. What are you going to say when he drops the belt Sunday to another young guy, takes his mini vaca and people still aren't watching?
> 
> It has nothing to do with how they're being used it's literally about them, you guys just use booking as a cop out because you don't want to admit the young guys you love so much can't draw. If they did they wouldn't be begging for guys like Rock to come back every week to get people interested.


He's taken more pins than anyone, too. So again, like I said, you must not watch or you're just convienently omitting facts like that. It doesn't matter how much airtime someone gets if they're not being used correctly or the way that people actually want to see, like I said in my last post.

The current guys aren't drawing because they aren't established and are being used terribly. But what are the part timers reasoning for not drawing?? They're established. They have bigger fanbases due to being stars for so many years. BUT they don't draw, either. They must be losing fans in their fanbases, or their fans aren't watching them today because they don't find them interesting any more, which is even worse than you can say for any of the younger guys.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> And I thought Stone Hot was gonna be the worst poster in this thread today. But then TyAbbotSucks came through.


:ti :ha


----------



## StraightYesSociety

http://prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-October-19-edition-44495



> Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.21 rating, down from the 2.33 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.356 million viewers, up from the 3.284 million average from last week.


So their ratings are down this week.


----------



## LordKain

:maury :maury :maury

They will never learn will they? The only way I see the product getting any better is if by somehow the McMahon family were ran out of the company. 

I mean how long is going to be until the shareholders as well as Wall Street realise that the company's ran by a bunch of shit for brains carny trash who obviously don't know what the fuck they're doing anymore?


----------



## Wynter

Who gives a shit about how much time the talents get if 2 hours and 40 minutes of it is crappy booking and terrible fucking decisions? I may give Seth a whole lot of shit and got tired of how much he was all over the show. But who wants to sit there and constantly hear drawn out promos and seei him get bitched out 50 different ways by everyone he comes across? That's terrible way to treat your champion and doesn't make anyone eager to see him dethroned. It just gets hella stale and boring. Hell, you even start to feel bad for the heel.

If every minute of that show was utilized correctly and the talents were given the absolute premium booking and they still failed? Go on ahead and blame them.

But when you have shit like 

1. A bitch ass champion
2. Old timers getting the focus and better booking
3. A stale ass Roman still getting pushed by a deranged and stubborn Vince as a face.
4. A Dean Ambrose who has been due for a proper push for the longest but simply is everyone's punching bag and Roman's buddy.
5. The likes of Cesaro getting punished for dare getting over.
6. Asinine storytelling that's usually inconsistent, insulting to your intelligence and just plain terrible writing.
7. Kane in the main event.
8. Great promo workers like Owens not getting nearly enough promo time.
9. U.S. title and champion being more prestigious than your WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT FUCKING CHAMPION.
10. Divas division being crappy as fuck despite the talent that is there.
11. Trash ass Commentary
12. NXT somehow delivering better PPVs and matches in fucking developmental. 
13. Even Stevens booking that gets no one over
14. The amount of Jobbers and unimportant wrestlers on the show.
15. Vince constantly trying to find the next Cena instead of the next *insert the wrestler's name here*


I can list all damn day the amount of fuckery that is the current product. It's not the young guys. The talent is there, but the booking hardly ever meets them halfway. Vince is the guy who gave New Day that terrible preacher gimmick and was shocked they didn't get over as faces. And guess what, New Day didn't start getting over until THEY started doing their own material and got to be more like themselves. Big E went from a generic big guy to shining as this funny charismatic guy and being over. Guess which guy Vince tried to push as the IC champ before?? unk2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Stone Hot said:


> They should have Austin Taker and Brock more towards the end instead of blowing them all in the first hour. Spread them out.
> 
> Doesn't matter wwe is not going anywhere people


They put them on when the NFL game hadn't started to maximize the viewership for the segment. It's what they do every week, if you've been paying attention. :draper2


----------



## KC Armstrong

3.6 million in the first hour when Austin, Brock & Taker showed up and once they were done, people changed the channel pretty much immediately losing 500k throughout the rest of the night. Sounds about right.

... and that Monday Night Game sucked dick, so don't give me that excuse. I'm a Giants fan and I couldn't take it anymore. Pretty sure most people in the NY market didn't watch until the bitter end.


----------



## RatedR10

Does anyone know why we don't get breakdowns anymore? I'd be so intrigued to see those nowadays and the dramatic, or constant drops, and how much top of the hour segments are actually drawing (or losing) nowadays.



That feel when WWE throws Austin, Taker, Lesnar, HBK, Flair and a Shield reunion on the same show and can't even get 100k more viewers than last week's show for the full three hours :ti


----------



## Winter's cooling

ShowStopper said:


> He's taken more pins than anyone, too. So again, like I said, you must not watch or you're just convienently omitting facts like that. It doesn't matter how much airtime someone gets if they're not being used correctly or the way that people actually want to see, like I said in my last post.
> 
> The current guys aren't drawing because they aren't established and are being used terribly. But what are the part timers reasoning for not drawing?? They're established. They have bigger fanbases due to being stars for so many years. BUT they don't draw, either. They must be losing fans in their fanbases, or their fans aren't watching them today because they don't find them interesting any more, which is even worse than you can say for any of the younger guys.


Dude, everyone is booked like shit.Including the "part timers".And you can't expect 5-10 minutes of screen time to save a whole show.Especially when everyone can just watch it on youtube.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShowStopper said:


> He's taken more pins than anyone, too. So again, like I said, you must not watch or you're just convienently omitting facts like that. It doesn't matter how much airtime someone gets if they're not being used correctly or the way that people actually want to see, like I said in my last post.
> 
> The current guys aren't drawing because they aren't established and are being used terrible. But what are the part timers reasoning for not drawing?? They're established. They have bigger fanbases due to being stars for so many years. BUT they don't draw, either. They must losing fans in their fanbases, or their fans aren't watching them today because they don't find them interesting even more, which is even worse than you can say for any of the younger guys.


Seth's sell is his wrestling ability, do you want him to just have the final hour to just wrestle every week? Seth is the absolute last person that you need to talk about not being used correctly he's the vocal point of the show and has been for over a year. Raw wasn't drawing huge ratings before Bray took that L to Cena either, same before you guys turned on Roman and completely changed booking. 

Did the part timers just not bring in more than the guys that are their every week or am I missing something? Tell me something, what was the most interesting part of Raw this week? Was it that killer 6 man tag of young guys like Neville, Dolph, Cesaro or was it seeing your young guy Seth in the ring with an old guy HBK? Tell me what you think guys cared about more? Fans don't find it interesting because the wrestlers aren't interesting.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Winter's cooling said:


> Dude, everyone is booked like shit.Including the "part timers".And you can't expect 5-10 minutes of screen time to save a whole show.Especially when everyone can just watch it on youtube.


No one looks great (outside of Cena) but the part timers are booked way stronger than anyone else on the roster, minus Cena. I'm not saying it's their fault. BUT there were people saying in the past that the part timers will come back and outdraw everyone and bring back good ratings again, and that hasn't happened. Again, not saying it's their fault, but just throwing it back in the face of the people who blamed it all on the full timers. That's all.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

Guy said old guys getting better booking, then ya'll turn around and complain about how Sting is 0-2 in singles matches :maury

Sorry that Taker showing up on raw when he hasn't been on it in like 2-3 years is going to be a bigger deal than Seth's weekly "you're stupid" promo


----------



## Kabraxal

TyAbbotSucks said:


> ShowStopper said:
> 
> 
> 
> He's taken more pins than anyone, too. So again, like I said, you must not watch or you're just convienently omitting facts like that. It doesn't matter how much airtime someone gets if they're not being used correctly or the way that people actually want to see, like I said in my last post.
> 
> The current guys aren't drawing because they aren't established and are being used terrible. But what are the part timers reasoning for not drawing?? They're established. They have bigger fanbases due to being stars for so many years. BUT they don't draw, either. They must losing fans in their fanbases, or their fans aren't watching them today because they don't find them interesting even more, which is even worse than you can say for any of the younger guys.
> 
> 
> 
> Seth's sell is his wrestling ability, do you want him to just have the final hour to just wrestle every week? Seth is the absolute last person that you need to talk about not being used correctly he's the vocal point of the show and has been for over a year. Raw wasn't drawing huge ratings before Bray took that L to Cena either, same before you guys turned on Roman and completely changed booking.
> 
> Did the part timers just not bring in more than the guys that are their every week or am I missing something? Tell me something, what was the most interesting part of Raw this week? Was it that killer 6 man tag of young guys like Neville, Dolph, Cesaro or was it seeing your young guy Seth in the ring with an old guy HBK? Tell me what you think guys cared about more? Fans don't find it interesting because the wrestlers aren't interesting.
Click to expand...

Please stop... Watching you just dig yourself deeper is getting too painful to endure. Your posts don't even need rebuttals to make them look this pathetic.....

There was almost no bump and yet your here trying to claim they are the answer. Epic failure.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Seth's sell is his wrestling ability, do you want him to just have the final hour to just wrestle every week? Seth is the absolute last person that you need to talk about not being used correctly he's the vocal point of the show and has been for over a year. Raw wasn't drawing huge ratings before Bray took that L to Cena either, same before you guys turned on Roman and completely changed booking.
> 
> Did the part timers just not bring in more than the guys that are their every week or am I missing something? Tell me something, what was the most interesting part of Raw this week? Was it that killer 6 man tag of young guys like Neville, Dolph, Cesaro or was it seeing your young guy Seth in the ring with an old guy HBK? Tell me what you think guys cared about more? Fans don't find it interesting because the wrestlers aren't interesting.


Again for the third time, it's not about airtime. It's about how you are used.

The part timers brought in an extra 70,000 viewers and this weeks rating is actually LOWER than last weeks. They ain't drawing shit, bro. And if anyone should, its the big names. Huge fail there.

And the "wrestlers aren't interesting anymore" because WWE doesn't know how to book them in an interesting manner. It's the same shit every week, same dull tag matches etc. Unless you are one of those guys who thinks wrestlers book themselves and that wrestling is real and they just go out there and do what they want with no creative direction telling them what to do. I swear, it's like the Twilight Zone sometimes.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Good to see alot of people realize that the 3rd hour is a big factor here. And like others have said, even if the Raw product was good right now, 3 hours is FAR too long still. Especially when you take into consideration that this is the generation of ADD and short attention spans. So, to force a 3 hour show on them every Monday night (and then 2 hours every Thursday night) is absolutely overkill. USA Network can eat a dick for paying WWE extra for that 3rd hour because their Network is so shit with creating their own shows that they have to beg WWE to expand their content in order to make up for the USA Networks' shortcomings. Losers. And fuck WWE for their greediness of willing to accept the money for that extra hour and not caring that it's one of the big things that are killing their product. Pieces of shit all around.


100% agree Show. This 3rd hour is killer and just drains the audience. Believe it or not there only been 2 times that I watch a full 3 hours of raw since it became 3 hours.


----------



## Marv95

StraightYesSociety said:


> http://prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-October-19-edition-44495
> 
> 
> 
> So their ratings are down this week.


So not only they couldn't get a 2.5(woulda been more if SCSA was advertised days before) it drops from last week? Despite viewership "increase"? With these stars? A 2.2? 

Tank. Tank like the 76ers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Guy said old guys getting better booking, then ya'll turn around and complain about how Sting is 0-2 in singles matches :maury
> 
> Sorry that Taker showing up on raw when he hasn't been on it in like 2-3 years is going to be a bigger deal than Seth's weekly "you're stupid" promo


Of course it's a bigger deal, it damn well should be. Taker is old enough to be Seth's father. His career is almost as long as Seth's age.

:ha

And they still didn't draw. 

:ti

It must suck to see when the legends don't draw significantly anymore.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> And I thought Stone Hot was gonna be* the worst poster in this thread *today. But then TyAbbotSucks came through.


Sorry my friend that be you


----------



## Badbadrobot

2.21 !!!!!!!

I'm actually happy about this, vince needs to let go of some of the reins and shake this goddam show up before it dies.


----------



## Chrome

TyAbbotSucks said:


> I've been called much worse by much better, i'll be good brah wens


That's actually a good line, I'm somewhat impressed. :maddox

Too bad it doesn't have much meaning when it's coming from a poster like you.


StraightYesSociety said:


> http://prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-October-19-edition-44495
> 
> 
> 
> So their ratings are down this week.


Holy shit.









Another record low for WWE. Props guys, you've certainly earned it. :clap



Stone Hot said:


> Sorry my friend that be you


Good comeback bro. I mean, we can do a vote on it if you'd like, but I got a feeling you wouldn't like the results.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> They put them on when the NFL game hadn't started to maximize the viewership for the segment. It's what they do every week, if you've been paying attention. :draper2


No shit but then you should use them more through out the night. You have them there bring them out again to brawl or something


----------



## Winter's cooling

ShowStopper said:


> No one looks great (outside of Cena) but the part timers are booked way stronger than anyone else on the roster, minus Cena.I'm not saying it's their fault. BUT there were people saying in the past that the part timers will come back and outdraw everyone and bring back good ratings again, and that hasn't happened. Again, not saying it's their fault, but just throwing it back in the face of the people who blamed it all on the full timers. That's all.


They barely do shit on RAW and that's why they don't do shit for ratings either.Like i mentioned already, the brawl Taker/Lesnar had a couple months ago drew huge for the hour it was in.So they can still draw when booked better.

Not many people expected WWE to drop the ball so hard with the part timers and kill their draw factor. WWE drops the ball with "full timers" every day, but they are supposed to care for their golden gooses.


----------



## Fighter Daron

#BadNewsSanta said:


> See now this is what happens when you put Reigns front and center for his team's side of the main event advertisement card.


This is pathetic, Roman Reigns was one of six gentlemen in the main event of the show, you guys are always saying "OH, DEAN IS A DRAW!!!" and he was in the main event, the fucking champion was in the main event and the entire Wyatt Family, but....somehow this is Reigns' fault.

At least you don't fool anyone.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Good comeback bro. I mean, we can do a vote on it if you'd like, but I got a feeling you wouldn't like the results.


I be more upset if more people liked me


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Winter's cooling said:


> They barely do shit on RAW and that's why they don't do shit for ratings either.
> 
> Not many people expected WWE to drop the ball so hard with the part timers and kill their draw factor.
> 
> Like i mentioned already, the brawl Taker/Lesnar had a couple months ago drew huge for the hour it was in.So they can still draw when booked better.


They don't do much but they are still booked better than all but one full timer and have their big names to fall back on, and still don't draw. If the full timers had all that going for them and didn't draw, they'd be shit on even more than they are. :shrug 

I tried to warn some people when they were all blaming 1 or 2 people for the ratings that once their guys weren't drawing that it was going to come back to bite them, but nobody wanted to listen. :shrug This is what happens when you dish it, you sure as hell better be able to take it. :shrug (Not you specifically, but folks in general who did this).


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

Kabraxal said:


> Please stop... Watching you just dig yourself deeper is getting too painful to endure. Your posts don't even need rebuttals to make them look this pathetic.....
> 
> There was almost no bump and yet your here trying to claim they are the answer. Epic failure.


Who said part timers are the answer and end all be all? My entire point was if your part timers/ big stars aren't drawing big what makes you think that the guys who are there every single week who the show revolves around drawing even lower ratings than them are all of a sudden going to change the outcome? Sorry if Austin/Taker isn't drawing Seth/Ambrose/Cesaro etc aren't drawing. 


Sit this one out



ShowStopper said:


> Again for the third time, it's not about airtime. It's about how you are used.
> 
> The part timers brought in an extra 70,000 viewers and this weeks rating is actually LOWER than last weeks. They ain't drawing shit, bro. And if anyone should, its the big names. Huge fail there.
> 
> And the "wrestlers aren't interesting anymore" because WWE doesn't know how to book them in an interesting manner. It's the same shit every week, same dull tag matches etc. Unless you are one of those guys who thinks wrestlers book themselves and that wrestling is real and they just go out there and do what they want with no creative direction telling them what to do. I swear, it's like the Twilight Zone sometimes.


I've literally said 3 times it's not about how he's being used, he's just not that interesting that applies to 98% of the roster. You can book the man like a Prime Austin and people still aren't watching him. You guys still complain about Super Cena and people still don't watch. They can't book the wrestlers to have a personality


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> They don't do much but they are still booked better than all but one full timer and have their big names to fall back on, and still don't draw. If the full timers had all that going for them and didn't draw, they'd be shit on even more than they are. :shrug
> 
> I tried to warn some people when they were all blaming 1 or 2 people for the ratings that once their guys weren't drawing that it was going to come back to bite them, but nobody wanted to listen. :shrug This is what happens when you dish it, you sure as hell better be able to take it. :shrug (Not you specifically, but folks in general who did this).


Or if people are going to blame 1 guy for this mess, at least blame the right 1 guy. >>>>>>>>>:vince5


----------



## Stone Hot

Wynter! said:


> Who gives a shit about how much time the talents get if 2 hours and 40 minutes of it is crappy booking and terrible fucking decisions? I may give Seth a whole lot of shit and got tired of how much he was all over the show. But who wants to sit there and constantly hear drawn out promos and seei him get bitched out 50 different ways by everyone he comes across? That's terrible way to treat your champion and doesn't make anyone eager to see him dethroned. It just gets hella stale and boring. Hell, you even start to feel bad for the heel.
> 
> If every minute of that show was utilized correctly and the talents were given the absolute premium booking and they still failed? Go on ahead and blame them.
> 
> But when you have shit like
> 
> 1. A bitch ass champion
> 2. Old timers getting the focus and better booking
> 4. A Dean Ambrose who has been due for a proper push for the longest but simply is everyone's punching bag and Roman's buddy.
> 5. The likes of Cesaro getting punished for dare getting over.
> 6. Asinine storytelling that's usually inconsistent, insulting to your intelligence and just plain terrible writing.
> 7. Kane in the main event.
> 8. Great promo workers like Owens not getting nearly enough promo time.
> 9. U.S. title and champion being more prestigious than your WORLD HEAVYWEIGHT FUCKING CHAMPION.
> 10. Divas division being crappy as fuck despite the talent that is there.
> 11. Trash ass Commentary
> 12. NXT somehow delivering better PPVs and matches in fucking developmental.
> 13. Even Stevens booking that gets no one over
> 14. The amount of Jobbers and unimportant wrestlers on the show.
> 15. Vince constantly trying to find the next Cena instead of the next *insert the wrestler's name here*
> 
> 
> I can list all damn day the amount of fuckery that is the current product. It's not the young guys. The talent is there, but the booking hardly ever meets them halfway. Vince is the guy who gave New Day that terrible preacher gimmick and was shocked they didn't get over as faces. And guess what, New Day didn't start getting over until THEY started doing their own material and got to be more like themselves. Big E went from a generic big guy to shining as this funny charismatic guy and being over. Guess which guy Vince tried to push as the IC champ before?? unk2


:clap well said my friend well said. Agree 100%


----------



## KC Armstrong

delete


----------



## Hydra

:lose

So when are they going to get their heads out of their asses and produce a show more people willing to watch? A good start would be to end these freaking tag matches every week. How many times are we going to see New Day vs. Dudleys w/ random partner? Or Reigns vs. Wyatt? And wtf are doing to Rusev; it pisses me off that the broke kayfabe rather than dropping this shit story. Rollins' credibility is so shot that a clean win over Ryback is surprising. They might get a nice bump from HIAC depending on if it is a good show or not. But after that, the nosedive will continue.


----------



## RatedR10

2.21 final rating 


:subban


----------



## TheShieldSuck

HOLY SHIT! 2.21! 

LOL

To think they got 3.0 ratings at the beginning of the year. They have lost what? Almost 1/4th of their ratings in the space of 9 months. 

This is dangerously close to cancellation territory. Remember WWE viewers are worth less financially than other types and the Network that RAW is on only has them because of bragging rights. At some point Vince is going to get a phone call.


----------



## KC Armstrong

> It must suck to see when the legends don't draw significantly anymore.



I don't know if some fans are simply trying to defend their favorites, or if they're just flat out stupid.

You don't fucking draw by just putting names out there. Ratings started to decline even back in the day when Rock and Austin were still active competitors, because it's all about THE QUALITY OF THE SHOW, not about fucking names. When Rocky was coming back for his recent programs with Punk and Cena, they were doing 3.2s and 3.3s (and that was when they were still regularly drawing 3 ratings even without Rock). They didn't automatically go back to Attitude Era ratings because the fucking Rock showed up.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Who said part timers are the answer and end all be all? My entire point was if your part timers/ big stars aren't drawing big what makes you think that the guys who are there every single week who the show revolves around drawing even lower ratings than them are all of a sudden going to change the outcome? Sorry if Austin/Taker isn't drawing Seth/Ambrose/Cesaro etc aren't drawing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've literally said 3 times it's not about how he's being used, he's just not that interesting that applies to 98% of the roster. You can book the man like a Prime Austin and people still aren't watching him. You guys still complain about Super Cena and people still don't watch. They can't book the wrestlers to have a personality


They don't have to book wrestlers to have personality, though. Just book them in a LOGICAL manner would be half of the battle, which we don't get here on a weekly basis.

And don't tell me booking doesn't matter. Look at Austin before he became "Stone Cold", he was the fucking Ringmaster. Look at Rock before he became Rock, he was fucking "Rocky Maivia." They finally booked them to be more interesting with more interesting characters, and that's exactly what they became, MORE INTERESTING.


----------



## Winter's cooling

ShowStopper said:


> They don't do much but they are still booked better than all but one full timer and have their big names to fall back on, and still don't draw.


They still draw pretty well for the screen time and use they are getting.Just showing up for 5 minutes doesn't cut it anymore.It has lost it's luster.




> If the full timers had all that going for them and didn't draw, they'd be shit on even more than they are. :shrug
> 
> tried to warn some people when they were all blaming 1 or 2 people for the ratings that once their guys weren't drawing that it was going to come back to bite them, but nobody wanted to listen. This is what happens when you dish it, you sure as hell better be able to take it. (Not you specifically, but folks in general who did this).


That's definitely true.And i am not blaming full timers for the ratings.I am well aware they are booked like shite.


----------



## RatedR10

I said on another forum last week that even with the legends advertised they wouldn't pop the rating over 2.45. When I said that, I also didn't expect the ratings to fall below 2.25 with said legends + unadvertised Austin and Shield reunion. :lmao


The thing is this is going to continue until Vince dies because he simply doesn't have the patience to do what's needed to provide just *decent* television now. It all needs to be completely overhauled and the entire formula needs to change and talents need to be rebuilt. But it won't happen under Vince's watch. And I don't even know if Triple H would be able to do it with the USA Network and shareholders breathing down his neck. He won't have the room to do on the main roster what he does in NXT. He's going to be inheriting a shit product and he won't be given the time to do what needs to be done, which is a shame, because I think he'd be able to do it within 12-18 months.


----------



## Chrome

RatedR10 said:


> 2.21 final rating
> 
> 
> :subban


It's hard to put into words just how bad that is, with it being a go-home show with a couple legends on it. If it fell to say, 2.30 or something, that's not _that_ bad, but it dropped .12 points despite being "stacked." Like wow. I'm still waiting to see if that was a typo. :lol


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShowStopper said:


> They don't have to book wrestlers to have personality, though. Just book them in a LOGICAL manner would be half of the battle, which we don't get here on a weekly basis.
> 
> And don't tell me booking doesn't matter. Look at Austin before he became "Stone Cold", he was the fucking Ringmaster. Look at Rock before he became Rock, he was fucking "Rocky Maivia." They finally booked them to be more interesting with more interesting characters, and that's exactly what they became, MORE INTERESTING.



Rock was a throw away in the nation but he got over because dude had a personality, that's the wrestler not the booking, shit was built for Farooq. You can give Cesaro the Austin gimmick and it doesn't get over because he has the personality of a door knob that applies the vast majority of the roster. 

Seth turning face using more of his skill set in matches isn't bringing in more views, you have plenty of guys on the roster that can go. It's the fact that none of the wrestlers have the personality to draw people in.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I think Blandy Boreton just lost his nickname as the "Ratings Killer" to Seth freakin Rollins.


----------



## EireUnited

Buzzing at this news!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TyAbbotSucks said:


> Rock was a throw away in the nation but he got over because dude had a personality, that's the wrestler not the booking, shit was built for Farooq. You can give Cesaro the Austin gimmick and it doesn't get over because he has the personality of a door knob that applies the vast majority of the roster.
> 
> Seth turning face using more of his skill set in matches isn't bringing in more views, you have plenty of guys on the roster that can go. It's the fact that none of the wrestlers have the personality to draw people in.


When Rock was BOOKED to not be called Rocky Maivia anymore, to change his attire, change his personality from happy, smiley rookie to arrogant asshole Rock, that was still a BOOKED decision. That's what I'm talking about. Same with Austin.

No one is saying this era even booked right will get Attitude Era ratings :drake1 Most shows don't get that anymore. But it sure would help the overall quality of the show and perhaps draw some more than they are now. It can't hurt is the basic point here.


----------



## Erik.

They still won't change their ways.

Until they're LOSING money they won't give a fuck about ratings.


----------



## EireUnited

ShowStopper said:


> When Rock was BOOKED to not be called Rocky Maivia anymore, to change his attire, change his personality from happy, smiley rookie to arrogant asshole Rock, that was still a BOOKED decision. That's what I'm talking about. Same with Austin.
> 
> No one is saying this era even booked right will get Attitude Era ratings :drake1 Most shows don't get that anymore. But it sure would help the overall quality of the show and perhaps draw some more than they are now. It can't hurt is the basic point here.


Exactly? This NONSENSE that the Attitude Era created itself and was shimmering with charismatic superstars is nonsense. People were just coached, booked and presented a thousand times better, and thus believed their own hype. That's how it should be.

Actively demotivating your roster, squad, team, whatever, hammering home the idea to them AND THE AUDIENCE that they aren't as good as the past is just bewildering.


----------



## Marv95

Like it or not Ty has a point. You can't teach personality. You can't book an it factor. You either got it or you don't. And sorry but the guy who has been given the _most_ tv time, the real guy being shoved down people's throats since MITB 2014 doesn't have it. To excuse him and the rest of the roster of ANY blame whatsoever for these numbers is foolish even if booking/creative is a big problem. 

And this is far from being over. What if HIAC is an average-at-best show that doesn't get people excited for Raw/Survivor Series?? What happens when Taker and Brock bounce for a while?


----------



## KC Armstrong

Marv95 said:


> Like it or not Ty has a point. You can't teach personality. You can't book an it factor. You either got it or you don't. And sorry but the guy who has been given the _most_ tv time, the real guy being shoved down people's throats since MITB 2014 doesn't have it. To excuse him and the rest of the roster of ANY blame whatsoever for these numbers is foolish even if booking/creative is a big problem.



Of course Rollins doesn't have Rock's charisma and personality, but again, even guys like Rock and Austin had to be put in a position where they could succeed. Today, everyone, no matter how talented they are, is put in a position to fail.


----------



## EireUnited

Marv95 said:


> Like it or not Ty has a point. You can't teach personality. You can't book an it factor. You either got it or you don't. And sorry but the guy who has been given the _most_ tv time, the real guy being shoved down people's throats since MITB 2014 doesn't have it. To excuse him and the rest of the roster of ANY blame whatsoever for these numbers is foolish.
> 
> And this is far from being over. What if HIAC is an average-at-best show that doesn't get people excited for Raw/Survivor Series?? What happens when Taker and Brock bounce for a while?


The Rock booked as secondary in importance to Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Vince McMahon, Shane McMahon, Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall in 1998, as well as jobbing to D-Lo Brown and repeatedly clean to the rest of the part and full time roster-- and only retaining his title due to interference from Jay Leno, who also kicked him in the nuts and ran away without retribution several months earlier, would not have been described as having "the it factor". All the while being scripted within an inch of his life as well.


----------



## Marv95

ShowStopper said:


> When Rock was BOOKED to not be called Rocky Maivia anymore, to change his attire, change his personality from happy, smiley rookie to arrogant asshole Rock, that was still a BOOKED decision. That's what I'm talking about. Same with Austin.
> 
> No one is saying this era even booked right will get Attitude Era ratings :drake1 Most shows don't get that anymore. But it sure would help the overall quality of the show and perhaps draw some more than they are now. It can't hurt is the basic point here.


Because Austin and Rock went to Vince and told him their gimmicks sucked. Reigns could have went to Vince and tell him this Looney Tunes G-rated BS sucked. Rollins could tell creative to stop booking him like a bitch as the champ. But they seem content.


----------



## Chrome

EireUnited said:


> The Rock booked as secondary in importance to Hulk Hogan, Macho Man, Vince McMahon, Shane McMahon, Kevin Nash, Bret Hart, Shawn Michaels and Scott Hall in 1998, as well as jobbing to D-Lo Brown and repeatedly clean to the rest of the part and full time roster-- and only retaining his title due to interference from Jay Leno, who also kicked him in the nuts and ran away without retribution several months earlier, would not have been described as having "the it factor". All the while being scripted within an inch of his life as well.


And when the ratings would've likely tanked, people would've been blaming poor Rocky on those old Usenet groups. :rock5


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

ShowStopper said:


> When Rock was BOOKED to not be called Rocky Maivia anymore, to change his attire, change his personality from happy, smiley rookie to arrogant asshole Rock, that was still a BOOKED decision. That's what I'm talking about. Same with Austin.
> 
> No one is saying this era even booked right will get Attitude Era ratings :drake1 Most shows don't get that anymore. But it sure would help the overall quality of the show and perhaps draw some more than they are now. It can't hurt is the basic point here.


It was a booked decision to go from face to heel, the actual getting over and basically being the vocal point and the reason people even checked for NoD was Rock that's my point. That shit wasn't planned. If you don't have a personality/charisma/etc you can't pull that off no matter how much they might book you up. 

They'll never get A&E ratings again no one is gonna argue that, the sole reason for raw sucking isn't 100 on the booking. They have a bunch of great wrestlers that lack personalities to really grab the attention of others. Roman going from playboy to asshole isn't bringing in new people


----------



## EireUnited

Marv95 said:


> Because Austin and Rock went to Vince and told him their gimmicks sucked. Reigns could have went to Vince and tell him this Looney Tunes G-rated BS sucked. Rollins could tell creative to stop booking him like a bitch as the champ. But they seem content.


LOL you don't have a CLUE! You're just buying the WWE bullshit, "it was a shark tank back then!" drivel. People weren't more driven or talented or interesting before. It's a narrative that older people NEED to believe because they're no longer in touch.

You couldn't POSSIBLY know any of what you said is true, and it most certainly is not anyway.


----------



## ellthom

Well I for one didn't watch Raw this Monday because I couldn't be assed, simple as that. Even with those legends on there I just couldn't imagine the booking to be x10 as better just because Undertaker/Lesner/Michaels and Steve Austin. Yup I decided to miss Raw even when (Austin) one of my favorites of all time was appearing on the show!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Marv95 said:


> Because Austin and Rock went to Vince and told him their gimmicks sucked. Reigns could have went to Vince and tell him this Looney Tunes G-rated BS sucked. Rollins could tell creative to stop booking him like a bitch as the champ. But they seem content.


It's not like it was in the 90's, bro. Vince isn't the same guy anymore. Isn't that extremely obvious with what the show is now compared to what it was back then? The style and quality of the shows from now and then are reflective on Vince's personalitty and where he is now compared to where he was then (desperate). He's comfortable and content now with NO wrestling competition.

They weed out the rebels in development now (or now, NXT). Rollins nearly got FIRED when he was in developmental for thinking he was the shit and not loving the WWE style at first. He got into arguments with Terry Taylor and others down in developmental on a daily basis and it got him almost fired. Back then, Vince would've loved that shit and probably told Terry to move Seth up to the main roster right then and there. Now? It gets you in trouble. Times are different. It sucks, but it's true. They weed out the rebels now.


----------



## Badbadrobot

EireUnited said:


> LOL you don't have a CLUE! You're just buying the WWE bullshit, "it was a shark tank back then!" drivel. People weren't more driven or talented or interesting before. It's a narrative that older people NEED to believe because they're no longer in touch.
> 
> You couldn't POSSIBLY know any of what you said is true, and it most certainly is not anyway.


Apart from the very obvious fact people had places to go to make money other than wwe ' back then '


----------



## Rasslor

RAW got a 2.21...holy fuck LMAO even with Austin and friends.
Looks like the ROCK needs to come back ASAP.


----------



## EireUnited

Rock comes back, temporarily raises it from 2.21 to 2.35, but long-term assures that it falls even further.

The part-time era, I was always against it, but they thought it was worth trying. It has evidently been a colossal disaster for their television ratings. Their next move shows how much they value television viewing figures- they're either unapologetically on autopilot and refuse to move on from the past, or they finally realise you can only progress by placing the emphasis on NOW. 

I'm intrigued.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

EireUnited said:


> Rock comes back, temporarily raises it from 2.21 to 2.35, but long-term assures that it falls even further.
> 
> The part-time era, I was always against it, but they thought it was worth trying. It has evidently been a colossal disaster for their television ratings. Their next move shows how much they value television viewing figures- they're either unapologetically on autopilot and refuse to move on from the past, or they finally realise you can only progress by placing the emphasis on NOW.
> 
> *I'm intrigued.*


The last two words; yep. I used to be angry and annoyed. But at this point, more than anything, I am just fascinated by this whole thing more than anything else. How can anyone NOT be? It's literally about a 70 year old man trying (and failing miserably) to figure out what todays fans want and absolutely refusing to see it because it is different from his preferences. It's very, very fascinating. I am legitimately more fascinated by this 1000x more than I am any storyline on the show. I don't even think people are pissed anymore, but are legitimately fascinated to see what goes on in Vince's fossil of a mind.


----------



## Red Dead

the ratings problem is nothing to do with the talent but due to lack of decent storylines and lack of character development.

Outside of Brock Lesnar vs Undertaker there really is nothing that was interesting or made me want to keep watching.

There literally is no mid card. outside of the "part-timers" only Cena, Bryan and maybe Reigns have something going for them. Even Randy Orton and Bray Wyatt have been made to look like bums by creative.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Fighter Daron said:


> This is pathetic, Roman Reigns was one of six gentlemen in the main event of the show, you guys are always saying "OH, DEAN IS A DRAW!!!" and he was in the main event, the fucking champion was in the main event and the entire Wyatt Family, but....somehow this is Reigns' fault.
> 
> At least you don't fool anyone.


Yes, it's all Reigns fault. If only Ambrose was in the center of that picture, we may have seen the third hour be the highest. Oh well, WWE's loss. <_<


----------



## almostfamous

What is the attraction of this show right now? What makes you want to tune in?

Let someone get over! Let someone run over the entire roster, heel or face. This 50/50 booking, everyone is a midcarder, part-timers are the only attractions, nobody can get heat on Steph and Trips fuckery is embarrassing: for the company, the talent, and the viewers.


----------



## Yes Era

KC Armstrong said:


> I don't know if some fans are simply trying to defend their favorites, or if they're just flat out stupid.
> 
> You don't fucking draw by just putting names out there. Ratings started to decline even back in the day when Rock and Austin were still active competitors, because it's all about THE QUALITY OF THE SHOW, not about fucking names. When Rocky was coming back for his recent programs with Punk and Cena, they were doing 3.2s and 3.3s (and that was when they were still regularly drawing 3 ratings even without Rock). They didn't automatically go back to Attitude Era ratings because the fucking Rock showed up.


That's a straight up lie. They were getting 2.4 and 2.5 with Punk as champion. Rock wins the title, the Raw rating went to 3.7 and stayed around that to WM 29. Then it dropped again. 

When Rock returns, he easily is the highest rated of the night all the time. Bryan too. In truth, the ratings haven't been the same since Bryan got injured and he also spiked ratings to a 3.0 during his last appearance...as he often gets the highest rated portion of the show. The fans chose Bryan and the ratings, the show, the interest, and the fans reaction in arenas hasn't been the same since he got injured.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

That 2.21 rating 
:heyman6 :booklel :nikkilol :hayden3 :lel :mj5


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Yes Era said:


> That's a straight up lie. They were getting 2.4 and 2.5 with Punk as champion. Rock wins the title, the Raw rating went to 3.7 and stayed around that to WM 29. Then it dropped again.
> 
> When Rock returns, he easily is the highest rated of the night all the time. Bryan too. In truth, the ratings haven't been the same since Bryan got injured and he also spiked ratings to a 3.0 during his last appearance...as he often gets the highest rated portion of the show. The fans chose Bryan and the ratings, the show, the interest, and the fans reaction in arenas hasn't been the same since he got injured.


Bryan vs Rock is the only feud that makes sense. Also one of the highest rated segment with Bryan was a tease of him vs HHH for the belt. So those two feuds will pop the ratings. Fans want compelling stories, if they are behind a wrestler that will make it compelling. 

The Bryan vs Authority feud was good because the fans were invested in Bryan. Add a push for other fan favorites and you can start building the product back up.


----------



## Born of Osiris

2.21 :Jordan that's like some holiday christmas special shit :lmao


----------



## KC Armstrong

Yes Era said:


> That's a straight up lie. They were getting 2.4 and 2.5 with Punk as champion. Rock wins the title, the Raw rating went to 3.7 and stayed around that to WM 29. Then it dropped again.
> 
> When Rock returns, he easily is the highest rated of the night all the time. Bryan too. In truth, the ratings haven't been the same since Bryan got injured and he also spiked ratings to a 3.0 during his last appearance...as he often gets the highest rated portion of the show. The fans chose Bryan and the ratings, the show, the interest, and the fans reaction in arenas hasn't been the same since he got injured.



Actually just looked it up. The last 3 RAWs with Punk as champ drew 3.2, 3.1 and 3.0 (yes, there were episodes during his run with 2.5 and 2.7, but also plenty of 3+ episodes without The Rock). The night after Rock took the belt they hit a 3.7, but 2 weeks later they were back to 3.2. 

The last 3 episodes going into WrestleMania drew 3.1, 3.2 and 3.12 ratings. Sometimes episodes with advertised Rock appearances drew lower numbers than previous shows without him.

No matter how you try to spin it, names don't solve anything. When Rock was in his WWE prime, they would have laughed at a 3.7, let alone a 3.2. Just because he appears the shows don't magically improve in quality and viewership doesn't skyrocket despite the fact that Rock is a huge box office draw. That was my whole point.




> Early viewership information for this week's episode of WWE Monday Night Raw have the show dropping for the second week in a row. Despite the advertised appearance of WWE Champion, Dwayne "the Rock" Johnson, Raw only brought in about 4.26 million viewers across all three hours.
> 
> This is down from last week's episode without the Rock.


----------



## BuzzKillington

So glad I didn't give in and and watched RAW. Happy I contributed to a good cause.


----------



## Sweettre15

I really hope that the ratings tankińjke this show WWE that using the same old tricks will NOT work anymore 

It's time for an overhaul of the product completely


----------



## Wildcat410

ShowStopper said:


> It's not like it was in the 90's, bro. Vince isn't the same guy anymore. Isn't that extremely obvious with what the show is now compared to what it was back then? The style and quality of the shows from now and then are reflective on Vince's personalitty and where he is now compared to where he was then (desperate). He's comfortable and content now with NO wrestling competition.


Exactly

Plus Vince is *way* past his peak as a creative driver. It shows on a weekly basis and will not change anytime soon. 

I honestly don't think he could lift the product out of it's current tailspin even if he saw it as such and wanted to. It is just beyond what he is capable of now. What fans will tune into and what Vince thinks they should watch are seemingly just too seperate now to ever converge again.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Wildcat410 said:


> Exactly
> 
> Plus Vince is *way* past his peak as a creative driver. It shows on a weekly basis and will not change anytime soon.
> 
> I honestly don't think he could lift the product out of it's current tailspin even if he saw it as such and wanted to. It is just beyond what he is capable of now. What fans will tune into and what Vince thinks they should watch are seemingly just too seperate now to ever converge again.



Vince's best days may be gone, but surely he's not so far gone that he thinks people want to see heatless 6-man tags all night long, is he?


----------



## sarcasma

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Yes, it's all Reigns fault. If only Ambrose was in the center of that picture, we may have seen the third hour be the highest. Oh well, WWE's loss. <_<


Im going out on a limb here. It started as Ambroses's segment, Ambrose was going to challenge the WYATTS 1 on 3. To me this was interesting and MUST watch because maybe there might be a mystery partner. People may have tuned in more to see what would happen to DEAN. 

Then Flair announced REIGNS had to get involved. It became less interesting. 

If they would have had DEAN come out first then the WYATTS, THEN REIGNS, and LASTLY....ROLLINS, that may have been a higher rating. 

Unfortunately they marketed it as REIGNS and friends against the WYATTS.


----------



## Blade Runner

I for one am anticipating what @RLStern has to say about this week's rating :austin


----------



## SnapOrTap

LOL Roman Reigns at 10 PM.

Worst hour.

ROMAN SPEARING THEM RATINGS THROUGH THE ROOF. 

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.


----------



## Trivette

Vince on Stone Cold's Podcast last year:

:vince "They will tune in and watch anyways no matter what!" :vince3 :vince$ :vince2

Vince after seeing the ratings this last month:

:vince6 :vince4 :vincecry


----------



## Chrome

Fringe said:


> Vince on Stone Cold's Podcast last year:
> 
> :vince "They will tune in and watch anyways no matter what!" :vince3 :vince$ :vince2
> 
> Vince after seeing the ratings this last month:
> 
> :vince6 :vince4 :vincecry


I find it funny that this year, the ratings have decreased even more than usual. They had been decreasing slowly each year but this year it's worse than usual. Karma perhaps? :vince7


----------



## Green Light

I haven't been in these threads in about 3 years (RIP Rock316AE) but I remember back then people would laugh at how terrible a 3.3/3.4 was, now they're down to a 2.2? :Jordan


----------



## Chrome

#1 Becky Lynch Fan said:


> I haven't been in these threads in about 3 years (RIP Rock316AE) but I remember back then people would laugh at how terrible a 3.3/3.4 was, now they're down to a 2.2? :Jordan


Show needs more Becky Lynch, obviously.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Bringing stars in to just stand there and talk never works. You need to have them engaging with the talent in a meaningful way.

It's pretty clear that WWE's audience wants change and isn't getting it. WWE doesn't really know how to adapt, and probably has an even harder time figuring out what the fans actually want. I mean, just the disagreements on this forum alone show a lot of confusion and disagreement about what they want.

I think a couple of things are pretty clear, though: 

- Seth Rollins should drop the title pretty soon, or turn babyface. This is NOT an indictment of Seth Rollins. We need a new champion, even if it's a new Seth Rollins. There needs to be plot development of some kind here. His story is repetitive and is going nowhere. Take it somewhere already, WWE. 

- Roman Reigns is not their next top babyface/poster boy, at least in the short term. Just like Rollins should turn face, Reigns should turn heel. Give him some juice. Even if he's getting better, his improvement rate is very marginal and he isn't catching fire. We can't wait another two years for him to be "ready."

- And, biggest of all, in the long term Raw needs a new format entirely. They don't have to go insane like what WCW did when they came up with the alien logo in 1999, but they do need to adapt Raw for what wrestling will be in the future. They need to look at what the indies, and even their own NXT, are doing right in terms of presentation, and adapt some of those ideas into how they present their product. The WWF stole from ECW and even some WCW ideas in the late 90s and it worked out really well.


----------



## GRAPHICAL GHOST

it's not Austin, Taker, HBK, Lesnar etc... who can't draw.. WRESTLING can't draw anymore.


----------



## TromaDogg

First problem....most of the older stalwart fanbase who've been around since the 1990's are finally fed up with the G-rated pussified bullshit being served up every week. I'm not going to say 'bring back the Attitude Era and put the rating up to TV-14!' but holy fuck, at least do the best to cater to a more mature audience with what you've got. It doesn't matter how many soccer moms take their kids to see live shows, how many sponsorship deals you get offered from the likes of Mattel...the main audience sitting at home watching a 3 hour wrestling show on TV late on a Monday night is never going to be 5 year olds.

Second problem....constant pushing of guys that most people over the age of 5 don't give a flying fuck about. Cena get booed, Reigns gets booed, guys like Big Show and Kane are pretty much irrelevant now...why keep trying to force them on us? The biggest success stories of the past (Austin, Rock etc.) have happened because the fans got behind them organically. Push the guys older people are actually excited about and want to see more of. Stop having Ambrose lose nearly every PPV match. Stop having the Wyatt family look amazingly weak for the most part when Bray Wyatt is probably the best promo guy on the entire roster.

Third problem....Raw is just too damn long for anybody to remain consistently interested in. WCW Nitro going 3 hours never helped them either, and that was at the height of a Monday night ratings war when pro wrestling was the 'cool' thing to watch at the time.

Fourth problem....Too many writers. Fucking hell, does any other weekly TV show out there have the same amount of writers working on it as Raw? The storylines and matches are just completely disjointed, an unholy mess.


As none of these things are likely to change, I expect to see ratings in the 1s soon. The older fans (like myself) are now 'too old for this shit' and the show is mostly so fucking childish and awful nowadays (even worse than it was back during the In Your House era even) that even the younger fanbase aren't sticking with it much once they hit mid-teens. I wouldn't say wrestling's dead (yet) but it's chasing completely the wrong demographic. Vince and (especially) Steph need to realise that it's not the 1980's anymore, those days are gone and they're never coming back.


----------



## RLStern

*Austin failed to draw.
*


----------



## The Tempest

There you go :lmao


----------



## CJ

Wonder how desperate they'll get now :lmao



Fringe said:


> Vince on Stone Cold's Podcast last year:
> 
> :vince "They will tune in and watch anyways no matter what!" :vince3 :vince$ :vince2
> 
> Vince after seeing the ratings this last month:
> 
> :vince6 :vince4 :vincecry


:chlol


----------



## KC Armstrong

RLStern said:


> *Austin failed to draw.
> *



... much like Rock could never even help them get a 4 rating during his recent programs... and Rock was actually advertised and doing shit, while Austin showed up unannounced only to introduce Taker.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I know Dave Meltzer gets mixed reactions but this is what he tweeted:

'The other answer is far scarier. When you consider star power brought in, even factoring in competition, scariest rating to date by far.'

When asked if Vince cares as long as WWE makes money 

'I've seen his reaction to fake excuses. But publicly, he has to put on a different face using the BS stats.
But those underneath him, they'll make all the excuses, but I guarantee Vince knows they don't hold water.'


----------



## Stone Hot

SnapOrTap said:


> LOL Roman Reigns at 10 PM.
> 
> Worst hour.
> 
> ROMAN SPEARING THEM RATINGS THROUGH THE ROOF.
> 
> OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.


Na it's not him it's the Wyatt vs Roman feud that's the turn off


----------



## Marrakesh

WWE need to be repackaged entirely if they are ever to escape the downward spiral they find themselves in. 

They 100% need a legitimate writing team with control over booking decisions (rather than just being paid to listen to Vince's ideas and agree with it or be fired) 

If you asked me what I'd do right now as Vince then I'd fucking beg Heyman to take over as head of creative at some point in the next few months and allow him to choose which writers to work with. 

A new identity needs to be created for the show and virtually all of the characters need to be retooled and booked consistently (Something which Heyman could do with his eyes closed) 

Writing and marketing your new crop of stars has never been a priority for WWE and the pitiful sight of them bringing back their AE relics on Monday to try and boost a rating for one week was the ultimate proof of their warped philosophies focused solely on short term dollars. 

Ultimately they deserve everything they get. They don't know what their fans want anymore and even if they did they wouldn't know how to produce the content to give it to them consistently. 

In any other company heads would roll but as we all know the McMahons are going nowhere.


----------



## 1TheGreatOne1

The highlight of wrestling now is watching dem rating drop lower and lower each week.

This is great.


----------



## Redzero

They need to made something risky like turning Rollings face or droping the title to someone relevant, not fucking Kane or Sheamus.

btw i love this LMAO.


----------



## samizayn

This rating pleases me greatly. WWE has gone beyond subpar, it's literally the most uninspired product I have ever seen.


----------



## EireUnited

#Taker said:


> it's not Austin, Taker, HBK, Lesnar etc... who can't draw.. WRESTLING can't draw anymore.


Old, retired men in their 50s doesn't draw.

Portraying young, exciting people in their 20s and 30s does draw.

If WWE had Conor McGregor and Ronda Rousey, they would be NOBODIES. WWE would spend the entire time they're on the roster telling you how much better everything was 15 years ago.

You have to GENUINELY promote people as important for them to draw- and in the era of part-timers in the main spots, WWE has done that for NOBODY- because those part-timers importance has been positioned above everyone else's.


----------



## Londrick

Cena's winning the title @ the next PPV. :mark:


----------



## Takes2Two Fandango

Who would of thought making non wrestling people write a wrestling show would be such a bad idea how about put wrestling people alongside the writers and work together. The wrestling guys create the story lines and overlook the writers and make sure everything to looks good and sense


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Takes2Two Fandango said:


> Who would of thought making non wrestling people write a wrestling show would be such a bad idea how about put wrestling people alongside the writers and work together. The wrestling guys create the story lines and overlook the writers and make sure everything to looks good and sense


There's like what? 30-40 writers? And then they have to answer to Vince McMahon and his sense of humour.


----------



## ironyman

It was a better show, but that is not enough. As has been said already, the entire product needs an overhaul and they need a new edgier, more serious image with drama and controversy. All of the old clown show tactics are too dated and cringe-worthy. Nobody wants to see shit like that anymore. New Day in their ridiculous get-up dancing, Kane, El Torito, etc... all of that stuff needs to go. Or it will only keep dropping.


----------



## jim courier

People saying part timers can't draw and this proves it isn't Rollins fault erm the show has been built around Rollins for the last 7 months and the ratings has increasingly slipped to record lows.


----------



## EireUnited

jim courier said:


> People saying part timers can't draw and this proves it isn't Rollins fault erm the show has been built around Rollins for the last 7 months and the ratings has increasingly slipped to record lows.


lol has it? Of the people WWE push as being IMPORTANT- HHH, Brock, Rock, Undertaker, Cena- Rollins has had no interaction with some, repeatedly lost clean to Cena, and been frequently dressed down by and treated as the bitch of HHH and his wife.

People need to understand, just because they put a belt around your waist whilst doing so, that isn't really a push!


----------



## thehumpdinker

jim courier said:


> People saying part timers can't draw and this proves it isn't Rollins fault erm the show has been built around Rollins for the last 7 months and the ratings has increasingly slipped to record lows.


Stop talking sense.


----------



## Yes Era

KC Armstrong said:


> ... much like Rock could never even help them get a 4 rating during his recent programs... and Rock was actually advertised and doing shit, while Austin showed up unannounced only to introduce Taker.


The Rock doesn't have to get a 4 rating for a 3 hour show..that's not gonna happen for anyone. But he did show at Raw 1000 and blew everyone away and got the highest segment of the night on a show packed with stars and so called legends. So wake the fuck up...everything he touches practically makes money. When he was champion in 2013, every Raw every week was sold out.


----------



## The Tempest

jim courier said:


> People saying part timers can't draw and this proves it isn't Rollins fault erm the show has been built around Rollins for the last 7 months and the ratings has increasingly slipped to record lows.


Your beloved "part timers" just managed to make this past RAW the lowest rated non holiday episode since 1997 :ti Keep reaching and making bullshit excuses breh :ti


----------



## Reaper

Wildcat410 said:


> Plus Vince is *way* past his peak as a creative driver


Vince was never the creative driver. He was the decision-maker but never the one _driving _the ideas. Still doesn't. 

Last I checked HHH was EVP creative .. meaning he has more say than is given credit for. 

But I love how he gets a free pass because of NXT ... where he has nothing to do with creative.

I also have no clue where people are getting the idea that the WWE is being written by non-wrestlers .. has anyone even looked at the list. The Head Writer is Khali's ex-manager Ranjin Singh .. There's also Max Keegan on the staff. What's happening is that they have lame duck writers ... but they're not from the non-wrestling world.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/507589-wwe-creative-team-shake-up


----------



## TheShieldSuck

The Tempest said:


> Your beloved "part timers" just managed to make this past RAW the lowest rated non holiday episode since 1997 :ti Keep reaching and making bullshit excuses breh :ti


They increased viewers though. WWE has been declining of late in ratings AND viewership.


----------



## jim courier

The Tempest said:


> Your beloved "part timers" just managed to make this past RAW the lowest rated non holiday episode since 1997 :ti Keep reaching and making bullshit excuses breh :ti


It's been in a continuing decline since Rollins got the belt and this is the result. Do you think the rating would be a 2.21 if Taker, Brock and Austin had been on tv 7 months straight? Of course NOT!


----------



## chronoxiong

Keep on dropping lower ratings. Something has to be done to make this lame product to get exciting again. There is literally nothing excited to see at all anymore.


----------



## ironyman

The Apostate said:


> I also have no clue where people are getting the idea that the WWE is being written by non-wrestlers .. has anyone even looked at the list. The Head Writer is Khali's ex-manager Ranjin Singh.]


----------



## TheLooseCanon

And their solution for declining ratings come The Royal Rumble? :reigns.

Keep on dropping. :vince$


----------



## FITZ

I mean it was cool and everything that they advertised all of these big names but at the end of the day nothing of any substance happened and everybody knew nothing of any substance would happen.


----------



## Chrome

Found this from another site:










The dropoff from the last few years to this year is quite staggering, to say the least.


----------



## Randy Lahey

TheShieldSuck said:


> 3.52 (last week)
> 3.25
> 3.08
> 
> 
> 3.600 (this week)
> 3.347
> 3.123
> 
> 
> Not bad. Wasnt there a big game on yesterday? If so it proves legends to draw a bit but not much.



Not bad?

This week was an ALL TIME LOW.

WWE needs to go back to TV14 and make the product edgier. Their reasoning behind leaving that in the first place was the need to "create younger fans". Well, that has been a complete failure. Its been at least 5 or 6 years of this format and we can all see what the ratings have done. You look at the top rated TV shows of today that are on cable (those that do massive ratings) and all of them are adult shows. This type of lame child centered WWE product has never drawn even going back to the early 1990s when it was cartoonish. Why they believed that it would today, I'll never know. But it hasnt. So either they'll change it up and make the show adult oriented, or they'll continue to lose viewers. People think WWE will bottom out. It wont. There's still 3 million people per week that can eventually say "nope, not gonna watch this anymore. its boring". They'll be below a 2.0 this time next year if they dont change.


----------



## usk81841

thank you


----------



## Drago

2.21 almost there... :mj4


----------



## bmotley157

Drago said:


> 2.21 almost there... :mj4


.


----------



## Tardbasher12

Is 1.99 too much of a reach for next week?


----------



## Drago

Tardbasher12 said:


> Is 1.99 too much of a reach for next week?


If it drops below 2.0 I will dance around my street nude and post a video here.


----------



## roadkill_

It'll probably go back up next week. November, when the kids realise Cena is gone, is when we'll hit 2.0/2.1.


----------



## RatedR10

Tardbasher12 said:


> Is 1.99 too much of a reach for next week?


I'd say 2.15 - 2.25 range is likely. It might pop a bit depending on if they do any sort of big angle at Hell in a Cell, but I doubt it.



roadkill_ said:


> It'll probably go back up next week. November, when the kids realise Cena is gone, is when we'll hit 2.0/2.1.


Ratings routinely fall into late October and fall even more into November and December. Not even these legends could pop the number...


----------



## A-C-P

No Cena for a couple months after HIAC, Could we go below 2.0? :fingerscrossed


----------



## Seafort

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

I guess the better question is...how long will it take for Monday Night RAW to reach a 1.5 again?

Somewhat tongue in cheek question....but a serious answer will be September of next year.


----------



## UntilDawn

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

They don't need us to help, sooner or later they could pass WCW 2000 standards. :lol


----------



## thehumpdinker

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

- Continue having Rollins as Champ

- Cena off TV

- Push Ziggler

All of which is probably going to happen.


----------



## Tha Pope

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

El Torito on a Pole Match


----------



## Residenr

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Just keep on doing whatever the fuck is they are doing.


----------



## Mastodonic

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Split up the New Day. Put the title on Kane and have him feud with the Big Show. Have Reigns go over all four Wyatts in a handicap match. Have Ambrose job to The Miz. Bring back Grumpy Cat and Larry the Cable Guy.


----------



## Chris JeriG.O.A.T

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Make Cesaro WWEWHC and give him the same amount of promo time Seth has now.


----------



## skarvika

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

The show needs to be TV-Y in my opinion. I'm sick and tired of being triggered and offended by these cisgendered straight white males!


----------



## thedeparted_94

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Kane wins the World Championship at Hell in a Cell. Big Show is the surprise opponent for John Cena's Open Challenge and wins the US belt.

Kane and Big Show vow to be the most dominant champions of all time and they beat everyone clean including Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, a returning Daniel Bryan in his debut match, Sami Zayn, Finn Balor, Kevin Owens, Sting.

Then Triple H comes back at Wrestlemania and beats Kane and Big Show in a handicap match with both titles on the line.

Best for buisness :trips


----------



## Rasslor

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Have Seth Rollins' beat Punk's Title reign.


----------



## SMetalWorld

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Make John Cena defeat The Shield, The Wyatt Family, Brock Lesnar, Undertaker, Sting, The New Day, The Dudley Boyz, NXT Roster, The entire Divas, Dolph Ziggler, Hulk Hogan, Steve Austin and Daniel Bryan in the main event of Raw and bury them all in one match.

The next week John Cena wins the titles and refuses to job to anyone.

The next next week John Cena defeats Satan and Hades in a 2-on-1 Handicap match.


----------



## dougfisher_05

Yes Era said:


> The Rock doesn't have to get a 4 rating for a 3 hour show..that's not gonna happen for anyone. But he did show at Raw 1000 and blew everyone away and got the highest segment of the night on a show packed with stars and so called legends. So wake the fuck up...everything he touches practically makes money. When he was champion in 2013, every Raw every week was sold out.


Unless you got proof (and I mean some fucking good revenue, attendance numbers) then you just can't drop that kind of statement. Proof or it didn't happen and I got a good idea that it didn't happen because he wasn't on every week as champion in 2013.


----------



## dougfisher_05

RLStern said:


> *Austin failed to draw.
> *


Put Austin in a match at wrestle mania 32 and watch that sumbitch sell out. Then come here and tell me he ain't a draw. 

Last I checked he wasn't officially advertised for raw.


----------



## Jaunties

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Just keep doing what they're doing now and the past 10 years that it's been on a decline. It'll get there eventually if they don't make anything drastic changes.


----------



## NearFall

So much for "CM Punk not being a draw", "Daniel Bryan not being a draw" causing low ratings back in 2012/2013. They keep doing worse even with stars far far bigger than CM Punk or Daniel Bryan in their shows. Clearly fans are fed up of the direction (which is non-existant) and writing of the show.


----------



## Drago

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Steps? Just stay the course Vince damn it! :mj4


----------



## Donnie

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Hmm lets see

Kane wins the WHC in 50 seconds at HIAC

Cena beats the NXT 5 in 10 minutes 

Seth cuts an hour long promo that goes nowhere 

Vine makes his return and proceeds to bury all the IWC favourites. Then he fires Rusev and fucks Lana in the middle of the ring

And keep Raw they way it is


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

IMO who really gives a shit because there will be that segment of the audience that will watch Raw regardless of what happens and Raw just like the Nelson ratings are obsolete. Yet if you are so concerned about Raw's ratings so much, if you want to get it to a 1.5 just make Raw like the old WWF Prime Time Wrestling. Just recap the week's events, and sprinkle in a couple taped matches and taped promos.


----------



## T'Challa

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Have BigShow win the US title challenge have Kane win the WWE title. Have Kane and BigShow feud for the titles. 

Open every show with an hour long Authority promo.


----------



## zonetrooper5

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

- Big Show wins the WWEWHC in under 10 seconds against a up and coming potential star

-Instead of 30 minute promos to start off the show, have 2 hour promos between random wrestlers which go no where

- 6 man tag team matches all the time

- Have the WWE network logo and $9.99 flash on the screen every couple seconds

- Have no booking, character progression and storylines for anything, everything just happens because


----------



## Brodus Clay

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

LOL at the people that think making Seth drop the title would decrease the ratings, you want 1.5 op? let him have a one year reign and that's it theres no need for a drastic change when Seth Rollins hold the belt.

The problem with him it's that hes a no interesting person in our out of WWE. 

Now if you want to speed things, let Big Show and Kane dominate the midcard.


----------



## CJ

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Just stick on their current course & I'm sure they'll get there :chlol


----------



## Freelancer

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

I agree with CJ, they are well on their way to getting there now. Why change?


----------



## Louis Cyr

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

Add a new member to Team Bella who they refer to as the “higher power,” and joins them to the ring in a hooded robe to keep their identity a secret. Have the higher power constantly interfering in people’s matches, to the point that the fans hate them without knowing who they are.

After a few weeks of build up the higher power is unveiled and is no other than Daniel Bryan (which receives a huge pop), except he now wants to be known as Daniel Bella(promptly killing any fan support). Have him play the ultimate chickenshit heel and proceed to job him out to the likes of Kane, Big Show, maybe even Sheamus…


----------



## Dolorian

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

As far as what they could do this Sunday goes...

- Get Big Show to answer the challenge and win the US title from Cena
- Have Ryback win the belt from Owens
- Let Charlotte retain the divas title
- Have Sheamus cash in successfully and become the WWE Champion
- Keep doing that contrived Roman Reigns push and forcing him down the audience's throats


----------



## zrc

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

- Hire Vince Russo.


----------



## Algernon

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

WWE can't do it themselves. They'll need help. No amount of buring Bryan or overpushing Sheamus, Big Show and Kane will achieve the record low rating, at least not immediately. 

December 28th 2015, Bengals vs Broncos Monday night footfall. Sandwiched in between Chrismas and New Years. Its unlikely but if both the Bengals and Broncos remain undefeated, that game will be huge. Hell if one of them is undefeated going into that matchup, its going to be big. 

The year the Patriots went undefeated they had a Monday night game late in the year and it drew 17.5 million viewers.

So 14-0 Broncos vs 14-0 Bengals + WWE Champion Sheamus might do it.


----------



## nightmare515

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*

John Cena has a career ending injury or decides to just flat out leave WWE. Rating would plummet. Like it or not a huge chunk of people who watch and attend WWE shows are little kids and parents who want to see John Cena. When the kids realize he is gone they won't want to watch it anymore.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



nightmare515 said:


> John Cena has a career ending injury or decides to just flat out leave WWE. Rating would plummet. Like it or not a huge chunk of people who watch and attend WWE shows are little kids and parents who want to see John Cena. When the kids realize he is gone they won't want to watch it anymore.





People will still watch, they just need to get rid of the 3rd hour and improve the writing. They can't just do a quick fix if they want to improve the ratings. Ratings comes over time, they just come with it.


----------



## Dark Paladin

dougfisher_05 said:


> Put Austin in a match at wrestle mania 32 and watch that sumbitch sell out. Then come here and tell me he ain't a draw.
> 
> Last I checked he wasn't officially advertised for raw.


Pretty much this. You can't expect people to tune in to watch him if he wasn't advertised to be there in the first place.


----------



## Marrakesh

So the ratings are reaching all time low's as predicted by many after the lackluster numbers in WM season. 

Anyone have any idea what kind of numbers actually endanger Raw being cancelled on the USA Network? 

Has there ever been any kind of confirmation as to what the absolute minimum numbers are that the network will deem acceptable?


----------



## Yes Era

dougfisher_05 said:


> Unless you got proof (and I mean some fucking good revenue, attendance numbers) then you just can't drop that kind of statement. Proof or it didn't happen and I got a good idea that it didn't happen because he wasn't on every week as champion in 2013.


WTF you mean "PROOF OR IT Didn't happen" Everyone has read the Observer and has seen the Rock's returns as Champion in 2013. Except you. You're the one trying to act like you didn't read or check it out or are slow. Something like that. Whatever. Point blank..the Rock missed what? One week so he could do a reshoot? You acting like he was the Undertaker and Lesnar..missing every single week. Nah...he was on the show..he was on Smackdown...he did several segments with Punk, Miz, Damien Sandow, Cody Rhodes, all of them. 

The Rock drew. Punk didn't. Del Rio before him didn't. That's why the Rock is treated like a big deal and those other guys are long gone.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Marrakesh said:


> So the ratings are reaching all time low's as predicted by many after the lackluster numbers in WM season.
> 
> Anyone have any idea what kind of numbers actually endanger Raw being cancelled on the USA Network?
> 
> Has there ever been any kind of confirmation as to what the absolute minimum numbers are that the network will deem acceptable?


They signed a 5-year deal last year, and unless there's something in there, all they have to do is produce television. Maybe there's a cancelation clause, but I think at worst, they're going to ride out the rest of the deal for the next four years. 

USA has been incredibly loyal to WWE over the years, so I doubt they'd ever opt out of the deal, even in the 0.0 range.


----------



## The Tempest

Dat bump


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Smackdown gradually reeling in RAW! :mark:


----------



## dougfisher_05

Yes Era said:


> WTF you mean "PROOF OR IT Didn't happen" Everyone has read the Observer and has seen the Rock's returns as Champion in 2013. Except you. You're the one trying to act like you didn't read or check it out or are slow. Something like that. Whatever. Point blank..the Rock missed what? One week so he could do a reshoot? You acting like he was the Undertaker and Lesnar..missing every single week. Nah...he was on the show..he was on Smackdown...he did several segments with Punk, Miz, Damien Sandow, Cody Rhodes, all of them.
> 
> The Rock drew. Punk didn't. Del Rio before him didn't. That's why the Rock is treated like a big deal and those other guys are long gone.


The only person who is slow must be you, because you replied to the post asking for proof with absolutely none. 

Your original statement was that when Rock was champion RAW was sold out EVERY single week. 

I asked for proof and you cited "The Wrestling Observer" and then went on about some drivel about comparing him to punk and bryan, which really had nothing to do with my comment. 

So, again, unless you have undeniable proof (attendance numbers, revenue compared year over year, venue to venue) you can't realistically expect to be taken seriously with comments like yours. 

Maybe the WWE actually did sell out every week with Rock as champion, but I highly, and I mean highly fucking doubt it. Did they do good business? Sure. But your idea is that the Rock sold out every show leading into WrestleMania, and I'm here to call you out on it. 

So yeah, PROOF or it DIDN'T happen.


----------



## DoubtGin

Breeze draws :YES

but really, I am sure his debut has a lot to do with the spike; however, the ratings are still pretty horrible when compared to a year ago or so. Weren't they close to 3m some time ago?


----------



## P.H. Hatecraft

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



nightmare515 said:


> John Cena has a career ending injury or decides to just flat out leave WWE. Rating would plummet. Like it or not a huge chunk of people who watch and attend WWE shows are little kids and parents who want to see John Cena. When the kids realize he is gone they won't want to watch it anymore.


And whose fault is that? Cena was the only guy they made people care about.


----------



## nightmare515

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



P.H. Hatecraft said:


> And whose fault is that? Cena was the only guy they made people care about.


It would be WWE's fault for putting the entire spotlight on one guy. Not going by whose fault this is just saying. OP asked what would make ratings plummet and having Cena leave would do it. 

There are way more kids and casual marks than there are smark fans. The smarks would be happy if Cena left, but the majority of the audience wouldn't because they love him. Well the kids do anyway.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



nightmare515 said:


> It would be WWE's fault for putting the entire spotlight on one guy. Not going by whose fault this is just saying. OP asked what would make ratings plummet and having Cena leave would do it.
> 
> There are way more kids and casual marks than there are smark fans. The smarks would be happy if Cena left, but the majority of the audience wouldn't because they love him. Well the kids do anyway.




The WWE has been fazing out and putting Cena on the back burner for more than a year now.


----------



## nightmare515

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



bigdog40 said:


> The WWE has been fazing out and putting Cena on the back burner for more than a year now.


Is that why they have made Cena himself and the US title more important than the WWE title? 

Even when not booked as the main even Cena is still the main event and he still gets the loudest reactions of anybody else. 

Cena is technically supposed to be in the mid card right now, the US title is a mid card belt yet he still prances around and talks it up like it's more important than the WWE title to him. 

Putting Cena on the backburner would mean having him feud with Barret or something.


----------



## bigdog40

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



nightmare515 said:


> Is that why they have made Cena himself and the US title more important than the WWE title?
> 
> Even when not booked as the main even Cena is still the main event and he still gets the loudest reactions of anybody else.
> 
> Cena is technically supposed to be in the mid card right now, the US title is a mid card belt yet he still prances around and talks it up like it's more important than the WWE title to him.
> 
> Putting Cena on the backburner would mean having him feud with Barret or something.





That's because Cena's still the biggest draw in the company, makes the most money, and gets the most attention. The WWE just doesn't feature him as much and his match that he's going to drop the belt too is barely getting any attention. Dropping Cena down to hold the mid-card title is like dropping a guy like Austin, Hogan, or Rock into the mid-card because no matter what the WWE doesn't, it's the big stars that will garner the most attention.


----------



## SarcasmoBlaster

People seem to be, as always, making it about guys they have a hate boner for when really it has nothing to do with any one individual. The show is in a state where it's clearly booked week to week. The only person protected by booking is Cena, and to a lesser extent Reigns. Everyone else just trades wins. Thus no individual win is a big deal. If they want to really push someone like Reigns, there's no real heels for him to overcome, because they are all dorks. Same with faces. There is noone for a heel to overcome but Cena. So wins and loses dont matter. Programs font matter because nothing builds to anything substantial. So yes, ratings suck. It has nothing to do with Punk or Bryan or Reigns or Rollins you dolts.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

*Re: Steps that WWE can take to drive RAW ratings down to a 1.5*



bigdog40 said:


> The WWE has been fazing out and putting Cena on the back burner for more than a year now.


No they haven't. If anything its worse because he's beating every mid carder on the roster each week thanks to the burial challenge. The only difference is that he is holding a US title instead of the WWE title. If he was being phased out they wouldnt have had him win consecutively against KO.


----------



## DoubtGin

saw this on reddit/twitter


----------



## Yes Era

dougfisher_05 said:


> The only person who is slow must be you, because you replied to the post asking for proof with absolutely none.
> 
> Your original statement was that when Rock was champion RAW was sold out EVERY single week.
> 
> I asked for proof and you cited "The Wrestling Observer" and then went on about some drivel about comparing him to punk and bryan, which really had nothing to do with my comment.
> 
> So, again, unless you have undeniable proof (attendance numbers, revenue compared year over year, venue to venue) you can't realistically expect to be taken seriously with comments like yours.
> 
> Maybe the WWE actually did sell out every week with Rock as champion, but I highly, and I mean highly fucking doubt it. Did they do good business? Sure. But your idea is that the Rock sold out every show leading into WrestleMania, and I'm here to call you out on it.
> 
> So yeah, PROOF or it DIDN'T happen.



Offer you? Who the fuck are you? There's a whole website and newsletter that is proven time and again. You're just some geek on the board talking about the Rock doesn't draw...lmao.


----------



## dougfisher_05

Yes Era said:


> Offer you? Who the fuck are you? There's a whole website and newsletter that is proven time and again. You're just some geek on the board talking about the Rock doesn't draw...lmao.


And amazingly, still no proof. Try again. :wink2:


----------



## XxAttitudeEraxX

The danger the WWE is really going to run into with its current shit direction is… once wrestling fans leave, and once they get comfortable being gone, they don't go back.

You can see this in the height of its popularity during the Attitude Era. Wrestling was huge, it was relevant, and Raw is War was a serious place to be every week. Most of those people are long fucking gone, and they aren't EVER coming back. I stopped watching in 2002 and don't miss it at all. Whenever I get nostalgic I go to youtube.

I periodically check in just to see how unbearably awful it is now, and that's it. I come to this forum a few times a year to gauge whats going on. All I've been seeing since 2011 is constant complaining about how shitty it is, with a few periodic moments of foolish hope in between (like the Summer of Punk or Lesnar's return)

After the WWE loses a viewer for a sustained period of time, that viewer loses all their emotional investment in the characters, feuds, and story lines. When you've missed a month or two of story arches, you're still `generally aware` of what is going on, but after that, once they lose that emotional investment from being away, it completely dies for them. They feel nothing for it. They have no urge to go back. It doesn't matter who WWE advertises or books. They're out and its over. It becomes just strange, uninteresting douchebags pretending to fight in their underwear. It's not like there's any major "larger than life" stars on the horizon that can make it truly entertaining and capture the imaginations of large audiences. All I see when I flick it on by accident are a bunch of mid carders pretending to be main eveners

The more the WWE loses people, and the longer they stay gone, and more impossible it becomes for the company to gain them back. Professional wrestling is dead and sports-entertainment is probably not sustainable. We might be seeing the middle of the end here before the lights go out.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Just some perspective on the ratings discussion:


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

XxAttitudeEraxX said:


> The danger the WWE is really going to run into with its current shit direction is… once wrestling fans leave, and once they get comfortable being gone, they don't go back.
> 
> You can see this in the height of its popularity during the Attitude Era. Wrestling was huge, it was relevant, and Raw is War was a serious place to be every week. Most of those people are long fucking gone, and they aren't EVER coming back. I stopped watching in 2002 and don't miss it at all. Whenever I get nostalgic I go to youtube.
> 
> I periodically check in just to see how unbearably awful it is now, and that's it. I come to this forum a few times a year to gauge whats going on. All I've been seeing since 2011 is constant complaining about how shitty it is, with a few periodic moments of foolish hope in between (like the Summer of Punk or Lesnar's return)
> 
> After the WWE loses a viewer for a sustained period of time, that viewer loses all their emotional investment in the characters, feuds, and story lines. When you've missed a month or two of story arches, you're still `generally aware` of what is going on, but after that, once they lose that emotional investment from being away, it completely dies for them. They feel nothing for it. They have no urge to go back. It doesn't matter who WWE advertises or books. They're out and its over. It becomes just strange, uninteresting douchebags pretending to fight in their underwear. It's not like there's any major "larger than life" stars on the horizon that can make it truly entertaining and capture the imaginations of large audiences. All I see when I flick it on by accident are a bunch of mid carders pretending to be main eveners
> 
> The more the WWE loses people, and the longer they stay gone, and more impossible it becomes for the company to gain them back. Professional wrestling is dead and sports-entertainment is probably not sustainable. We might be seeing the middle of the end here before the lights go out.


Losing long time viewers wouldn't be an issue if WWE was adding new viewers to replace them. But it appears they are not. Its hard to convince new viewers to become a wrestling fan. Its a 3 hour a week commitment, plus ppv weekends. Its just to much.


----------



## King_Kool-Aid™

#Taker said:


> it's not Austin, Taker, HBK, Lesnar etc... who can't draw.. WRESTLING can't draw anymore.


People look at me like something is wrong with me when I say I watch wrestling.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Just some perspective on the ratings discussion:


Thats a pretty nifty graph.

WWE needs to look at 2005-06 because there was a mini boom there. A slight ratings increase as opposed to decrease.


----------



## Fighter Daron

TheShieldSuck said:


> WWE needs to look at 2005-06 because there was a mini boom there. A slight ratings increase as opposed to decrease.


Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Rey Mysterio, Edge, Eddie Guerrero, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Batista on a weekly basis.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Fighter Daron said:


> Shawn Michaels, Triple H, Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Rey Mysterio, Edge, Eddie Guerrero, Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Batista on a weekly basis.


All those guy were active earlier. 

I'd say more to do with Batista and dare I say it. John Cena.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

As it is following a ppv, I imagine the ratings should uptick a bit. MNF wasn't a marquee matchup either, as Baltimore has fallen on hard times this season. RAW wss good. Now we'll soon see how much interest it generated.


----------



## Stone Hot

Even tho Raw was good, I don't see the ratings going up by much if not at all


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Stone Hot said:


> Even tho Raw was good, I don't see the ratings going up by much if not at all


But we might see it reflected in next week's ratings. WWE just put on two of the best non-NXT shows they've done all year. I imagine we'll see _some_ kind of bump in the next two weeks.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Soul Man Danny B said:


> But we might see it reflected in next week's ratings. WWE just put on two of the best non-NXT shows they've done all year. I imagine we'll see _some_ kind of bump in the next two weeks.



That's not how it always works, though. Ratings don't improve right away because you had two good shows. The people who have tuned out in the last few months didn't even see Hell in a Cell and Raw last night.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

KC Armstrong said:


> That's not how it always works, though. Ratings don't improve right away because you had two good shows. The people who have tuned out in the last few months didn't even see Hell in a Cell and Raw last night.


Absolutely. Sometimes, it takes a while to get those people back. I just have a suspicion that Cena being off the show might expedite the process.


----------



## Stone Hot

Soul Man Danny B said:


> But we might see it reflected in next week's ratings. WWE just put on two of the best non-NXT shows they've done all year. I imagine we'll see _some_ kind of bump in the next two weeks.


Let's hope!


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

I think the key to look for this week, no matter what the rating is, is if the viewership went up throughout the night or not - if the tournament idea actually worked to keep viewers invested in Raw (along with the only other advertised thing of Wyatt's explanation). If viewership drops a lot from 1st to 3rd hour, that's no good. If it however has a minimal drop or actually goes up, call the tournament idea a success.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

If ratings decline it proves wrestling dont draw and that the IWC needs to fuck off.


----------



## Stone Hot

TheShieldSuck said:


> If ratings decline it proves wrestling dont draw and that the IWC needs to fuck off.


They will just blame Reigns which is ludicrous


----------



## looter

TheShieldSuck said:


> If ratings decline it proves wrestling dont draw and that the IWC needs to fuck off.


Not true. Wwe has made wrestling not a draw by putting on months and months of downright horrible shows. Wwe is the reason wrestling does not draw


----------



## A-C-P

Coming off a PPV that created a buzz and with an underwhelming MNF match-up the WWE better hope ratings are up this week.

And agreed completely with @#BadNewsSanta on the real tell is not the total # they get but whether or not the viewership dropped significantly from beginning to end.


----------



## JBLoser

TheShieldSuck said:


> If ratings decline it proves wrestling dont draw and that the IWC needs to fuck off.


LOL. No. Not true in the slightest bit.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Stone Hot said:


> They will just blame Reigns which is ludicrous


You're right. So if they go up, you'll readily admit it's equally ludicrous to attribute the gain to Roman. Right?

It'll be up being post ppv and an Arizona hosting a one win Ravens team.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> You're right. So if they go up, you'll readily admit it's equally ludicrous to attribute the gain to Roman. Right?
> 
> It'll be up being post ppv and an Arizona hosting a one win Ravens team.


Of course it's team effort. 1 man cant bring up or bring down ratings alone


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

A-C-P said:


> Coming off a PPV that created a buzz and with an underwhelming MNF match-up the WWE better hope ratings are up this week.
> 
> And agreed completely with @#BadNewsSanta on the real tell is not the total # they get but whether or not the viewership dropped significantly from beginning to end.


Also no playoff baseball last night like there has been the previous couple of weeks against Raw.


----------



## Chrome

To be fair, we thought the ratings would be up last week and they ended up scoring one of the lowest ratings ever since '97. So we'll see. Think they'll be up though, they usually go up anyway after a ppv and they've actually generated some buzz after a ppv for once.


----------



## JBLoser

Welp.

Hour 1: 3.635M
Hour 2: 3.213M
Hour 3: 3.214M

Source


----------



## Cliffy

JBLoser said:


> Welp.
> 
> Hour 1: 3.635M
> Hour 2: 3.213M
> Hour 3: 3.214M


God bless Roman Reigns :duck


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

HUGE dropoffs again in the latter two hours.


----------



## Stone Hot

JBLoser said:


> Welp.
> 
> Hour 1: 3.635M
> Hour 2: 3.213M
> Hour 3: 3.214M
> 
> Source


Dam a 400K drop off in the 2nd hour.


----------



## A-C-P

Well at least it looks like 10,000 additional people tuned back in hour 3 to see Reigns become #1 contender :reigns2


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Maybe having The Authority promo at the beginning and Reigns coming out just made it too predictable for people to care


----------



## Stone Hot

Can't blame Reigns his match was in the first hour.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

No one continues to care about WWE Main Event matches no matter who's in them.


----------



## A-C-P

Stone Hot said:


> Can't blame Reigns his match was in the first hour.


Bet you I can....


People stayed tuned in the first hour to watch New Day make fun of Reigns. Reigns is BOOTY :Oooh

400,000 people turned off the show when they knew Reigns was becoming #1 contender

See how easy that is :draper2

(Note I am really not serious and I never blame any one person for the ratings of a 3 hour show :lol)


----------



## JBLoser

+1%, -4%, +3% compared to last week's #'s, for those interested.


----------



## Goldusto

Stone Hot said:


> Can't blame Reigns his match was in the first hour.


nope but everyone knew the out come all the same.

BUT there is a lot of buzz everywhere about how solid the show was so next week ight see a bit of a bump, but it will take more shows of this standard to reel everyone back.


----------



## Stone Hot

A-C-P said:


> Bet you I can....
> 
> 
> People stayed tuned in the first hour to watch New Day make fun of Reigns. Reigns is BOOTY
> 
> 400,000 people turned off the show when they knew Reigns was becoming #1 contender
> 
> See how easy that is


:lol no. Many many other factors between them and the main event. 1 man is not responsible for ratings


----------



## JBLoser

Y'all, WWE's always going to have great #'s in the first hour cause they run it unopposed. They can't compete with Monday Night Football if they wanted to.


----------



## Stone Hot

Goldusto said:


> nope but everyone knew the out come all the same.
> 
> BUT there is a lot of buzz everywhere about how solid the show was so next week ight see a bit of a bump, but it will take more shows of this standard to reel everyone back.


Of course. This is where wwe tv IMO picks up going into WM season


----------



## Chrome

Really not much of an improvement tbh. And they didn't have much competition either. That 3rd hour continues to be a killer.


----------



## JBLoser

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Maybe having The Authority promo at the beginning


I know this made me groan.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

An Authority promo being in the highest rated part of the show..

:ha


----------



## JBLoser

ShowStopper said:


> An Authority promo being in the highest rated part of the show..
> 
> :ha


Means more of this bullshit is on deck.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> An Authority promo being in the highest rated part of the show..


Of course duh :HHH2 this man is ratings


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JBLoser said:


> Means more of this bullshit is on deck.


And that no one cared about the tournament.


----------



## RatedR10

The Authority always opens the show because they know that's when most people watch... you know, first 30 mins of Raw being unopposed and all. :trips2

Seriously, fuck The Authority and their boring ass, over-scripted, weekly 20-minute monologues.


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> And that no one cared about the tournament.


Plus everyone and their mother knew Reigns was winning anyway, so there was no suspense. Would've been better off having Reigns come out and confront Rollins in the opening segment, declare himself the #1 contender, and then beat up Rollins. Would've saved people the time.


----------



## SnapOrTap

BAW GOD.

BAW GOD.

BAW GOD.

ROMAN REIGNS. HAS SPEARED. THE RATINGS. IN HALF. 

BAW GOD.

THE LOOK. 

OOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH.

SPEAR

SPEAR

SPEAR

ROMAN REIGNS JUST SUPERMAN PUNCHED THE RATINGS DOWN THE DRAIN.

THE FUTURE LADIES AND GENTLEMEN.


----------



## SnapOrTap

All them fans came for Rollins. They left when they saw Reigns making it Reign with his spectacular ring work and mic work.

Beast mode.


----------



## The Dazzler

I was expecting a jump with the way the ppv ended. I hope they keep going down. >


----------



## SnapOrTap

It's time for the Roman Empire to lead us to TNA levels of ratings, brothers.

Can't wait for these ratings to be even more dogshit when Roman "The Rock" Reigns starts cutting promos during Wrestlemania season.

Strap a rocket and lets do this. I'm ready.


----------



## Stone Hot

fpalm snap


----------



## SnapOrTap

I've waited so long to use this.










It's finally time brothers and sisters.

BELIEVE DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT


----------



## teick

It's just pathetic how people blame Reigns for the ratings.


----------



## thehumpdinker

Reigns was ruined a long time ago.

Rollins does not have that excuse.


----------



## The XL

That's a horrific sign after a hot ending to the other days PPV


----------



## The Dazzler

teick said:


> It's just pathetic how people blame Reigns for the ratings.


Obviously you can't blame just one person, but the show was built around him becoming #1 contender. :justsayin


----------



## thehumpdinker

The Dazzler said:


> Obviously you can't blame just one person, but the show was built around him becoming #1 contender. :justsayin


Just like the show for the past 6 months has been built around Rollins as Champion?


----------



## TKOW

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Maybe having The Authority promo at the beginning and Reigns coming out just made it too predictable for people to care


Absolutely. As soon as Reigns came out, there was no reason wait around til the third hour and watch the main event.


----------



## The XL

Reigns is mediocre but to blame him solely for the ratings isn't fair.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

thehumpdinker said:


> Just like the show for the past 6 months has been built around Rollins as Champion?


People always blame one person, no matter who that person is. Get used to it. This is how it's been for years and years and years. It sucks, but it's just the way it is. Didn't see you here complaining when the people in the past were getting blamed. ut


----------



## Wynter

That isn't surprising at all. 

They may have kept 98 percent of the second hour audience into the 3rd hour, but that drop is steep between first and second. 

I expected the first hour to be at least be 3.9. That sucks for a post ppv especially with the hot Wyatt angle. 

Your next move, Vince :hmm:

Do you repeat the same mistakes or nah


----------



## The Dazzler

thehumpdinker said:


> Just like the show for the past 6 months has been built around Rollins as Champion?


I agree with you. Still this show was built around Roman so it's only natural people will blame him.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

A-C-P said:


> Well at least it looks like 10,000 additional people tuned back in hour 3 to see Reigns become #1 contender :reigns2


They are all probably his Samoan relatives. :ha


----------



## ShadowSucks92

How about instead of blaming Reigns or Rollins or Cena or whoever we blame Vince McMahon for giving the viewers so many bad shows that people just aren't interested any more, viewers aren't just going to come back straight away


----------



## SnapOrTap

The difference between blaming Rollins for the ratings and Reigns for the ratings is simple.

One guy has had 6 single matches wins in his reign as champion.

The other guy has been the most protected wrestler this company has seen since Cena.

Now tell me, which guy would you expect to DRAW more given the level of backing that your company is giving?


----------



## SnapOrTap

When Bryan was booked and given half the level of protection that Reigns was, he drew viewers. Ratings were up. 

So why can't Reigns do the same? It's time to take the training wheels off.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

I could burn Reigns for this right now, but I won't since I'm a nice guy and there's enough burning going on already with what Reigns is doing to the ratings.

Edit: Oops


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

thehumpdinker said:


> Just like the show for the past 6 months has been built around Rollins as Champion?


Rollins hasn't been booked to draw. He's been booked like a chump. The Authority treats him like a petulant child. He never wins matches. You can't blame Rollins for that.


----------



## Wynter

The Dazzler said:


> I agree with you. Still this show was built around Roman so it's only natural people will blame him.


Agreed, while I enjoyed the show, I can see why others just gave up and wrote the show off on the first hour. They did end up with some good booking through out the show, evidenced by those who stayed for the second, also stayed for the 3rd.

WWE has conditioned us to expect mediocrity. Even a Shield reunion couldn't get a cheap ratings spike before. They dug that grave and will lie in it. I'm sure many felt deja vu from last year and threw their hands up when it became obvious Roman was gonna be #1 contender. There was no Cena or Brock to make them stay either. 

Ah well, let's see if Vince tries to build upon a pretty good show or panic his way to stupid booking again. 

Next week will be a big test too. 

Very telling a post ppv first hour couldn't even break 4.0. Vince is demoralizing his audience big time


----------



## Wynter

Call a spade a spade. The show was built around Roman. While it's good those who stuck around stayed for the 3rd because they were interested enough to 'stay for the main event. 

The hour between first and second STILL dropped a lot. I'm a huge Roman mark, but let's not act like we weren't in here getting all up seth's ass lol. 

Take this L and let people blame him. It won't kill us :lol can't dish if we can't take it :shrug


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wynter! said:


> Call a spade a spade. The show was built around Roman. While it's good those who stuck around stayed for the 3rd because they were interested enough to 'stay for the main event.
> 
> The hour between first and second STILL dropped a lot. I'm a huge Roman mark, but let's not act like we weren't in here getting all up seth's ass lol.
> 
> Take this L and let people blame him. It won't kill us :lol can't dish if we can't take it :shrug


I might have you confused with someone else, but are/did you say in the past you are as big of a Rollins fan as you are a Reigns fan, or am I completely mis-remembering here and have you confused with someone else? Just curious and trying to fill in my mind-gap :lol


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> I might have you confused with someone else, but are/did you say in the past you are as big of a Rollins fan as you are a Reigns fan, or am I completely mis-remembering here and have you confused with someone else? Just curious and trying to fill in my mind-gap :lol



:lmao hush. 

I am a big Rollins fan who sees huge money in his face run, but I still gave you shit about Rollins and ratings, remember?? I'm just not gonna sit here and whine because people are blaming Roman. It's fair game. 

I'm huge fan of all 3 guys and would rather they all three were flourishing, but that didn't happen :lol


----------



## SnapOrTap

Had to put some final touches:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wynter! said:


> :lmao hush.
> 
> I am a big Rollins fan who sees huge money in his face run, but I still gave you shit about Rollins and ratings, remember?? I'm just not gonna sit here and whine because people are blaming Roman. It's fair game.
> 
> I'm huge fan of all 3 guys and would rather they all three were flourishing, but that didn't happen :lol


Of course I remember. I think that's part of the reason why I couldn't remember if you said that or if I was confusing you with someone else. But thanks for clearing that up. (Y)


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> Of course I remember. I think that's part of the reason why I couldn't remember if you said that or if I was confusing you with someone else. But thanks for clearing that up. (Y)


No problem. As I said, fair game. I'd be delusional to be in here acting like this whole show wasn't about Roman :shrug 

We go back and forth all the time, but I won't fight you on those facts (Y)


----------



## Randy Lahey

It appears that the WWE has permanently lost about 500,000 viewers since last year. When the 2nd and 3rd hours are doing 3.2 mils, and the 1st hour is 3.6 mils only because the NFL game hasnt started - and nothing changes week to week - this is now the new normal. I expect those 2nd and 3rd hours to drop below 3 mils by Christmas.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Oh, no one's seriously blaming Reigns, it's just tongue in cheek jabs. I was coming for you @A-C-P :cudi*


----------



## antdvda

Let me be the voice of reason in the middle of all the geek wars:

No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything. 

A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


----------



## The_Jiz

This ratings burial is the result of YEARS of badly produced television. They've had YEARS of badly received reviewed shows that are only starting now to take affect from word of mouth. It has nothing to do with an individual. They compete with the NFL every year. 

We have to learn the power of investment. Often a great TV show doesn't catch fire until the 2nd or 3rd season finale. The fanfare over the finales will let potential fans know the show is worth investing and watching til the end thus giving momentum and anticipation to future seasons. I didn't even hear about Breaking Bad making the rounds until the season three finale! 

Anyone actually think WWE is worth the investment when they are usually 1/10 on good shows. It shows they book on the fly because they themselves have little investment in their own product. I agree they did have an incredible show this week but the momentum of tumbling ratings are too heavy to get around.


----------



## Wynter

Legit BOSS said:


> *Oh, no one's seriously blaming Reigns, it's just tongue in cheek jabs. I was coming for you @A-C-P :cudi*


Yea, I know, but I wouldn't be mad if someone did. Especially because I had a field day tap dancing on Seth lol

The only positive is the bleeding from 1st to second slowed down from second to 3rd. People who stayed liked it enough to complete the show. 

Still a shit post ppv number though.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wynter! said:


> No problem. As I said, fair game. I'd be delusional to be in here acting like this whole show wasn't about Roman :shrug
> 
> We go back and forth all the time, but I won't fight you on those facts (Y)


You're a good fan. :cudi

I'm never for blaming just one guy, but as you pointed out, people have done it in the past and it's going to continue to happen with whoever the focus of each show is; whether it be Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Cena, whoever. And like you said, if you're going to dish it, you gotta be able to take it when the shoe is on the other foot.


----------



## J-B

"My son-in-law isn't taking over until I'm dead dammit!" :vince3


----------



## teick

I think it's just stupid to blame one guy for bad ratings. Yeah, the show was built around Roman. So what? It's not like it was something advertised or planned a long time ago. Are the people who didn't watch RAW last week supposed to just be like "Hey, let's watch RAW. Maybe they will build the show around Roman" out of nowhere?

Roman is not the reason for bad ratings, just as Rollins wasn't the reason (I'm sure he didn't want to be booked like the biggest bitch). The reason is the product as a whole. When you had months of boring shows with shitty booking, you can't just expect ratings to go through the roof after two good shows.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Wynter! said:


> Yea, I know, but I wouldn't be mad if someone did. Especially because I had a field day tap dancing on Seth lol
> 
> The only positive is the bleeding from 1st to second slowed down from second to 3rd. People who stayed liked it enough to complete the show.
> 
> Still a shit post ppv number though.


*I think it was a good show and no one deserves blame for anything. We've had a couple good shows in the last month or so that didn't draw because people are so desensitized to the overall mediocrity of the product. Roman was the highlight of last night, regardless of what the numbers say.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

teick said:


> I think it's just stupid to blame one guy for bad ratings. Yeah, the show was built around Roman. So what? It's not like it was something advertised or planned a long time ago. Are the people who didn't watch RAW last week supposed to just be like "Hey, let's watch RAW. Maybe they will build the show around Roman" out of nowhere?
> 
> Roman is not the reason for bad ratings, just as Rollins wasn't the reason (I'm sure he didn't want to be booked like the biggest bitch). The reason is the product as a whole. When you had months of boring shows with shitty booking, you can't just expect ratings to go through the roof after two good shows.


That's all nice and good and very convienent of you to pop up today to post. But if there is one thing I learned from this board; it's that whoever was the focus of the show is to blame for that particular weeks' ratings; good or bad. I didn't make the rules. Just going to by how everyone else does it. We have to be consistent. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. :cudi


----------



## amhlilhaus

Chrome said:


> Really not much of an improvement tbh. And they didn't have much competition either. That 3rd hour continues to be a killer.


Ambrose, ptp, r truth, sasha, all are very or reasonably over. None got out there, even just for a squash. Saying 3 hours is too long is a huge cop out with all the guys/gals they got.


----------



## FITZ

Wynter! said:


> Call a spade a spade. The show was built around Roman. While it's good those who stuck around stayed for the 3rd because they were interested enough to 'stay for the main event.
> 
> The hour between first and second STILL dropped a lot. I'm a huge Roman mark, but let's not act like we weren't in here getting all up seth's ass lol.
> 
> Take this L and let people blame him. It won't kill us :lol can't dish if we can't take it :shrug


I don't think there is anything they can do to stop the drop after the first hour. If I had to guess the big drop is actually after the first 30 minutes because that's when Monday Night Football starts. People are going to watch the NFL and there is nothing that anybody can do about it. As soon as that game starts they are going to lose viewers.


----------



## Wynter

Legit BOSS said:


> *I think it was a good show and no one deserves blame for anything. We've had a couple good shows in the last month or so that didn't draw because people are so desensitized to the overall mediocrity of the product. Roman was the highlight of last night, regardless of what the numbers say.*


It was a really good show. They got so many things right and so many looked strong. But they've done so much damage from all the horrid shows lately, most have no faith. They turned the channel, gave up or watched football.

BUT, if they can continue actually booking like last night and better, the ratings/viewership will trickle in. You gotta build faith back into the fans.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Wynter! said:


> It was a really good show. They got so many things right and so many looked strong. But they've done so much damage from all the horrid shows lately, most have no fans. They turned the channel, gave up or watched football.
> 
> BUT, if they can continue actually booking like last night and better, the ratings/viewership will trickle in. You gotta build faith back into the fans.


*Yes, they need an at least 3 week string of shows like this to restore faith, otherwise, they'll just have a completely awful show next week as previous patterns have indicated, and keep out all the fans they ran away.*


----------



## Wynter

FITZ said:


> I don't think there is anything they can do to stop the drop after the first hour. If I had to guess the big drop is actually after the first 30 minutes because that's when Monday Night Football starts. People are going to watch the NFL and there is nothing that anybody can do about it. As soon as that game starts they are going to lose viewers.


I do think it played a part, yes. But I really was only pointing out,as a Roman fan who shoved my foot up Seth's ass for the low ratings when shows were built around him, it would only be fair for people to do the same to Roman without a complaint from me. Whether they're ribbing Roman fans or not.

It was a good show, but WWE has caused some heavy damaged and has even pushed away some of the most loyal fans.


----------



## DoubtGin

Ratings are awful but if WWE keep on putting on good show after good show (which they most likely won't, I haven't watched this one btw), the ratings should slowly but surely increase. It's not like 500k+ more viewers will watch all of a sudden.

I expected a rise after HIAC, though. There were some cliffhangers after that PPV but I guess not many were interested in them. Also I agree that basically telling the viewers how the show will end (with Reigns being #1 contender) after the first segment didn't help.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

That second hour was atrocious. So they barely improved from last week.

I guess people just didnt give a shit about wrestling and so waited to the end.


----------



## Nine99

antdvda said:


> Let me be the voice of reason in the middle of all the geek wars:
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> 
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


Truth


----------



## Wynter

> RAW had its biggest first hour since football season started, a huge drop in the second hour, but the third hour featuring the WWE World title #1 contender's match with Roman Reigns vs. Alberto Del Rio vs. Kevin Owens vs. Dolph Ziggler was the best in five weeks.


:ha The fact that third hour was somehow WWE's BEST in five weeks.


That's terrible :no:


----------



## RatedR10

DoubtGin said:


> Ratings are awful but if WWE keep on putting on good show after good show (which they most likely won't, I haven't watched this one btw), the ratings should slowly but surely increase. It's not like 500k+ more viewers will watch all of a sudden.
> 
> I expected a rise after HIAC, though. There were some cliffhangers after that PPV but I guess not many were interested in them. Also I agree that basically telling the viewers how the show will end (with Reigns being #1 contender) after the first segment didn't help.


With the amount of shit they've given fans for the longest time, it'll take months of consistently good programming to build good will among them again.


----------



## Fighter Daron

SnapOrTap said:


> Had to put some final touches:


Best third hour in five weeks.

ut


----------



## PurityOfEvil

What was the final rating then?


----------



## Bazinga

The thing with WWE lately is they put on a good show where the ratings don't reflect it, but there is interest the next week.

The ratings increase the next week, but the show is awful so people tune out again.

Consistency is key.


----------



## Hawkke

Nine99 said:


> Truth


I don't know where that post came from since the linkback isn't cooperating, but I wanted to give them all the rep and the likes. and can someone please add that quote to the site somewhere where everyone can plainly see it? Matter of fact just force it in the first post of every thread whether people want to see it or not?
:swanson


----------



## ShadowSucks92

PurityOfEvil said:


> What was the final rating then?


Heard it was 1.17


----------



## PurityOfEvil

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Heard it was 1.17


I doubt that. Would be hilarious though. :lol


----------



## antdvda

Hawkke said:


> Nine99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where that post came from since the linkback isn't cooperating, but I wanted to give them all the rep and the likes. and can someone please add that quote to the site somewhere where everyone can plainly see it? Matter of fact just force it in the first post of every thread whether people want to see it or not?
Click to expand...

I'll post it again just to make sure everyone sees it:


No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything. 

A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


----------



## Nine99

J


antdvda said:


> Hawkke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nine99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Truth
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know where that post came from since the linkback isn't cooperating, but I wanted to give them all the rep and the likes. and can someone please add that quote to the site somewhere where everyone can plainly see it? Matter of fact just force it in the first post of every thread whether people want to see it or not?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll post it again just to make sure everyone sees it:
> 
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> 
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.
Click to expand...

Take em to church antdvda


----------



## Marrakesh

Telegraphing the end of your show in the first segment is never a good idea. 

Was this an effective way of making Reigns the number one contender? 

No, regardless of match quality, there was no real story or plot holding the show together. 

There was Reigns and four upper midcarders fighting jobbers just so one of said midcarders could then job to Reigns. No real purpose for any of it. 

The fans in the arena enjoyed the show because there were some good matches. 

The fans at home don't have the benefit of a live experience and the lazy, repetitive and tiresome storytelling from WWE is not keeping anybody hooked. 

3.2m people either have incredibly low standards or nothing better to do on a Monday night.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

antdvda said:


> I'll post it again just to make sure everyone sees it:
> 
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> 
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


You are 1000% correct. Some of us realized that long ago. Some are just realizing that now. It's about damn time people finally caught up and stopped blaming one fucking person.


----------



## Chrome

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Heard it was *.117*


*Fixed.


----------



## LilOlMe

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Maybe having The Authority promo at the beginning and Reigns coming out just made it too predictable for people to care


They never learn. That Authority promo was awful. Steph with her horrific corporate speak..."where dreams were born, and legends were made." Shut the fuck up. Just be a bitch. You're awesome when you do that.

It was about seven or eight minutes before they even got to the point, and finally got out of sounding like they were in some corporate marketing meeting. I can totally see why people would have tuned out, because I almost tuned out.

Turned out that it was a pretty damn great show, but it's too late for that. Hook them immediately, rather than the same old, same old. 

It should have started right with the tournament announcement, and there should have been far more storylines built into it, and building up to it. 

RAW has had too many shit shows and too many shit matches for people to know that this tournament would actually turn out to be top quality.


----------



## sarcasma

JBLoser said:


> Welp.
> 
> Hour 1: 3.635M
> Hour 2: 3.213M
> Hour 3: 3.214M
> 
> Source


Please pardon my ratings ignorance, is this good or bad?


----------



## Chrome

sarcasma said:


> Please pardon my ratings ignorance, is this good or bad?


It's pretty bad. Those ratings are pretty similar to last week and this week they had less competition and were coming off a ppv.


----------



## Londrick

I blame Daniel Bryan for the ratings. Instead of taking a long vacation why doesn't he come back and save the ratings?


----------



## Brodus Clay

I watched this RAW I was developing the good habit to stop doing it but with the Wyatt recolecting Takers body and ADR return was hard for me to not watch it live.

But damn! the fucking opening was 100% trash, Authority, Rollins and Reigns at the mic I almost puke there, I wouldn't blame the casuals to change channel and never return after that, that said it ended being a decent RAW so this time the booking was not the problem, just that the people that are in the main event (authority, Rollins and Reigns) have become stale.


----------



## Sweettre15

So.......A slight uptick for the ratings this week despite having similar viewership to last week:

_Monday's WWE Raw *scored a 2.46 rating,* up from the 2.21 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.354 million viewers, down from the 3.356 million average from last week._


----------



## roadkill_

Wow Saturday Night's Main Event did a *15.0* rating in 1988 with 33 million viewers? And there was me always thinking that the 1999 8.4 was the highest.


----------



## Reaper

sarcasma said:


> Please pardon my ratings ignorance, is this good or bad?


It's not _that _bad considering it was nearly the same last year. 

The problem here isn't that the ratings are dropping so dramatically that it'll destroy the show, but even though they've been in a steady yearly decline since 2002 but that the decline has gotten progressively worse since 2013. 

Basically, they're dropping faster now than they were up until 2013 ...

PS> This is based on observation alone and I haven't fact checked myself. If someone is willing to fact check, please feel free to do so.


----------



## A-C-P

The Apostate said:


> It's not _that _bad considering it was nearly the same last year.
> 
> The problem here isn't that the ratings are dropping so dramatically that it'll destroy the show, but even though they've been in a steady yearly decline since 2002 but that the decline has gotten progressively worse since 2013.
> 
> Basically, they're dropping faster now than they were up until 2013 ...
> 
> PS> This is based on observation alone and I haven't fact checked myself. If someone is willing to fact check, please feel free to do so.


Just to add to this if the rate of the viewership decline stays the same going forward by October 2016 the average # of viewers for a Raw episode would be about 2.8 - 3.0 million. How that will interpret to the actual ratings # I do not know.


----------



## Reaper

A-C-P said:


> Just to add to this if the rate of the viewership decline stays the same going forward by October 2016 the average # of viewers for a Raw episode would be 2.8 million. How that will interpret to the actual ratings # I do not know.


I'm curious .. Have we gotten to the point where the demise of the WWE will make us happy? 

There's just a weird kind of delight in the tone of people who talk about declining ratings ... Personally, I'm torn on the issue. Of course, I don't want wrestling to die (and I'm pretty sure Vince won't let it till he's alive anyways), but at the same time maybe WWE's demise might allow a better company to fill the void? 

As a fan, I'm not happy about the decline in ratings ... especially because the decline hasn't forced the company to shape up as many would expect .. It's only forced them to make even worse decisions like pushing Taker and Kane into the main events.


----------



## A-C-P

The Apostate said:


> I'm curious .. Have we gotten to the point where the demise of the WWE will make us happy?
> 
> There's just a weird kind of delight in the tone of people who talk about declining ratings ... Personally, I'm torn on the issue. Of course, I don't want wrestling to die (and I'm pretty sure Vince won't let it till he's alive anyways), but at the same time maybe WWE's demise might allow a better company to fill the void?
> 
> As a fan, I'm not happy about the decline in ratings ... especially because the decline hasn't forced the company to shape up as many would expect .. It's only forced them to make even worse decisions like pushing Taker and Kane into the main events.


I can only speak for myself. but the reason I get happy about the declining #s , is b/c I hope at some point if the #s get low enough it makes them change for the better. I mean the PPVs (or live specials) are still usually good, but the TV show has less and less that I find entertaining TV each passing week it seems (with a rare completely good episode thrown in every now and then)

I have been a WWE consumer for 25+ years and have seen how bad #s had caused them to react and become great in the past. Now I know the circumstances were different but I guess I still hope there is a set of BAD #s out there that would light a fire under the people in charge of the WWE again.

If not, hey Lucha Underground is starting again soon (Y)


----------



## LilOlMe

The Apostate said:


> It's not _that _bad considering it was nearly the same last year.


Where are you getting that from? Last year's post-HIAC RAW got over 400,000 more viewers than this years did.

3.34 million viewers this year, compared to 3.75 million last year. This has been the story for quite some time this year.

What's funny is that last year's drop to 3.5 million in the third hour was considered bad and a real disappointment. They'd pray for those kind of numbers this year!:



> The show averaged 3.75 million viewers for all three hours, up from 3.69 million last week. That's with the Washington vs. Dallas Monday Night Football game doing almost 19 million viewers for ESPN.
> 
> Here's the hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 3.87 million
> Hour two: 3.84 million
> Hour three: 3.53 million
> 
> These are solid numbers considering the level of competition but that final hour dipping that low is somewhat troubling considering the entire show was built around promoting the John Cena vs. Seth Rollins main event match. It delivered in the ring, at least.


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...7-2014-hell-in-a-cell-fallout-show-viewers-up


This is fascinating from Meltzer's latest Newsletter:


> The first hour did 3.64 million viewers, the best since football season started. Usually if there is curiosity off the PPV, hour one the next day will do well. But the 3.21 million viewers for the second hour was the lowest second hour since 1997. The third hour, maintaining the 3.21 million viewers, was the best of the past five weeks. The male drop from hour one to two wasn’t as significant as would be expected given those ratings. *What happened and caused the big drop is that 24% of women who watched the first hour then turned it off and didn’t come back.*


Does anyone have any guesses at to why women tuned out so dramatically?


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Guess women don't find Reigns hot.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

LilOlMe said:


> Where are you getting that from? Last year's post-HIAC RAW got over 400,000 more viewers than this years did.
> 
> 3.34 million viewers this year, compared to 3.75 million last year. This has been the story for quite some time this year.
> 
> What's funny is that last year's drop to 3.5 million in the third hour was considered bad and a real disappointment. They'd pray for those kind of numbers this year!:
> 
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...7-2014-hell-in-a-cell-fallout-show-viewers-up
> 
> 
> This is fascinating from Meltzer's latest Newsletter:
> 
> Does anyone have any guesses at to why women tuned out so dramatically?


Cesaro lost, maybe women love Cesaro.


----------



## Goldusto

The Apostate said:


> There's just a weird kind of delight in the tone of people who talk about declining ratings ... Personally, I'm torn on the issue. Of course, I don't want wrestling to die (and I'm pretty sure Vince won't let it till he's alive anyways), but at the same time *maybe WWE's demise might allow a better company to fill the void? *
> 
> .


nothing will never... * eeeevvveeerrrr* be as huge as the wwf/e is , the marketing the recognizability of the names and logos, the merch, it just cannot be replicated by any other company, once wwe dies wrestling dies with it, it will be relegated to nothing but a show at conventions like something like Robot Wars.


----------



## Fighter Daron

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Guess women don't find Reigns hot.


He wasn't there for hour two, fella.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Fighter Daron said:


> He wasn't there for hour two, fella.


But he was for hour 3. Women just aren't getting as wet for Reigns as we thought, bro.


----------



## Chrome

The Apostate said:


> I'm curious .. Have we gotten to the point where the demise of the WWE will make us happy?
> 
> There's just a weird kind of delight in the tone of people who talk about declining ratings ... Personally, I'm torn on the issue. Of course, I don't want wrestling to die (and I'm pretty sure Vince won't let it till he's alive anyways), but at the same time maybe WWE's demise might allow a better company to fill the void?
> 
> As a fan, I'm not happy about the decline in ratings ... especially because the decline hasn't forced the company to shape up as many would expect .. It's only forced them to make even worse decisions like pushing Taker and Kane into the main events.


Most people, including myself, just want them to get into bad enough shape to where they have no choice but to make changes and genuinely improve the product. Seems like that's the only time Vince will get off his ass and fix the company is when his company is facing impending doom. That said, I'm not shedding any tears if they go under. They've sorta earned it at this point.


----------



## Rome

#BadNewsSanta said:


> But he was for hour 3. Women just aren't getting as wet for Reigns as we thought, bro.


Guess you forgot...hour one drew bigger then stone cold appearance few weeks ago... 

10/26 - 3.635 million - Reigns vs kingston 
10/19 - 3.600 million - Austin appearance


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Rome said:


> Guess you forgot...hour one drew bigger then stone cold appearance few weeks ago...
> 
> 10/26 - 3.635 million - Reigns vs kingston
> 10/19 - 3.600 million - Austin appearance


Guess you forgot... hour one had the Hell in a Cell Fallout... and the Stone Cold appearance was one week ago.

Reigns is obviously an ugly mofo in the grand scheme of things.


----------



## krai999

well when reigns was cutting his promo he did mention his wife during his promo. May that's what caused that large percentage of women to drop.


----------



## Rome

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Guess you forgot... hour one had the Hell in a Cell Fallout... and the Stone Cold appearance was one week ago.
> 
> Reigns is obviously an ugly mofo in the grand scheme of things.


Ok...they talked about Hell in a Cell all night, no just that hour. And there's other sources to find out the winners and losers like social media and internet. This a the 80s and 90s when people had to wait to find out who won.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Rome said:


> Ok...they talked about Hell in a Cell all night, no just that hour. And there's other sources to find out the winners and losers like social media and internet. This a the 80s and 90s when people had to wait to find out who won.


Clearly you didn't understand what I meant, but it's all good. We're just having fun here, right?


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Smackdown is remarkably consistent.


----------



## Rome

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Clearly you didn't understand what I meant, but it's all good. We're just having fun here, right?


yeah it's all fun, bro:smile2:


----------



## Redzero

That face of the company ratings.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

What competition does RAW have tonight?


----------



## A-C-P

TheShieldSuck said:


> What competition does RAW have tonight?


Colts/Panthers MNF game and the NBA regular season is going now.


----------



## Kabraxal

A-C-P said:


> Colts/Panthers MNF game and the NBA regular season is going now.


ANd some shows that started up either last week or this week that could steal some viewers. At this point, the WWE is so bad anything is direct competition for the normal wrestling viewer because we can't stomach it any longer. 

I think I'd almost prefer to watch reality TV than wrestling..... and I DETEST reality TV.


----------



## A-C-P

Kabraxal said:


> ANd some shows that started up either last week or this week that could steal some viewers. At this point, the WWE is so bad anything is direct competition for the normal wrestling viewer because we can't stomach it any longer.
> 
> I think I'd almost prefer to watch reality TV than wrestling..... and I DETEST reality TV.


Well their actual biggest competition is the people writing the shows :maury


----------



## Kabraxal

A-C-P said:


> Well their actual biggest competition is the people writing the shows :maury


The enemy within...... exactly like WCW. But who sent the saboteur this time?!


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Just looked at the RAW results and its like they arent even trying.


----------



## OwenSES

If you're not a fan of at least one of Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins or Bray Wyatt, watching Raw must be horrific right now.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

OwenSES said:


> If you're not a fan of at least one of Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose, Seth Rollins or Bray Wyatt, watching Raw must be horrific right now.


LOL I fucking hate all of them. God damn its like WWE is trying to piss the audience off. 

What do fans not want right now?

Seth as champion and on the mic. Double check.
Reigns on the mic. Check.
HHH and Steph. Check. 
Tag team matches. Check.

HHH "erm how bout we have Reigns start the show with a shitty promo and Rollins, yeah cus he is err err a ratings magnet, he interrupt Reigns and we come out and make a. Wait for it. A TAG TEAM MATCH as the main event. And the winner of the match wins.....ABSOLUTELY NOTHING which means the RAW doesn't matter.


----------



## DoubtGin

Last week's RAW apparently was good. Same with this week. Let's see if there will be a small increase.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

DoubtGin said:


> Last week's RAW apparently was good. Same with this week. Let's see if there will be a small increase.


I'm predicting a decrease in viewership because it was basically a pointless Smackdown show full of wrestling and no plot development.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Here's the chart. You guys can interpret it as you will.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

3.375 (this week)
3.180
3.189

3.635 (last week)
3.213
3.214


Fucking awful. I had a feeling it would drop because there was absolutely no purpose to any of the matches last night. I guess people heard the main event and deciphered that it didnt mean shit.

So thats back in 2.3 territory I guess.


----------



## A-C-P

Well at least the drop from hour 1 to hour 3 wasn't as big this week :quimby


----------



## Marrakesh

3rd November 2014 ratings:

Hour one: 4.04 million
Hour two: 4.20 million
Hour three: 3.87 million

Averaged over 4m for the three hours. 

One year later..... Averaged 3.24m. 

20% of their audience is gone.


----------



## JBLoser

Yeesh. That's bad. Doesn't surprise me since legitimately one (1) match had STAKES~! but God damn.


----------



## Chrome

A-C-P said:


> Well at least the drop from hour 1 to hour 3 wasn't as big this week :quimby


Only because the first hour dropped this week. :haha


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Marrakesh said:


> 3rd November 2014 ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.04 million
> Hour two: 4.20 million
> Hour three: 3.87 million
> 
> Averaged over 4m for the three hours.
> 
> One year later..... Averaged 3.24m.
> 
> 20% of their audience is gone.


And the McMahons dont give a shit because people are dumb enough to pay 9.99 for a bunch of random six man tags and a 50 year old man at the end of every month. 

People love to shit on Russo but we need someone to yell at Vince at how bad the product has gotten. Forget about the ratings over past year this week they lost 300k viewers.


----------



## DoubtGin

Wow those numbers are way lower than I imagined.


----------



## It's Yersel!

TheShieldSuck said:


> And the McMahons dont give a shit because people are dumb enough to pay 9.99 for a bunch of random six man tags and a 50 year old man at the end of every month.
> 
> *People love to shit on Russo but we need someone to yell at Vince at how bad the product has gotten.* Forget about the ratings over past year this week they lost 300k viewers.


What the fuck's Russo garna do like? :lol:lol, Imagine Russo giving Vince some ideas... Pole matches, Crash TV, Predictable Swerves because we all know what Russo's all about in 2015. Or maybe WWE would face the same fate that TNA did because of Russo.
Reigns winning the title off Rollins... via DQ.

Fucking Russo man :lol:lol:lol:lol


----------



## LilOlMe

3.24 million....that's got to be the absolute low for the past 18 years, right?

I agree with the poster who said that people know that there's nothing at stake. When they showed New Day standing back there with Seth, that was enough to make people tune out. It just made it feel like a typical, usual, multi-man main event (though Seth dancing with them was fun).

Also, they keep putting the divas at the top of the hour. I get the thinking behind that, because you want to display them & hopefully grow the audience that cares about them, but all that's going to do when you've made a mess of everything, is make viewers tune out of RAW even more. You haven't even given viewers a reason to care about the men, now suddenly we're displaying the women like they've been a hot ticket creatively?

Don't even get me started on Summer Rae. Just so fucking insulting. They can't write a decent woman character for the life of them, and when they do (Lana), they screw it up immensely.

Watching Brie and Becky and them bicker backstage made me want to tune out in disgust. It's the typical catty bullshit, in which no woman can ever just be a prize fighter. Yet creative thinks that this is really showing the divas off!!!!

Sad part is, all of the WWE apologists continue to want to ignore the fact that ratings really are reflecting overall malaise with the product. WWE wins simply because they are the only major wrestling organization in the eyesight of the average American.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Looks like the Survivior Series feuds aren't peaking anyone's interests. This isn't a surprise to some of us who have said that no one on this roster is a draw.


----------



## Chrome

It is intriguing that the first hour dropped like that. Wonder what caused it?









I mean, besides from being a shit show of course.


----------



## FITZ

Chrome said:


> It is intriguing that the first hour dropped like that. Wonder what caused it?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, besides from being a shit show of course.


Monday Night Football kicking off at 8:30 is probably why the second hour had a lower rating.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

It's Yersel! said:


> What the fuck's Russo garna do like? :lol:lol, Imagine Russo giving Vince some ideas... Pole matches, Crash TV, Predictable Swerves because we all know what Russo's all about in 2015. Or maybe WWE would face the same fate that TNA did because of Russo.
> Reigns winning the title off Rollins... via DQ.
> 
> Fucking Russo man :lol:lol:lol:lol



Well TBF to Russo WCW was effectively defeated when he arrived and needed instant results. Also dumb angles continued on WWE when he was well gone, such as Katie Vick or Hornswoggle as champ. Russo may have some dumb ideas but he gets the structure of the show. That is what I am thinking. He understands that wrestling with no purpose is pointless. He understands that going to a break during a match turns away viewers. He understands that every guy needs a plot and mic time. He gets this and that is why I would rather watch Mark Henry father a hand again than this utterly boring product.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I blame this rating on Roman's teammates. :reigns2 This low is only temporary. RAW may be setting records every week now- record lows that is.

The NFL game wasnt compelling until the fourth quarter, so I guess viewer apathy is driving this.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> 3.24 million....that's got to be the absolute low for the past 18 years, right?
> 
> I agree with the poster who said that people know that there's nothing at stake. When they showed New Day standing back there with Seth, that was enough to make people tune out. It just made it feel like a typical, usual, multi-man main event (though Seth dancing with them was fun).
> 
> Also, they keep putting the divas at the top of the hour. I get the thinking behind that, because you want to display them & hopefully grow the audience that cares about them, but all that's going to do when you've made a mess of everything, is make viewers tune out of RAW even more. You haven't even given viewers a reason to care about the men, now suddenly we're displaying the women like they've been a hot ticket creatively?
> 
> Don't even get me started on Summer Rae. Just so fucking insulting. They can't write a decent woman character for the life of them, and when they do (Lana), they screw it up immensely.
> 
> Watching Brie and Becky and them bicker backstage made me want to tune out in disgust. It's the typical catty bullshit, in which no woman can ever just be a prize fighter. Yet creative thinks that this is really showing the divas off!!!!
> 
> Sad part is, all of the WWE apologists continue to want to ignore the fact that ratings really are reflecting overall malaise with the product. WWE wins simply because they are the only major wrestling organization in the eyesight of the average American.


One of the best segments of the night made people tune out? I don't think so.


----------



## Marrakesh

It's Yersel! said:


> What the fuck's Russo garna do like? :lol:lol, Imagine Russo giving Vince some ideas... Pole matches, Crash TV, Predictable Swerves because we all know what Russo's all about in 2015. Or maybe WWE would face the same fate that TNA did because of Russo.
> Reigns winning the title off Rollins... via DQ.
> 
> Fucking Russo man :lol:lol:lol:lol


I don't get this Russo love in 2015 either. 

He hasn't advanced his ideas past the trash TV of the AE and whilst it was thoroughly entertaining at the time it'd be a total train wreck today. 

Heyman and a select group of writers of his choosing with control over booking decisions could sort the show out imo because unlike Russo who is a self admitted ''idea bag'' Heyman actually knows what he is doing and trying to achieve. 

Anyone who would put Russo into creative before Heyman needs their head examined.


----------



## Chrome

FITZ said:


> Monday Night Football kicking off at 8:30 is probably why the second hour had a lower rating.


That's nice, but I was talking about the first hour. Usually it's higher than what it was this week, mainly because they run the first half unopposed to MNF.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> That's nice, but I was talking about the first hour. Usually it's higher than what it was this week, mainly because they run the first half unopposed to MNF.


Apparently the viewers weren't pleased with last weeks developments.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Marrakesh said:


> I don't get this Russo love in 2015 either.
> 
> He hasn't advanced his ideas past the trash TV of the AE and whilst it was thoroughly entertaining at the time it'd be a total train wreck today.
> 
> Heyman and a select group of writers of his choosing with control over booking decisions could sort the show out imo because unlike Russo who is a self admitted ''idea bag'' Heyman actually knows what he is doing and trying to achieve.
> 
> Anyone who would put Russo into creative before Heyman needs their head examined.


Heyman to me seems like he is done with wrestling and is just doing his thing for some easy money. Pretty sure he said he preferred MMA now to wrestling. 

I'm just saying I would rather have Russo right now than this stale, bland and boring product that they throw out each week and Russo could do the basics such as the structure of the show. He could do that. 

You may not like Russo but he was a big part of the AE and that will never go away. It was him who confronted Vince.


----------



## LilOlMe

ShowStopper said:


> One of the best segments of the night made people tune out? I don't think so.


You're thinking like a hardcore wrestling fan. Casual viewers have to give it a chance to prove that it's "one of the best segments" (I'm assuming you're talking about the divas match, right?). 

Divas segments have proven time and time again to lose a shit ton of viewers. IIRC, I think that even some of AJ's heralded segments did so. 

No one tuning in watching four girls in a terribly booked division with no storyline other than Paige turns on them for no real reason, wrestle for 20 minutes was gonna stick around. It's not a draw that sucks typical viewers in at all.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> You're thinking like a hardcore wrestling fan. Casual viewers have to give it a chance to prove that it's "one of the best segments" (I'm assuming you're talking about the divas match, right?).
> 
> Divas segments have proven time and time again to lose a shit ton of viewers. IIRC, I think that even some of AJ's heralded segments did so.
> 
> No one tuning in watching four girls in a terribly booked division with no storyline other than Paige turns on them for no real reason, wrestle for 20 minutes was gonna stick around. It's not a draw that sucks typical viewers in at all.


Yes, the Diva's segment. I agree they need alot more work, though. (Y) Their booking makes little to no sense. I thought the rest of the show was decent by today's standards.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

With the Usos being back I suspected at least 6 million. I might have overestimated their drawing power by A LOT. 

The shield Story could've been so good if done correctly. Now we have a guy that's booked like Jimmy Hart was in Memphis (chicken shit heel), Whatever Ambrose is doing and Roman Reigns. Add to that Cesaro who was really hot on multiple occasions. Bray Wyatt who could've been a great heel. Kevin Owens who's amazing but is stuck in meaningless matches. Ziggler is always a good upper midcard guy who should have some good feuds. 

Hate Russo as much as the next guy but he at least gave everyone something to do. So many great feuds to have. Not everyone that's over should be going for the belt but you have to give them something meaningful. 

Give Paul Hayman the book or even Dutch Mantel, Vince has two of the best minds for wrestling as managers. I wonder who he listens to?


----------



## TheShieldSuck

LilOlMe said:


> You're thinking like a hardcore wrestling fan. Casual viewers have to give it a chance to prove that it's "one of the best segments" (I'm assuming you're talking about the divas match, right?).
> 
> Divas segments have proven time and time again to lose a shit ton of viewers. IIRC, I think that even some of AJ's heralded segments did so.
> 
> No one tuning in watching four girls in a terribly booked division with no storyline other than Paige turns on them for no real reason, wrestle for 20 minutes was gonna stick around. It's not a draw that sucks typical viewers in at all.


I am sick of the divas and the way they have been forced down our throat for 15 years. Remember the cruiserweight division? That had far more talent than the divas but Vince had them job to Hornswoggle before releasing them. 

The divas will never draw. Hell they are an anti-draw but they have to be there. The perks of being a woman.


----------



## Badbadrobot

These terrible ratings make me happy because:

There's no cena so can't blame him

Seth wasn't the centrepiece

The show was built around golden boy Roman

The conclusion is its not the wrestlers it's the product, fix the fucking booking and stories make us care again!


----------



## Goldusto

ShowStopper said:


> Apparently the viewers weren't pleased with last weeks developments.


Which were what exactly ? 

Mex-america

Roman Reigns obvious-tournament win through superman booking

Wyatt Jobber to the stars in irrelevant scenarios due to having no crediblity 

No Brock, No orton, no Rusev No Cena no Daniel Bryan

Women in irrelevant matches with another zillionth paige turn


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Goldusto said:


> Which were what exactly ?
> 
> Mex-america
> 
> Roman Reigns obvious-tournament win through superman booking
> 
> Wyatt Jobber to the stars in irrelevant scenarios due to having no crediblity
> 
> No Brock, No orton, no Rusev No Cena no Daniel Bryan
> 
> Women in irrelevant matches with another zillionth paige turn


All of what you mentioned. You got it. Looks like no one cared about the tournament and now the feuds going into SS.


----------



## The Bloodline

Last night dragged but the last 2 weeks of Raw has still been better than the last few months. Problem is they lost a chunk of their audience during this very mediocre year. So they're not gonna come back, just because. They need real buzz, and to be consistent. They have to gain back a portion of the audience that gave up, it'll take time and strong exciting angles. I'm not sure they know how to deliver that for 3 hours a week though.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I'm hearing 2.32 rating

Needs to go much lower. It would take sub 1.9 on a consistent basis for a massive shakeup but hell with the Network they may just not care.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ZeroFear0 said:


> Last night dragged but the last 2 weeks of Raw has still been better than the last few months. Problem is they lost a chunk of their audience during this very mediocre year. So they're not gonna come back, just because. They need real buzz, and to be consistent. They have to gain back a portion of the audience that gave up, it'll take time and strong exciting angles. I'm not sure they know how to deliver that for 3 hours a week though.


If you are a fan on wrestling then sure. Thing is most people whilst they appreciate wrestling in small doses cannot take 3hrs of solid wrestling matches with predictable and inconsequential results. 

WWE has not had a solid plot arc since WM 30. Since 30 its just been oh Cena has to have a reign because Bryan is injure. Oh we have Lesnar put the belt on Lesnar even though he doesn't turn up each week. Oh well give it to Rollins he can beat a bunch of 50 year old men each week. 

Dumb. How is Rollins "best for business" when he tanks ratings and the Authority betrayed Bryan at Summer Slam 2013? Its stupid.


----------



## Redzero

Let's keep pushing Reigns and Rollins with this ratings fpalm.


----------



## Mr. I

TheShieldSuck said:


> I am sick of the divas and the way they have been forced down our throat for 15 years. Remember the cruiserweight division? That had far more talent than the divas but Vince had them job to Hornswoggle before releasing them.
> 
> The divas will never draw. Hell they are an anti-draw but they have to be there. The perks of being a woman.


I don't know what you think the term "forced down your throat" means, but the divas have been massively marginalized for 15 years.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Ithil said:


> I don't know what you think the term "forced down your throat" means, but the divas have been massively marginalized for 15 years.


They shouldnt be on RAW at all.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Probably gonna be even lower next week as WWE is in the UK so it won't be live and also with RAWlternative happening once again


----------



## Marv95

2.32 is the final number, but a record low(?) 1.1 in the important 18-49 demo.
http://411mania.com/wrestling/wwe-raw-rating-slips-to-new-low/
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...0jsMbZwaiRo5g_KTA&sig2=VafbaqnWfVftt8BjlaAK-A


----------



## Randy Lahey

Marrakesh said:


> 3rd November 2014 ratings:
> 
> Hour one: 4.04 million
> Hour two: 4.20 million
> Hour three: 3.87 million
> 
> Averaged over 4m for the three hours.
> 
> One year later..... Averaged 3.24m.
> 
> 20% of their audience is gone.


The Roman Reigns push at Royal Rumble permanently turned off a portion of the fan base that has not returned.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Randy Lahey said:


> The Roman Reigns push at Royal Rumble permanently turned off a portion of the fan base that has not returned.


Doubt that. Pre Mania they were averaging around 2.9ish with some 3.0 ratings and then Mania fallout boom 3.67

The casuals loved the ending of Mania but they didnt capitalize on it. Far from it. We have had the worst WWE champion in history.


----------



## SnapOrTap

OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

MAGGLEEEEE

THE ROMAN EMPIRE RISES. THEY ARE INVADING THE WWE.

THOSE SOMAOANS. LOOK AT THEM GO BROTHER.

THE RATINGS ARE THROUGH THE ROOF.

THIS IS WHAT REIGNS CAN DO. HE IS THE NEXT ROCK. THE DRAW. THE PROTECTION. SPEAR. SPEAR. SPEAR.

MY GAWD. BY GAWD.

LADIES AND GENTLEMAN - 

I GIVE YOU, THE FUTURE FACE OF THE WWE.

BABY GURL

:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Wow, 200,000 that watched at the beginning decided "fuck it, this main event they advertised in the first segment doesn't catch my interest. At least it appears that way, anyway.


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

WWE is fucked. I bet it goes under 3 million viewers before this year ends.


----------



## RatedR10

CenaBoy4Life said:


> WWE is fucked. I bet it goes under 3 million viewers before this year ends.


That's a really safe bet at this point. It'll happen for the holiday show and it'll happen at least once for a regular show, too. 



I can't wait.


----------



## The Tempest

3.24 milions? Jesus shit :mj4 Looks like the RAW below 3 milions (aka RAW 1.9) is coming sooner than we thought, @Chrome and I are ready opcorn


----------



## Chrome

The Tempest said:


> 3.24 milions? Jesus shit :mj4 Looks like the RAW below 3 milions (aka RAW 1.9) is coming sooner than we thought, @Chrome and I are ready opcorn


They might get it next week since it's a taped show. :bron2


----------



## Mr. I

TheShieldSuck said:


> They shouldnt be on RAW at all.


Why?


----------



## antdvda

Again, for all the morons on here:

No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything. 

A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


----------



## antdvda

Ithil said:


> TheShieldSuck said:
> 
> 
> 
> They shouldnt be on RAW at all.
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
Click to expand...

The same reason why the WNBA doesn't get the NBA's prime airtime - cause nobody truly gives a shit or wants to watch it.


----------



## Londrick

Two former Shield members feuding over the title and WWE can't get the fans to care 

:bryanlol


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Keep falling. :reigns


----------



## Susa Boyle

2015, raw = 3.2, smackdown = 2.2
2014, raw = 3.5, smackdown = 2.2
2013, raw = 3.3, smackdown = 2.1 


That is WWE Rating Believe that


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Raindrops keep falling on my head, they keep falling, but nothing's worrying meheheheheeeeeeee.


----------



## DMR

I hope their ratings go to absolute shit so they start putting on watch-able shows.


----------



## Marrakesh

antdvda said:


> Again, for all the morons on here:
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> 
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


Agree. Been saying this for a while. They absolutely have to get out of the ''John Cena'' babyface era as badly as WCW had to dispense of Hogan. 

The focus of the show has to go on this new crop of guys who are emerging in Wyatt (+ The Family), The Shield guys, Kevin Owens and i don't see why Cesaro couldn't be very popular either. 

The fans want to boo Cena so badly. There is this myth that once he goes heel he is suddenly going to get cheered because he will be rapping again but why would that have to be the case. 

Cena could easily be one of the most detestable heel sellout characters in wrestling history. He doesn't have to be the fucking Doctor of Thuganomics again and why would he be? He's nearly 40 years old. 

Something big has to happen to change the landscape of WWE. 

The best i can think of is ramming up the marketing drive on the new guys, turning John Cena and presenting the shows in a completely different light to how they have been. They need to bring back some of the chaos and urgency to their weekly TV shows along with title matches/changes. 

Wrestling should be a show were ''Anything can happen''. Instead we get told in the first segment every week what the main event will be and 9.9 times out of 10 we know how the show will end. 

There is a reason why the rating for the third hour of Raw is consistently terrible.


----------



## OwenSES

People are probably fed up of Seth Rollins vs Roman Reigns. They have been rivals since June 2014, it's time to move on!!!


----------



## Stone Hot

antdvda said:


> Again, for all the morons on here:
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> .


Some will just never get it.


----------



## Erik.

Just shows that watchable shows won't increase ratings. The past few weeks have been pretty good viewing by modern day WWE standards. Number one contender matches, solid matches, backstage segments, storylines that either make sense or make you want to see the following week yet ratings aren't increasing. 

They are at this stage in the ratings because they've done this too late. Too many 'coast' weeks where they just put whatever they want on because they knew they had the fans in place to watch whatever they put out. They've lost a lot of those fans and the only way they are going to either bring in new fans or keep fans in their place is a complete overhaul now. Keep the content, the storylines, backstage segments, the talent on show but now they need to change the layout, the theme, the set up so to speak, new commentary team etc.


----------



## Frost99

Just wanted to post an ending to a RAW back on NOV 2001 an ending that still gives me goosebumps to remember those #GLORYdays & high ratings o Monday Nights


----------



## Stone Hot

Frost99 said:


> Just wanted to post an ending to a RAW back on NOV 2001 an ending that still gives me goosebumps to remember those #GLORYdays & high ratings o Monday Nights


That was one of my favorite Raws. That double turn from Vince Kurt and Austin was amazing


----------



## ironyman

It's way past time for a new era. One that caters to the adult crowd again, as that is the viewership that they are rapidly losing. All of those little kiddies they gained years ago with the PG format are growing older as well. The sooner they realize this, the sooner they can start to make the product compelling and fresh again. 

That said, it has been better the past 2 weeks, but nothing short of a complete shake-up and fresh direction will work. They truly need a 'moment' that will be remembered from here on out and then the start of a completely new, more serious and adult-oriented show. The clown-show antics and cornball writing needs to be done away with on all levels.


----------



## roadkill_

antdvda said:


> Again, for all the morons on here:
> 
> No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> 
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


That's not gonna happen because WWF was a private entity and WWE is publicly owned. Bischoff talks about the pitfalls of corporate suits interfering in a federation in his book.

The owners will be richer and the exposure will be bigger, but you won't be allowed to do shit and forced to have a roster full of vanilla action figures and send your scripts off for pre-approval. The days of 'insulting viewers' intelligence' as he put it in that promo, are here to stay. And will do until it's run into the ground and public owners sell their stock.


----------



## ElTerrible

Frost99 said:


> Just wanted to post an ending to a RAW back on NOV 2001 an ending that still gives me goosebumps to remember those #GLORYdays & high ratings o Monday Nights


PG-13, too.

The facial expressions by all four guys throughout, Angle especially. Those are real acting performances. Today they are all Disney Channel.


----------



## EireUnited

LOL the facial expressions are absolutely atrocious. You'd find better acting at school plays.

Honestly, it's fine to prefer old wrestling. But when people describe it as "genius" or such, it really really bothers me. It was stupid, bad, incredibly camp and hammy acting back then, just as it is now and always shall be.

In the entire history of WWE there has been a very miniscule, arguably non-existant amount of GOOD acting.


----------



## Erik.

:lol I've always wanted to know where...










Was from. Gold.


----------



## RatedR10

Next week's show is taped. You already know an hour is dropping below 3m.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

antdvda said:


> Again, for all the morons on here:
> 
> *No single wrestler will lower or raise ratings. It's done. It's past that. The only thing that will grow this audience again is a top to bottom, fundamental change of the entire product. The look, the feel, the approach, everything.
> *
> A shift in philosophy akin to when Vince declared the AE is the only thing that will help wrestling at this point.


Yep. A few months back I felt absolutely embarrassed that I had to tell people this when they were blaming it all on Rollins and professing that the ratings would increase at least a tiny bit if their favorite wrestler was pushed back to the main event. Not only did they not incease a tiny bit, but they lost 330,000 viewers from one week to the next.

We can now safely say that that hasn't been the case and they were WRONG.


----------



## OwenSES

#TheShieldEra


----------



## XxAttitudeEraxX

I think they killed the golden goose. I was a big supporter of what they were doing in the late 90s with breaking kayfabe, but they were still acting as if it was a competitive atmosphere back stage, which made it exciting.

Now that they've broken kayfabe completely, though, while simultaneously eradicating the back stage competitiveness where people got over on their own abilities, in favor of a strictly controlled environment dictated entirely by "writers," I feel like wrestling is really just dead.

There is no longer any quick fix. The only way I would ever go back is if they managed to go back to a more gritty, unpolished, more raw kind of product, and even then it would be difficult to care, because in the absence of wrestling from my life, I've become thoroughly invested in football.

And again, like I've said before, thats the problem for the WWE: when you lose people for X amount of time, they get new interests, and they begin to give zero fucks about wrestling.


----------



## Trinomial

It's no surprise that Seth Rollins' title reign continues to draw shitty numbers. Those of us who predicted he would be the worst drawing champ in WWE history saw this coming. We were right.

It's also no surprise that his grossly unintelligent fans have zero ability to perform any kind of data analysis, not just on the tv ratings, but on other parameters we use to determine drawing ability.


----------



## Red Dead

The problem with the WWE is that outside of the main event there are no reasonable storylines for the mid card and undercard.

if you look at WWE during the attitude era the whole roster was doing something. matches on RAW did not happen out of thin air. People will only watch wrestling matches if there is a backstory to it. The wrestling is not supposed to be used for random title shot's or #1 contenders because everybody knows its fake as in pre-determined.

Like why couldn't WWE right now have a storyline where there is someone hooded backstage attacking various wrestlers and then there is a mystery to find out that person? various people get accused and then eventually the attacker get's outed and explains why he did it etc..

Imagine if they did a storyline where Bray Wyatt and his group kidnap triple H. videos are shown of them torturing trips in a hidden location even going as far to claim that they will "kill" him unless he signs off his controlling duties in WWE away. at the moment in time lockeroom led by Seth Rollins assume that stephanie is behind at as she wants the run the company on her own and does not want triple H to interfere in the WWE's affairs. Only when everything is said and done Seth reveals that it was him. But on the orders of a mysterious leader who turns out to be the returning Shane Mcmahon (If Shane does not want to come back then Eric Bischoff would be a decent replacement). 

then at the next PPV you have a 5 vs 5 match to determine who will control the company. Both teams are down to 2. Stephs team has 1 last guy facing Rollins both groggy cue *the time is now* out comes John Cena stares both at Rollins and the other guy, hits the other guy from stephs team with an F-U. There you go our generations NWO has been born. 

Good STORYLINES get the wrestlers over not the actual rasslin. Stone Cold got over due to his feud with McMahon and not his wrestling ability.


----------



## EireUnited

Red Dead said:


> The problem with the WWE is that outside of the main event there are no reasonable storylines for the mid card and undercard.
> 
> if you look at WWE during the attitude era the whole roster was doing something. matches on RAW did not happen out of thin air. People will only watch wrestling matches if there is a backstory to it. The wrestling is not supposed to be used for random title shot's or #1 contenders because everybody knows its fake as in pre-determined.
> 
> Like why couldn't WWE right now have a storyline where there is someone hooded backstage attacking various wrestlers and then there is a mystery to find out that person? various people get accused and then eventually the attacker get's outed and explains why he did it etc..
> 
> Imagine if they did a storyline where Bray Wyatt and his group kidnap triple H. videos are shown of them torturing trips in a hidden location even going as far to claim that they will "kill" him unless he signs off his controlling duties in WWE away. at the moment in time lockeroom led by Seth Rollins assume that stephanie is behind at as she wants the run the company on her own and does not want triple H to interfere in the WWE's affairs. Only when everything is said and done Seth reveals that it was him. But on the orders of a mysterious leader who turns out to be the returning Shane Mcmahon (If Shane does not want to come back then Eric Bischoff would be a decent replacement).
> 
> then at the next PPV you have a 5 vs 5 match to determine who will control the company. Both teams are down to 2. Stephs team has 1 last guy facing Rollins both groggy cue *the time is now* out comes John Cena stares both at Rollins and the other guy, hits the other guy from stephs team with an F-U. There you go our generations NWO has been born.
> 
> Good STORYLINES get the wrestlers over not the actual rasslin. Stone Cold got over due to his feud with McMahon and not his wrestling ability.


He was over long before the feud with Vince.

Also, trying to recapture the past is the complete wrong way to move forward.


----------



## Red Dead

EireUnited said:


> He was over long before the feud with Vince.
> 
> Also, trying to *recapture the past *is the complete wrong way to move forward.


well that same past brought wrestling to the mainstream whilst today it is a small niche market that is shrinking as each day passes...


----------



## The Tempest

Chart time for SD:










Hope it keeps falling, they deserve it.


----------



## Marrakesh

The Tempest said:


> Chart time for SD:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hope it keeps falling, they deserve it.



Have never paid much attention to Smackdown ratings but didn't Daniel Bryan returning early this year manage to bump the ratings on Smackdown significantly over two weeks? 

I'm pretty sure his return match and the following week's casket match with Kane had the ratings at close to 3 million before they tailored off again when they stopped bothering to advertise anything for the show.


----------



## The Tempest

Marrakesh said:


> Have never paid much attention to Smackdown ratings but didn't Daniel Bryan returning early this year manage to bump the ratings on Smackdown significantly over two weeks?
> 
> I'm pretty sure his return match and the following week's casket match with Kane had the ratings at close to 3 million before they tailored off again when they stopped bothering to advertise anything for the show.


Yes, that was in January. Ratings overall have been falling since WrestleMania I believe. SmackDown managed to go under 2 milions last month while RAW this past Monday set a new low record.


----------



## Marrakesh

This Raw deserves to tank further.


----------



## Guy LeDouche

Erik. said:


> :lol I've always wanted to know where...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was from. Gold.


It's from Flair's return to WWF in 2001.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

This Raw BETTER have a huge increase. For the first time in years, they had some legit intrigue and curiousity swirling around the main event scene/title. Now, sadly, the only way for WWE to achieve this is for their title to be held up and not something that they created themselves from a creative standpoint; but it was still there. Also, the football game last night featured two lackluster teams, and the baseball playoffs/World Series is over, as well. They better have a huge, sustained increase for last night's show. No reason not to.


----------



## Marrakesh

ShowStopper said:


> This Raw BETTER have a huge increase. For the first time in years, they had some legit intrigue and curiousity swirling around the main event scene/title. Now, sadly, the only way for WWE to achieve this is for their title to be held up and not something that they created themselves from a creative standpoint; but it was still there. Also, the football game last night featured two lackluster teams, and the baseball playoffs/World Series is over, as well. They better have a huge, sustained increase for last night's show. No reason not to.


20 minute rambling Trips promo that lead nowhere and Reigns/Big Show announced as the first match. 

At least they put some effort in to maintaining their audience in the first segment. 

:ha


----------



## DoubtGin

The UK RAWs always get lower ratings, I think. I don't know if there was a RAW in the UK inbetween but the May 19 2014 one had pretty low ratings overall:

Here's the hourly breakdown:

Hour one: 3.54 million
Hour two: 3.90 million
Hour three: 3.85 million

= 3.76 million overall (down from 4 million the week before)

It's still waaaaaaay better than it is now (things were looking good pre- and post-Mania in 2014), but I can definitely see the viewership dropping even further.


----------



## A-C-P

ShowStopper said:


> This Raw BETTER have a huge increase. For the first time in years, they had some legit intrigue and curiousity swirling around the main event scene/title. Now, sadly, the only way for WWE to achieve this is for their title to be held up and not something that they created themselves from a creative standpoint; but it was still there. Also, the football game last night featured two lackluster teams, and the baseball playoffs/World Series is over, as well. They better have a huge, sustained increase for last night's show. No reason not to.


If anything I expect a jump for hour one b/c of the mystery surrounding the title picture, then the normal drop, possibly an uptick for hour 3 due to people reading spoilers and tuning back in to see Taker.


----------



## Old School Icons

Kofi's out of nowhere and barely audible

"Harry Potter sucks" was the highlight of the night :Rollins


----------



## The Bloodline

This has to be the worst timing for a taped show. So much interest but people got to find out what happens before it even airs. Wouldnt be surprised if one hour finally dips below 3.


----------



## The Tempest

RAW chart:









OH MY FUCKING GOD :ha :ti :nikkilol :bryanlol :HA :LOL


----------



## D.M.N.

Are you ready? *IT'S PANIC TIME*

Hour 1 - 3.480m
Hour 2 - 3.177m
*Hour 3 - 2.863m*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


:Cocky


----------



## DoubtGin

:ti


----------



## TheShieldSuck

HOLY SHIT

ITS UNDER THREE THOUSAND!


----------



## Marrakesh

:ha 

Keeping the audience on the edge of their seats Vinny boy eh?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Reigns was in hour one, 3rd hour was New Day, Wyatt, and Taker. Nobody to blame here but the company.*


----------



## The Tempest

Wonder where are all those geeks who blamed Rollins for the poor numbers :ti


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Tempest said:


> Wonder where are all those geeks who blamed Rollins for the poor numbers :ti


Seth Rollins is the biggest problem with Raw, though. I read it RIGHT HERE a MILLION TIMES, THOUGH.

:ti

Even his boring 20 minute promos to open the show didn't chase off the fans to below 3 million in hour 2 or 3, though.

:Seth


----------



## TheShieldSuck

This proves nobody cares about wrestling. The last 3 RAW's have been all wrestling.


----------



## ThenWo/WCW

> Hour 3 - 2.863m


----------



## Wynter

IT FINALLY GOT UNDER 3 MILLION










:ha

Now. Can Vince FINALLY shake it up and do something new and competent?? unk2


----------



## Marrakesh

Legit BOSS said:


> *Reigns was in hour one, 3rd hour was New Day, Wyatt, and Taker. Nobody to blame here but the company.*


Very true although even if Reigns was in hour 3 it was still going to bomb because that has been the pattern these past few months. 

They had their chance to create excitement with the tournament. They failed. 

Worst of all, they didn't even try.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

The Tempest said:


> Wonder where are all those geeks who blamed Rollins for the poor numbers :ti


When Cena vacated the title in 07 due to injury ratings fell. Its not because Cena was such an amazing draw its because the fans said "fuck it. I waited 9 months for this prick to lose only to end like this".


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Below 3 million. IT FINALLY HAPPENED.

:duck :ha :ti


----------



## A-C-P

Below 3 Million :ha:maury:ti:heston:HAbryanlol:tysonlol:duck

First show without Rollins goes under 3 million :Rollins


----------



## ThenWo/WCW

WWE Deserve this .. I said it over and over again .. the indy fans Killing WWE ..


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

ThenWo/WCW said:


> WWE Deserve this .. I said it over and over again .. the indy fans Killing WWE ..


I think at this point WWE will take ANY type of fan they can get.

:ha


----------



## Marrakesh

ThenWo/WCW said:


> WWE Deserve this .. I said it over and over again .. the indy fans Killing WWE ..


WWE are killing themselves.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Marrakesh said:


> Very true although even if Reigns was in hour 3 it was still going to bomb because that has been the pattern these past few months.
> 
> They had their chance to create excitement with the tournament. They failed.
> 
> Worst of all, they didn't even try.


*
Yeah, that's the point. If Reigns had been in hour 3, you know this thread would be flooded blaming him and only him. Him being in hour one and the IWC favorites being in hour 3 leaves them no choice but to realize it's a company wide issue of overall boredom.*


----------



## The True Believer

Good. They deserved that shit for what they did to the Wyatt Family.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

To all those Rollin's marks. Fact is hr one drew better than the last. People tuned it knowing Rollins was injured. 

They stopped watching because Reigns won.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

A-C-P said:


> First show without Rollins goes under 3 million :Rollins


Not even Seth has a below 3 million hour of Raw on his resume.

:Cocky :Rollins

Oh man, I love it.


----------



## Wynter

Yall don't understand how warm my heart just got :lmao Like, this is the BEST WWE news this week.










We wanted something to kick Vince in the ass, and BAH GAWD WE ARE GETTING IT!

Fuck them. I'm glad the last hour bombed to hell. No one should have to see Bray, a behemoth in Braun and two giants in Luke and Rowan get trashed by TWO OLD MUTHAFUCKAS. Two dudes who apparently got their souls taken along with their powers. Yet, they still cleaned house. HOW?!! 

That's one of the many buillshit decisions that is killing the product. Why did Taker and Kane have to look good here? Why were they even there?? They did so well with adding intrigue with Bray, but once again, let's make Taker(and Kane) look good. Bray of course doing most of the work himself before having to lay down for the old guard.

Good for WWE. I hope it gets even lower. They deserve it. 

Hardly no top guys. Guy(unfortunately) injured. No true superstars. People leaving in droves. Terrible ratings. Oh boy


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Triple H opened Raw with a really good promo, too. Fans not buying that storyline, though.

:ha


----------



## Klorel

All aboard the WWE Express!









Next stop: A cliff


----------



## Stone Hot

Umm you also have to factor in it was a taped raw some are seeming to forget that. Thank god Reigns was in hour 1. Few


----------



## Wynter

They gave fuck all for anyone after the first hour. Well, mostly for the talents in the 3rd hour :lol God damn.

EDIT: Confirmed, Seth is a psychic and purposely hurt his knee to get off the sinking shit


----------



## Stone Hot

Well we all know the real reason why the first hour was so high :HHH2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Umm you also have to factor in it was a taped raw some are seeming to forget that. Thank god Reigns was in hour 1. Few


Oh yeah. That really saved them. :ha

Anyway..

They had a chance to knock it out of the park with that tournament last night, and they turned it into your typical, boring, WWE tournament; a bunch of random matches of mediocre to shit quality and nothing else. I'm not a fan of Taker and Kane as part timers, but this is FAR from their fault. It's the tournament and the complete and utter lack of starpower in the main event scene now. Where are the full time main eventers? Where are the full timers starpower?? Very, very little right now. That's the big problem. Everything else is secondary.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Wynter! said:


> Yall don't understand how warm my heart just got :lmao Like, this is the BEST WWE news this week.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We wanted something to kick Vince in the ass, and BAH GAWD WE ARE GETTING IT!
> 
> Fuck them. I'm glad the last hour bombed to hell. No one should have to see Bray, a behemoth in Braun and two giants in Luke and Rowan get trashed by TWO OLD MUTHAFUCKAS. Two dudes who apparently got their souls taken along with their powers. Yet, they still cleaned house. HOW?!!
> 
> That's one of the many buillshit decisions that is killing the product. Why did Taker and Kane have to look good here? Why were they even there?? They did so well with adding intrigue with Bray, but once again, let's make Taker(and Kane) look good. Bray of course doing most of the work himself before having to lay down for the old guard.
> 
> Good for WWE. I hope it gets even lower. They deserve it.
> 
> Hardly no top guys. Guy(unfortunately) injured. No true superstars. People leaving in droves. Terrible ratings. Oh boy


This is straight savage tbh smh fam. Should be ashamed of yourseld :no:


































































8*D


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Stone Hot said:


> Umm you also have to factor in it was a taped raw some are seeming to forget that. Thank god Reigns was in hour 1. Few


It doesnt make a difference. Seriously go look at the RAW ratings in Novembers on Gerweck it doesnt make a dent.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Oh yeah. That really saved them. :ha
> 
> Anyway..
> 
> They had a chance to knock it out of the park with that tournament last night, and they turned it into your typical, boring, WWE tournament; a bunch of random matches of mediocre to shit quality and nothing else. I'm not a fan of Taker and Kane as part timers, but this is FAR from their fault. It's the tournament and the complete and utter lack of starpower in the main event scene now. Where are the full time main eventers? Where are the full timers starpower?? Very, very little right now. That's the big problem. Everything else is secondary.


I agree it doesn't help when you only have 2 main eventers in the tournament which we know they will be the final match in the tournament that being Regins and Ambrose


Also :ha because I can


----------



## Stone Hot

TheShieldSuck said:


> It doesnt make a difference. Seriously go look at the RAW ratings in Novembers on Gerweck it doesnt make a dent.


We can only hope this is a shot in the arm for them


----------



## The Tempest

@A-C-P, @Chrome our wish just came true, let us celebrate my friends roud

Serves them right for having their heads so far up their asses with their horrible product.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

You know something, I usually get a small coffee for my commute home from Manhattan back to NJ, but this news has given me such a late day surge and spring in my step on my way home, that I don't even need that late day coffee pick me up. So, since we blame everything on the SMARKS around here; I'd like to thank them for little by little tuning out last night. You guys hitting that small button on your remotes saved me about 5 bucks on this coffee today. THANKS, SMARKS. YOU GUYS ARE THE REAL HEROES.

:nasir


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Well they relied on guys like Cena and Orton along with part timers for far too long and neglected their current roster and they're paying for it, I mean honestly when you saw the tournament participants announced you knew the only people that has a chance of winning are Reigns and Ambrose


----------



## The True Believer

TheShieldSuck said:


> To all those Rollin's marks. Fact is hr one drew better than the last. People tuned it knowing Rollins was injured.
> 
> They stopped watching because Reigns won.


Let 'em have this one. They deserve it for all the unnecessary shit they had to deal with.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Instead of putting in 8 of our most credible guys, lets fill the tournament with jobbers and irrelevant mid carders. That'll put butts in seats :mj4*


----------



## Wynter

What matches were in the last hour?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

BTW, we Rollins marks know he isn't a draw. This does NOT change that. All this does is prove that it's on Creative, and that NO ONE else on the full time roster is a draw, either. That's all. What some of us have been saying since last year; and what some are finally just realizing right now.


----------



## RatedR10

I KNEW IT WAS GONNA HAPPEN! FINALLY :mark:


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> BTW, we Rollins marks know he isn't a draw. This does NOT change that. All this does is prove that it's on Creative, and that NO ONE else on the full time roster is a draw, either. That's all. What some of us have been saying since last year; and what some are finally just realizing right now.


I dont think there is any such thing as a draw in this day and age. Its all about booking. However, I do believe in anti-draws such as the divas and Seth Rollins. I think people can be so tired of the champ, the face of the company, and just say fuck it I am out.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> I dont think there is any such thing as a draw in this day and age. Its all about booking. However, I do believe in anti-draws such as the divas and Seth Rollins. I think people can be so tired of the champ, the face of the company, and just say fuck it I am out.


Yeah, they were so tired of him that MORE people than ever left when he wasn't on the show. He's no anti-draw, he's on the same footing as every other full timer outside of Cena. This rating proves it. They did even worse WITHOUT him and it took just one show. Get lost.

How about no one is buying the main event scene now? Even less than when Seth was there. Deal with that.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, they were so tired of him that MORE people than ever left when he wasn't on the show. He's no anti-draw, he's on the same footing as every other full timer outside of Cena. This rating proves it. They did even worse WITHOUT him and it took just one show. Get lost.
> 
> How about no one is buying the main event scene now? Even less than when Seth was there. Deal with that.


The first and second hour drew MORE than the last two which shows there were fans waiting for him to go.


----------



## Wynter

People showed up for the first hour and a bit for the second, but brutally didn't care about the last hour. Show was filler with a bunch of matches where the last hour was filled with non main eventers(unless I'm forgetting Ambrose being in hour 3). You present majority of your roster as non factors and so will the fans.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> The first and second hour drew MORE than the last two which shows there were fans waiting for him to go.


I hope you didn't break your arm reaching for that one. If you can use that logic, than I can use the logic that the fans realized after those first two hours that the show was better WITH him since they tuned out in droves in hour 3.


----------



## Chrome

The Tempest said:


> @A-C-P, @Chrome our wish just came true, let us celebrate my friends roud
> 
> Serves them right for having their heads so far up their asses with their horrible product.












Pretty hilarious. GEEKS will defend this and say it's a taped show and shit (I'm sure that's what Stone Hot is doing right now after he got the Bat Signal to defend his favorite company.) but let's be honest, they were going to get that number eventually. The taped show just sped up the process. 

And yeah, the show was ASS anyway. A chance to inject some life back into the product but they just put on another shit show filled with rematches and other useless shit. Glad I didn't watch it, and instead watched an epic BEARS comeback instead. :cutler


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I also find it interesting that people aren't attributing the Hour 1 "good" rating due to the football game not starting until a half hour into Raw, like the same people have attribitued the first hour good rating every other week. I wonder what's different this week? :hmm: 

:duck

Hour 1 always does the best. This week is no different. Good try, though


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

Fucking complete overhaul is what this shit needs, no one guy they decide to push will make any amount of difference.

The PG trash has had its day.


----------



## Tardbasher12

What's the rating?


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> I hope you didn't break your arm reaching for that one. If you can use that logic, than I can use the logic that the fans realized after those first two hours that the show was better WITH him since they tuned out in droves in hour 3.


Nobody, nobody who is anti Seth Rollins who I fully admit I am, believes that it is ONLY Seth Rollins who kills ratings. Everyone knows the booking has been dogshite since WM30. Fact is is that people GAVE IT A CHANCE because they knew that Rollins was not there and then when they realised it was just going to be a boring wrestling show they tuned out.


----------



## The XL

The WWE is sinking, they better do something fast. The roster is mediocre, the booking is shit, they have no midcard, the fans aren't interested in Reigns and what's going to be his predictable superman Title win, etc.

And no, Bryan isn't saving this. Nor is Cena, although I'm sure the WWE thinks that and will probably bring him back early.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yeah, you're right; that's the ticket.

:ti


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Final number is 2.23


----------



## Wynter

Between the outrageous ways some of yall trying to shit on Seth even when he's not here and Showstopper going full lunatic in this thread, I'm like:











So, place your bets. What drastic decisions will Vince make next Raw :hmm:


----------



## Chrome

First show with Rollins out and the 3rd hour does below 3 million for the first time. Coincidence? I think not. :rollins :lelbron


----------



## Tardbasher12

TheShieldSuck said:


> Final number is 2.23


1.9 is still a goal.:cheer:cheer:cheer


----------



## A-C-P

Wynter! said:


> Between the outrageous ways some of yall trying to shit on Seth even when he's not here and Showstopper going full lunatic in this thread, I'm like:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *So, place your bets. What drastic decisions will Vince make next Raw :hmm:*


Cena surprise return next week and declares he is facing the winner of the Tournament at SvS immediately after the finals :cena


----------



## ShadowSucks92

To be honest, ratings aren't gonna improve any time soon, the fan base is still there, but RAW has been dreadful for so long that it'll take something big for people to take interest again, remember how bad NXT was a few years ago, now look at it, how did that become so popular, because they put on a product that generated enough buzz to get people interested.


----------



## Chrome

Fwiw, they're not gonna do shit. They'll just blame the shit rating on the show being taped and no Cena and keep the line moving.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Seth" At least my RAW'S never went under 3 million"Rollins :Cocky*


----------



## Miss Sally

I don't think the WWE has 8 credible guys atm because they keep start/stopping everyones push. As for hour one.. it always draws the most views. SMH, some people.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

A-C-P said:


> Cena surprise return next week and declares he is facing the winner of the Tournament at SvS immediately after the finals :cena


*If Cena broke his leg, I could see him rolling to RAW in a wheelchair at a time like this.*


----------



## Chrome

Legit BOSS said:


> *If Cena broke his leg, I could see him rolling to RAW in a wheelchair at a time like this.*


Shit, if Cena died this week they'd just drag his coffin to the ring and throw his corpse in the ring.


----------



## Marrakesh

The XL said:


> The WWE is sinking, they better do something fast. The roster is mediocre, the booking is shit, they have no midcard, the fans aren't interested in Reigns and what's going to be his predictable superman Title win, etc.
> 
> And no, Bryan isn't saving this. Nor is Cena, although I'm sure the WWE thinks that and will probably bring him back early.


Cena is the whole fucking problem. Well, to be more accurate, Vince's love for the character is the problem. 

Cena actually wanted to go heel 5 years ago for The Rock feud.

If you were going to trace back to the root cause of WWE's decline over a decade ago then everything will coincide with Vince's decision to make Cena his top guy and the shift in philosophy and content that would follow. 

Management do not accept this. They believe Cena has carried the load for them all these years when in reality they have saddled him with it, by either refusing (In the cases of Punk and Bryan) or failing to make any new stars.

With the exception of Cena, there is not one guy on the current active full time roster who could headline Wrestlemania. 

It is amazing to me how badly run that company is. With all the resources in the world at their disposal and they produce nothing. 

The show is absolutely passionless.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIV said:


> *Seth" At least my RAW'S never went under 3 million"Rollins :Cocky*


I think from now on, strictly for trolling purposes, Seth shall be known as Seth "Ratings" Rollins.

:Cocky


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Most viewers had to know for sure that Taker was going to appear at the end. Surprised the third hour did so poorly. Then again they could have had a strong overrun number.


----------



## 3MB4Life

Chrome said:


> Shit, if Cena died this week they'd just drag his coffin to the ring and throw his corpse in the ring.


And he still kicks out at two and wins with the STF.


----------



## A-C-P

3MB4Life said:


> And he still kicks out at two and wins with the STF.


Hey Zombie shows are all the rage right now....

ZOMBIE CENA :CENA = :vince$


----------



## TheLooseCanon

They need to change the product, not wrestlers. We went through this 'it's because this guy can't draw' with Cena, Punk, Bryan, Seth, Reigns, etc. It's never 1 guy (well maybe Cena since the entire show was built around him for a few years).

The product is why people stop watching.

They don't want to see talent buried.
They don't want to see dumb kiddy storylines.
They don't want to hear 2 Coles and hack JBL on commentary. 3 geeks talking over what is supposed to be non-stop action.

WWE needs to get serious, not TV-14. Just serious. 

Serious about wins. Serious about losses. Serious about characters. Serious about titles.


----------



## Marrakesh

The Boy Wonder said:


> Most viewers had to know for sure that Taker was going to appear at the end. Surprised the third hour did so poorly. Then again they could have had a strong overrun number.


It must be cool to see Taker in person at a live event. On TV in 2015? Not so much.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

:yes







:yes

*This is the best damn news I've heard all week. After the horrible RAW, the absolute destruction of The Wyatts, this godawful embarrassment of a tournament, this show deserves to go below 3 million.

Personally, I want it to tank even further. *


----------



## The Boy Wonder

After seeing the amount of people that showed up for tickets at AT&T I'm just shocked. You would think with these shitty ratings that times are bad for WWE. But then freaking 6,000-8,000 local (nearby) people show up for tickets on a workday.


----------



## Chrome

Don't know about Zombie Cena, they'd probably just attach strings to his corpse and Vince would control him like a puppet from the rafters. Meanwhile, the audience at home is like :dahell. 

Granted, they usually make that face anyway when watching Raw, but it'd be even worse this week when they get a load of Puppet Cena. :cena4


----------



## 3MB4Life

A-C-P said:


> Hey Zombie shows are all the rage right now....
> 
> ZOMBIE CENA :CENA = :vince$


:cole And Zombie Cena hits the AA, one of his arms has flown off but he still locks in the STF.

:jbl Cena may be undead Cole but hustle, loyalty and respect never die and you have to respect this 16x champion.

:cole He lost his life but he didn't lose that fighting spirit that allows him to bury the entire roster.

:jbl You don't bury undead Cena, undead Cena buries you.


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> Umm you also have to factor in it was a taped raw some are seeming to forget that. Thank god Reigns was in hour 1. Few


:lmao who cares what segment he's in? If the Titanic is going down it's taking him with it


but seriously, sh^t rating which is now a trend. It's futile to find a sole person to blame here, it's the interest in WWE being at an all time low which is due to several contributing factors (Creative being sh^t --for one). It's going to take a product overhaul over a gradual period of time to change things and build back interest at this point. I don't even think that the RTWM will change the trend all that much this year....


----------



## skarvika

Deadman's Hand said:


> :yes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :yes
> 
> *This is the best damn news I've heard all week. After the horrible RAW, the absolute destruction of The Wyatts, this godawful embarrassment of a tournament, this show deserves to go below 3 million.
> 
> Personally, I want it to tank even further. *


I share this exact sentiment. Not because I want WWE to fail...hell, I _want_ to like WWE. I want to be entertained and enjoy the shows they put on. But I don't...a lot of people don't...and WWE is clearly not going to do anything to make the shows better until the company is on its last leg.



4everEyebrowRaisin said:


> Fucking complete overhaul is what this shit needs, no one guy they decide to push will make any amount of difference.
> 
> The PG trash has had its day.


In the words of Jumpin' Jeff Farmer: YEP!
Scrap the shitty cornball gimmicks, get rid of the one-man main event scene, bring back weight divisions, get back the brand split, hire more talent to add depth to the roster and for the love of god, stop creating so many damn jobbers and have people trade off wins.


----------



## Marrakesh

Smackdown please go below 2m on Thursday.


----------



## Marv95

Final number, 2.23. Thought it'd be lower.
http://www.pwtorch.com/index.php/20...in-raw-falls-again-hits-viewership-low-point/

if it's about the same or lower next week, then they _need_ to panic if they aren't already.


----------



## Randy Lahey

A 2.8 mils hour? WWE is DEAD. They were even going up against a really weak NFL game. Vince has finally killed the golden goose.


----------



## Marrakesh

Get rid of the soap opera writers, take a step back , swallow your pride and pay Heyman whatever he wants to write the shows. 

Guess what Vince? He could fucking make Reigns a star for you but he won't have to do it at the expense of the rest of the roster. 

This buffoon is well on his way to ruining an absolute cash cow :lel


----------



## Erik.

Wynter! said:


> IT FINALLY GOT UNDER 3 MILLION
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :ha
> 
> Now. Can Vince FINALLY shake it up and do something new and competent?? unk2


No, because they still make a shit load of money. It's until they LOSE money when he'll start to care.


----------



## Marv95

Erik. said:


> No, because they still make a shit load of money. It's until they LOSE money when he'll start to care.


Except a big chunk of their revenue is based off their TV deal. Which was lousy for them to begin with.


----------



## Randy Lahey

4everEyebrowRaisin said:


> Fucking complete overhaul is what this shit needs, no one guy they decide to push will make any amount of difference.
> 
> The PG trash has had its day.


I think Stephanie and Vince's reasoning for going to PG was that WWE fans had become too "desensitized" to violence and sex, and they need to draw in younger fans.

Well, that was a huge FAILURE. Not only have NOT attracted even children that want to watch this garbage, but the adult fans have left the building and ARE NOT coming back.

At this rate, WWE is a fad. Over and done with.

They deserve it though. They did not give their core audience what they wanted. And now that audience has left them.


----------



## Erik.

Marv95 said:


> Except a big chunk of their revenue is based off their TV deal. Which was lousy for them to begin with.


They're still raking in millions. Ratings won't bother them until they're LOSING money. They are in profit and will continue to be. They aren't going to shape things up, the sad thing is they won't even know HOW to shape things up.

They don't have a clue what to do.


----------



## razzathereaver

Does anyone know the last time a RAW went as low as 2.86 million?


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> BTW, we Rollins marks know he isn't a draw. This does NOT change that. All this does is prove that it's on Creative, and that NO ONE else on the full time roster is a draw, either. That's all. What some of us have been saying since last year; and what some are finally just realizing right now.


Thank you. Agree 100% Some people will just never get it. They feel they need to blame someone weather it be Rollins, Reigns, Cena whoever when in reality it was never anyones fault. It his creative first and foremost. You can even blame 3 hour raws as well.


----------



## Reaper

Erik. said:


> No, because they still make a shit load of money. It's until they LOSE money when he'll start to care.


The WWE is losing money in the sense that they make money at the expense of cost cutting measures ... which is pretty much never a viable long-term strategy. For smart businesses cost-cutting is like a band aid they apply in order to get their act together. For not so smart companies, you can only hedge your losses with cost-cutting for a short time till the bubble finally bursts.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> Pretty hilarious. GEEKS will defend this and say it's a taped show and shit (I'm sure that's what Stone Hot is doing right now after he got the Bat Signal to defend his favorite company.) but let's be honest, they were going to get that number eventually. The taped show just sped up the process.
> 
> And yeah, the show was ASS anyway. A chance to inject some life back into the product but they just put on another shit show filled with rematches and other useless shit. Glad I didn't watch it, and instead watched an epic BEARS comeback instead. :cutler


Im actually not defending it. Im happy they got the shit rating because the storylines fuckin suck. They need this shot in the arm to now people aint buying what their selling. Creative is to blame not the talent.


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> :lmao *who cares what segment he's in? If the Titanic is going down it's taking him with it*


:lol Regins is one of the first class passengers that are getting on the life boats


----------



## Erik.

The Apostate said:


> The WWE is losing money in the sense that they make money at the expense of cost cutting measures ... which is pretty much never a viable long-term strategy. For smart businesses cost-cutting is like a band aid they apply in order to get their act together. For not so smart companies, you can only hedge your losses with cost-cutting for a short time till the bubble finally bursts.


Of course. 

Until that bubble finally bursts though, they won't bother. They'll continue their mentality of throwing enough shit until it eventually sticks. Problem is, people are seeing through the shit and it isn't going to stick anymore.


----------



## antdvda

It is true that they will not make a systemic change until they start losing money. I believe they are still making more money off ad revenue than ever even with the dwindling ratings. This is due to the extra hour of ad space on Raw and the family friendly advertisers that they now get because of the PG rating. 

Also, their charity initiatives most likely bring in cash flow and are also linked to the new PG image.

Until the interest in the product gets so low that it's effecting the bottom line, it will never change. They are willing to sacrifice ratings for more profit.


----------



## RatedR10

This has seriously been inevitable for a long time. With their rapidly declining numbers that not even their legends overload back three weeks ago could save... you just knew it was coming, and I don't think this is the only time it'll happen this Fall.


----------



## LilOlMe

Fuck the WWE, this is great news. Hopefully it'll make Vince start to really be concerned, but who knows.

I read that the last taped show did worse than expected, so Meltzer at the time said that there's something to the fact that taped shows get lower ratings nowadays.

Will be interesting to see if next week is as low, and if it is, I believe that this will force Vince to start taking things seriously.

They cannot get out of their downward funk, but they have not even given it a real effort either.

"They'll always watch." :Vince


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Just think. In six months,all the Rollins naysayers will fondly be calling his title reign :*THE GOOD OLD DAYS!!!!!* :ha:bryanlol:heston :Cocky


----------



## The True Believer

SHIV said:


> Just think. In six months,all the Rollins naysayers will fondly be calling his title reign :*THE GOOD OLD DAYS!!!!!* :ha:bryanlol:heston :Cocky


Not me. Garbage then, garbage now, garbage forever. I'll miss Rollins but not that god awful title reign.


----------



## LilOlMe

For comparison sake, this was last year's ratings:



> *WWE Raw ratings (Nov. 10, 2014): Viewers down for tape delayed show*
> 
> 
> Despite the fact that last night's episode of Monday Night Raw from Liverpool, England aired via tape delay on USA and spoilers were readily available beforehand, viewership totals were only down slightly from the week prior.
> 
> The show averaged 3.93 million viewers for all three hours, down from 4.04 million last week. It helped that Monday Night Football drew just over 11 million viewers on ESPN.
> 
> Here's the hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 4.01 million
> Hour two: 3.94 million
> Hour three: 3.83 million
> 
> The gradual decline returned but that's to be expected with a show like this when fans could be made well aware of the results before they hit the air, especially considering the show was built to climax with a swerve. Either way, it could have been much worse considering everything he had working against it.


So from 3.93 million to 3.16 million. Almost an 800,000 viewer drop. :lol


Here's what Meltzer wrote about the latest rating:


> *Ratings contine to plunge, WWE RAW 3rd hour sets new low*
> 
> 
> The lack of star power and three hour length of Raw took its toll last night as, even with a lower-rated NFL game than in recent weeks, Raw set another modern audience record low mark last night.
> 
> Raw was down from last week's 3.24 million viewers to 3.16 million this week, with the lowest viewed hour (hour three) in modern non-holiday history, even on a night built around the first round of the WWE title tournament. When the brackets for the tournament didn't list outside stars, and the most pushed star in the tournament, Roman Reigns, had already wrestled in the first hour, interest fell greatly.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.48 million viewers
> 
> 9 p.m. 3.18 million viewers
> 
> 10 p.m. 2.86 million viewers



I could see Vince blaming this on Wyatt, by the way.


----------



## Released

The Undertaker should take blame for hour 3. He's nothing without the streak. Retire already you old washed-up fuck!


----------



## Chrome

LilOlMe said:


> So from 3.93 million to *3.16 million.* Almost an 800,000 viewer drop. :lol


I guess you can say the viewership has gone "Stone Cold" eh? :austin


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> Raw was down from last week's 3.24 million viewers to 3.16 million this week, *with the lowest viewed hour (hour three) in modern non-holiday history, even on a night built around the first round of the WWE title tournament.*


:mj4

Looks like people are hella invested in who will be the next WWE Champion. Man, and people thought it couldn't get any worse. I hope it keeps falling. That'll teach WWE and the "anti-smarks" on here. :cudi


----------



## RatedR10

For those using the taped show excuse, just no...

Last year's taped show numbers:

Hour 1: 4.01 million
Hour 2: 3.94 million (-1.75% from first hour)
Hour 3: 3.83 million (-2.79% from second hour)

Average: 3.93 million (Previous week in 2014: 4.04 million. % change: -2.72%)

2015

Hour 1: 3.48 million (530,000 decrease from last year)
Hour 2: 3.18 million (-8.62% from first hour) (760,000 decrease from last year)
Hour 3: 2.86 million (-10.06% from second hour) (970,000 decrease from last year)

Average: 3.16 million (Previous week: 3.24 million. % change: -2.47%)

But they'll keep watching...


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

_Maybe _ Seth was the one keeping the ratings afloat? Fucking idiots trash Bret and Shawn for not doing good business, but they fail to realize that WWF was pure ass in the mid-90's.

It wasn't trash like Mantaur, Isaac Yankem and a superior WCW product that nearly killed the company, no; it was Bret Hart and Shawn Michaels.

People don't think. Put some real fucking thought into what it is your're actually watching every Monday, ask yourself: was Rollins responsible for the decline, or was he the life support that made the other garbage bearable? 

It seems to me like interest in a show without his presence wasn't all that high...


----------



## SnapOrTap

Roman Reigns comes in.

Everyone knows Reigns' going to win the tourney.

No body cares besides those 10 Reigns smarks.

GG.

Ratings dumpster.

For all the shit Seth got, he kept the ratings afloat. As soon as he left and the RAINZ TRAIN COME TO POWAH, all the niche viewers (ala smarks) left.

Huehuehuehue.


----------



## Stone Hot

:ha 



Sorry I couldn't help it


----------



## Stung like Sting

Nobody is watching...

WWE will *DIE* without Seth Rollins

and he won't be back for at least 12 months...


----------



## The True Believer

SnapOrTap said:


> Roman Reigns comes in.
> 
> Everyone knows Reigns' going to win the tourney.
> 
> No body cares besides those 10 Reigns smarks.
> 
> GG.
> 
> Ratings dumpster.
> 
> For all the shit Seth got, he kept the ratings afloat. As soon as he left and the RAINZ TRAIN COME TO POWAH, all the niche viewers (ala smarks) left.
> 
> Huehuehuehue.


He kept ratings afloat despite them steadily decreasing every week? Huh?


----------



## SnapOrTap

SUPERIOR said:


> He kept ratings afloat despite them steadily decreasing every week? Huh?


It was the Reigns effect. Reigns was a blackhole while Rollins was like a comet. Regardless, he was fighting a losing battle but he kept fighting on like a true soldier. :Sethrollins


----------



## Chrome

Reading last year's thread, it was kinda amusing how little activity there was around this time. Now there's a TON more activity because everybody's laughing at how bad the ratings are. :haha


----------



## Solf

It was Rollins' fault, no one cared about him being injured, yet Triple H talked about it for at least 30 seconds and New Day referenced it later.

Face it smarks, HE'S KILLING THE RATINGS.


----------



## SnapOrTap

What the fuck is with these anti smark posters lmao.

The only people that would actually watch this dogshit product are the smarks, not the casuals who would most likely be watching MNF or even that Hip Hop show that constantly beats out RAW. Or maybe even the Voice. Adam Levine > Reigns.

It's funny how this business doesn't cater to the smarks who essentially make up the die hard demographic that constantly put up with their shitty product. And now, I think finally, we're seeing what happens when the smarks tune out. That WWE "core" viewership they thought would never leave is dropping like flies. And for good reasons too.
















P.S. Roman Reigns sucks. Can't wrestle. Can't talk. Rollins > Reigns. Bryan > Reigns. Owens > Reigns. Ambrose > Reigns. Sasha Banks > Reigns. TNA > Reigns.


----------



## Stung like Sting

Does anyone want to hear my Seth Rollins is injured and it is going to kill the WWE business song? sung by HHH.

Seth Rollins,
Seth Rollins can you hear me?
and Seth Rollins are you near me?
are you alone in this world too?
your injury..
has destroyed the whole of the WWE
we no longer have no empathy
and our story lines are spinning out of control.

the ratings,
we thought they hit rock bottom,
but with you gone its an even bigger problem..
no bodys gonna watch.

come back;
come back Seth Rollins...

come back;
come back Seth Rollins...

Your knee looks real bad,
12 months out for you is making me so mad..
cause that is bad for business.

come back;
come back Seth Rollins...

come back;
come back Seth Rollins...


----------



## fifty_

What the hell :O raw is one of my favorite shows on tv -.- the company better not die


----------



## Joshi Judas

Oh boy :Jordan


Time to follow this thread more closely from here on out to see some of the ridiculous reasons people come are going to come up with :troll

Subscribed.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

That third hour, not only did they not get 3 million, they couldn't even muster up a *2.9*. They got a *2.8*

:mj4


----------



## Stung like Sting

Will be down to 2.2 or 2.3 without Seth Rollins wrestling over the next 12 months..

sad times for WWE without their No 1 worker.


----------



## Starbuck

Diminished returns finally setting in on Taker. It's pretty lol. Funny how when they start using somebody all the time suddenly their appearances aren't so special..... you know like the rest of the roster who can't draw flies to shit. Totally not their fault btw but now WWE can't really rely on the heavy hitters either because everyone is overexposed. 

It is pretty funny watching you guys bask in that third hour number. Embarrassing stuff really. If you all get more enjoyment out of watching something fail than actually watching it, might be time to...stop watching it. And don't come at me with the 'this will force them to get better ' bullshit. It ain't happening. WWE is what it is and Vince will do what he does. Nothing changes until the guy calling the shots changes. Belee dat.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Just bring back Daniel Ratings Bryan.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Stop looking for solutions/causes in individual 'superstars' - it's the freaking booking


----------



## DemBoy

Badbadrobot said:


> Stop looking for solutions/causes in individual 'superstars' - it's the freaking booking


Nah man, it's obviously Rollins fault.


----------



## Annihilus

Stop blaming individuals for the bad ratings.. the ratings are in the toilet because of 2 primary reasons:

1) 3 HOUR RAWS causing wrestling fatigue. Nobody wants to watch this 3 hours a week, let alone 5-7+ hours with Raw/Smackdown/PPVs Its like asking people to watch Lord of the Rings: Return of the King Extended Director's Cut every week (and the entire trilogy one week a month). even the more diehard LOTR fans will get tired of that sooner or later and stop watching. 3 Hour Raws are even turning hardcore wrestling fans away, so they have no chance of retaining a casual audience.

2) No star power, and wrestling has lost its mainstream relevancy. Wrestling has been on a slow decline since Austin/Rock left after the AE. More and more of the actual stars retired, died or quit, and now we have a roster of mostly people who are unknown to non-wrestling fans. The only people that non-wrestling fans would even recognize are Cena & maybe Orton, the part-timers like Lesnar/Rock/Batista who are bigger stars outside of WWE, and relics of the good old days like Undertaker.

Cena & Orton are the only household names in the full-time WWE roster under the age of 40, and both of them are off TV right now. let that sink in.. they've had a decade to build new stars and the only ones they have are still Cena and Orton, and they're not even spring chickens anymore. This company is fucking sunk unless they can translate the new NXT guys into being stars on the main roster.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

it kinda makes sense. They blew their load in the first hour didn't they? I mean Reigns wrestled, they got the announcement out and then....what? There was nothing more to watch really.


----------



## Solf

Dark_Raiden said:


> it kinda makes sense. They blew their load in the first hour didn't they? I mean Reigns wrestled...


Yeah, that is such a great selling point. Millions of people all over the world itching to witness the godlike in-ring skills of Roman Almighty Reigns. They probably started to wank off in front of their TV (aroused by such prowess), came when he speared Big Show, and then shut down the TV.

I mean, they witnessed Roman Reigns wrestling, there was no way the show could get more interesting than that.


----------



## The_It_Factor

Wow, just when I thought the things people spout in this thread couldn't get any more ridiculous. First it was Cena's fault, then it was Rollins' fault, now it's Reigns fault because despite being in the highest rated hour, people saw the writing on the wall with his segment and decided that every other aspect of the show was worth tuning out for... 

It couldn't POSSIBLY be because the show sucks and more and more people are realizing that each week?

Also, how could people possibly put this on Undertaker? That segment was SO late in the 3rd hour, and the vast majority of viewers didn't know he was appearing as most of them probably didn't look up spoilers to the show before watching like idiots. I even saw people in the Raw Discussion thread complain about the main event and say they were turning it off for the night (whether that was true or not, who knows).


----------



## RatedR10

After this, NO ONE should be saying it's Rollins fault. Does he draw? No. But look at the numbers and look at the roster: NO ONE FUCKING DRAWS. Not John Cena, not Seth Rollins, not Roman Reigns, not even the fucking Undertaker. 

This is solely on the product and creative, not the talent or drawing power of the talent.

Not even Steve Austin would draw as much as he did in a three hour, micromanaged, overexposed environment like the modern day WWE product.


----------



## DoubtGin




----------



## Peerless

Well that's what happens when you book your roster like a joke. If the booking team and Vince doesn't take 99% of them seriously, why should the audience?


----------



## The_Jiz

DoubtGin said:


>


----------



## Seeya Beeya

RatedR10 said:


> After this, NO ONE should be saying it's Rollins fault. Does he draw? No. But look at the numbers and look at the roster: NO ONE FUCKING DRAWS. Not John Cena, not Seth Rollins, not Roman Reigns, not even the fucking Undertaker.
> 
> This is solely on the product and creative, not the talent or drawing power of the talent.
> 
> Not even Steve Austin would draw as much as he did in a three hour, micromanaged, overexposed environment like the modern day WWE product.


After a long time lurking I finally decided to jump in and start posting.

You are absolutely correct about Steve Austin - he even said on his podcast that there is no way he would be successful in WWE if he was wrestling now. 

Both Batista and Austin have called the WWE creative out on their booking yet WWE either can't or won't change.

I don't lay the blame on any star - it's clear that no matter who they put in that third hour whether it be Cena, Lesnar, Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Undertaker, Kane, New Day, Wyatt, etc. that it will not draw. It's not about the stars, it's about creative and people being exhausted with the product.


----------



## Stung like Sting

Austin is smart.

He knows his stuff.

And he is 100% correct.


----------



## LilOlMe

Lol at Reigns in the "highest hour." Like that's something to laud. It's almost ALWAYS the highest hour nowadays.

Do you think that it's a coincidence that they decided to do that, to get the stench of the third hour off of him?


----------



## PurityOfEvil

SnapOrTap said:


> Just bring back Daniel Ratings Bryan.


When are people going to realise that it wouldn't make a difference? One man is not going to get the ratings up. Who in their right mind would sit through a three hour show of 95% garbage to see their favourite wrestler for 10 minutes? 

It doesn't matter if it's Bryan, Punk, Rock, Austin, Undertaker or Lesnar. Unless there is radical change within the content and structure of the show, ratings will continue to be shit.


----------



## xio8ups

A smart man once said. Once you buy out your competition. What motivation do you have.


----------



## TNA is Here

Not Rollins' fault, not Reigns' fault. But I'll say this to both of their fandom: they both have been unwatchable for a long time. Cause they've been booked like shit. So it doesn't matter that you raise them statues, they both have not been worth it.


----------



## Marrakesh

SnapOrTap said:


> Just bring back Daniel Ratings Bryan.


I know this is only said in a jokey way because no one really draws anymore but.. 

He's the last wrestler i seen pop a rating significantly, other than The Rock in the last few years. 

Gets promoted as appearing on Smackdown two weeks straight when he returned from injury in a feud with KANE! :lol of all people and the numbers went to just under 3 million. :shrug 

They stopped promoting matches or Bryan for Smackdown and the numbers dwindled again.


----------



## Rome

Seeya Beeya said:


> After a long time lurking I finally decided to jump in and start posting.
> 
> You are absolutely correct about Steve Austin - he even said on his podcast that there is no way he would be successful in WWE if he was wrestling now.
> 
> Both Batista and Austin have called the WWE creative out on their booking yet WWE either can't or won't change.
> 
> I don't lay the blame on any star - it's clear that no matter who they put in that third hour whether it be Cena, Lesnar, Rollins, Reigns, Ambrose, Undertaker, Kane, New Day, Wyatt, etc. that it will not draw. It's not about the stars, it's about creative and people being exhausted with the product.


Batista left cause he got booed by the fans which made creative make decisions that Batista wasn't too fond of, see. Roman Reigns is getting that same Batista treatment by the fans too. 

We can't blame creative all the time. We love to blame them on something when they do something wrong but when they finally doing something right, we say "He's not ready" or " he's being shovel down our throats" or "Hes Vince's boy" or he's getting book too strong". 

Ans undertaker, sting and those part-timers don't drew because their balding, their old in their 50s or 60s. Nobody wants to see them wrestle it's unrealistic. Boxers and MMA fighter usually retire in their early 40s


----------



## A-C-P

Rome said:


> Batista left cause he got booed by the fans which made creative make decisions that Batista wasn't too fond of, see. Roman Reigns is getting that same Batista treatment by the fans too.
> 
> *We can't blame creative all the time. We love to blame them on something when they do something wrong but when they finally doing something right, we say "He's not ready" or " he's being shovel down our throats" or "Hes Vince's boy" or he's getting book too strong"*.
> 
> Ans undertaker, sting and those part-timers don't drew because their balding, their old in their 50s or 60s. Nobody wants to see them wrestle it's unrealistic. Boxers and MMA fighter usually retire in their early 40s


Implying the Royal Rumble and then booking between Fast Lane and WM as creative "doing something right" ointandlaugh


----------



## Rome

A-C-P said:


> Implying the Royal Rumble and then booking between Fast Lane and WM as creative "doing something right" ointandlaugh


this year was the highest grossing WM they've had in a while...so yeah.


----------



## A-C-P

Rome said:


> this year was the highest grossing WM they've had in a while...so yeah.


Right, an event that sold most of its tickets MONTHS in advance of any of the booking decisions we are discussing, having its highest average ticket prices possibly ever, being one of their highest grossing events ever proves that creative did everything perfectly right for a 3 month period.

But hey if you want to defend WWE creative for the way the Rumble match was booked and how the month and a half between Fast Lane and WM were booked this year be my guest :lmao


----------



## Rome

A-C-P said:


> Right, an event that sold most of its tickets MONTHS in advance of any of the booking decisions we are discussing, having its highest average ticket prices possibly ever, being one of their highest grossing events ever proves that creative did everything perfectly right for a 3 month period.
> 
> But hey if you want to defend WWE creative for the way the Rumble match was booked and how the month and a half between Fast Lane and WM were booked this year be my guest :lmao


I guess you have to read this : http://www.wwe.com/shows/wrestlemania/31/wrestlemania-31-breaks-more-records-27257176

Let me remind you about the cancel the network movement, when people so pissed about Roman Reigns but still yet intrigued to watch anyway. If the booking that messed up nobody would watch...but somehow it broken records then past WMs


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> Lol at Reigns in the "highest hour." Like that's something to laud. It's almost ALWAYS the highest hour nowadays.
> 
> Do you think that it's a coincidence that they decided to do that, to get the stench of the third hour off of him?


The "rules" have changed now that Seth is no longer Champ. Who didn't see that coming?

:ti

Anyway, below 3 million for an hour the first week Rollin's isn't there. :lmao I couldn't have written a better ending if I tried..


----------



## FITZ

Rome said:


> this year was the highest grossing WM they've had in a while...so yeah.


So your point is basically that if something is popular it must be good?


----------



## Rome

FITZ said:


> So your point is basically that if something is popular it must be good?


Do you know what Broke Records mean? It means it surpass or did stronger than the previous record. Yeah, Wrestlemaina is popular but somehow it did BETTER THAN PAST WRESTLEMAINAS. So that means they brought more people watched.

If Roman Reigns had the belt with ratings this low, trust me, the IWC tone about creative booking would not exist. Ya'll trying to give Seth Rollins a pass but nobody just interested, nor find him champion material and hard to watch sometimes. I can tell you that cause I do it myself. I find myself watching love & hip hop reruns when he's on.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Rome said:


> Do you know what Broke Records mean? It means it surpass or did stronger than the previous record. Yeah, Wrestlemaina is popular but somehow it did BETTER THAN PAST WRESTLEMAINAS. So that means they brought more people watched.
> 
> If Roman Reigns had the belt with ratings this low, trust me, the IWC tone about creative booking would not exist. Ya'll trying to give Seth Rollins a pass but nobody just interested, nor find him champion material and hard to watch sometimes. I can tell you that cause I do it myself. I find myself watching love & hip hop reruns when he's on.












Apparently they lost money according to Dave Meltzer. This really handsome and cool WF member even made a thread about it a while back http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...david-meltzer-wrestlemania-31-lost-money.html


----------



## A-C-P

StraightYesSociety said:


> Apparently they lost money according to Dave Meltzer. This really handsome and cool WF member even made a thread about it a while back http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...david-meltzer-wrestlemania-31-lost-money.html


Apparently he has not learned the difference between gross and net :draper2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

StraightYesSociety said:


> Apparently they lost money according to Dave Meltzer. This really handsome and cool WF member even made a thread about it a while back http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...david-meltzer-wrestlemania-31-lost-money.html


That's not good, especially with how WWE pushed Brock/Reigns as some huge match.

And now WWE is dipping below 3 million viewers on Raw?

:ha

No one wants the superhuman babyface anymore. That shit is passe.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> That's not good, especially with how WWE pushed Brock/Reigns as some huge match.
> 
> And now WWE is dipping below 3 million viewers on Raw?
> 
> :ha
> 
> No one wants the superhuman babyface anymore. That shit is passe.


*
You do realize it was inevitable for them to lose money due to the Network, right? $70>$9.99. Simple math would indicate that it's literally impossible to outperform previous years domestically. The event itself was still the most successful of all time from a live aspect.*


----------



## StraightYesSociety

ShowStopper said:


> That's not good, especially with how WWE pushed Brock/Reigns as some huge match.
> 
> And now WWE is dipping below 3 million viewers on Raw?
> 
> :ha
> 
> *No one wants the superhuman babyface anymore*. That shit is passe.


The protagonist should be equal to or weaker than the antagonist is the first rule of creative writing. The next one is character development and change that humanizes the protagonist. That's why Daniel Bryan and CM Punk got so over. In the last couple of years they have been the most evolved and multi-layered characters on WWE TV. They also happen to be feuding against the company itself thus making them extremely weak against their foes. 

They felt overlooked. Someone being overlooked by the brass and having their spots taken was the narrative. Everyone can relate to that and they see themselves in that. Any person that has lived will at some point be overlooked for someone else (this includes; love, work, school, etc). 

So with Bryan and Punk (not by design), they humanized them and pitted them against forces that were bigger than them. Summer of Punk and Yes Movement were two of the biggest things in pro wrestling in the last couple of years.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> You do realize it was inevitable for them to lose money due to the Network, right? $70>$9.99. Simple math would indicate that it's literally impossible to outperform previous years domestically. The event itself was still the most successful of all time from a live aspect.*


According to that Meltzer post on his forum, WM 30 didn't lose any money, and the Network was up and running during WM 30.


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> According to that Meltzer post on his forum, WM 30 didn't lose any money, and the Network was up and running during WM 30.


That's a fair point. :costanza3


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> According to that Meltzer post on his forum, WM 30 didn't lose any money, and the Network was up and running during WM 30.


*
The Network had JUST released that year. They spent every month after it calling the fans dumb if they didn't have it, which discouraged PPV buys. Whether you like it or not, 31 sold the most merch and was the most watched and discussed Mania of all time, so if you want to "blame" Reigns for losing money and act like "no one" wants to see him, then you're effectively admitting that he's more must see than Daniel Bryan*
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...-wrestlemania-31-breaks-several-more-records/



> *Viewership*
> 
> WWE's pop-culture extravaganza was watched by more than 1.3 million global households on WWE Network alone.
> 
> Most-watched WrestleMania in history, with pay-per-view data still forthcoming.
> 
> The night after WrestleMania 31, Monday Night Raw® was the most-watched episode in nearly three years delivering 5.4 million viewers.
> 
> Raw's top telecast since WWE celebrated Raw 1000 on July 23, 2012.
> 
> Raw was Monday night's most-watched program on all of cable television for the 11th week in a row.
> *
> Attendance*
> 
> WrestleMania 31 broke the attendance record for Levi's Stadium as 76,976 fans from all 50 states and 40 countries converged on the home of the San Francisco 49ers. The previous attendance record for Levi's Stadium was 70,799.
> 
> WrestleMania 31 became the highest-grossing live event in WWE history, grossing $12.6 million and breaking the previous record of $12.3 million that was held by WrestleMania 29 at MetLife Stadium in 2013.
> *
> Digital/Social Media*
> 
> WrestleMania 31 was the most social event in WWE history.
> 
> A record 142 worldwide Twitter trends (up +106 percent vs. last year), including 10 No. 1 worldwide trends, which was more than any broadcast or cable show that night.
> 
> WWE-related content saw more than 60 million video views across all platforms on the day of WrestleMania.
> 
> WWE trended on Facebook with exclusive content featuring WWE Superstar ring entrances, match clips, interviews, locker room commentary and training videos.
> 
> WrestleMania 31 garnered a record 165 million impressions on Facebook and 92 million impressions on Twitter, an increase of 62 percent and 23 percent year-over-year, respectively.
> 
> During WrestleMania, the WWE flagship App saw its most usage since launch in 2012, while reaching nearly 18 million downloads during WrestleMania.
> 
> The WrestleMania 31 App had four times as many downloads as last year's WrestleMania 30 App.
> 
> *Merchandise Sales*
> 
> WWE generated $3.3 million in WrestleMania merchandise revenue (up +27 percent vs. last year), eclipsing the previous record of $2.7 million from WrestleMania 29.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> The Network had JUST released that year. They spent every month after it calling the fans dumb if they didn't have it, which discouraged PPV buys. Whether you like it or not, 31 sold the most merch was the most watched Mania of all time, so if you want to "blame" Reigns for losing money, then you're effectively admitting that he's more must see than Daniel Bryan:*
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...-wrestlemania-31-breaks-several-more-records/


I don't see why it matters if the Network was just released that year or not. Fact is, it was up and available during WM 30 and that WM still did not lose money. :shrug This isn't my opinion. This is just what it is. That's pretty impressive, especially if we are headed in the era of WM's losing money, or if it will just be WM 31 that loses money. Should be interesting to see which way it goes.


----------



## Rome

StraightYesSociety said:


> Apparently they lost money according to Dave Meltzer. This really handsome and cool WF member even made a thread about it a while back http://www.wrestlingforum.com/gener...david-meltzer-wrestlemania-31-lost-money.html


OKAY I see ya'll believe Dave Meltzer when he said WM31 lost money, I guess. But this same Dave Meltzer reported recently that Roman Reigns is the No. 2 merchandise seller in WWE, behind Cena while sells grown bigger this year, ya'll don't believe him then? Come on now


----------



## The Tempest

SD chart:









:wee-bey


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Tempest said:


> SD chart:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :wee-bey


Wait, the 2nd hour of SD isn't even on the chart???? Is that right?

:ha :ha :ha


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Smackdown is holding quite strongly and is actually a little above average. Good for that show.


----------



## The Tempest

SHIV said:


> Smackdown is holding quite strongly and is actually a little above average. Good for that show.


Not really. SD average following that awful 1,9 milions has fluctuated between 2,0 and 2,2 which is extremely low, if we also consider that during this same period on Friday, a night where usually US people go outside, it was doing better numbers than Thursday, the show along with RAW is really in a bad shape. At this point I really doubt the switch to USA Network will help, I mean, I didn't even believe it in the first place, but still.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The Tempest said:


> Not really. SD average following that awful 1,9 milions has fluctuated between 2,0 and 2,2 which is extremely low, if we also consider that during this same period on Friday, a night where usually US people go outside, it was doing better numbers than Thursday, the show along with RAW is really in a bad shape. At this point I really doubt the switch to USA Network will help, I mean, I didn't even believe it in the first place, but still.


That's cool I was just going by the color coding of the graph It was up slightly in the week to week demo. I havent watched the show in weeks. I agree, I dont foresee a significant change with the USA Network.


----------



## Shenroe

:mj4 Which SD did 1.9 mil?


----------



## The Tempest

Shenroe said:


> :mj4 Which SD did 1.9 mil?


The September 3 episode of SD went under 2 milions, 1,981 to be exact, making it the lowest episode ever.


----------



## Chrome

The Tempest said:


> The September 3 episode of SD went under 2 milions, 1,981 to be exact, making it the lowest episode ever.


Think Total Divas got some record lows too iirc. They're setting record lows in everything this Fall. :mj4

Business is great doe guyz!!


----------



## BuryingYoungTalent

it's simple to boost the ratings, just have Paul Heyman be the writer. He's the only writer to ever make Smackdown beat Raw in the ratings over a long period of time.


----------



## Shenroe

The Tempest said:


> The September 3 episode of SD went under 2 milions, 1,981 to be exact, making it the lowest episode ever.


Oh God, it had to be a Dean Ambrose tag match at that. :maury


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I'm expecting a record low tomorrow. I reckon it could be a high 2.1 rating.


----------



## Shenroe

TheShieldSuck said:


> I'm expecting a record low tomorrow. I reckon it could be a high 2.1 rating.


Lol, God help us all!


----------



## DoubtGin

This one is live again, I actually expect a slight bump.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yikes.


----------



## RatedR10

so... a week after getting 2.85m viewers in the 3rd hour, they decide to have the divas main event and put all their more anticipated quarter final matches before 10:15pm. Okay.


----------



## Bret Hart

If this segment has over 2.5 million views then that means people don't even watch Raw, they just leave their terminals on and let it run while they're doing something meaningful. I mean, who the fuck wants to watch Raw for three hours only to get the FUCKING DIVAS in the main-event?

Better have less than 2 million views.


----------



## Marrakesh

That Raw was just horrific. Why on earth is a Divas segment main eventing the show? There is giving them a chance and there is taking the piss. 

BOD/Wyatts was awful. This whole feud is. Just fucking end it. 

The tournament is not exactly setting the world on fire either :lol 

If You just handed Reigns the title with no explanation, it would have roughly the same impact as him winning this tournament will have. 

What is the point of it? 

Even if they decide to go with Sheamus or Ambrose leaving Survivor Series as the champion we all know they are jobbing to Reigns at TLC anyway :lol 

Could they honestly look at themselves in the mirror and say they are doing a good job? 

Just horrible. The rating deserves to plummet further. They really don't seem to give a shit.


----------



## Trifektah

Reigns is boring. So......fucking......boring.

Nobody wants to see Roman Reigns main eventing PPV's defending the title. Fuck right off with that shit.


----------



## asdf122345

Predictable boring Raw. Hopefully ratings continue to drop.


----------



## Marrakesh

WWE have already addressed the falling ratings. It wouldn't appear so at first glance but of course they have. In their minds they started to address it at the start of this year. 

They believe Reigns is the long term answer.

Maybe he could have been had they booked him correctly and booked all the supporting cast appropriately also, but they haven't, not even close. 

Reigns is about to become the top dog in a landscape of directionless midcarders. 

He's going to be the Wladimir Klitschko of wrestling. Undisputed champ. Weak draw at best. Bores people to tears. 

Bunch of bums challenge him every few months and lose convincingly. 

'He's in a weak era, that's why he doesn't get the recognition he deserves' 

Nope, he just isn't entertaining. Not Wladimir, not Roman Reigns.

In Reign's defence though, at least he could have had help from a team of writers :lmao He doesn't get the help he needs at all, what a trainwreck WWE is right now.


----------



## Blade Runner

Trifektah said:


> Reigns is boring. So......fucking......boring.
> 
> Nobody wants to see Roman Reigns main eventing PPV's defending the title. Fuck right off with that shit.


Man, that's the least of WWE's problems right now. I wouldn't be surprised if ratings kept spiraling even if they brought back The Rock and made him full time champion. This company is in dire need of going back to the drawing board and restructuring this sh^t ASAP. There's no excuse for these ratings when the product has more media exposure than it ever had in the past -- People still watch TV, shows like The Walking Dead prove it. The WWE as a whole simply sucks atm and they've been creatively impaired for even longer than that


----------



## validreasoning

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> There's no excuse for these ratings when the product has more media exposure than it ever had in the past -- People still watch TV, shows like The Walking Dead prove it. The WWE as a whole simply sucks atm


WD is a phenomenon and yet its down 20% compared to a year ago.that show and got spend millions on marketing and they don't run 3 hours a week 52 weeks a year or been on the air 23 years like raw has so its not apples to apples comparison, lets wait until both have spent 20 years on tv till we make comparisons shall we. I remember not that long ago pawn stars drawing close to 10 million and duck dynasty doing over that..look at the numbers those shows are doing now!!

Wrestling fans talk about WWE ratings yet SD last thursday did 2.3 million for taped show head to head with the live NBA game on TNT featuring unbeaten NBA champs that drew 1.4 million. The UFCs live show last saturday drew 700,000 on fs1. UFC used to be able to draw 5.5 million for their taped reality show tuf on spike back in 2009

WWE raw and SD still draws better than 99% of stuff on cable.


----------



## Blade Runner

validreasoning said:


> WD is a phenomenon and yet its down 20% compared to a year ago.that show and got spend millions on marketing and they don't run 3 hours a week 52 weeks a year or being on the air 23 years like raw has so its not apples to apples comparison, lets wait until both have spent 20 years on tv till we make comparisons shall we. I remember not that long ago pawn stars drawing close to 10 million and duck dynasty doing over that..look at the numbers those shows are doing now!!
> 
> Wrestling fans talk about WWE ratings yet SD last thursday did 2.3 million for taped show head to head with the live NBA game on TNT featuring unbeaten NBA champs that drew 1.4 million. The UFCs live show last saturday drew 700,000 on fs1
> 
> WWE raw and SD still draws better than 99% of stuff on cable.


and yet the ratings are still dipping. I'm not one to put much stock in week-to-week ratings, but there's a direct correlation between the product that they're putting out and the declining trend. There's obviously cause for concern. The WWE is on it's way to what they're hoping to be their biggest PPV ever -- these numbers sure as f^ck don't indicate a product that's on any kind of momentum toward accomplishing that


There was a time when RAW was outdrawing Monday Night Football -- now the thought seems ridiculous. 23 years on the air is no excuse. Wrestling has always been a staple in pop-culture entertainment, and the WWE are turning it into a niche market through their own volition.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Roman Reigns is so boring.

At least Cena could talk on the mic. They're even afraid of putting him near one. 

I don't see ratings rising anytime soon.


----------



## Annihilus

if WWE really wants to a pop a rating, they should pay Ronda Rousey to come on and do another segment or cut a heel promo on all her haters. That would legitimately spike their ratings as her fight is all everybody is talking about right now. Short of something like that, I see them continuing to reach new record lows.


----------



## LilOlMe

Watched a bit of RAW, and it took 9 minutes before Undertaker even began speaking. They started the show with literally 9 minutes of filler.

And this is how they want people to get hooked?

I can't imagine how much turning of the channel went on right about then. GET TO THE POINT.


----------



## Marv95

> WWE raw and SD still draws better than 99% of stuff on cable.


They outdraw single NBA/NHL games yet their TV deal is much worse than those 2 leagues(even worse than individual pro teams). UFC is STILL more popular than WWE despite the numbers. You don't mention that USA/SyFy are available in more homes than FS1, so SD outdoing them on tv's worst night isn't that shocking. You know what's impressive? Raw(and 3-hour Nitro)on cable --sometimes taped--outdrawing MNF on free ABC back then. Nowadays Freaking Better Call Saul, SportsCenter and women's soccer outdraws them.

Despite all this mainstream attention they never gotten before, despite all of their marketing and hours of tv the numbers are at record lows. The show sucks.


----------



## -Skullbone-

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> and yet the ratings are still dipping. I'm not one to put much stock in week-to-week ratings, but there's a direct correlation between the product that they're putting out and the declining trend. There's obviously cause for concern. The WWE is on it's way to what they're hoping to be their biggest PPV ever -- these numbers sure as f^ck don't indicate a product that's on any kind of momentum toward accomplishing that
> 
> 
> There was a time when RAW was outdrawing Monday Night Football -- now the thought seems ridiculous. 23 years on the air is no excuse. Wrestling has always been a staple in pop-culture entertainment, and the WWE are turning it into a niche market through their own volition.


One would think it mostly depends on what WWE interpret the dip in viewership to mean in the long-run. Not too long ago we had Heyman speak publicly on the issue and translate this drop off with audience members 'maturing' out of the product (and perhaps out of wrestling altogether). He hinted that they were already at work to begin planning for the next cycle of viewers as they've done in past years.

If they truly look at it through this lens, then it wouldn't be panic stations like some would think is going on back there in WWE HQ.


----------



## Blade Runner

-Skullbone- said:


> One would think it mostly depends on what WWE interpret the dip in viewership to mean in the long-run. Not too long ago we had Heyman speak publicly on the issue and translate this drop off with audience members 'maturing' out of the product (and perhaps out of wrestling altogether). He hinted that they were already at work to begin planning for the next cycle of viewers as they've done in past years.
> 
> If they truly look at it through this lens, then it wouldn't be panic stations like some would think is going on back there in WWE HQ.


Another way to look at it is that they've had close to ten years to plan for the next cycle of viewers after losing close to 7 million fans since their heyday. It became clear to me that they've been grooming a younger generation -- the problem is that it's not even good enough to sustain these new fans and now they're losing core viewers as well (the people you'd think wouldn't leave no matter what). It's a very dangerous game they're playing if they're now planning a new cycle of fans while interest is at an all time low -- while keeping the product relatively as it's been for the last several years. If they can't play it safe anymore, then they need to start taking serious chances. I feel like the only change we've been getting is a shift to a more wrestling-oriented product but that's not what traditionally draws the best. They don't really have any characters and storylines right now that gets the casual world buzzing and quite frankly haven't for a very long time. At this point they need to start worrying about crossover appeal, because their new core audience will only grow out of a booming product.

They should be panicking because there's no guarantee that their new cycle plan will work assuming that the plan has any kind of creative longterm vision behind it. They can't possibly be comfortable with the fact that the interest in their product is at a near all time low.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Raw should see a big increase between this week's episode not being recorded and being the go-home show to Survivor Series.


----------



## JBLoser

ShowStopper said:


> Raw should see a big increase between this week's episode not being recorded and being the go-home show to Survivor Series.


That said, Monday Night Football and college hoops were both on last night on the ESPN networks. I suspect those attracted looooooots of eyeballs.


----------



## Bret Hart

When do the ratings come in?


----------



## JBLoser

Usually it arrives within the next half hour or so.


----------



## DoubtGin

I haven't watched RAW for a month now but am always here at this time to see the ratings :ti


----------



## Bret Hart

JBLoser said:


> Usually it arrives within the next half hour or so.


I see...


----------



## StraightYesSociety

I say the ratings will go up this week. The tournament probably drew a bit.


----------



## SmackdownvsRAW2005

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...able-originals-network-update-11-16-2015.html

Hour 1 - 3.5 million
Hour 2 - 3.2 million
Hour 3 - 3.0 million

Slightly up from last week


----------



## Stone Hot

God could you imagine if the 3rd hour goes up? Divas main events every week :vince2


----------



## xdryza

How sad is it that I have more fun waiting for the weekly ratings then watching Raw. Sad times to be a wrestling fan.


----------



## JBLoser

Wow. Gosh darn, they actually got a bit of a bump.


----------



## A-C-P

Charlotte & Paige > Taker and Kane :wow

Actually all that it looks to me here is the 200,000 normal viewers that saw the spoilers and said fuck it for a taped show last week actually had to watch this week.


----------



## SmackdownvsRAW2005

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...wwe-raw-do-with-the-undertaker-and-the-final/

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, with The Undertaker, the final Survivor Series hype and the Divas in the main event segment, drew 3.293 million viewers. This is up a bit from last week's non-holiday record low 3.173 million viewers.

*For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.541 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.290 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.047 million viewers.*

RAW was #2 for the night in viewership behind the NFL on ESPN, which drew 12.185 million viewers. RAW was #4 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind the NFL, SportsCenter and Love & Hip-Hop.


----------



## Stone Hot

the 3rd hour goes up and guess who's match started the 3rd hour :reigns2


----------



## DoubtGin

last week's episode was taped, they usually are lower than usual, these numbers are as expected imo


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I'm sure the framework of the tournament held the show together. Still that third hour is just more in line with their recent average. Now Steph can claim that the Divas restored RAW to it's 3 million viewer glory. They rode Charlotte to a third hour increase. :mark:


----------



## Marrakesh

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Another way to look at it is that they've had close to ten years to plan for the next cycle of viewers after losing close to 7 million fans since their heyday. It became clear to me that they've been grooming a younger generation -- the problem is that it's not even good enough to sustain these new fans and now they're losing core viewers as well (the people you'd think wouldn't leave no matter what). It's a very dangerous game they're playing if they're now planning a new cycle of fans while interest is at an all time low -- while keeping the product relatively as it's been for the last several years. If they can't play it safe anymore, then they need to start taking serious chances. I feel like the only change we've been getting is a shift to a more wrestling-oriented product but that's not what traditionally draws the best. They don't really have any characters and storylines right now that gets the casual world buzzing and quite frankly haven't for a very long time. At this point they need to start worrying about crossover appeal, because their new core audience will only grow out of a booming product.
> 
> They should be panicking because there's no guarantee that their new cycle plan will work assuming that the plan has any kind of creative longterm vision behind it. They can't possibly be comfortable with the fact that the interest in their product is at a near all time low.


This is a very good post. As we all know, they rarely plan long term and most of the shows are booked on the fly. 

When they have tried to look to the long term they've failed miserably (such as this years Royal Rumble and the Reigns debacle) 

They constantly talk about Social Media yet they are absolutely useless when it comes to using it for innovation or to make the product relevant. 

Stop telling people how many fans you have on there and start thinking about how you can use that to your advantage! There does seem to be almost a complete lack of creativity within the company. 

The only time WWE draws headlines is when they get negative press aimed at their terrible decisions. 

Roman Reigns is the big plan. The Cena replacement. It's doomed to fail and we all know it and when it does, we will all have to watch them scramble and push someone else. 

While this is all happening and the incompetency continues, the interest in the shows will diminish even further. 

The show needs a complete retooling from top to bottom. It genuinely needs to be reset.


----------



## Swissblade

Stone Hot said:


> the 3rd hour goes up and guess who's match started the 3rd hour :reigns2


They stayed for Cesaro of course. :cesaro


----------



## A-C-P

Stone Hot said:


> the 3rd hour goes up and guess who's match started the 3rd hour :reigns2


This week's first hour was higher viewed than last weeks, guess who was in the first hour last week, but not this week :reigns2

See that works both ways :draper2


----------



## Bret Hart

This should prove that it doesn't matter whose in the main-event. You could put anyone and it'll get the regular amount of viewers.


----------



## The Tempest

Chart's here:










The 3rd hour barely avoided being under 3 milions though.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShadowKiller said:


> They stayed for Cesaro of course. :cesaro


They stayed for both. They should form a Tag Team :vince$


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Better then being below 3 million like last week, but still horrible and still with the huge dropoff of viewers from hour to hour.


----------



## Bret Hart

And here I was thinking they'll do less than 2.5 Million.

You can put Hornswoggle in the main event and it'll still get 3 million views.


----------



## Stone Hot

A-C-P said:


> This week's first hour was higher viewed than last weeks, guess who was in the first hour last week, but not this week :reigns2
> 
> See that works both ways :draper2


Undertaker was in the first hour its obviously gonna be higher, yes he was in the 3rd hour last week and it was low. Saved you the trouble of saying that


but that doesnt matter, Vince is gonna think it was Reigns doing for the 3rd hour bump so I'm happy


----------



## A-C-P

Stone Hot said:


> Undertaker was in the first hour its obviously gonna be higher, *yes he was in the 3rd hour last week and it was low. Saved you the trouble of saying that*


So then you see how stupid you keep sounding? good to know (Y)

But just to point it out further, your logic is leading to Charlotte & Paige > Reigns :lmao


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Maybe putting Reigns vs. Cesaro early wasn't such a mistake after all. They wanted to make up for the inevitable 3rd hour deficit. There was nothing of importance to watch after that and the fans recognized it, so it was a bigger drop off than usual.*


----------



## Londrick

Roman losing over 500k viewers from the first hour. Seth about to get dethroned as the lowest drawing champion of all time next week. :banderas

When people were saying the Shield guys are the future. :mj4


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*The ratings went up a little.

Shame, they deserved lower ratings.*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Charlotte made the ratings stable.  Variation in the third hour is just statistical noise. They clearly knew that Reigns/Cesaro would have more viewers at the beginning of hour three than at the end, so that is probably why they did not main event.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

A-C-P said:


> So then you see how stupid you keep sounding? good to know (Y)
> 
> But just to point it out further, your logic is leading to Charlotte & Paige > Reigns :lmao


Charlotte and Paige should be walking around backstage right now claiming they are bigger draws than the Undertaker, since their main event angle outdrew Taker's from last week. :lol

Even though this third hour still had a huge dropoff.


----------



## Stone Hot

A-C-P said:


> So then you see how stupid you keep sounding? good to know (Y)
> 
> But just to point it out further, your logic is leading to Charlotte & Paige > Reigns


Hey maybe there really is a divas revolution :draper2

Charlotte & Paige>>>Entire male roster


----------



## A-C-P

ShowStopper said:


> Charlotte and Paige should be walking around backstage right now claiming they are bigger draws than the Undertaker, since their main event angle outdrew Taker's from last week. :lol
> 
> Even though this third hour still had a huge dropoff.


#GiveDivasAChance aige


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Survivor Series 2014 Go Home Show:

Hour one: 3.89 million
Hour two: 3.78 million
Hour three: 3.64 million

Survivor Series 2015 Go Home Show:

Hour one: 3.541 million 
Hour two: 3.290 million 
Hour three: 3.047 million


----------



## Londrick

The highest hour this week couldn't even pass the lowest one last year

"They'll keep watching" - Vince McMahon :ti


----------



## Bret Hart

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Survivor Series 2014 Go Home Show:
> 
> Hour one: 3.89 million
> Hour two: 3.78 million
> Hour three: 3.64 million
> 
> Survivor Series 2015 Go Home Show:
> 
> Hour one: 3.541 million
> Hour two: 3.290 million
> Hour three: 3.047 million


By this time next year it should be around 2.7, 2.8 million.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Brie Mode said:


> Roman losing over 500k viewers from the first hour. Seth about to get dethroned as the lowest drawing champion of all time next week. :banderas
> 
> When people were saying the Shield guys are the future. :mj4


To be fair the Shield together were only second to Bryan last year when they had the quarter hour break downs. I thought they would be huge, unfortunately they booked them wrong.


----------



## RatedR10

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> By this time next year it should be around 2.7, 2.8 million.


Next year? What about next month? Hell, what about next week? Especially if Roman walks out of SS as the babyface World champion.


----------



## Randy Lahey

Next week will again be an all time low rated show. Patriots on MNF. Guarantee hour 3 will be well below 3mils viewers.


----------



## FITZ

Stone Hot said:


> Undertaker was in the first hour its obviously gonna be higher, yes he was in the 3rd hour last week and it was low. Saved you the trouble of saying that
> 
> 
> but that doesnt matter, Vince is gonna think it was Reigns doing for the 3rd hour bump so I'm happy


You know Vince will actually know what the rating is for Reigns' individual segments right?

I think the most likely reason for the increase was a boring Monday Night Football game.


----------



## Nine99

Randy Lahey said:


> Next week will again be an all time low rated show. Patriots on MNF. Guarantee hour 3 will be well below 3mils viewers.


Unless Pats are already up at 40+ by then but yeah you do have a point haha


----------



## The Boy Wonder

One of the bigger reasons why the ratings are low is because The Authority isn't playing a bigger role in storylines. I think the fans have grown accustomed to a authority figure running RAW and being a big part of the show. Even though Triple H and Stephanie are there they're not involved like they were in 2013 and 2014. They either need to involve them more or find someone new to run the show.


----------



## SnapOrTap

WOAH

WOAH

WAIT

ARE YOU TELLING ME

THAT THE RATINGS ARE STILL DOWN.

I guess that ROMAN EMPIRE IS STAYIN TRUE TO THEIR LAD.

WOOOOOOOOOOOOOAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA.

SPEAR.

SPEAR.

SPEAR.

DOWN GO THE RATINGS.

1

2

3

DING DING DING DING DING.

AND WE HAVE A WINNER. ROMAN REIGNS HAS JUST SPEARED THE CASUALS OUT THE ARENA AND THROUGH THEIR TVS. THE CHANNELS ARE CHANGING. BY GAWD ALL MIGHTY, THE CHANNELS ARE CHANGING. 

Tbh I watched the Voice over this horseshit last night. 

Adam Levine > Raw. Ez.


----------



## Hennessey

It was actually a good wrestling show this week.


----------



## -Skullbone-

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Another way to look at it is that they've had close to ten years to plan for the next cycle of viewers after losing close to 7 million fans since their heyday. It became clear to me that they've been grooming a younger generation -- the problem is that it's not even good enough to sustain these new fans and now they're losing core viewers as well (the people you'd think wouldn't leave no matter what). It's a very dangerous game they're playing if they're now planning a new cycle of fans while interest is at an all time low -- while keeping the product relatively as it's been for the last several years. If they can't play it safe anymore, then they need to start taking serious chances. I feel like the only change we've been getting is a shift to a more wrestling-oriented product but that's not what traditionally draws the best. They don't really have any characters and storylines right now that gets the casual world buzzing and quite frankly haven't for a very long time. At this point they need to start worrying about crossover appeal, because their new core audience will only grow out of a booming product.
> 
> They should be panicking because there's no guarantee that their new cycle plan will work assuming that the plan has any kind of creative longterm vision behind it. They can't possibly be comfortable with the fact that the interest in their product is at a near all time low.


This is all true, but one could argue that the lack of genuine crossover appeal occurring could be a symptom of professional wrestling's general decline in popularity across the board (at least in certain parts of the world). The level of marketing WWE engage in will always buoy them above their competitors though.

As for the ramifications of a lazy product? Truthfully they'll always have a loyal audience, and a lot of youngsters they bring in will only want WWE for their 'sports entertainment' fix. I agree that this current stuff and evident lack of starpower won't be bringing new crowds in droves. There are a few key indicators that WWE is definitely not in bad shape across all areas though, so they won't be changing too much one wouldn't think.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

:lol Reigns promo turned off almost 300,000 fans leading into the 3rd hour. WWE should stop wasting time with this guy and start pushing someone with a near perfect face, model-esque good looks and a stare that isn't totally blank all the time. They just need someone like that and it'll be a breeze to get ratings up again.


----------



## Joshi Judas

Well of course there's a slight bump seeing as this Raw was live while the last one was taped.


They still barely managed to be above 3 million for hour three though :lmao :lmao


Lets see what happens next week. If they can pull off something interesting at Survivor Series, the fallout on Raw COULD get a slight bump. Atleast for the first hour.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

All of the people who blamed Punk, Bryan (over the last few years), and then Rollins have seemingly disappeared!

Gee, what a coincidence! I am shocked! Hypocrites.

:duck :ha :ti :Rollins

unkout ut


----------



## Born of Osiris

I thought Reigns was supposed to be bringing in viewers, not turning them away :Jordan


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Shala☆Frost;54233098 said:


> I thought Reigns was supposed to be bringing in viewers, not turning them away :Jordan


They all seemingly disappeared. It was a figment of our imagination. It never happened.

:Rollins


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> They all seemingly disappeared. It was a figment of our imagination. It never happened.
> 
> :Rollins


:lol driving them away? As if Rollins been gone for months and suddenly wasn't part of the show when it was steadily losing the audience. Pick your side, you can't blame the company but want to passive aggressively blame Roman because you're so ready to get revenge because many blamed Seth for helping drive away the audience. 

You do that a lot in threads. Say one thing but take pot shots in others. We at least directly shit on Seth and kept it straightforward lol 

I was steady with shitting on him. And then stepped back when I agreed the show being shit was the problem. 

Hell, we at least waited for Seth being the featured part of the show for 5 months before side eyeing him as ratings declined :lol


----------



## Stone Hot

Wynter! said:


> :lol driving them away? As if Rollins been gone for months and suddenly wasn't part of the show when it was steadily losing the audience. Pick your side, you can't blame the company but want to passive aggressively blame Roman because you're so ready to get revenge because many blamed Seth for helping drive away the audience.
> 
> You do that a lot in threads. Say one thing but take pot shots in others. We at least directly shit on Seth and kept it straightforward lol
> 
> I was steady with shitting on him. And then stepped back when I agreed the show being shit was the problem.
> 
> Hell, we at least waited for Seth being the featured part of the show for 5 months before side eyeing him as ratings declined :lol


This is so true


----------



## Louaja89

ShowStopper said:


> All of the people who blamed Punk, Bryan (over the last few years), and then Rollins have seemingly disappeared!
> 
> Gee, what a coincidence! I am shocked! Hypocrites.
> 
> :duck :ha :ti :Rollins
> 
> unkout ut


I see you're enjoying this as much as I am. >>


----------



## Stone Hot

#BadNewsSanta said:


> :lol Reigns promo turned off almost 300,000 fans leading into the 3rd hour. WWE should stop wasting time with this guy and start pushing someone with a near perfect face, model-esque good looks and a stare that isn't totally blank all the time. They just need someone like that and it'll be a breeze to get ratings up again.


Or people just didn't want to see Cesaro :jericho2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Hey believe me, I know it's not all on one guy. I've been saying that for months now. Most of us have, except for one particular fanbase. There were quite a few on here who said as soon as Rollins was no longer the focus of the show, ratings would increase immediately. If you're gonna make claims like that when a guy you don't like is champion, you have to expect to be held to such comments. Not only have ratings not gone up with the guarantee of a new champion and a new focus of the show, but they actually slipped under 3 million already for one of the hours. And they were very close this week to slipping under 3 million again in hour 3. We are simply calling those out who made such comments dating back months ago now. This is how people wanted it, this is what they're getting. What's good for one guy is good for everyone. Looks like those who dish it can't take it. So surprising, said nobody ever. Excuse my grammar, I'm on my phone.


----------



## The_Jiz

By now people should realize a three hour show is a collective effort. 

The people instigating wrestler v wrestler wars over declining ratings are the biggest idiots.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Stone Hot said:


> Or people just didn't want to see Cesaro :jericho2


Maybe it's both. One's an overrated hack by the WWE and one the IWC. We need Slater and Gator to fill their spots ASAP.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The_Jiz said:


> By now people should realize a three hour show is a collective effort.
> 
> The people instigating wrestler v wrestler wars over declining ratings are the biggest idiots.


You should've been here during Rollins' title reign.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*The last two pages have been embarrassing. The same people shouting "PLZ LEEVE ROLLINS ALONE!11!! IT'S NOT HIS FAULT RATINGS HAVE DECLINED FOR 8 STRAIGHT MONTHS!!11!! "

Are now saying:

"LEL REIGNS LOSES 300,000 VIEWERS!!!"

You want to act like Reigns fans started it when you brought it upon yourselves on the RTWM. If you didn't act like Reigns would single handedly kill the company, no one would rub in your faces how shitty Rollins' title reign was. I thought the INDY GOD was supposed to save WWE from Diesel 2.0? What happened? He drew worse numbers than Michaels?









Now for those who want to join the rest of the sensible people in reality where the entire product is to blame: we know WWE needs a major angle at SS to spark interest. That will set the tone for TV and be the deciding factor in bringing some of those lost fans back.*


----------



## Saved_masses

Legit BOSS said:


> *The last two pages have been embarrassing. The same people shouting "PLZ LEEVE ROLLINS ALONE!11!! IT'S NOT HIS FAULT RATINGS HAVE DECLINED FOR 8 STRAIGHT MONTHS!!11!! "
> 
> Are now saying:
> 
> "LEL REIGNS LOSES 300,000 VIEWERS!!!"
> 
> You want to act like Reigns fans started it when you brought it upon yourselves on the RTWM. If you didn't act like Reigns would single handedly kill the company, no one would rub in your faces how shitty Rollins' title reign was. I thought the INDY GOD was supposed to save WWE from Diesel 2.0? What happened? He drew worse numbers than Michaels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for those who want to join the rest of the sensible people in reality where the entire product is to blame: we know WWE needs a major angle at SS to spark interest. That will set the tone for TV and be the deciding factor in bringing some of those lost fans back.*


Same can be said for some Reigns fans who blamed Rollins for the decreasing numbers and now are claiming that It's the product as a whole that's failing and not Reigns being pushed as the main focal point of the show. it swings in roundabouts, especially on this thread.

I don't even think a big angle after SS starts a revival, It's just going to be a recurring thing for WWE that the numbers will spark to life on the lead or after the Rumble till Wrestlemania and then will decrease to these figures again. Also there could be a major angle, but you know WWE will somehow ruin it anyways.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Saved_masses said:


> Same can be said for some Reigns fans who blamed Rollins for the decreasing numbers and now are claiming that It's the product as a whole that's failing and not Reigns being pushed as the main focal point of the show. it swings in roundabouts, especially on this thread.
> 
> I don't even think a big angle after SS starts a revival, It's just going to be a recurring thing for WWE that the numbers will spark to life on the lead or after the Rumble till Wrestlemania and then will decrease to these figures again. Also there could be a major angle, but you know WWE will somehow ruin it anyways.


Exactly. What these people don't realize is that they said AS SOON AS ROLLINS IS NO LONGER THE FOCUS OF RAW, RATINGS WOULD INCREASE!!!111!!!!

That is what we're laughing at now. Especially since they dipped below 3 million in the first week without Rollins on the show. Makes it that much sweeter and more hilarious.



Obviously, WWE is to blame here. But if you're going to dish it for 7 months, you damn sure better be able to take it when the shoe is on the other foot which is what the MAJORITY OF US HERE HAVE SAID FOR 7 MONTHS. Time to deal with it. What a shock that those who dump on one guy for 7 months can't take it now that the ratings are still SHIT and even dropped under 3 million for an hour last week, and just barely got to 3 million for the 3rd hour THIS week.

ITZ ALL SETH ROLLINZ FAULT THO!!!! I read it here for 7 months.

:drake1

ut


----------



## Stone Hot

Legit BOSS said:


> *The last two pages have been embarrassing. The same people shouting "PLZ LEEVE ROLLINS ALONE!11!! IT'S NOT HIS FAULT RATINGS HAVE DECLINED FOR 8 STRAIGHT MONTHS!!11!! "
> 
> Are now saying:
> 
> "LEL REIGNS LOSES 300,000 VIEWERS!!!"
> 
> You want to act like Reigns fans started it when you brought it upon yourselves on the RTWM. If you didn't act like Reigns would single handedly kill the company, no one would rub in your faces how shitty Rollins' title reign was. I thought the INDY GOD was supposed to save WWE from Diesel 2.0? What happened? He drew worse numbers than Michaels?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now for those who want to join the rest of the sensible people in reality where the entire product is to blame: we know WWE needs a major angle at SS to spark interest. That will set the tone for TV and be the deciding factor in bringing some of those lost fans back.*


:clap boom well said boss. They really need to start paying you


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Stone Hot said:


> :clap boom well said boss. They really need to start paying you


*Anyway, I'm done with the childish and blatant baiting from the Rollins fans, who only brought this on themselves during Wrestlemania season when Reigns wasn't even champion. I'll be here for a logical discussion.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Now you know how we felt with the constant baiting from Reigns fans for the last 7 months. :kobe3

:hbkshrug


----------



## Born of Osiris

Reigns marks angry that he's bringing the company down harder than Cena being revealed as a ****** would :mj2


----------



## Stone Hot

Ultimate Gohan said:


> Reigns marks angry that he's bringing the company down harder than Cena being revealed as a ****** would :mj2


Except he's not so :draper2


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Now you know how we felt with the constant baiting from Reigns fans for the last 7 months. :kobe3
> 
> :hbkshrug


*I'm not gonna deny it happened, but I meant everything I said about his boring repetitive promos and 40 minutes of screentime killing the show(not ratings, just the quality of the show). If I was just trolling, I wouldn't have told it to Reigns himself. None of the roster was allowed to do anything because Seth had 8 segments. Now, things can be more evenly spread, and several shows within the last 2 months have been good to great because they dialed back on his screentime. You've admitted this multiple times as well. If they continue to put that kind of effort in consistently, things can improve. Of course it's not going to be immediate. It'll be a gradual process.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *I'm not gonna deny it happened, but I meant everything I said about his boring repetitive promos and 40 minutes of screentime killing the show(not ratings, just the quality of the show). If I was just trolling, I wouldn't have told it to Reigns himself. None of the roster was allowed to do anything because Seth had 8 segments. Now, things can be more evenly spread, and several shows within the last 2 months have been good to great because they dialed back on his screentime. You've admitted this multiple times as well. If they continue to put that kind of effort in consistently, things can improve. Of course it's not going to be immediate. It'll be a gradual process.*


As you said, I did say he was getting too much airtime in the beginning and middle parts of his title reign. The last couple of months of his reign all the way to now, his airtime thankfully did cut down. I had and have no problem whatsoever with that. Never have. I'm not talking about that aspect. Everyone was in agreement that no one should get that much airtime.

I was talking strictly about the people who said that ratings would improve as soon as he was no longer the focus of the show. That's not necessarily you, I can't remember if you ever said that or not, but a few people in here did. That was directed at THEM. That's all.

As for quality of show, even with Rollins' airtime cutdown and now with him no longer on the show, it still sucks. With the title being vacant these past two weeks, WWE should be exciting as fuck right now. But they haven't been. The tournament has been a complete flop from a creative aspect, nothing exciting has happened. Matches have been good, but that's it. I really hope something big happens on Sunday, or the show will just continue to suck.


----------



## The Tempest

SD chart:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Good Lord, the ratings are getting worse and worse every week.


----------



## Stone Hot

Im gonna jump on I hope ratings keep getting lower bandwagon. That ppv ending was horse shit. Fuck Shemus winning


----------



## Bret Hart

There's a greater chance of the ratings being lower than the product being good.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

:vince$


----------



## Stone Hot

Its a win win for me because now i want ratings to get lower, and Regins cant get any of the blame for it cause he's not champ


----------



## Fissiks

Stone Hot said:


> Its a win win for me because now i want ratings to get lower, and Regins cant get any of the blame for it cause he's not champ


um of course he can be blamed. He is the main character of this upcoming angle. The show is going to revolve around him for the coming months.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Stone Hot said:


> Its a win win for me because now i want ratings to get lower, and Regins cant get any of the blame for it cause he's not champ


Top Face. Chase for the belt.

Stone Cold's top draw was being screwed every week. The draw is seeing the face chase.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

TheLooseCanon said:


> Top Face. Chase for the belt.
> 
> Stone Cold's top draw was being screwed every week. *The draw is seeing the face chase.*


It can also be seeing the heel get beat.

Neither the heel nor the face are over in this program. It's kind of hilarious how lost and out of touch Vince is.


----------



## Stone Hot

TheLooseCanon said:


> Top Face. Chase for the belt.
> 
> Stone Cold's top draw was being screwed every week. The draw is seeing the face chase.


True, but a lot of people wont see it like that. Sheamus will take the fall for the low ratings, so find by me


----------



## Tardbasher12

We need a bass drop sound effect for the ratings while Sheamus is champion.


----------



## MoviesFann

*The Movie List - Movies You Must See Before You Die*

Hello All We're pleased to present the result of quite long time of consideration from the CheapCall/movies website team and the votes of 2 carefully selected film fans: this is our collectively collated 100 must-see movies of the last century so far The movies are shown as a 1 page list, so a simple scrolling from UP to DOWN will show you the best picks on the top of the page 

cheapcall me/movies]The List - The Movies You Have to See Before You Die!


----------



## The RainMaker

*I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Seriously. What in the hell was that? Take into account a big MNF game that's been close the whole way, and I don't see how it isn't another record low rating.


----------



## Vox Machina

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

It's all Rollins' fault.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

It might actually do well because of last night.

The fall in ratings will occur next week, based on people watching that garbage and being turned off by it. 

But yes I expect hour 3 to be garbage ratings, wouldnt surprise me at all


----------



## Donnie

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Soul Cat said:


> It's all Rollins' fault.


If the captain has used his Unicorn powers, his knee would be fine and Casper wouldn't be world champ :crying:


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

what if it isn't?


----------



## SnapOrTap

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Praying Tom Hitman Brady just Spears this Shitty company to below 3 mill for all 3 hours. Please Lord Brady. Save us Senpai.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Sheamus_ROCKS said:


> what if it isn't?


For the good of everyone, it damn well should be. Maybe a 1.9 rating shoots Vince in the ass and gets this shit going in another direction.


----------



## SAMCRO

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Well is anyone surprised with Sheamus as the top heel? I switched over to Fargo at 10, as i'm sure alot did.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Wait..whoa. I turned it off at like 1030..There was a Mark Henry/Torrito segment? 



The fuck is going on here.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



NoleDynasty2490 said:


> For the good of everyone, it damn well should be. Maybe a 1.9 rating shoots Vince in the ass and gets this shit going in another direction.


1.9 for RAW would be crazy lol.


----------



## Occultist

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Ratings? What is this 1997?


DVR and internet streaming son!


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

It was opposite the New England Patriots game, so that won't help matters.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Bring Balor, Joe, Corbin up now if this is what they've got without Cena ,Orton, Rollins, etc. Tonight was fucking putrid.


----------



## HardKor1283

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

It really wasn't a bad show, to be honest. 
Nowhere near as bad as I was expecting. Maybe my expectations were just set so low after Survivor Series that just about anything could have impressed me, but I really enjoyed the first two hours or so. 
The first hour started with an opening promo that I tuned out, but Becky vs. Sasha was good (but too short), New Day was hilarious. I'm finally starting to come back around to liking them again after finding them kinda "meh" for awhile. 
Charlotte vs. Paige was phenomenal, I wish Paige had finally won the title, but the double count out finish and after-match attack was good for giving this feud a much needed kick in the ass after the Reid Flair debacle last Monday. 
Okay, I tuned out hour 3...
I just stopped caring after Charlotte vs. Paige. Nothing was going to top that, especially not Reigns vs. Rusev.


----------



## sbzero546

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Was watching MNF on ESPN.... Instead of this. Thanks for the updates on how crappy it was


----------



## TNA is Here

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



NoleDynasty2490 said:


> Wait..whoa. I turned it off at like 1030..There was a Mark Henry/Torrito segment?
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck is going on here.


Even Cole was facepalming this.


----------



## Therapy

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



NoleDynasty2490 said:


> Wait..whoa. I turned it off at like 1030..There was a Mark Henry/Torrito segment?
> 
> 
> 
> The fuck is going on here.


Not only was there a Mark Henry / Torrito segment. It transcended into a weird trippy dreamscape product placement.


----------



## sunnysidee

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Occultist said:


> Ratings? What is this 1997?
> 
> 
> DVR and internet streaming son!


Hmm yeah maybe this could be viable argument if shows like the big bang theory or MNF weren't killing it in the ratings on Monday nights, but they are so sorry bro you lose.

Also if you're one of those who doesn't think Vince has competition, he does it's just not with wrestling but with a bunch of quality shows in the same time slot that kill WWE in ratings.


----------



## ellthom

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Occultist said:


> Ratings? What is this 1997?
> 
> 
> DVR and internet streaming son!


what about that N64 and Playstation though


----------



## FriedTofu

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Ratings might be shit but I sure as hell enjoyed it more than Survivor Series.


----------



## Fissiks

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

na the cash in will generate some interest. Next week there might be a very low rating though.


----------



## Occultist

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



sunnysidee said:


> Hmm yeah maybe this could be viable argument if shows like the big bang theory or MNF weren't killing it in the ratings on Monday nights, but they are so sorry bro you lose.
> 
> Also if you're one of those who doesn't think Vince has competition, he does it's just not with wrestling but with a bunch of quality shows in the same time slot that kill WWE in ratings.


Monday Night Football will ALWAYS dominate over WWE.

Football is viewed as Americana. Right up there with apple pie.

Pro Wrestling is a niche market. Always has been. Always will be.

Ratings really don't matter anymore. 

I suppose they matter to a dinosaur like cable television providers like USA who think people actually sit around the tv and wait to watch shows as soon as they air.

But, most people...smart people...watch their favorite shows...whenever they feel like.


----------



## Crasp

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Raw ratings after PPV's (even awful ones, maybe especially the awful ones) are almost always up, just out of sheer curiosity.


----------



## fabi1982

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

So what then? Nothing will happen.

Even if they bring back SCSA or Rock fulltime, this wont help in the long run. People getting bored way to soon and will compain just for the sake of it. 

PG is a big issue, but PG brings in advertising revenue. No one wants to have a spot inbetween a match where someone spears someone through a barwired table or something. This is 2015 and the sad reality.

I would just love to see each of you complainers heading the creative team and you realize even after three month doing it your way ratings will still not go up. Or better heading the company, because then all of your future cenarios of the company going bankrupt would be reality.

Sad this cant be done...


----------



## Stone Hot

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Can you imagine it goes up :ha


----------



## Desprado123

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

For sure. I do not understand that how WWE is going to will sell their TLC pay per view. Seriously the main eventers are Shamus and Roman which people do not want to watch . What a horrible position WWE is in.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Occultist said:


> Ratings? What is this 1997?
> 
> 
> DVR and internet streaming son!


Yes, because nobody was taping shows back in 1997, and the internet didn't exist before 2010, when everything started to hit the fan.


----------



## SóniaPortugal

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Occultist said:


> Ratings? What is this 1997?
> 
> 
> DVR and internet streaming son!


So that means that ICW is or will be more important than the general public (public TV)? :grin2:

Now seriously, I do not know if the ratings are going to be bad, but WWE needs urgent changes


----------



## Erik.

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

It was one of the better Raws in recent weeks to be honest. 

One show isn't going to increase ratings. Consistent booking over the course of weeks and even months would potentially see a steady climb in ratings but it's whether the creative team and writers can sustain something more than a few weeks.


----------



## T0M

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



NoleDynasty2490 said:


> For the good of everyone, it damn well should be. Maybe a 1.9 rating shoots Vince in the ass and gets this shit going in another direction.


Sadly I don't think that's the case. McMahon's head is so far up his own arse he'd never look at himself as the problem and the terrible writing. He'd justify a shit rating with the injuries to Rollins, Cena and co.


----------



## T0M

My predictions:

Hour 1 - 3.6
Hour 2 - 3.2
Hour 3 - 2.9

If hour two goes below 3 mil I'm going to piss my pants laughing.


----------



## Stone Hot

The 3rd will be low. It's always the lowest rated hour no matter who's on it

I want the ratings to be low overall to prove Sheamus is a terrible champion.


----------



## T0M

'Lowested'?

Legit laughed out loud.


----------



## Drago

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Soul Cat said:


> It's all Rollins' fault.


So much this. This guy is destroying product even from his home. 

Fucking architect. :mj2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I would expect them to get a Post PPV bump due to there being a tournament in which a new World Champ was *guaranteed.* It's not like a normal 1 on 1 match for the World Title, where it's the current World Champ vs. a Challenger and there's a 50% chance of us not getting a new World Champion. This was one of the rare occasions where we KNEW for a fact we were getting a new Champion due to the tournament. I'd expect a bump just for that and for the curiousity of people wondering how WWE could do what they did. (Giving the title to Sheamus, and not a heel Reigns fpalm)


----------



## The True Believer

Everyone waiting for ratings be like:


----------



## DoubtGin

Sheamus drawing :mark:


----------



## xdryza

SUPERIOR said:


> Everyone waiting for ratings be like:


Only good thing about Raw.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Raw didn't have a single draw. What else could it be than a shit rating?


----------



## The_Jiz

Expecting a bump in the first hour due to ppv fallout actually. 

All you really need to do is watch the first 10 minutes to get up to speed. Hence why their third hours are getting worse and worse. 

Their holiday specials will bomb.


----------



## Stone Hot

Please let them be low. Want to show this crazy man Vince that sheamus fuckin sucks as champion


----------



## dan the marino

I don't even know if there will be much of a post-ppv bump, Pats played last night.


----------



## Stone Hot

I'm getting my laughing gifs ready


----------



## D.M.N.

Under 3 million average :lmao :lmao


----------



## The True Believer

Worse than I thought.


:ha


----------



## A-C-P

:ha:HAti:bryanlol:tysonlol:maisielol:maury:heston:duck


----------



## Mifune Jackson

I guess that's what a post-PPV bump is these days.


----------



## Stone Hot

:ti :ha :lmao suck on that Vince. NO ONE wants Casper Sheamus as champion. Dumb fuck 

:yes :yes :yes


----------



## The Tempest

Holy shit, RAW just averaged 2,964 milions :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

:lose :lose :lose :shala :shala :shala


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TWO HOURS UNDER 3 MILLION, THATS A FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:Rollins :Rollins :Rollins

That's what they get. No one wants Super Faces anymore.


----------



## Stone Hot

Doing that happy dance right now. go back to Ireland sheamus :ha


----------



## Born of Osiris

:banderas


----------



## Stone Hot

Should of made Reigns champion. That's what they get


Shemus gonna become the lowest rated champion of the last 2 decades :ha


----------



## Tardbasher12

#THEAGEOFSHEAMUS
I'm hoping for a 1.99 rating at most.


----------



## JBLoser

:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

I LOVE IT! Holy shit this is God damn hysterical.


----------



## RatedR10

:ha

This is a glorious day for our ratings watch. We made it, guys!


----------



## DoublePass

Reigns' sympathy storyline is such an enormous draw!


----------



## ShadowSucks92

And compare this by last years viewership (where they gave fans a reason to tune in):

Hour one: 4.73 million
Hour two: 3.99 million
Hour three: 4.01 million


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Should of made Reigns champion. That's what they get


Woudn't have mattered. He's the top face "on the chase" to a World Championship. That's a top spot and the focus of the show. We tried telling some of you about superman booked faces.


----------



## The Tempest

ShowStopper said:


> TWO HOURS UNDER 3 MILLION, THATS A FIRST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> :Rollins :Rollins :Rollins
> 
> That's what they get. No one wants Super Faces anymore.


Rollins at home like :Cocky This is fucking awesome, I love it.


----------



## DoublePass

Stone Hot said:


> Should of made Reigns champion. That's what they get


They did make him champion. He's the main focal point now despite losing the title immediately, and this is what they get.

:ha


----------



## Wynter

Oh my sweet buttery Jesus. 


Someone bring Seth back. Sheamus gonna tank WWE :ha

I know others joked that Sheamus becoming champ would kill so many fans. But my God... Like, not one ounce of a ppv bump. Like Holy shit. Like, the 1st hour wasn't anywhere near 4.

Holy fucking shit. Vince finally did it. He murdered any hope in his fans. Either hardcore fans gave up or the casuals threw up the middle finger also. 


:ha 

No really, Seth looks like fucking Austin right now compared to this shit. 

I actually feel bad for Sheamus. Not how you want the Monday after a ppv where you won the title to go :/

Usually the first hour after a ppv is pretty damn high... Holy shit..


----------



## Marrakesh

I guess Seth 'Ratings' Rollins was holding it all together. 

:ti 

Damn, Averaged under three mill for the two hours. 

WWE following the Titanic business model i see.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Stone Hot said:


> :ti :ha :lmao suck on that Vince. NO ONE wants Casper Sheamus as champion. Dumb fuck
> 
> :yes :yes :yes


You realize that people should be tuning in to see how Roman would respond to getting screwed, especially seeing how "over as fuck" he is. Apparently no one wants to see Roman gain revenge on Sheamus either.

Honesly, I dont blame Sheamus or Roman, but your response was asinine. This was easiy predicted becaus they were on against a true draw in Tom Brady and The New England Patrios. Still it is disconcerting for WWE that they held a ppv and generated little buzz. Bryan/Authority 2.0 is a swing and a miss so far. Poor,stale booking=abysmal ratings. :fact


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Woudn't have mattered. He's the top face "on the chase" to a World Championship. That's a top spot and the focus of the show. We tried telling some of you about superman booked faces.


 only people on here see it that way. Casuals who are the majority don't. Who your wwe champion is a huge factor for ratings. Sheamus as champion is bad for Business. This is what they get. Worst mistake that could of made making that stale bland wrestler champion. Especially the way they been booking him the last few months.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DoublePass said:


> They did make him champion. He's the main focal point now despite losing the title immediately, and this is what they get.
> 
> :ha


Looks like getting sympathy for the top face is working wonders.

:ha :mark:


----------



## DoublePass

Wynter! said:


> Oh my sweet buttery Jesus.
> 
> 
> Someone bring Seth back. Sheamus gonna tank WWE :ha
> 
> I know others joked that Sheamus becoming champ would kill so many fans. But my God... Like, not one ounce of a ppv bump. Like Holy shit. Like, the 1st hour wasn't anywhere near 4.
> 
> Holy fucking shit. Vince finally did it. He murdered any hope in his fans. Either hardcore fans gave up or the casuals threw up the middle finger also.
> 
> 
> :ha
> 
> No really, Seth looks like fucking Austin right now compared to this shit.
> 
> I actually feel bad for Sheamus. Not how you want the Monday after a ppv where you won the title to go :/


The show is all about Roman Reigns now. Just as it was all about Daniel Bryan on his RTWM.

No excuses for Roman. People just don't care about him and this sympathy storyline.


----------



## DoubtGin

:ti

Lovely.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> You realize that people should be tuning in to see how Roman would respond to getting screwed, especially seeing how "over as fuck" he is. Apparently no one wants to see Roman gain revenge on Sheamus either.


It's not like that anymore. It hasn't been for awhile. Faces chasing the heels used to be where the money was at now it's the faces as champions that are the draw


----------



## syrusriddick

Stone Hot said:


> Should of made Reigns champion. That's what they get
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Shemus gonna become the lowest rated champion of the last 2 decades :ha



Their constant forced push of Reigns is the steady decline of wwe so how would this help he is not a draw yet hell I'm sure the ratings would be worse with him as champ simply put he's generic. Is he talented? Absolutely. But is he interesting? Not one bit.


----------



## JBLoser

They've been gathering 3.6M-ish each week at the very least for their first hour. They lost half a million people last night :lmao :lmao

I can't believe they didn't even get a PPV bump :lmao :lmao


----------



## Wynter

DoublePass said:


> The show is all about Roman Reigns now. Just as it was all about Daniel Bryan on his RTWM.
> 
> No excuses for Roman. People just don't care about him and this sympathy storyline.


Roman has been in and out of being the main part of the show for the longest and never had it go this abysmal. But the moment Sheamus becomes champ, it goes to hell? :lol ok.

I can see if Roman has a record of it going straight to hell, but please stop. Sheamus is legit one of the least cared for heels on the roster. Who is hyped to see him get knocked off the throne? Not even I watched last night because wwe pissed me off.

Sheamus was cold as ice getting the title. It's their fault for their terrible ass booking.

Sheamus should have been built as a threat these past months.


----------



## OwenSES

The entire declining year has revolved around Reigns but lets blame the ratings on Sheamus right?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIV said:


> You realize that people should be tuning in to see how Roman would respond to getting screwed, especially seeing how "over as fuck" he is. Apparently no one wants to see Roman gain revenge on Sheamus either.
> 
> Honesly, I dont blame Sheamus or Roman, but your response was asinine. This was easiy predicted becaus they were on against a true draw in Tom Brady and The New England Patrios. Still it is disconcerting for WWE that they held a ppv and generated little buzz. Bryan/Authority 2.0 is a swing and a miss so far. Poor,stale booking=abysmal ratings. :fact


Sorry, man. It's only when Bryan or Rollins are the focus of the show. Clearly, this is all on Sheamus, even though the entire show was built around how Reigns would react to getting screwed out of the title the night before AND was in the main event.

:ti


----------



## Stone Hot

Wynter! said:


> Oh my sweet buttery Jesus.
> 
> 
> Someone bring Seth back. Sheamus gonna tank WWE :ha
> 
> I know others joked that Sheamus becoming champ would kill so many fans. But my God... Like, not one ounce of a ppv bump. Like Holy shit. Like, the 1st hour wasn't anywhere near 4.
> 
> Holy fucking shit. Vince finally did it. He murdered any hope in his fans. Either hardcore fans gave up or the casuals threw up the middle finger also.
> 
> 
> :ha
> 
> No really, Seth looks like fucking Austin right now compared to this shit.
> 
> I actually feel bad for Sheamus. Not how you want the Monday after a ppv where you won the title to go :/
> 
> Usually the first hour after a ppv is pretty damn high... Holy shit..


I do feel bad for Sheamus to an extent. He is just doing what they crazy old man tells him. Even he had to know with the way he was booked the last few months he wouldn't draw as champion. 


Should of been Reigns or Ambrose as champion. Sheamus is not a draw


----------



## DoublePass

Wynter! said:


> Roman has been in and out of being the main part of the show for the longest and never had it go this abysmal. But the moment Sheamus becomes champ, it goes to hell? :lol ok.
> 
> I can see if Roman has a record of it going straight to hell, but please stop. Sheamus is legit one of the least cared for heels on the roster. Who is hyped to see him get knocked off the throne? Not even I watched last night because wwe pissed me off.


Sheamus is being used as a tool to garner sympathy for Roman Reigns. That's it. He's irrelevant, and everyone knows his title reign won't last past Royal Rumble. 

Looks like it didn't work, because people still give zero fucks about Roman. Whereas Bryan was drawing good numbers with the exact same booking and storyline.


----------



## Kabraxal

Glorious.... It's satsfying to see the fans tell Vince to fuck himself so clearly.


----------



## tboneangle

Remember when people said when Rollins lost belt ratings would go up? Looks like he was actually the HBK of this generation after all and keeping ratings Stagnant. 

Remember when people said after Roman gets the belt and he is in the spotlight rating will go up? Where's @RomanEmpire?


----------



## Wynter

OwenSES said:


> The entire declining year has revolved around Reigns but lets blame the ratings on Sheamus right?


Did Seth suddenly not appear on raw these past 7 months??? Because I believe Roman was too busy fighting big show and Bray in the midcard. Who was main eventing PPVs and was featured the most for almost a year now? 

Oh that's right, Seth. But even I admitted it wasn't his fault.


----------



## The True Believer

Should've ended the show with Reigns talking about his "feewings" in a poem. #BoyhoodDream 

"I saw the mountain top,
I saw the mountain's peak,
And I tried to make the climb,
For it's glory that I seek

But right from out of nowhere,
I get Brouge kicked in the face,
My hopes and dreams destroyed,
Under a mighty Celtic mace

My tears are overflowing,
As I lay out on the mat,
The Roman Empire has crumbled,
You can all...belee dat."


----------



## Stone Hot

syrusriddick said:


> Their constant forced push of Reigns is the steady decline of wwe so how would this help he is not a draw yet hell I'm sure the ratings would be worse with him as champ simply put he's generic. Is he talented? Absolutely. But is he interesting? Not one bit.


It's not like that anymore. Face chasing a heel champion doesn't draw anymore. It's face champions that are the draw IMO. Reigns or Ambrose as champ would have been the draw.


No one wants Sheamus as champion especially after the way he has been booked the last few months


----------



## Marrakesh

Wynter! said:


> Roman has been in and out of being the main part of the show for the longest and never had it go this abysmal. But the moment Sheamus becomes champ, it goes to hell? :lol ok.
> 
> I can see if Roman has a record of it going straight to hell, but please stop. Sheamus is legit one of the least cared for heels on the roster. Who is hyped to see him get knocked off the throne? Not even I watched last night because wwe pissed me off.
> 
> Sheamus was cold as ice getting the title. It's their fault for their terrible ass booking.
> 
> Sheamus should have been built as a threat these past months.


You're clutching at straws if you think the rating was not going to tank if Reigns had left the PPV with the title. 

It's easy to blame Sheamus now. Fact is that Reigns got screwed over last night and they lost half a mill viewers on the first hour because no one cared enough about it to tune in. 

The story wasn;t about Sheamus winning the title. It was about the Authority screwing Reigns. Sheamus is simply a pawn or hurdle for REigns to overcome. 

WWE have a few hurdles of their own to overcome now though :ti Years of appalling decision making finally catching up.


----------



## Tardbasher12

They'll just send Brock Lesnar out there next week instead of fixing the booking.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The demo is atrocious, especially hour #3 .  .93 is just godawful. For comparison's sake Walking Dead had a 6.7 this week. Time for Vince do bring back The Zombie from the first episode of ECW. He'd probably draw more than this dreck.


----------



## DoublePass

Stone Hot said:


> It's not like that anymore. *Face chasing a heel champion doesn't draw anymore*. It's face champions that are the draw IMO. Reigns or Ambrose as champ would have been the draw.
> 
> 
> No one wants Sheamus as champion especially after the way he has been booked the last few months


It did the last time it was tried (WM30.) Not very long ago.


----------



## The_It_Factor

A couple of years later, and I see people in this thread are still trying to figure out which particular wrestler it is that is turning fans away...


----------



## Mr. I

Just wait, people will claim it's only down to Sheamus and Reigns would totally draw huge if he was the champion, even though the whole show revolved around Reigns.


----------



## Wynter

DoublePass said:


> Sheamus is being used as a tool to garner sympathy for Roman Reigns. That's it. He's irrelevant, and everyone knows his title reign won't last past Royal Rumble.
> 
> Looks like it didn't work, because people still give zero fucks about Roman. Whereas Bryan was drawing good numbers with the exact same booking and storyline.


Bryan was up against the biggest heat grabbers in WWE. Authority were amazing heels to Bryans babyface. Are you really comparing a heel no one gives a damn about to when Trips and Steph were at the height of their heel work? :ha 

Authority were the Vince to Bryans Austin. You really can't be serious to think Sheamus is this amazing heel people want to see comeuppance on? Lol 

Best believe if Roman was champ, all the blame would be on him. Just like Seth carried the load of blame.


----------



## Stone Hot

DoublePass said:


> It did the last time it was tried (WM30.) Not very long ago.


That was the last time it worked. Almost 2 years ago. Doesn't work like that anymore


----------



## Algernon

BREAKING: WWE doctors clear Daniel Bryan
:haha


----------



## Mr. I

Stone Hot said:


> It's not like that anymore.* Face chasing a heel champion doesn't draw anymore.* It's face champions that are the draw IMO. Reigns or Ambrose as champ would have been the draw.
> 
> 
> No one wants Sheamus as champion especially after the way he has been booked the last few months


And if Reigns was the champion, and this was the viewership, you'd claim that face champions don't draw anymore and had Reigns been chasing a heel he would have drawn.

You are just twisting it to try and claim that Reigns, who this show was built around, is a draw. He isn't.


----------



## Cliffy

People didn't tune in cus they thought reigns was gonna be champ and rollins was gonna appear via satellite

Ratings kryptonite


----------



## Stone Hot

Wynter! said:


> Best believe if Roman was champ, all the blame would be on him. Just like Seth carried the load of blame.


Exactly and he is not champ and people still want to blame him and twisted it the way they like it. 

Sheamus along with shitty booming by is the reason these ratings are low


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Brandon Flowers said:


> People didn't tune in cus they thought reigns was gonna be champ and rollins was gonna appear via satellite
> 
> Ratings kryptonite


Rollins might have brought it those last two hours back above 3 million where they were when he was there.

:ha


----------



## DoublePass

Wynter! said:


> Bryan was up against the biggest heat grabbers in WWE. Authority were amazing heels to Bryans babyface. Are you really comparing a heel no one gives a damn about to when Trips and Steph were at the height of their heel work? :ha
> 
> Authority were the Vince to Bryans Austin. You really can't be serious to think Sheamus is this amazing heel people want to see comeuppance on? Lol
> 
> Best believe if Roman was champ, all the blame would be on him. Just like Seth carried the load of blame.


Orton was never a draw either. HHH/Steph are still involved. I'll give you Batista - he is a legitimate draw and that definitely helped.

However, no one is saying they should be doing the same kind of numbers. But sub 3 million is just absurd.

It's more about who is the focal point of the show than about who the champ is. Rollins was the focal point of the show when he was champ. Sheamus is not. It's clearly all about Reigns now.

Sheamus does suck as well, though.


----------



## skarvika

Next week's ratings are gonna be even worse, mark my words. I still believe that viewership was higher this week than it would have been on an average week due to being post-PPV. Next week will be the real indicator.
But wow, a new low again...:heyman5
That's what happens when you can't book anyone in the company for shit, making every talent feel either worthless or forced with a steaming hunk of PG cornball dog turd gimmicks and storylines as the cherry on top.


----------



## OwenSES

Wynter! said:


> Did Seth suddenly not appear on raw these past 7 months??? Because I believe Roman was too busy fighting big show and Bray in the midcard. Who was main eventing PPVs and was featured the most for almost a year now?
> 
> Oh that's right, Seth. But even I admitted it wasn't his fault.


The last year has revolved around Roman, Seth and Triple H. You're right Seth was WWE champ he can take some blame. Roman is still the guy who won the Rumble and main evented Mania. How many other guys had midcard feuds with the same amount of TV time that Roman and Bray got? 

The fans rejected Roman that's why he had to fall down to upper midcard but everyone knew it was only a matter of time till he came back. Everyone said he is the favorite to win the Rumble and face Lesnar again. Why? Because this entire year he's been built up to.


----------



## DoublePass

Stone Hot said:


> That was the last time it worked. Almost 2 years ago. Doesn't work like that anymore


How would you know? It hasn't been tried since...until now.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

When they did the storyline with Bryan getting Screwed by HHH a few years ago, that Raw got a pretty big rating if I remember correctly.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Stone Hot said:


> It's not like that anymore. Face chasing a heel champion doesn't draw anymore. It's face champions that are the draw IMO. Reigns or Ambrose as champ would have been the draw.
> 
> 
> No one wants Sheamus as champion especially after the way he has been booked the last few months


Again, apparently no one wants to see Roman unseat Sheamus either. This is Roman's big storyline push and week one is an utter failure, an unmitigated disaster. *AND YOU CAN'T SPIN THAT! * The barbarians are already at the gates of "The Roman Empire", but,hey, maybe it drew well in Nashville. :bryanlol


----------



## Mr. I

Stone Hot said:


> That was the last time it worked. Almost 2 years ago. Doesn't work like that anymore


Wow dude, you're trying to claim an age old format of wrestling "doesn't work like that anymore" after two years. Not like twenty five years, two.

Don't you think you're being absurd dismissing the entire concept of "face chases a heel" just because this one instance of it with Reigns doesn't work? Maybe the fundamental aspect of wrestling angles is not faulty, but instead the one wrestler this particular instance is built around?


----------



## Hurin

The Roman Reigns Show failed to draw, and there are people surprised by this unk2


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Two months ago...


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Forever more shall the Seth Rollins Era be known as *The Good Old Days*. :Cocky


----------



## Tardbasher12

> Last night's (Aug. 19, 2013) episode of Monday Night Raw from Anaheim, California, was expected to do big numbers in the ratings, if only because it followed a highly anticipated SummerSlam pay-per-view (PPV) the evening before that featured a super compelling main event angle.
> 
> Success!
> 
> The ratings are in and the numbers look good. The show averaged 4.30 million viewers and over a 3.0 rating for all three hours. This despite going up against Monday Night Football on ESPN, though that was a preseason game that saw the Pittsburgh Steelers lose to the Washington Redskins (because of course they would). That game did 5.5 million viewers.
> 
> Here's the hourly breakdown for Raw:
> 
> Hour one: 4.08 million
> Hour two: 4.49 million
> Hour three: 4.33 million
> 
> It's unfortunate to see the numbers decline from the second to the third hour, seeing as the Randy Orton "Championship Coronation" was promoted so heavily throughout the show, but the numbers are still as good as could be expected for a show following a major PPV.


Then.


----------



## SnapOrTap

BELIEVE DAT MUTHA FUCKASSSS

MY BOY ROMAN REIGNS. 

THE CHARISMA VACCUM.

DO YOU BELIEVE. IN MIRACLES.

NEVER DID I BELIEVE.

THAT WE WOULD SEE 2.7 MILLION VIEWERS FOR AN HOUR. YES LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, HE HAS DONE IT.

THE MOST OVERPUSHED SUPERSTAR THIS DECADE HAS DONE IT. HE HAS DRAWN VIEWERS AWAY.

BWAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA.

LMFAO.

LMFAO.

LMFAO.

I AM DONEZO.

DONEZO.

JUST LIKE THIS COMPANY. TIME TO GET THE TNA CHANTS READY BOYS AND GIRLS. 

ROMAN REIGNS. THE FUTURE OF THIS BUSINESS.










:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2

BABY GURL. THEM VIEWERS.

SPEAR

SPEAR

SPEAR


----------



## JBLoser

Ithil said:


> Wow dude, you're trying to claim an age old format of wrestling "doesn't work like that anymore" after two years. Not like twenty five years, two.
> 
> Don't you think you're being absurd dismissing the entire concept of "face chases a heel" just because this one instance of it with Reigns doesn't work? Maybe the fundamental aspect of wrestling angles is not faulty, but instead the one wrestler this particular instance is built around?


Yeah, Bayley was involved in the chase and Sami Zayn was involved in the chase and people got mega invested in that. 

Nobody gives a shit about Reigns' run because of how poorly it's all been done. The "dynamics" are not the reason that this is failing.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Smackdown Viewership November 28th 2014 = 3,054,000

Raw Viewership November 24th 2014 = 4,250,000

Raw viewership November 23th 2015 = 2,964,000


----------



## TheShieldSuck

OMG what is that? Could that be a 2.0 rating?


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

They've fucked up Reigns too hard. I said A LONG time ago, before the Shield broke up, that Rollins will end up as the top baby face of the company.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIV said:


> Forever more shall the Seth Rollins Era be known as *The Good Old Days*. :Cocky


And The Road to WM 30 featuring Daniel GOAT Bryan as even better *The Great Old Days.* From great to good to...awful.

:lol

Seriously though, you remember the fights in the ratings thread in 2013 when people would shit on Bryan? Now his storyline is the highest rated of these last few years.

Time for Bryan to come back to the rescue. :yes (And Seth second to Bryan, which I'm more than happy with :drose)


----------



## Chrome

*Looks at chart. 










I mean, I knew they'd be bad, but that NOT bad. :lol

Also, can we ban Stone Hot from this thread? ut


----------



## SnapOrTap

And you have to blame Reigns.

This was his storyline. The entire show was built around this overrated hack getting his revenge on Sheamus.

He buried the Europeans. He got mic time. Everything was about him.

And look. Lowest Ratings in RAW HISTORY.

Lord have mercy. Vince better drive his ass to Arizona and get on his knees for Daniel Ratings Bryan to come back and then drive over to Chicago for the man who must not be named. They donezo.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Cena is going to win the belt when he comes back and Reigns is winning the Rumble again. Cena will revive the ratings, and Reigns won't get boo'd at the Rumble because it's in Florida.


----------



## Frost99

Well I guess enough people did the following when RAW began on their TV's....


----------



## SnapOrTap

Somebody needs to make a gif of Reigns spearing the RATINGZ.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> Again, apparently no one wants to see Roman unseat Sheamus either. This is Roman's big storyline push and week one is an utter failure, an unmitigated disaster. *AND YOU CAN'T SPIN THAT! * The barbarians are already at the gates of "The Roman Empire", but,hey, maybe it drew well in Nashville. :bryanlol


Too bad the casuals who are the majority don't see it that way as the champion is the draw in 2015. They tuned out cause Sheamus sucks as champion :ha 

Should of made Reigns or Ambrose champ


----------



## Mr. I

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Cena is going to win the belt when he comes back and Reigns is winning the Rumble again. Cena will revive the ratings, and Reigns won't get boo'd at the Rumble because it's in Florida.


He's going to get his ass booed out of the building. The Rumble crowd is not local, it's the second biggest PPV of the year, and people travel for it. It's always a hardcore crowd.


----------



## Wynter

Marrakesh said:


> You're clutching at straws if you think the rating was not going to tank if Reigns had left the PPV with the title.
> 
> It's easy to blame Sheamus now. Fact is that Reigns got screwed over last night and they lost half a mill viewers on the first hour because no one cared enough about it to tune in.
> 
> The story wasn;t about Sheamus winning the title. It was about the Authority screwing Reigns. Sheamus is simply a pawn or hurdle for REigns to overcome.
> 
> WWE have a few hurdles of their own to overcome now though :ti Years of appalling decision making finally catching up.


Roman has been screwed over many times, has he not? Did that suddenly kill everyone before? What changed in this equation? A heel that's super cold that very little people care about and a non factor holds the belt. 

See how many PPVs Roman main evented and please show the severe drop that suddenly showed the day after?

I'll wait. 

To say heels have no play in this is ridiculous. Great heels help bring to heat. Heels are meant to elevate the face while also giving the audience a reason to see their comeuppance. You think Bryan would be super hot without great foes in the authority? Wth would Austin do without the heat magnet Vince? 

Randy is more popular than Roman and even his mini feud with Sheamus didn't garner any interest because no one gives a shit about Sheamus. 

Now, if Roman had the belt and everyone dipped? I would say snatch it off him right now. Many, myself included, shat on Seth for declining ratings because he was champ and they carry the load since they are face of the wwe.. Where were the faces he was against factor in the bashing? They weren't because they weren't the champ. 

Let's be real, if Roman had the belt and ratings looked like that. How much would you blame the heel he was up against? Blame would be solely on Roman because he walked out with the belt, no? 


Either way, I wish I cared enough to believe Vince would change things. I didn't even watch Raw yesterday because the ppv demoralized me lol


----------



## Marrakesh

'HEY PUNKER, HOW YOU DOING, IT'S VINNY MAC :vince5

'Who?' unk3

'VINCE MCMAHON DAMNIT! JUST CHECKING IN. THAT UFC CONRACT, IT'S NOT IRONCAD IS IT? :vince3

unk3 ' Are you drunk?' 

'HOW'S THE WIFE?' :vince5

unk3 *hangs up phone*


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*This is fucking glorious! I hope the ratings continue to tank. This shit product deserves it.*


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Ithil said:


> He's going to get his ass booed out of the building. The Rumble crowd is not local, it's the second biggest PPV of the year, and people travel for it. It's always a hardcore crowd.


You really think so? I mean, I could see it, but I feel at least 60% of the crowd would be locals.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> *Looks at chart.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I mean, I knew they'd be bad, but that NOT bad. :lol
> 
> Also, can we ban Stone Hot from this thread? ut


Why cause the truth hurts :ha


----------



## FITZ

Yeah that's a really bad rating. They've lost 25% of their viewers in about year and that really has to say something about the direction that they're heading in right now. It's bad.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

skarvika said:


> Next week's ratings are gonna be even worse, mark my words. I still believe that viewership was higher this week than it would have been on an average week due to being post-PPV. Next week will be the real indicator.
> But wow, a new low again...:heyman5
> That's what happens when you can't book anyone in the company for shit, making every talent feel either worthless or forced with a steaming hunk of PG cornball dog turd gimmicks and storylines as the cherry on top.


MNF is Cleveland and Josh McCown vs Baltimore and Matt Schaub, even I ain't watchin that shit. I think they get decent ratings next week


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Remember when Orton was a horrible draw but he feuded with some guy with a beard and was getting the highest quarter hours? Yeah and then that same bearded man got the belt and continued to draw? Moral of the story, grow a beard.


----------



## SnapOrTap

LMFAO.

I AM so ready for the jobber argument of "RATINGS DON'T MATTER ANYMORE"

Bitch please. I would LOVE to see USA try to renew that TV deal in 3 years when this company drops to 1.5 million viewers. This is just the beginning. Please strap the rocket on Reigns' ass and push him to the moon. 

*I'm ready for my "The Rise and Fall of the WWE" DVD. Hopefully it's 9.99. That's all I can afford.*


----------



## TheShieldSuck

FITZ said:


> Yeah that's a really bad rating. They've lost 25% of their viewers in about year and that really has to say something about the direction that they're heading in right now. It's bad.


We aren't even in December.


We will get a sub 2.0 which is unthinkable.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Stone Hot said:


> Too bad the casuals who are the majority don't see it that way as the champion is the draw in 2015. They tuned out cause Sheamus sucks as champion :ha
> 
> Should of made Reigns or Ambrose champ


The majority didn't even give enough of a damn to watch RAW. So where are these casuals clamoring to see the show based completely on Roman? The entire show built to his "amazing" moment where he stood tall against the odds in an hour with a .93 demo. Those casuals sure can't get enough of him. :bryanlol Just like when Punk was champ, it was John Cena's show. ]Raw is now the Roman Reigns Extravaganza and the early reviews are not good.


----------



## Wynter

OwenSES said:


> The last year has revolved around Roman, Seth and Triple H. You're right Seth was WWE champ he can take some blame. Roman is still the guy who won the Rumble and main evented Mania. How many other guys had midcard feuds with the same amount of TV time that Roman and Bray got?
> 
> The fans rejected Roman that's why he had to fall down to upper midcard but everyone knew it was only a matter of time till he came back. Everyone said he is the favorite to win the Rumble and face Lesnar again. Why? Because this entire year he's been built up to.


It was definitely inevitable he was coming back to the main event scene. But we do agree Roman has been mostly in the midcard since after Mania, yeah? And in the past few months, ratings have been declining with a still healthy Seth who was the main focus of the show since Mania ended and even before then. 

But as I said, I stopped blaming Seth because I recognized the product sucked. For you to blame the ratings decline on Roman while he was battling it out in the midcard while Seth was with the likes of Sting and Brock is absurd.


----------



## Stone Hot

I don't think Wwe will ever recover from making shamus champion not even Daniel Brian will be able to bring these ratings up


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Just like the RTWM 14 with HBK/Austin. I'm the biggest HBK mark on here, but even though he was the Champion that entire feud, the shows were built around Austin. It was all about what Austin will do next; how will he get underneath HBK and DX's skin on the way to WM 14. I would love to give HBK the credit for the ratings going into WM 14 (Even though they were still losing to WCW, their ratings were getting better and better every week), but I can't. That was like 90% Austin even though he wasn't Champion, he was the focus. And proof of that was 2 weeks after WM 14, Raw with Austin still there and HBK gone due to injury, finally beat Nitro for the first time in 1.5 years.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

lolreigns lolsheamus lolwwe

Come on WWE, push the man giving HHH the most heat-filled stare of all time...










... it can't get much worse than it is now. Sandow just coming out next week, challenging and beating Sheamus for the belt won't even devalue the title at this point... it's already dead in the water anyway.


----------



## own1997

Why are people pointing towards Reigns? He's one of the few guys that people actually care about on the roster.

It is only now WWE are reaping from their pile of crap booking. Sheamus is a joke, Rusev is a joke and Barrett is probably the biggest joke of them all. Guys that have been booked like chumps and mid-carders that somehow WWE think people will now accept. 

The entire show is an unmitigated disaster from top to bottom. Absolutely EVERYTHING on the show sucks. There wasn't a segment/match that was even half decent. Just terrible. 

This is what happens when you don't build up guys like Bray, Ambrose, Cesaro etc and treat them like jokes because, quite frankly, your product and your ratings are a joke.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> The majority didn't even give enough of a damn to watch RAW. So where are these casuals clamoring to see the show based completely on Roman? The entire show built to his "amazing" moment where he stood tall against the odds in an hour with a .93 demo. Those casuals sure can't get enough of him. :bryanlol Just like when Punk was champ, it was John Cena's show. ]Raw is now the Roman Reigns Extravaganza and the early reviews are not good.


Too bad casuals don't see that to them it's the shamus show now


----------



## DemBoy

So, how can we blame Rollins for this?


----------



## ShadowSucks92

So to the people who kept saying Indy darlings don't draw, well look at who's in the main event and look at what that has achieved, the whole product just sucks right now and Survivor Series sunk to a new low


----------



## OwenSES

Wynter! said:


> It was definitely inevitable he was coming back to the main event scene. But we do agree Roman has been mostly in the midcard since after Mania, yeah? And in the past few months, ratings have been declining with a still healthy Seth who was the main focus of the show since Mania ended and even before then.
> 
> But as I said, I stopped blaming Seth because I recognized the product sucked. For you to blame the ratings decline on Roman while he was battling it out in the midcard while Seth was with the likes of Sting and Brock is absurd.


90% of the roster would kill to be in the position that Roman is in. The Midcard is where guys like Ryback, Stardust and Neville rot. Roman and Bray were upper midcard, the matches they had were selling points for the PPVs. Roman and Bray had a hell in a cell match!!! How many other midcarders have got that? 

You stopped blaming the ratings on Seth but you blamed them on Sheamus even though he's been WWE Champion for one raw only. If Roman is in midcard as you say, then where the hell has Sheamus been? He's been poorly booked and lost in the shuffle since he returned.


----------



## Chief of the Lynch Mob

Rollins being champion was bringing the ratings down though, right?

:hmm


----------



## The_Kliq

Watching this ship sink gives me immense satisfaction.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DemBoy said:


> So, how can we blame Rollins for this?


Don't worry, the ratings will go up as soon as a real top face is the top face of the show.


----------



## Romans Empire

I said this in the other thread but its obviously because Roman isn't champion. When it comes down to it they made a huge mistake with WM 31 that would affect them in the long run. It is all Seth's fault. They should have gave Roman the belt. But smarks attended and guess what smarks WM 32 is going to be built around Roman again and if that doesn't work out. WM 33 will be built around Roman till he has his true title reign he deserves. The more you delay Roman's time the more any other superstar smark favorite gets delayed. That is the truth because the truth reigns. Either way though I win because I am a fan of someone that has extreme talent over the whole roster.


----------



## Stone Hot

own1997 said:


> Why are people pointing towards Reigns? He's one of the few guys that people actually care about on the roster.
> 
> It is only now WWE are reaping from their pile of crap booking. Sheamus is a joke, Rusev is a joke and Barrett is probably the biggest joke of them all. Guys that have been booked like chumps and mid-carders that somehow WWE think people will now accept.
> 
> The entire show is an unmitigated disaster from top to bottom. Absolutely EVERYTHING on the show sucks. There wasn't a segment/match that was even half decent. Just terrible.
> 
> This is what happens when you don't build up guys like Bray, Ambrose, Cesaro etc and treat them like jokes because, quite frankly, your product and your ratings are a joke.


:clap exactly well said


----------



## Marrakesh

Romans Empire said:


> I said this in the other thread but its obviously because Roman isn't champion. When it comes down to it they made a huge mistake with WM 31 that would affect them in the long run. It is all Seth's fault. They should have gave Roman the belt. But smarks attended and guess what smarks WM 32 is going to be built around Roman again and if that doesn't work out. WM 33 will be built around Roman till he has his true title reign he deserves. The more you delay Roman's time the more any other superstar smark favorite gets delayed. That is the truth because the truth reigns. Either way though I win because I am a fan of someone that has extreme talent over the whole roster.


Pretty sure they'd be cancelled long before your plan could ever come to fruition.


----------



## GRAPHICAL GHOST

It's 2015, wrestling is so embarrassing to watch. It's not about the gimmicks, storylines or all that nonsense. It's just outdated as hell.


----------



## LegendKilla15

Who wants to see sheamus in the main-event ? NO ONE. No point of watching till things change


----------



## Mr. I

Stone Hot said:


> Too bad the casuals who are the majority don't see it that way as the champion is the draw in 2015. They tuned out cause Sheamus sucks as champion :ha
> 
> Should of made Reigns or Ambrose champ


Ah yes, the old defense of "the average fan" and "the casuals" that you apparently speak for. The standard security blanket.


----------



## thegockster

Love & Hip-Hop is just a better show :fact


----------



## Stone Hot

CraigWL said:


> Rollins being champion was bringing the ratings down though, right?
> 
> :hmm


they did start to go down when he was champion it's like Seth lit the fire in the building that is ratings just keep on burning down


----------



## DoublePass

Stone Hot said:


> Too bad casuals don't see that to them it's the shamus show now


Casuals aren't seeing anything period. That 2.9 million is probably comprised exclusively of the hardcore fans. Casuals have tuned out almost entirely.


----------



## SamQuincy

It was just the worst damn RAW for a long time,holy moly.


----------



## Rasslor

*WE ARE AT TNA LEVELS NOW *

*Raw 11/23/2015 - Averaged 2.964 million viewers

Impact 1/4/2010 - Averaged 2.200 million viewers*


----------



## Wynter

Plus, didn't Seth screw Roman over at Mania and the next night, ratings didn't die? You would assume people knew Roman would want revenge right?

They surely didn't drop like flies then. Seth vs Roman was an interesting story with a popular heel Seth. 

Hell, you guys been saying for the longest Roman wasn't popular, but all the times he's been featured since his push, show me where ratings nosedived like this?

You guys moaned about Sheamus maybe becoming champ and then celebrated when he screwed over Roman. So wouldn't people be ecstatic that Roman didn't walk out as champ? The same cash in scenario they did with Seth but exchanged with a much less over heel no one gives a damn about with the belt. 

Even Meltzer made a list on every heel who should have won instead of Sheamus. But he has no blame in this? :drake1

Roman isn't a draw, but show me in his entire run where he took a hit like this? Sheamus suddenly gets the belt and a lot of the crowd checks out? So just a coincidence then? Lol


----------



## Stone Hot

DoublePass said:


> Casuals aren't seeing anything period. That 2.9 million is probably comprised exclusively of the hardcore fans. Casuals have tuned out almost entirely.


 Exactly and I don't blame them they don't want to see the shamus show


----------



## Mr. I

The Inbred Goatman said:


> You really think so? I mean, I could see it, but I feel at least 60% of the crowd would be locals.


Absolutely. The Rumble is the other PPV that gets people travelling in a big way, more so than Summerslam.


----------



## Miss Sally

If Reigns has so many fans and is such a draw then why was the RAW attendance so low? Why did nobody tune in to see him address all the issues that came up? I'm not saying this to be a bitch but pointing out that no matter who is champ or who is feuding with who, the ratings will go down due to Vince and his asinine booking.


----------



## Rasslor

*2.16*


----------



## Romans Empire

Marrakesh said:


> Pretty sure they'd be cancelled long before your plan could ever come to fruition.


It is coming along perfectly fine as Reigns get the biggest pops from appreciative people that can recognize true talented material. The best part is out of all of this I get my way with Roman before any of you get your way with smark favorites that don't draw in a crowd.


----------



## DemBoy

Stone Hot said:


> they did start to go down when he was champion it's like Seth lit the fire in the building that is ratings just keep on burning down


Oh, so this is how we put the blame on him.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I swear, one day those Indy Darlings are going to kill the Wrestling business.

:troll


----------



## DoublePass

Wynter! said:


> Hell, you guys been saying for the longest Roman wasn't popular, but all the times he's been featured since his push, show me where ratings nosedived like this?


RTWM 2015.


----------



## Hurin

RAW November 24th, 2014
Hour one - 4.73 million
Hour two - 3.99 million
Hour three - 4.01 million
Average - 4.23 million


RAW November 23rd, 2015
Hour one - 3.19 million
Hour two - 2.99 million
Hour three - 2.71 million
Average - 2.96 million

That was when Reigns was out with a hernia, look what roughly a years worth of presenting him as the next big thing since has done, and rejoice/despair.


----------



## SnapOrTap

L

M

F

A

O

*The last hour. Was just outdrawn by Black Ink Crew Chicago. I just googled the synopsis and here's what showed up:

"In the streets of Chicago, success is the only way out. Black Ink Crew: Chicago follows a passionate and ambitious group of friends through the unforgiving streets of Chicago as they band together to create new identities for themselves, their families, and their business. After years on the rough streets of "Chi-raq", the artists at 9Mag have risen to the top of the tattoo game. Formed in the wake of a tragedy, 9Mag is a daily reminder of the struggles they work to overcome, and of the bright future that lies ahead…if they play their cards right."*

LMFAO IT SOUNDS MORE INTERESTING THAN THIS SHITTY PRODUCT.

I'm Donezo.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Apparently it was a 2.16 rating


----------



## Chief of the Lynch Mob

Stone Hot said:


> they did start to go down when he was champion it's like Seth lit the fire in the building that is ratings just keep on burning down


It's closing on a month since Rollins was stripped of the title, and things have gotten worse.

Sure, it might have scuppered their longer term plans, but the fact of the matter has always been that the shows as a whole generally suck, and thats why ratings are low, not due to certain individuals.


----------



## Mr. I

Wynter! said:


> Plus, didn't Seth screw Roman over at Mania and the next night, ratings didn't die? You would assume people knew Roman would want revenge right?
> 
> They surely didn't drop like flies then. Seth vs Roman was an interesting story with a popular heel Seth.
> 
> Hell, you guys been saying for the longest Roman wasn't popular, but all the times he's been featured since his push, show me where ratings nosedived like this?
> 
> You guys moaned about Sheamus maybe becoming champ and then celebrated when he screwed over Roman. So wouldn't people be ecstatic that Roman didn't walk out as champ? The same cash in scenario they did with Seth but exchanged with a much less over heel no one gives a damn about with the belt.
> 
> Even Meltzer made a list on every heel who should have won instead of Sheamus. But he has no blame in this? :drake1
> 
> Roman isn't a draw, but show me in his entire run where he took a hit like this? Sheamus suddenly gets the belt and a lot of the crowd checks out? So just a coincidence then? Lol


You've resorted to claiming that Reigns is the cause of the Post-WM RAW rating. The biggest RAW of the year, every year.

Really now.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Rasslor said:


> *2.16*


*Roman 2:16 *says The ratings just whipped our ass. :reigns2


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Sad thing is I bet HHH and Steph think the product is really good.


----------



## jim courier

2.16 ratings Jesus that is pathetic. They could drop below 2.0 in Decemeber lol.


----------



## fifty_

My question is, will they even do anything to fix this? lol they really really don't seem to care... Plus they want to keep pushing reigns


----------



## Tardbasher12

@ Reigns marks


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

This has to be lower viewership/ratings than the Raw on Christmas Eve from 2012, right? RIGHT!?

:lmao


----------



## Mr. I

The lack of audience interest in the WWE title tournament proves the WWE title itself means nothing to viewers, in 2015. This whole "Reigns would be a draw if he had the belt but not if he doesn't" is just you imagining a scenario where he's drawing interest because you like him and wish he was succeeding. 

The show on Monday revolved around Reigns. The opening segment and main event featured him, and they constantly recapped his story (including replaying the video package from the PPV twice) and promoted him as the main person through the show. Not Sheamus, Reigns. Sheamus is just his opponent, Reigns is the star of the show.

And they dropped under 2.9 million average viewers. You may invent scenarios where he's a massive draw all you want, but don't rely on fantasies when the facts are in front of you.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

LOL a November ep of Smackdown got a 2.15 rating just 2 years ago.

RAW is officially the new Smackdown. Smackdown is the new Heat.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Not only did they manage to not get higher ratings after a PPV, they managed to lose viewers compared to the week before.

It's like the pure news that Sheamus is champ is turning people off.

This is hilarious.


----------



## dddsssccc

Ratings have been trending down for quite a while and likely will continue to no matter who the champion is. They just don't have a top guy that's a huge ratings draw right now. Reigns, Sheamus and even Rollins before them are not the answer for their ratings woes. All 3 are too bland, imo. The overall product is also uninteresting at the moment. The writings sucks.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I would genuinely be shocked if we didn't see Daniel Bryan wrestling in a WWE ring within the next 2-3 weeks.


----------



## Marrakesh

Wynter! said:


> Plus, didn't Seth screw Roman over at Mania and the next night, ratings didn't die? You would assume people knew Roman would want revenge right?
> 
> They surely didn't drop like flies then. Seth vs Roman was an interesting story with a popular heel Seth.
> 
> Hell, you guys been saying for the longest Roman wasn't popular, but all the times he's been featured since his push, show me where ratings nosedived like this?
> 
> You guys moaned about Sheamus maybe becoming champ and then celebrated when he screwed over Roman. So wouldn't people be ecstatic that Roman didn't walk out as champ? The same cash in scenario they did with Seth but exchanged with a much less over heel no one gives a damn about with the belt.
> 
> Even Meltzer made a list on every heel who should have won instead of Sheamus. But he has no blame in this? :drake1
> 
> Roman isn't a draw, but show me in his entire run where he took a hit like this? Sheamus suddenly gets the belt and a lot of the crowd checks out? So just a coincidence then? Lol


Wynter, Seth screwed Brock at Mania. It was a genuine surprise cash in and Brock wrecked shit and dominated the entire first hour of that Raw. 

That rating was a bad example. You know this. 

Reigns is popular, he has his fans but so what? So does Dolph Ziggler. :shrug 

Neither of them are going to work as the top babyface though. 

The difference is that WWE can see that with Dolph but choose to ignore the evidence against Reigns.

Could Reigns be a top heel? Maybe. He'd certainly be better off as one whether he's good at it or not. He can't be worse at it than he is at being a face.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

The "Face chases the heel" is still a story that draws if you do it right, but WWE is not doing it right. Of course.

Of course, "The face is challenged against a hot heel" is an equally viable storyline if done right, too. Look no further than Hogan vs Andre. The face can have the belt and there can still be TONS of tension.

Since it's been *OVER A YEAR* of heel champions, "The face chases the heel!" has hit a point where there is no tension, because we know the babyface won't hold the title for very long (or just won't win at all). We're not just due, we're overdue, for a babyface title run.

They should have just put the belt on Roman and found a way to heat up a heel with a face champion. It's not impossible. When Flair beat Steamboat, Terry Funk ruined his celebration and had instant heat. Why not do it like that?

With that said, I doubt Reigns would have drawn much better as champion. They're at a point where there's really no harm in putting the title on a babyface Dean Ambrose and seeing how that goes. Reigns is still the focus of the show, and it's a very bad show, and it isn't doing so hot.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

#BadNewsSanta said:


> This has to be lower viewership/ratings than the Raw on Christmas Eve from 2012, right? RIGHT!?
> 
> :lmao


Yep, that averaged 3.14 million viewers with a 2.2 rating xD


----------



## Wynter

DoublePass said:


> RTWM 2015.


That was getting record low ratings and viewership drop? 

Because I would like to see those articles lol 

Because I believe the decline began months ago while Roman was in the midcard? Or we gonna ignore that part? 

Roman ain't no draw. Fact. But he's never gotten such shit viewership and ratings, even at the height of his push. Sheamus is the only new variable in the equation. Fact. 

How many people joked WWE viewership would go to shit if Sheamus got the belt. Now it's suddenly not a factor? :drake1 Seth winning by screwing Roman over didn't cause such a decline in the week or months after. Did you not think Roman would want his revenge? And people despised him then. So why is it different now him getting screwed over? 

Roman doesn't draw and Sheamus is an ice cold champ. I think they both have a part in this. But to say Sheamus doesn't hold any weight in this is ridiculous.


----------



## The True Believer

I'm not going to say that Sheamus doesn't have anything to do with this low rating but let's not pretend that someone, who's the #2 merch seller and supposedly outpopping everyone every week, shouldn't have helped ratings at least be prevented from falling.


----------



## Stoner King

*http://j.gs/11813215*

the best which i have came across on wrestling and still in the hall of fame


----------



## OwenSES

SUPERIOR said:


> I'm not going to say that Sheamus doesn't have anything to do with this low rating but let's not pretend that someone, who's the #2 merch seller and supposedly outpopping everyone every week, shouldn't have helped ratings at least be prevented from falling.


Especially when Sheamus is just the HHH puppet champ for Roman to beat.


----------



## Romans Empire

Believe me when I say this but I am just not talking in my favor because I am not biased. The ratings would be up much more if Roman had the belt around his waist right now.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

I blame Vince. Out of the past 5 years what stars has he made? The two biggest guys got over in spite of him (Bryan and Punk). Most of my friends quit watching after Reigns squashed Bryan. Not because they hated Reigns but because the two guys they chose died (Punk split and Bryan was never going to be the guy). The rest of them quit yesterday because they hate Sheamus and liked the original cast of the Daniel Bryan Story better (with Bryan Danielson as Daniel Bryan).


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*2.16*
*:ha :lel :booklel :lol :lmao :duck :Jordan*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lower than the Holiday Raw.

:lmao

Well, thank GOD they have someone who can sell some merch.

:ti


----------



## Marrakesh

SHIV said:


> *Roman 2:16 *says The ratings just whipped our ass. :reigns2


Well played :homer4


----------



## Reptilian

Why are the ratings low? Wtf is wrong with people? RAW was fantastic and they're pushing two total packages (Sheamus and Reigns) and people still don't wanna watch?

Well, maybe they miss Cena, i see no other possible reason.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Sheamus, Roman, Vince, everyone is at fault :toomanykobes

It's all just a mess of unbelievably pathetic SHIT. If we got a heel turn or something to actually look foward to then I guarantee people would have watched. But fucking REHASHING a storyline from just two years, a storyline that involved one of the most organically over faces ever, with a heel who barely gets a reaction and a face who is inconsistently over and doesn't have the majority of the crowd invested in him was bound to fail.

Vince is an idiot. Simple as. We always say Vince throws out a good product when shit gets desperate and goes tumbling down but now he has no competition. No reason too. Now he's just desperate to get Reigns over like Bryan. Hence the current angle.

WWE has effectively killed the interest of both the casuals and hardcore fans. All that's left now is addicts.


----------



## Romans Empire

Reptilian said:


> Why are the ratings low? Wtf is wrong with people? RAW was fantastic and they're pushing two total packages (Sheamus and Reigns) and people still don't wanna watch?
> 
> Well, maybe they miss Cena, i see no other possible reason.


It is all because of Seth Rollins and went downhill from there.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Can we get a "This is Awesome" chant?

:mj4


----------



## ElTerrible

DoublePass said:


> Sheamus is being used as a tool to garner sympathy for Roman Reigns. That's it. He's irrelevant, and everyone knows his title reign won't last past Royal Rumble.
> 
> Looks like it didn't work, because people still give zero fucks about Roman. Whereas Bryan was drawing good numbers with the exact same booking and storyline.


It still matters who the champ is, cause nobody believes Sheamus is the champ. Everybody thinks he´s a joke, so why watch a joke champion, especially when the show has been shit for years. 

Also how is the Miz not front and center on this goddamn show, as a top 5 micworker on the whole roster, when everybody else is injured. Insane.


----------



## Fabregas

ShadowSucks92 said:


> Raw Viewership November 24th 2014 = 4,250,000
> 
> Raw viewership November 23th 2015 = 2,964,000


:heston


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Wynter! said:


> That was getting record low ratings and viewership drop?
> 
> Because I would like to see those articles lol
> 
> Because I believe the decline began months ago while Roman was in the midcard? Or we gonna ignore that part?
> 
> Roman ain't no draw. Fact. But he's never gotten such shit viewership and ratings, even at the height of his push. Sheamus is the only new variable in the equation. Fact.
> 
> How many people joked WWE viewership would go to shit if Sheamus got the belt. Now it's suddenly not a factor? :drake1 Seth winning by screwing Roman over didn't cause such a decline in the week or months after. Did you not think Roman would want his revenge? And people despised him then. So why is it different now him getting screwed over?
> 
> Roman doesn't draw and Sheamus is an ice cold champ. I think they both have a part in this. But to say Sheamus doesn't hold any weight in this is ridiculous.


I don't think the drop can be attributed to any one variable. It's been dropping for how long now? Ratings don't usually pop overnight and stay there, nor do they drop overnight -- they don't trend like this for so long because of any one single player. A long, slow, steady decline like this can only be the result of a continued pattern of pure shit programming. 

But keep opening shows with the fucking Authority. Whatever big news Hunter has next week is sure to bring the viewers back in droves. Follow that up with nonsensical and inconsistent booking. And then of course blame it all on the talent who are too lazy to reach for the brass ring.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



Erik. said:


> It was one of the better Raws in recent weeks to be honest.
> 
> One show isn't going to increase ratings. Consistent booking over the course of weeks and even months would potentially see a steady climb in ratings but it's whether the creative team and writers can sustain something more than a few weeks.


Dude...What?


----------



## SamQuincy

Reptilian said:


> Why are the ratings low? Wtf is wrong with people? RAW was fantastic and they're pushing two total packages (Sheamus and Reigns) and people still don't wanna watch?
> 
> Well, maybe they miss Cena, i see no other possible reason.


the overall product is bullshit,the fights arent good and there are storys. It doesnt matter who wrestles. You need good fights for a long time or good storys for a long time and WWE is missing both.

Sure,you have good fights here and there but thats it.

Everytime when the fans are loving someone and wanted him to be pushed,WWE screwd it and pushed someone who nobody gives a fuck about.

What you expect man?


----------



## Deadman's Hand

Reptilian said:


> Why are the ratings low? Wtf is wrong with people? RAW was fantastic and they're pushing two total packages (Sheamus and Reigns) and people still don't wanna watch?
> 
> Well, maybe they miss Cena, i see no other possible reason.


*The problem, is that the product sucks.

Literally every other promotion out there is doing a better job at booking than WWE. NJPW, LU, TNA, ROH, DG, etc. etc. 

A lot of people are done wasting their time with this stupid-ass company.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

You were right, man. And in a big, big, embarrassing way for WWE.


----------



## Wynter

Ultimate Gohan said:


> Sheamus, Roman, Vince, everyone is at fault :toomanykobes
> 
> It's all just a mess of unbelievably pathetic SHIT. If we got a heel turn or something to actually look foward to then I guarantee people would have watched. But fucking REHASHING a storyline from just two years, a storyline that involved one of the most organically over faces ever, with a heel who barely gets a reaction and a face who is inconsistently over and doesn't have the majority of the crowd invested in him was bound to fail.
> 
> Vince is an idiot. Simple as. We always say Vince throws out a good product when shit gets desperate and goes tumbling down but now he has no competition. No reason too. Now he's just desperate to get Reigns over like Bryan. Hence the current angle.
> 
> WWE has effectively killed the interest of both the casuals and hardcore fans. All that's left now is addicts.


Thank you. Dude doesn't even like Roman and he knows Roman vs a cold as fuck Sheamus was bound to fail. You think it would have went this low if Roman was against a huge heel? 

Hell, as Shala said, Roman or Dean turning would have actually done something.

But who gives a dick sauce about Sheamus enough to see Roman chase him? Roman is always chasing someone, but it didn't cause this nosedive like it did once Sheamus became champ. 

Suddenly the correlation isn't there? As if no one was calling Sheamus becoming champ would be terrible for ratings? Hell, the moment Sheamus got mitb, people dreaded his cash in and hoped he would fail it. 

But ok, let's compare a moderately over Roman vs who gives a fuck about him Sheamus and compare it to DANIEL FUCKING BRYAN who was the most over person in God knows how long against a huge and top heel Authority with a great supporting cast in Shield, Punk, Wyatts, Real Americans etc. 

But.ok. They're the EXACT situation :lol


----------



## Mr. I

They fell off the chart.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

ElTerrible said:


> It still matters who the champ is, cause nobody believes Sheamus is the champ. Everybody thinks he´s a joke, so why watch a joke champion, especially when the show has been shit for years.


Ordinarily, I would think that just for this reason people would want to tune in to see who's going to step up and take the title away from him. But in this case, 1, either nobody cares any more because the title doesn't mean shit; 2, nobody cares any more because Sheamus has been booked so horribly since he won MOTB; and/or 3, nobody cares any more because they just assume it's going to be Reigns. The way they made Sheamus look like a weenie last night makes a strong case for any or all of the above. 



ElTerrible said:


> Also how is the Miz not front and center on this goddamn show, as a top 5 micworker on the whole roster, when everybody else is injured. Insane.


Gotta agree here, too. Miz is one annoying fuck, but he's a great heel who can work a match both physically and psychologically. He may not be WHC material, but he's a thorn-in-your-side type character who would certainly make a great feud for somebody.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ithil said:


> They fell off the chart.


Ratings went down even more as soon as Seth left. Holy shit.

:ti

Even though we were told a real face of the company would have the ratings back up when that guy was the new focus of the show.

:kobe9


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

2.16 rating for RAW. *'NUFF SAID*


----------



## OwenSES

Supposedly Vince doesn't want Roman to be champion while fans are still booing him. That's the only reason Sheamus won the title despite no build up. He's just a pawn in the Roman Reigns story.


----------



## jim courier

ShowStopper said:


> Can we get a "This is Awesome" chant?
> 
> :mj4


The funny thing is a lot of the modern wrestlers/fans think getting that chant means you're over and a draw/star.


----------



## Chrome

WCW in 2000 got better ratings than this, therefore WCW 2000 > WWE 2015. :lelbron


----------



## Wynter

Sleepngbear said:


> I don't think the drop can be attributed to any one variable. It's been dropping for how long now? Ratings don't usually pop overnight and stay there, nor do they drop overnight -- they don't trend like this for so long because of any one single player. A long, slow, steady decline like this can only be the result of a continued pattern of pure shit programming.
> 
> But keep opening shows with the fucking Authority. Whatever big news Hunter has next week is sure to bring the viewers back in droves. Follow that up with nonsensical and inconsistent booking. And then of course blame it all on the talent who are too lazy to reach for the brass ring.


I agree. Roman isn't a draw and I keep saying that. But to say Sheamus doesn't play a huge part in this is ridiculous. He's the champ and new damn face of the company that went from cold in the midcard to champ overnight. Ratings have been dying for months when Roman wasn't in the main event scene. 

Now, I used to blame Seth, but I stopped once I realized it was dumb to blame him when the surrounding product was complete shit.


----------



## KO Bossy

SHIV said:


> *Roman 2:16 *says The ratings just whipped our ass. :reigns2


Can we please, PLEASE make this an official thing for this website? I read it and howled with laughter.


----------



## SnapOrTap

SHIV's idea of Roman 2:16 - Vince needs to make this a shirt.

NO.2 Merch seller might become NO. 1 in minutes.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Wynter! said:


> I agree. Roman isn't a draw and I keep saying that. But to say Sheamus doesn't play a huge part in this is ridiculous. He's the champ and new damn face of the company that went from cold in the midcard to champ overnight. Ratings have been dying for months when Roman wasn't in the main event scene.
> 
> Now, I used to blame Seth, but I stopped once I realized it was dumb to blame him when the surrounding product was complete shit.


I still blame Seth -- or at least how they booked him -- because he (or his character) was a big part of that shit product, right from the point that he scammed the belt. Whatever audience RAW managed to retain was probably people waiting/hoping for somebody to snatch the title off him. Now they don't even have that. The only good thing you can say about Seth is that more people actually cared about him hopefully getting beat than Sheamus.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KO Bossy said:


> Can we please, PLEASE make this an official thing for this website? I read it and howled with laughter.


Yeah, that might be the post of the year right there.

Take a bow, @SHIV

:clap


----------



## Chrome

I like how ratings have pretty much sucked all year after Vince spewed his "they'll always watch" crap. How's that one working out for ya Vinnie? :vince7


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Ratings went down even more as soon as Seth left. Holy shit.
> 
> :ti
> 
> Even though we were told a real face of the company would have the ratings back up when that guy was the new focus of the show.
> 
> :kobe9


 Too bad people are thinking shamus is the focal point of the show since he's a champion : ti


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

Saw this coming soon as sheamus became champ. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA


AND YES ITS SHEAMUS FAULT.

Everyone blaming Roman its not just him. Nobody gives a single fuck about Sheamus to watch Roman chase him. Yes Sheamus is just a part of Romans push. 

But nobody wants to see Sheamus in the main event, or taking up even more tv time. As champ he will be given greater focus on the show. 

You cant take a unover stale midcard heel like sheamus and expect people to want to see Roman chase him.

They should have just made Roman champ to begin with and said fuck the fans that boo him we are pushing ahead with our plans.

Dont forget this is football season before the Road to WM. WWE Is on AutoPilot right now. Any plans or twist they will save for when they actually have a chance to bump ratings. Probably jan-feb if they have anything at all up their sleeves.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I wonder if the rating went up last night if Reign's fans would give Sheamus all of the credit for the increase like they're giving him all of the blame for the decrease.

:hmm:
@Stone Hot

Look at this thread, no, they're not. He was in the opening segment AND main event and had his storyline promo recapped twice during the show.

It was his show.


----------



## LilOlMe

ShadowSucks92 said:


> And compare this by last years viewership (where they gave fans a reason to tune in):
> 
> Hour one: 4.73 million
> Hour two: 3.99 million
> Hour three: 4.01 million


Stuff like this should always be posted, for those who like to remain in denial and pretend it's just "ratings have been falling for years! DVRs/Internet, etc." It's bullshit. This year is atrocious. 

Also, this is a result of terrible booking. No one fucking buys Roman going up against the Authority. It's so stupid.

They keep the Authority around in stupid scenarios like this, because they have failed to build up anything else that matters.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*This promo is so fucking funny, right now :duck*


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Should've learned from the Punk marks


----------



## TheLooseCanon

I De-Declare WWE totally fucking stupid! Keep falling!


----------



## Mr. I




----------



## birthday_massacre

Reigns the ratings killer


----------



## Stone Hot

Wynter! said:


> Thank you. Dude doesn't even like Roman and he knows Roman vs a cold as fuck Sheamus was bound to fail. You think it would have went this low if Roman was against a huge heel?
> 
> Hell, as Shala said, Roman or Dean turning would have actually done something.
> 
> But who gives a dick sauce about Sheamus enough to see Roman chase him? Roman is always chasing someone, but it didn't cause this nosedive like it did once Sheamus became champ.
> 
> Suddenly the correlation isn't there? As if no one was calling Sheamus becoming champ would be terrible for ratings? Hell, the moment Sheamus got mitb, people dreaded his cash in and hoped he would fail it.
> 
> But ok, let's compare a moderately over Roman vs who gives a fuck about him Sheamus and compare it to DANIEL FUCKING BRYAN who was the most over person in God knows how long against a huge and top heel Authority with a great supporting cast in Shield, Punk, Wyatts, Real Americans etc.
> 
> But.ok. They're the EXACT situation :lol


Thank you 
Some people will never understand. blind hate will do that to you


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Wait, you never know, this could prove that Cesaro was actually a draw


----------



## Born of Osiris

The clowning on Reigns is funny though to be honest :mj4


----------



## Badbadrobot

Fuck wwe

Fuck it's awful booking

Fuck it's awful see saw booking

Fuck it's non existent character development

Fuck its inability to tell a compelling story

Fuck it's entertainment focus which isn't entertaining

Fuck it's view that wrestling isn't good enough unless it's neutered

Fuck wwe


----------



## own1997

birthday_massacre said:


> Reigns the ratings killer


The ENTIRE show sucks. Reigns is the least of WWE's worry because he is the only character on the roster that fans can invest in and give a damn about.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

CM PUNK! CM PUNK!


----------



## WakeUpMuricah

Only one man can save us now


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

RAW drew a 2.16 rating :ti

Roman 2:16 said Nobody Is Watching My Ass!


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*



>The show did 2.95 million viewers, more than 200,000 viewers lower than what had previously been the non-holiday low dating back to 1997 when Raw was losing badly to WCW Monday Nitro.


>"A disaster" - Dave Meltzer

Click to expand...

 :ha*


----------



## StraightYesSociety

"WWE stock was down 2.15% today, closing at $16.85 per share. Today's high was $17.18 and the low was $16.67."

Remember if it goes bellow around 11 (for simplicity), Vince will stop being a billionaire.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

own1997 said:


> The ENTIRE show sucks. Reigns is the least of WWE's worry because he is the only character on the roster that fans can invest in and give a damn about.


They sure invested when the fans in the south gave him no response when he won the title, and again last night to see how he'd react to getting screwed out of the belt.

:eyeroll


----------



## The XL

No one is a star, 50/50 booking, endless return and meaningless tag matches, wins and losses not mattering, etc, is killing the show. Everything is boring and skipable. No one can work, no one can cut a promo, the writing is shit, literally everything is shit. Then you put the belt on a cold Sheamus who's literally been booked as a jobber for the longest.

Above all that though, the show is being built around the most limited, boring top guy in the history of the business. Say what you will about Cena, he could work and had great charisma, could cut a great promo. What can Roman Reigns do? He's a good looking guy, and that's where the buck starts and stops. He can't work, gets blown up in 2 minutes, has zero charisma, and is among the worst promos of all time. He's not even a big guy honestly, he's barely bigger than Del Rio, noticeably softer too, that's why they give them this vest gimmick, I mean, you can still see his chest fat through his vest from the side. So, he's certainly no ripped big specimen, like Batista, Lesnar, or even Ryback or a Titus O'Neil. So what the fuck is it that compels Vince to push him so? It won't be the only reason, but will be a big reason why business will continue to fall.


----------



## Marrakesh

Vince will probably panic and blame Sheamus. 

He'll have Reigns go over at TLC and Cena win the rumble. 

:vince5 The biggest WM match of all time. 

Seriously, who would put this past him? 

That or he'll offer Austin ludicrous money to come back for one more match. He needs to be saved from himself.

If Austin turns it down and we are getting Jeff Hardy :ti


----------



## Rasslor




----------



## Mr. I

own1997 said:


> The ENTIRE show sucks. Reigns is the least of WWE's worry because he is the only character on the roster that fans can invest in and give a damn about.


Clearly he isn't, because the show revolves around him and it's tanking.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Vince McMahon


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Can we please have this move rechristened *The Ratings Drop*?


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Does this not say it all:
http://www.cbssports.com/general/eye-on-sports/25388289/mick-foley-prepared-to-become-former-wwe-fan-watch-football-on-mondays


----------



## Bazinga

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Hilarious if the rating increases.


----------



## The True Believer

Stone Hot said:


> Thank you
> Some people will never understand. blind hate will do that to you


Says the guy putting all the blame on Sheamus.

:sip


----------



## own1997

ShowStopper said:


> They sure invested when the fans in the south gave him no response when he won the title, and again last night to see how he'd react to getting screwed out of the belt.
> 
> :eyeroll


Roman Reigns is the most popular superstar on that show, it's absurd to say different. He's the least of WWE's problems. 

Regardless, the ratings are a reflection on the entire show and I, for one, am not going to watch that monstrosity of a show.


----------



## birthday_massacre

own1997 said:


> The ENTIRE show sucks. Reigns is the least of WWE's worry because he is the only character on the roster that fans can invest in and give a damn about.


OHHHHH so when Rollins was the focus, it was his fault the ratings were bad not all of the booking, but now that Reings is the focus and those Ratings get even worse, Reigns isn't at fault.

PLEASE, you you cant have it both ways. And I don't want to hear any Reigns fans claiming he is the reason why ratings went up if they happen to go up next week..

The show is now booked around Reigns and has been since Rollns went down with injury, so if you are going to use the whole ratings logic based on who the focus is, Reigns should get the blame for the ratings being so poor last night, because if you are not going to give him the blame, he shouldn't get credit if they go up again.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, that might be the post of the year right there.
> 
> Take a bow, @SHIV
> 
> :clap


 too bad it Roman 2:16 can't work because he is not the champ and can't be blamed so it cancels out. 

Now if you want to say Shemus 2:16 just wiped the ratings ass then it makes sense.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

own1997 said:


> Roman Reigns is the most popular superstar on that show, it's absurd to say different. He's the least of WWE's problems.
> 
> Regardless, the ratings are a reflection on the entire show and I, for one, am not going to watch that monstrosity of a show.


Actually, his booking is a HUGE problem to the show right now. But you believe what you want.


----------



## KO Bossy




----------



## Marv95

When was the last time this thread was this active?
And lol @Rasslor's sig. Couldn't be more appropriate. Shame-ass FTW.


----------



## birthday_massacre

own1997 said:


> Roman Reigns is the most popular superstar on that show, it's absurd to say different. He's the least of WWE's problems.
> 
> Regardless, the ratings are a reflection on the entire show and I, for one, am not going to watch that monstrosity of a show.


Ambrose is way more popular than Reigns. Ambrose never gets booed, Reigns gets booed all the time. stop with the nonsense Reigns is the most popular guy on the show. Even owens is more popular than Reigns.


----------



## Blade Runner

SAVE_US. :bryan


----------



## Badbadrobot

Stone Hot said:


> too bad it Roman 2:16 can't work because he is not the champ and can't be blamed so it cancels out.
> 
> Now if you want to say Shemus 2:16 just wiped the ratings ass then it makes sense.


Seriously all of you give it a rest

It not a wrestlers fault

It's the fucking product overall period

And that is much more worrying


----------



## kendoo

Bring back Daniel Bryan please.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Sleepngbear said:


> Does this not say it all:
> http://www.cbssports.com/general/eye-on-sports/25388289/mick-foley-prepared-to-become-former-wwe-fan-watch-football-on-mondays


Who's the blonde?


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*And some people are still gonna go "see you next week. " :heston*


----------



## Stone Hot

CenaBoy4Life said:


> Saw this coming soon as sheamus became champ. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHHA
> 
> 
> AND YES ITS SHEAMUS FAULT.
> 
> Everyone blaming Roman its not just him. Nobody gives a single fuck about Sheamus to watch Roman chase him. Yes Sheamus is just a part of Romans push.
> 
> But nobody wants to see Sheamus in the main event, or taking up even more tv time. As champ he will be given greater focus on the show.
> 
> You cant take a unover stale midcard heel like sheamus and expect people to want to see Roman chase him.
> 
> They should have just made Roman champ to begin with and said fuck the fans that boo him we are pushing ahead with our plans.
> 
> Dont forget this is football season before the Road to WM. WWE Is on AutoPilot right now. Any plans or twist they will save for when they actually have a chance to bump ratings. Probably jan-feb if they have anything at all up their sleeves.


:clap More excellent points that some just don't see


----------



## Rocky Mark

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Wow below 3 million viewers.. Sheamus gonna Shame us


----------



## Mr. I

own1997 said:


> *Roman Reigns is the most popular superstar on that show,* it's absurd to say different. He's the least of WWE's problems.
> 
> Regardless, the ratings are a reflection on the entire show and I, for one, am not going to watch that monstrosity of a show.


And the show revolving around him is doing the worst viewership in 20 years.
Maybe he ain't all that popular, friendly.


----------



## Chrome

Ultimate Gohan said:


> The clowning on Reigns is funny though to be honest :mj4


It certainly is. I don't really blame him for these problems myself but I'd be lying if I said I didn't find this shit funny too. :mj4

Plus a lot of his marks are awful anyway.


----------



## ironyman

What a shock. The product is just devolving more every week it seems like. As so many have already said time and time again, nothing less than a complete overhaul and new, more serious and adult-oriented format is going to change things. Even then it will take awhile to rebound. It is a fading product as-is, simple as that.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> I wonder if the rating went up last night if Reign's fans would give Sheamus all of the credit for the increase like they're giving him all of the blame for the decrease.
> 
> :hmm:
> @Stone Hot
> 
> Look at this thread, no, they're not. He was in the opening segment AND main event and had his storyline promo recapped twice during the show.
> 
> It was his show.


100%

Good for the Irish man if that happened and yes Reigns was the focal point of the show, but the people who tuned out didn't know he was because Sheamus is the champion and they feared it be the Sheamus show so they just didn't bother watching


----------



## Marrakesh

kendoo said:


> Bring back Daniel Bryan please.


It won't solve this clusterfuck but it can't hurt it either. 

He's badly needed right now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Badbadrobot said:


> Seriously all of you give it a rest
> 
> It not a wrestlers fault
> 
> It's the fucking product overall period
> 
> And that is much more worrying


Of course its not one wrestlers fault, but people like stone hot were trying to blame Rollins the he was the focus of the show for low ratings and now that Reigns is the focus and they go even lower, they don't want to pass the blame to Reigns like they were Rollins, Its because they have zero credibility and are hypocrites. 

Those trolls think the ratings would have been any different if Reigns was champion last night instead of Sheamus LOL


----------



## own1997

birthday_massacre said:


> OHHHHH so when Rollins was the focus, it was his fault the ratings were bad not all of the booking, but now that Reings is the focus and those Ratings get even worse, Reigns isn't at fault.
> 
> PLEASE, you you cant have it both ways. And I don't want to hear any Reigns fans claiming he is the reason why ratings went up if they happen to go up next week..
> 
> The show is now booked around Reigns and has been since Rollns went down with injury, so if you are going to use the whole ratings logic based on who the focus is, Reigns should get the blame for the ratings being so poor last night, because if you are not going to give him the blame, he shouldn't get credit if they go up again.


Every character is a variable that determines the ratings. The show was practically booked around Reigns post Rumble yet the viewership wasn't this bad. Right now it's Reigns and after that, nobody else matters and when you only have 1 strongly booked character, you're bound to fail.

The issue is that the entire product sucks. There's simply nothing worth watching. They've killed their own product with crap booking for everybody but Reigns and now you see what happens when they try to push these mid-carders despite the fact that nobody cares about them.


----------



## Bubba Chuck

2.16?! Second hour and third hour under 3million


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Vince thinking he'll sell out 100k in just under 5 months from this shit ... :bryanlol


----------



## Louaja89

Holy shit just saw this and :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

*2.16 

You were absolutely right, OP. :heston*


----------



## own1997

ShowStopper said:


> Actually, his booking is a HUGE problem to the show right now. But you believe what you want.


His booking is bad; he shouldn't be the babyface underdog.

Saying that, there are more pressing matters such as what the hell have they done to the rest of their roster. They have 1 main-event talent and the rest have been booked like chumps.


----------



## RuthlessAggrEvan

:reigns2


----------



## StraightYesSociety




----------



## birthday_massacre

own1997 said:


> Every character is a variable that determines the ratings. The show was practically booked around Reigns post Rumble yet the viewership wasn't this bad. Right now it's Reigns and after that, nobody else matters and when you only have 1 strongly booked character, you're bound to fail.
> 
> The issue is that the entire product sucks. There's simply nothing worth watching. They've killed their own product with crap booking for everybody but Reigns and now you see what happens when they try to push these mid-carders despite the fact that nobody cares about them.


Right because during the RR time the show was booked around a few different wresters so the ratings were higher.

Now its just booked around Reigns and fucks are given for everyone else thus why the ratings are so low. So Reigns should get most of the blame since he is the focus and everyone else is forgotten about booking wise.

Hell you had your two most over wresters on the roster Owens and Ambrose is a meaningless tag team match.

This is why you need to book and focus on multiple stars because if one of them is hated, at least you have a reason to watch. No one cares about Regins vs Sheamus so of course the ratings are going to drop.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

own1997 said:


> His booking is bad; he shouldn't be the babyface underdog.
> 
> Saying that, there are more pressing matters such as what the hell have they done to the rest of their roster. They have 1 main-event talent and the rest have been booked like chumps.


The entire roster was also a problem during Rollins' reign and the ratings never slipped this far. This is nothing new. :shrug


----------



## WesternFilmGuy

WWE losing 1.2 million viewers in a single year is some crazy shit. Daniel Bryan needs to come back.


----------



## Rusty Shackleford

WM 32's attendance will be pitiful. Probably barely get 90k if they even get over 80k.


----------



## Yashamaga

I called this for next week but they actually went above and beyond and did it this week.

Next week will be even lower. 

"week 2 of the Reigns/Sheamus show" That'll put butts in the seats.


----------



## birthday_massacre




----------



## Marv95

Before anyone says anything, yes, Roman should share some of the blame. Rather than turn heel and get more buzz for the show despite MNF they went with the same ol boy scout "believe that" BS. No one wants a generic goody two shoes being the focal point, esp. one who has no real starpower. But to excuse Shame-ass among other things is retarded.

Reboot everything.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

WWE, Hold This: :lose

Vinnie Mac, Hold This: :lose

Hunter and Steph, Hold This: :lose

Roman, Hold This: :lose

Divas Revolution, Hold This: :lose

Roman Trolls, Hold This: :lose

PG Rating, Hold This: :lose

The reason why you didn't make Punk your star, Hold This: :lose


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

So, which is worse Vince, the fans hijacking the show for Daniel Bryan and still having decent ratings....or THIS?

:Rollins


----------



## Rainbowstars

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

So whose fault is it... Roman Reigns or Sheamus?
I bet it depends who you ask


----------



## Yashamaga

:reigns2

I mean seriously, look at this guy. Tell me that isn't a face that every red blooded male over the age of 14 wants to punch.


----------



## kendoo

even the old pg kids from last year aren't interested in this shit.


----------



## TrentBarretaFan

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Hmm, what does Vince think...


"Low ratings? Put a title on Cena, now!

Oh, Cena isn't around... Then Orton! Oh, wait...

Put a title on Sheamus then!

Oh, it's not working? Put a title on Reigns and push him to the moon! Ratings will skyrocket!"


#VintageWWE


----------



## ironyman

Daniel Bryan is not going to save a show that people are fleeing from. The entire production and writing in general is outdated, cringe-worthy, clown show, cornball garbage from top to bottom. Even the talent that is good is made to look like shit with the lines they spew and feuds they are put in.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Even though I'm finding this hilarious (especially the pictures of Reigns) I doubt anyone seriously blames him, anyway I guarantee the viewership wouldn't have been this low had they just turned Reigns heel (or hell even Ambrose heel), after Survivor Series they gave us no reason to watch RAW, and from what I've read about RAW this week, they didn't give anyone a reason to tune in next week either


----------



## own1997

birthday_massacre said:


> Right because during the RR time the show was booked around a few different wresters so the ratings were higher.
> 
> Now its just booked around Reigns and fucks are given for everyone else thus why the ratings are so low. So Reigns should get most of the blame since he is the focus and everyone else is forgotten about booking wise.
> 
> Hell you had your two most over wresters on the roster Owens and Ambrose is a meaningless tag team match.
> 
> *This is why you need to book and focus on multiple stars *because if one of them is hated, at least you have a reason to watch. No one cares about Regins vs Sheamus so of course the ratings are going to drop.


This is what I'm saying should've happened, the reason it hasn't is the reason that the ratings are dire. If Brock was facing off with Reigns and you had Cena, Rollins, Orton etc with guys like Bray, Ambrose and Owens booked well, the ratings wouldn't be in this mess. When you only have 1 strongly booked character, regardless of who it is, the ratings will suffer.


----------



## own1997

ShowStopper said:


> The entire roster was also a problem during Rollins' reign and the ratings never slipped this far. This is nothing new. :shrug


Didn't they have Cena, Orton, Reigns and even Brock? Right now, they have nobody bar Reigns.


----------



## JTB33b

Watch Bryan be cleared now. It's a miracle!. What an overnight recovery.


----------



## Blade Runner

ironyman said:


> Daniel Bryan is not going to save a show that people are fleeing from. The entire production and writing in general is outdated, cringe-worthy, clown show, cornball garbage from top to bottom. Even the talent that is good is made to look like shit with the lines they spew and feuds they are put in.


It probably wouldn't bring the ratings back to prominence, but it certainly wouldn't hurt. DB is one of the rare babyfaces on the roster that people still give a sh^t about no matter how hard the WWE wants you to forget about him. His return alone would get a lot of people buzzing and excited again -- especially going into WM season


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Badbadrobot said:


> Seriously all of you give it a rest
> 
> It not a wrestlers fault
> 
> It's the fucking product overall period
> 
> And that is much more worrying


No, sorry, it is a wrestler's fault. Two wrestlers. The product is as shit as ever, but now, both Reigns and Sheamus won the title on Survivor Series, and people know they're looking at a winter program between these two lame ass fuckers, so they tune out. That simple.

Casuals have left the ship years ago, WWE's audience is now just the wrestling fans, however they still think they're mainstream, and consequently piss off the last remaining fans too.


----------



## ironyman

We all know what Vince's solution will be:


----------



## Shenroe

2.964 millions.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

own1997 said:


> Didn't they have Cena, Orton, Reigns and even Brock? Right now, they have nobody bar Reigns.


Yup. And none of those guys are draws anymore and they're also stale as fuck, what I said a million times when Rollins was Champion. I was told once Rollins wasn't the focus anymore, the ratings would increase. You might not have been here for that, but now you know  Interesting you stop by today, though.

:cena5


----------



## birthday_massacre

own1997 said:


> This is what I'm saying should've happened, the reason it hasn't is the reason that the ratings are dire. If Brock was facing off with Reigns and you had Cena, Rollins, Orton etc with guys like Bray, Ambrose and Owens booked well, the ratings wouldn't be in this mess. When you only have 1 strongly booked character, regardless of who it is, the ratings will suffer.


let me be clear, I am not blaming Reigns solely for the ratings drop. I am just using the same logic that Rollns haters (mostly Reigns fans) used when they claimed he was the reason for the poor ratings because the show was build around him.

I am just throwing it back in those Reigns fans faces who used the same logic with Rollins.

Those people kept saying once Rollns was not the focus and Reigns was the ratings would go up and they went down.


----------



## LordKain

JTB33b said:


> Watch Bryan be cleared now. It's a miracle!. What an overnight recovery.


It still wouldn't be enough to save them though.

Like it nor not WWE has some serious problems that are never going to be addressed by them until it's far too late to do anything about them.


----------



## KC Armstrong

I knew Sheamus winning the title would finally make the rating drop to below 3 million.


----------



## Rusty Shackleford

Nothing is gonna improve the ratings other than good consistent booking for EVERYONE. They want quick fixes but the only part timer who would probably move the needle is The Rock. They need consistent booking for the next 6 months to a year if they want to ever get back to 4 million viewers. But, I don't see this happening. The ratings will continue to slide and they'll be at 2.5 million or even less when WM season rolls around.


----------



## ironyman

KC Armstrong said:


> I knew Sheamus winning the title would finally make the rating drop to below 3 million.


----------



## Blade Runner

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

2.16 is actually not that far off from the lowest RAW rating in history (1.7 from December, 1996). This is an absolute embarrassment and it's high time that management seriously rethink their entire strategy going into Wrestlemania season


----------



## Beermonkeyv1

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Low rating -

Lets get HBK, flair and mick foley on raw /facepalm

They never look at the bigger picture 


Not surprised was low rating at all wwe is worst i can actually recall at mo its BAD...REALLY...FUKING...BAD


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Romans Empire

This would have never happened if it wasn't for Rollins.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yeah, I guess Rollins is the reason why Roman got no reaction when he won the title at SS, too.

unkout

And the reason why ratings have been falling for years and just continue to, now even with him gone.

WHAT A GREAT DAY.

:mark:


----------



## Vox Machina

You know what the sad thing is? The company is still going to bring back all the old guys yet again in an attempt to get a ratings increase even though it failed last time. Big Show will be pushed. Kane will be pushed. Just like last time. 

The injuries are very unfortunate, but the sad reality is that Cesaro wouldn't have been pushed anyway. That is why the ratings deserve to fall even more.


----------



## DoubtGin

Reigns, the ultimate underdog vs Sheamus, the top heel of the company, is obviously drawing a lot :ti

Can't believe they went with a babyface who isn't an underdog at all and shows no weaknesses and a heel no one really cares about

Equally hilarious how the Rollins fans seem to be on some kind of quest for revenge for enduring that much by making some snarky remarks about the better ratings during his reign.

It's obvious who has to come back: :bryan the last draw


----------



## Louaja89

Romans Empire said:


> This would have never happened if it wasn't for Rollins.


Who's the minority now ? :woolcock:woolcock


----------



## EireUnited

Tell your audience that everybody not named The Rock, Triple H or John Cena is absolutely shit for years, eventually they'll just accept it.

Remember when HHH said that only The Undertaker was worthy of even FACING him at Wrestlemania a few years ago? A non heel, non-full time wrestler actually went out and said that line, as a babyface, as the known future owner of the company. Really just think about that.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Didn't Daniel Bryan do like 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 million viewers ON Smackdown, whe he was exclusive to that show?


----------



## Romans Empire

Louaja89 said:


> Who's the minority now ? :woolcock:woolcock


Yea I know all the smarks need to realize that Rollins is the cause of the decline and if Reigns was champion we would easily see 4mil.


----------



## The True Believer

You know, it should be obvious by now that Wrestlemania season and a bit of the afterburn will be the biggest ratings for the year by default because WM is their big time event. And guess who happened to be champion around that time?

----------> :rollins

That's right. The "Ratings Killer" himself. And there's not doubt in my mind that Reigns will be in the exact same position when he's champion, which will coincide with the biggest ratings of the year. So before some of you are ready to throw a big parade for Reigns restoring the fanbase by being the biggest draw of all time, think about what Rollins was supposedly doing to the ratings in the same spot this time this year before ratings steadily went on the decline.

:sip


----------



## Stone Hot

WakeUpMuricah said:


> Only one man can save us now


TBH he is probably a huge reason why ratings are down cause theres no cena


----------



## PunkDrunk

Save us Roman.
Man is on fire with the crowd reactions, time to put the belt on him.
Fuck ratings anyway, the world is bigger than America, about time you yanks remember that.
American ratings is not the be all and end all, the Network is


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

StraightYesSociety said:


> Didn't Daniel Bryan do like 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 million viewers ON Smackdown, whe he was exclusive to that show?


Think so. Looks like the Smarks are the majority these days.


----------



## Badbadrobot

PunkDrunk said:


> Save us Roman.
> Man is on fire with the crowd reactions, time to put the belt on him.
> Fuck ratings anyway, the world is bigger than America, about time you yanks remember that.
> American ratings is not the be all and end all, the Network is




Keep taking the meds


----------



## Vox Machina

Stone Hot said:


> TBH he is probably a huge reason why ratings are down cause theres no cena


The ratings were up when Cena left.


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> Can we please have this move rechristened *The Ratings Drop*?


no cause he is not the reason for ratings dropping. You really need to let it goes and yes this is Coming From The Kid


----------



## The Boy Wonder

They are too commercial happy. I remember when only main events would get a commercial break. Sometimes there would be a break at the top of hour 2 for a big match. But lately they are taking commercial breaks for seemingly every match. If not that they will take a break right after an entrance. That just drives viewers away. With Nitro and RAW during the AE you never know what waa going to happen -- exciting things would happen at any part of the show. Fans now probably watch the opening segment and don't return until the last 5-10 mins.


----------



## Stone Hot

SUPERIOR said:


> Says the guy putting all the blame on Sheamus.
> 
> :sip


He is the champ. Its a default blaming


----------



## RatedR10

StraightYesSociety said:


> Didn't Daniel Bryan do like 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 million viewers ON Smackdown, whe he was exclusive to that show?


Are you really comparing Smackdown viewership to Raw viewership? Or is this a point that Bryan drew viewership on smaller networks that is close to 2015 Raw on a much bigger network?



Romans Empire said:


> This would have never happened if it wasn't for Rollins.


Yes, Rollins is the reason Reigns isn't over.

Yes, Rollins is the reason the fans resent Roman Reigns.

Yes, Rollins is the reason that Reigns represents everything the company wants, while the fans DON'T want Roman (as a face, at least), and the company still claims to "listen to the fans". 

Rollins is the reason. Get out. No one can blame Rollins for this shit. The product is fucking shit and it's getting the numbers it deserves because this company has the audacity to claim it listens to its fans and then turn around and shove Roman and Sheamus into the main event angle and have no heel turn at Survivor Series.

And don't even try to point at his crowd reaction last night as an indicator that he's over because that was the first time since The Shield split he's gotten a reaction anywhere near that level, and the night before he was being booed out of the building while he was crying in fucking Atlanta. So don't even try.

I'm not even blaming Roman. I'm blaming a senile old man who has no patience to let things happen organically so he sabotages his own product and ratings to attempt to prove himself right over the fans when he is so clearly out to lunch. The fans will never accept Roman as a top babyface before he turns heel and that's become evident.


----------



## PunkDrunk

Badbadrobot said:


> Keep taking the meds


Roman v HHH will draw yet the "ratings this time of the year always goes up" excuse will be branded about.
Roman got screwed at SS. ratings went down.
simple


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> SAVE_US. :bryan


lets hope but i feel the damage is already done and no one can save this


----------



## Romans Empire

SUPERIOR said:


> You know, it should be obvious by now that Wrestlemania season and a bit of the afterburn will be the biggest ratings for the year by default because WM is their big time event. And guess who happened to be champion around that time?
> 
> ----------> :rollins
> 
> That's right. The "Ratings Killer" himself. And there's not doubt in my mind that Reigns will be in the exact same position when he's champion, which will coincide with the biggest ratings of the year. So before some of you are ready to throw a big parade for Reigns restoring the fanbase by being the biggest draw of all time, think about what Rollins was supposedly doing to the ratings in the same spot this time this year before ratings steadily went on the decline.
> 
> :sip


Yep, I agree Roman will have the greatest ratings in a long time. It is all seth's fault and he should be a shamed mess.


----------



## PunkDrunk

RatedR10 said:


> Are you really comparing Smackdown viewership to Raw viewership? Or is this a point that Bryan drew viewership on smaller networks that is close to 2015 Raw on a much bigger network?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, Rollins is the reason Reigns isn't over.
> 
> Yes, Rollins is the reason the fans resent Roman Reigns.
> 
> Yes, Rollins is the reason that Reigns represents everything the company wants, while the fans DON'T want Roman (as a face, at least), and the company still claims to "listen to the fans".
> 
> Rollins is the reason. Get out. No one can blame Rollins for this shit. The product is fucking shit and it's getting the numbers it deserves because this company has the audacity to claim it listens to its fans and then turn around and shove Roman and Sheamus into the main event angle and have no heel turn at Survivor Series.
> 
> And don't even try to point at his crowd reaction last night as an indicator that he's over because that was the first time since The Shield split he's gotten a reaction anywhere near that level, and the night before he was being booed out of the building while he was crying in fucking Atlanta. So don't even try.


It is niot the first time he has had a huge reaction. That is a lie. Please dont lie. You compromise the integrity of the thread


----------



## StraightYesSociety

RatedR10 said:


> Are you really comparing Smackdown viewership to Raw viewership? Or is this a point that Bryan drew viewership on smaller networks that is close to 2015 Raw on a much bigger network?


That Bryan on Smackdown (the B show) drew numbers comparable to what Raw (the A show) is doing now.


----------



## The Tempest

PunkDrunk said:


> Roman v HHH will draw yet the "ratings this time of the year always goes up" excuse will be branded about.
> Roman got screwed at SS. ratings went down.
> simple


Stay delusional :evaloser


----------



## Blade Runner

Stone Hot said:


> TBH he is probably a huge reason why ratings are down cause theres no cena


I don't think that's it at all. There wasn't really any change to the ratings when Cena left for a few months after Summerslam 2013. Cena is not the type of draw nowadays that he might've been at one time in the prime of his career


----------



## RatedR10

PunkDrunk said:


> Roman v HHH will draw yet the "ratings this time of the year always goes up" excuse will be branded about.
> Roman got screwed at SS. ratings went down.
> simple


Or the guy the fans wanted to win, Ambrose, was relegated to making big brother Roman look strong!

Or maybe they wanted Kevin Owens to win but he was eliminated in the semis!

See how I can play that game?



PunkDrunk said:


> It is niot the first time he has had a huge reaction. That is a lie. Please dont lie. You compromise the integrity of the thread


Yes, in a thread where people are blaming a guy who is sitting at home with a knee injury for the ratings dropping I am compromising the integrity of this thread. I suggest you and the other Roman marks look in the mirror if you want to see who is "compromising the integrity of the thread."


----------



## birthday_massacre

StraightYesSociety said:


> Didn't Daniel Bryan do like 2.6, 2.8 and 2.9 million viewers ON Smackdown, whe he was exclusive to that show?


2.6-2.9 is great for being on syfy network as compared to being the same ratings on USA network that reaches more homes. 
Not to mention SD is a taped show and raw is live and almost always had lower ratings because of that.


----------



## RatedR10

StraightYesSociety said:


> That Bryan on Smackdown (the B show) drew numbers comparable to what Raw (the A show) is doing now.


That makes sense. Completely agree. Bryan is the biggest ratings draw the company has had in the past 2 - 3 years. Every segment he touched saw viewership increase when we got those segment breakdowns, and every hour he headed had strong numbers. The only one who came close to drawing ratings like he did was The Shield when they turned face and even then, they couldn't touch Bryan.

Marks who think we need a tall, muscled up guy in the main event will disagree but the numbers don't lie.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Only thing that can 'SAVE US' is an 'Attitude Era' like change in product. 

Don't mean bra and panties and Jerry Springer shit, I'm just talking about a huge change in what they do. They need to re-build how they present the show.

New Commentators.

No scripted promos.

Push who is over.

Turn fuckers heel.

Stop the Barney the Dinosaur storylines.

Change up the format of the shows.

Focus on belts and wins, stop 50/50 booking.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> The entire roster was also a problem during Rollins' reign and the ratings never slipped this far. This is nothing new. :shrug


No but unfortunately it started when he was champion. You could say His over the top booking lit the fire to the ratings decline


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> No but unfortunately it started when he was champion. You could say His over the top booking lit the fire to the ratings decline


No, ratings have been slipping even before that. But it certainly continued with him and now without him.


----------



## Krispenwah

Stone Hot said:


> TBH he is probably a huge reason why ratings are down cause theres no cena


Ratings were in the floor even when Cena was there so no.


----------



## Vox Machina

The product is absolutely garbage, and the roster being depleted is also a big reason, but if the ratings aren't proof that Sheamus shouldn't be champion, I don't know what is.


----------



## PunkDrunk

RatedR10 said:


> That makes sense. Completely agree. Bryan is the biggest ratings draw the company has had in the past 2 - 3 years. Every segment he touched saw viewership increase when we got those segment breakdowns, and every hour he headed had strong numbers. The only one who came close to drawing ratings like he did was The Shield when they turned face and even then, they couldn't touch Bryan.
> 
> Marks who think we need a tall, muscled up guy in the main event will disagree but the numbers don't lie.


This also didnt happen. Bryans raw ratings sucked.
Please stop this incessant lying


----------



## Badbadrobot

PunkDrunk said:


> Roman v HHH will draw yet the "ratings this time of the year always goes up" excuse will be branded about.
> Roman got screwed at SS. ratings went down.
> simple


Delusional just delusional


----------



## RatedR10

Whoever is blaming Rollins for beginning this needs to go back and look at the ratings for the Road to Wrestlemania this year. They were in the 2.7 - 2.9 range. In case you didn't know, that's horrible for Wrestlemania. So just stop.


----------



## Romans Empire

Stone Hot said:


> No but unfortunately it started when he was champion. You could say His over the top booking lit the fire to the ratings decline


Yeah, Big fat dick neck Rollins just fucking sucks just going to put that out there. No1 normal wanted to see a fat dick neck running around with the championship. Roman will continue to be pushed till he has his proper title reign for the fans bitching for that means they will need to wait more and more for inferior talents such as cesaro or dean ambrose to get in the title picture. It is not happening till Roman has his proper win. What happened to the smarks that booed reigns? Another WM 32 with reigns as the main event. Deal with it after this WM when he gets cheered for defeating brock of john cena to become the new top face then ur smark favorites MIGHT have a chance to be booked strong. Till then this is Roman's time. God has made that clear with all the injuries and talent missing. It is about time too.


----------



## Stone Hot

PunkDrunk said:


> Save us Roman.
> Man is on fire with the crowd reactions, time to put the belt on him.
> Fuck ratings anyway, the world is bigger than America, about time you yanks remember that.
> American ratings is not the be all and end all, the Network is


Another excellent point


----------



## Stone Hot

Soul Cat said:


> The ratings were up when Cena left.


And now they are really down when he is not here. Just saying I would love to blame cena


----------



## Vox Machina

Stone Hot said:


> Another excellent point


A terrible point, actually. Television still draws. In fact, we're in a golden age of television. Streaming hasn't changed that.


----------



## OwenSES

Soul Cat said:


> The product is absolutely garbage, and the roster being depleted is also a big reason, but if the ratings aren't proof that Sheamus shouldn't be champion, I don't know what is.


I think that's unfair on Sheamus. He hasn't received nearly the same buildup or tv time as Rollins or Reigns has. He wasn't even on TV last week and then got pinned by Ryback an hour before he won the title!!!!


----------



## Stone Hot

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I don't think that's it at all. There wasn't really any change to the ratings when Cena left for a few months after Summerslam 2013. Cena is not the type of draw nowadays that he might've been at one time in the prime of his career


Good. We Cena nuff


----------



## SnapOrTap

This thread has more buys and draws than the current product.


Sad times.


----------



## InsipidTazz

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



ShowStopper said:


> You were right, man. And in a big, big, embarrassing way for WWE.


Both. And the writers. And Vince. And everyone else involved with this fucking shit "product".


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> No, ratings have been slipping even before that. But it certainly continued with him and now without him.


This company needs a re boot like many have said. Trust me I know I'm a hard ass but this is a kick in the ass Vince and creative need.


----------



## PunkDrunk

Badbadrobot said:


> Delusional just delusional


or not. How about that?
Ill tell you what the WWE will do, theyll tank these ratings and take raw off the syndicate.
Theyll then rent a 2 hour "advertising space" simulcast on a cable channel with the third hour on the network (or some form of this) and create an absolute fortune for themselves.
Pokerstars used to do this back in the day before new regualtions killed its television presence and it worked 100x better than this analgue ratings shit thats stuck in the 60s in America.
You make a shit load of more money by selling advertisement space and still have the exposure. Maybe ESPN or somebody would pick it up. Imagine being paid to show WWE programming. Who would say no?
Its all about the network, its the future. Netflix will take over outdated television channels and be the daddy of entertainment. The Network will do the same for Vince.
Theyre 10000 steps ahead of you son.
But yeah, .93 etc etc while hes shitting out hundred dollar bills.


----------



## RyanPelley

Man, Rollins killed the ratings again last night. Right, fuccbois?


----------



## Stone Hot

Romans Empire said:


> Yeah, Big fat dick neck Rollins just fucking sucks just going to put that out there. No1 normal wanted to see a fat dick neck running around with the championship. Roman will continue to be pushed till he has his proper title reign for the fans bitching for that means they will need to wait more and more for inferior talents such as cesaro or dean ambrose to get in the title picture. It is not happening till Roman has his proper win. What happened to the smarks that booed reigns? Another WM 32 with reigns as the main event. Deal with it after this WM when he gets cheered for defeating brock of john cena to become the new top face then ur smark favorites MIGHT have a chance to be booked strong. Till then this is Roman's time. God has made that clear with all the injuries and talent missing. It is about time too.


Ok stop your making Reigns fans look bad this statements like this. You can be a fan but don't be over the top with it with comments like this


----------



## T0M

:lmao

That is all.


----------



## Vox Machina

PunkDrunk said:


> or not. How about that?
> Ill tell you what the WWE will do, theyll tank these ratings and take raw off the syndicate.
> Theyll then rent a 2 hour "advertising space" simulcast on a cable channel with the third hour on the network (or some form of this) and create an absolute fortune for themselves.
> Pokerstars used to do this back in the day before new regualtions killed its television presence and it worked 100x better than this analgue ratings shit thats stuck in the 60s in America.
> You make a shit load of more money by selling advertisement space and still have the exposure. Maybe ESPN or somebody would pick it up. Imagine being paid to show WWE programming. Who would say no?
> Its all about the network, its the future. Netflix will take over outdated television channels and be the daddy of entertainment. The Network will do the same for Vince.
> Theyre 10000 steps ahead of you son.
> But yeah, .93 etc etc while hes shitting out hundred dollar bills.


On-demand streaming will one day overtake television. It isn't this year, or next year, or the year after that. Not even close, actually.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Hey Road Dogg, telling people to go watch Lucha Underground and ROH wasn't such a good idea after all eh :ha*


----------



## Stone Hot

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*



NoleDynasty2490 said:


> Seriously. What in the hell was that? Take into account a big MNF game that's been close the whole way, and I don't see how it isn't another record low rating.


:clap you called this OP


----------



## Yashamaga

You mean this guy isn't drawing as the world champ?!


:-0


----------



## PunkDrunk

Soul Cat said:


> On-demand streaming will one day overtake television. It isn't this year, or next year, or the year after that. Not even close, actually.


Of course its close. I live in Ireland. Do you think I was watching Breaking Bad on AMC? The worldwide hit with what? 5m viewers in America?
Netflix is worldwide son


----------



## Crewz

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

RAW is getting worse every week so the ratings will continue to decline. If WWE doesn't care, the fans have no reason to care.


----------



## Romans Empire

Stone Hot said:


> Ok stop your making Reigns fans look bad this statements like this. You can be a fan but don't be over the top with it with comments like this


What was over the top about it? It is the truth the truth reigns.


----------



## Vox Machina

PunkDrunk said:


> Of course its close. I live in Ireland. Do you think I was watching Breaking Bad on AMC? The worldwide hit with what? 5m viewers in America?
> Netflix is worldwide son


Streaming services help shows branch out to different countries for a wider audience. It hasn't grossly affected viewership on television. You could argue it's helped with television viewership because the internet word of mouth from Netflix and Hulu helps put fresh eyes on the program. Television will not be _replaced_ for a long time.


----------



## Brock

The company are just so set in their ways and hellbent on 'Our way or the highway'. It really is like it or lump it.

They don't do skits anymore, character development is a dirty concept. Stories are one dimensional. Twists and turns are too much effort, either they see them and don't want to risk it or are just too fucking dim, which given the people there, surely can't be true.

The only reason to watch is the talent in the ring, as i said in another thread, the actual feuds get forgotten, it's just the matches that we can really enjoy and remember, which is fine to look back on and watch them again, but it needs more than that to keep us watching.


----------



## Robbyfude

That's what they get. They think they can super push one person at a time and just feed the rest of the roster to said person. Knew that formula was going to be their downfall. And then theres jobbing out the midcard, like fucking the Wyatt family losing to two 40 year olds, yea Kane and Taker are going to be here for another 15 years amirite?


----------



## spinningedge

For the first time since 1997 - RAW last night had under 3 millions viewers (on a non holiday show).

They drew just a 2.16 rating - which is a pretty decent drop from their already previous bad ratings from past weeks.

Last night was the least watched RAW in almost 20 years. If that doesn't send a signal to WWE, I'm not sure if things will ever change.

Sheamus responded to this and said "I don't draw, fella!". Okay, maybe I made that last part up.


----------



## PunkDrunk

Soul Cat said:


> Streaming services help shows branch out to different countries for a wider audience. It hasn't grossly affected viewership on television. You could argue it's helped with television viewership because the internet word of mouth from Netflix and Hulu helps put fresh eyes on the program. Television will not be _replaced_ for a long time.


Not replaced. Overtaken.
Netflix reaches a far wider audience than the likes of HBO ever could due to the simple fact that nobody outside of America can watch the freaking thing.
You try being head of a British TV channel who wants to buy the rights of Breaking Bad. A show that, as soon as its aired, everyone has already seen through torrents or streaming sites. What do you think the ratings will be for that?
Again there is a whole world out there outside of America.
Sports TV rights are going through the roof. Do you know why? Its a live show. A show with a trapped and guarenteed fanbase that doesn't suffer from what I've already mentioned.
Thats how TV is being effected.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*










*FAMOUS LAST WORDS :ha*


----------



## thegockster

Wristlock don't draw :fact


----------



## WesternFilmGuy

PunkDrunk said:


> Not replaced. Overtaken.
> Netflix reaches a far wider audience than the likes of HBO ever could due to the simple fact that nobody outside of America can watch the freaking thing.
> You try being head of a British TV channel who wants to buy the rights of Breaking Bad. A show that, as soon as its aired, everyone has already seen through torrents or streaming sites. What do you think the ratings will be for that?
> Again there is a whole world out there outside of America.
> Sports TV rights are going through the roof. Do you know why? Its a live show. A show with a trapped and guarenteed fanbase that doesn't suffer from what I've already mentioned.
> Thats how TV is being effected.


And yet a show like Family Guy gets 2 mil viewers each night on Adult Swim. Syndication is still a popular option. Even if you can watch the whole show on a streaming site, sometimes you still sit down and watch the show on TV. I know I do.


----------



## The RainMaker

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Never hated being right so much.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

The fact that Roman is the only face being pushed, Reigns fans can't defend him against this rating. If you don't like Roman, you have no other options to cheer for. WWE did this to themselves.


----------



## Born of Osiris

PunkDrunk said:


> Not replaced. Overtaken.
> Netflix reaches a far wider audience than the likes of HBO ever could due to the simple fact that nobody outside of America can watch the freaking thing.
> You try being head of a British TV channel who wants to buy the rights of Breaking Bad. A show that, as soon as its aired, everyone has already seen through torrents or streaming sites. What do you think the ratings will be for that?
> Again there is a whole world out there outside of America.
> Sports TV rights are going through the roof. Do you know why? Its a live show. A show with a trapped and guarenteed fanbase that doesn't suffer from what I've already mentioned.
> Thats how TV is being effected.


It's amazing how much like the deluded TNA fanboys you sound :Jordan amazing and sad.


----------



## Romans Empire

TheLooseCanon said:


> The fact that Roman is the only face being pushed, Reigns fans can't defend him against this rating. If you don't like Roman, you have no other options to cheer for. WWE did this to themselves.


I am happy Reigns is the only big face being pushed screw all the others they don't draw in besides little smark crowds.


----------



## Krispenwah

own1997 said:


> Didn't they have Cena, Orton, Reigns and even Brock? Right now, they have nobody bar Reigns.


There was also a show featuring a lot of legends plus all these guys and the ratings still dropped.

No one can save this shit.... Maybe... BRING BACK CM PUNK.... O wait.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

What a great day.

:drose


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Once again CM PUNK>WWE. They need him, so funny.


----------



## Yashamaga

Romans Empire said:


> I am happy Reigns is the only big face being pushed screw all the others they don't draw in besides little smark crowds.


...



:austin3




...

Did you not hear that Roman just drew the lowest rating ever?


----------



## capatisdumb

can romans empire and loudon wainright be banned already their posts suck


----------



## GAD247

"Who looks stupid now?" :vince7


----------



## PunkDrunk

Ultimate Gohan said:


> It's amazing how much like the deluded TNA fanboys you sound :Jordan amazing and sad.


Nobody gives two fucks about ratings. If Television isnt putting them under pressure and Vince is making his 10+million a month from the Network then why should he give a fuck? 
In fact the TV network have freaking picked up Smackdown. Yeah theyre worried alright.
Are there any reports of the TV network being worried about ratings? 
Ill let you answer that buddy


----------



## Romans Empire

Yashamaga said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> :austin3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Did you not hear that Roman just drew the lowest rating ever?


You are mistaking that with Seth Rollins as he is the start of the never ending decline. Until Roman is the champion the ratings will go back up.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yashamaga said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> :austin3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Did you not hear that Roman just drew the lowest rating ever?


:mj4


----------



## TheLooseCanon

:vince$

Ratings come in:

:vince7


----------



## Stone Hot

Yashamaga said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> :austin3
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...
> 
> Did you not hear that Roman just drew the lowest rating ever?


So did Sheamus (the champion) so did Rusev (mid carder) so did Barrett Jobber. 


Oh lets not forget Owens was in the last hour and so was Ambrose. :draper2


----------



## RaheemRollins

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

I've watched every RAW and PPV since WM27.. 

Haven't missed one.. Punk drew me to the product. 

Cm Punk left.. Rollins and The Shield kept me interested.. 

Rollins and Owens have kept me interested the last few months despite Owens being stuck with Ryback and Rollins being booked like a bitch. 

I'm going to skip RAW until the Rumble now.. I'll probably watch TLC but that's it. 

NXT is far superior now, last night's RAW was the worst I can ever remember.


----------



## Londrick

Fans are really buying into Roman as the top face :lmao


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Anti-Reigns (AKA, The Majority) be like:









Take that fucking :lose WWE.


----------



## Stone Hot

Look at the end of the day WWE will never go out of business,Reigns will always be a top guy, and wwe will still push regardless. 

He is not going away until the day he retires. I can sleep easy at night, can you?


Believe That! He will be champ soon :reigns2


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Badbadrobot said:


> Seriously all of you give it a rest
> 
> It not a wrestlers fault
> 
> It's the fucking product overall period
> 
> And that is much more worrying


Little bit of both, I think. Crappy booking, moronic story lines, and too many guys that are just too green for the kinds of pushes they're getting. Ya got a bunch of decent workers who would kill for a push but are buried in house show hell. But yeah, as a fan, it's very worrying.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

TheLooseCanon said:


> Once again CM PUNK>WWE. They need him, so funny.


This just happened to the ratings:


----------



## Stone Hot

SHIV said:


> This just happened to the ratings:


Yea they will drop even more if he comes back :ha


----------



## Badbadrobot

Stone Hot said:


> Look at the end of the day WWE will never go out of business,Reigns will always be a top guy, and wwe will still push regardless.
> 
> He is not going away until the day he retires. I can sleep easy at night, can you?
> 
> 
> Believe That! He will be champ soon :reigns2


You may want to look up how businesses go out of business and billionaires lose their money ...


----------



## TheLooseCanon

SHIV said:


> This just happened to the ratings:


Fucking love that shit. Wonder why a WWE wrestler hasn't stole that yet? Oh yeah because they are not man enough like Suzuki.


----------



## Stone Hot

Badbadrobot said:


> You may want to look up how businesses go out of business and billionaires lose their money ...


Not any time soon I should say. 


WWE will be around for at least 10-15 more years


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Stone Hot said:


> Yea they will drop even more if he comes back :ha


Come on now. Punk will always be more relevant than Fabio.


----------



## Stone Hot

TheLooseCanon said:


> Come on now. Punk will always be more relevant than Fabio.


Hey leave Tyler Breeze alone he is just getting started on the main roster.


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> I said this in the other thread but its obviously because Roman isn't champion. When it comes down to it they made a huge mistake with WM 31 that would affect them in the long run. It is all Seth's fault. They should have gave Roman the belt. But smarks attended and guess what smarks WM 32 is going to be built around Roman again and if that doesn't work out. WM 33 will be built around Roman till he has his true title reign he deserves. The more you delay Roman's time the more any other superstar smark favorite gets delayed. That is the truth because the truth reigns. Either way though I win because I am a fan of someone that has extreme talent over the whole roster.


Your both my most hated as well as favorite poster here. You suck and your amazing at the same time. Lol. Your like a parody account. RAW was built around Romans revenge. He main evented. Worst rating ever. Deal with it!!!


----------



## Yashamaga

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Road Dogg doing his best Tony Schiavone impression 17 years later


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

SUPERIOR said:


> And there's not doubt in my mind that Reigns will be in the exact same position when he's champion, which will coincide with the biggest ratings of the year. So before some of you are ready to throw a big parade for Reigns restoring the fanbase by being the biggest draw of all time, think about what Rollins was supposedly doing to the ratings in the same spot this time this year before ratings steadily went on the decline.
> 
> :sip


*Oh no, we're WAYYY past that point. Since the last 10 pages have directly blamed Roman for the decline despite not being champion and not taking up 40 minutes of the show with 8 unbearable segments, any increase shall be accredited to him and solely him. Roman will be declared the savior of the company with the inevitable Wrestlemania boost.*


----------



## tboneangle

SHIV said:


> *Roman 2:16 *says The ratings just whipped our ass. :reigns2


I can't rep you for this!!! I already ripped you. But this made me laugh out load at work


PLEASE make
A meme of that and quote me. I need to put that in my Facebook. Your my new fav poster here


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SUPERIOR said:


> You know, it should be obvious by now that Wrestlemania season and a bit of the afterburn will be the biggest ratings for the year by default because WM is their big time event. And guess who happened to be champion around that time?
> 
> ----------> :rollins
> 
> That's right. The "Ratings Killer" himself. And there's not doubt in my mind that Reigns will be in the exact same position when he's champion, which will coincide with the biggest ratings of the year. So before some of you are ready to throw a big parade for Reigns restoring the fanbase by being the biggest draw of all time, think about what Rollins was supposedly doing to the ratings in the same spot this time this year before ratings steadily went on the decline.
> 
> :sip



Yep. This is how they wanted it during Bryan's RTWM at WM 30; and more recently Rollins title run. This is how they wanted it despite us warning them that it would be much uglier when the shoe is on the other foot. :shrug

Funny thing is ratings during Bryans and Rollins run were never THIS bad, so it actually is deserved; no trolling.


----------



## Randy Lahey

PunkDrunk said:


> or not. How about that?
> Ill tell you what the WWE will do, theyll tank these ratings and take raw off the syndicate.
> Theyll then rent a 2 hour "advertising space" simulcast on a cable channel with the third hour on the network (or some form of this) and create an absolute fortune for themselves.
> Pokerstars used to do this back in the day before new regualtions killed its television presence and it worked 100x better than this analgue ratings shit thats stuck in the 60s in America.
> You make a shit load of more money by selling advertisement space and still have the exposure. Maybe ESPN or somebody would pick it up. Imagine being paid to show WWE programming. Who would say no?
> Its all about the network, its the future. Netflix will take over outdated television channels and be the daddy of entertainment. The Network will do the same for Vince.
> Theyre 10000 steps ahead of you son.
> But yeah, .93 etc etc while hes shitting out hundred dollar bills.


If WWE cant get people to watch their show (which is FREE) on mondays, why would they expect anyone to sign up for WWE network?

Bad TV ratings equate to low interest. Low interest means the WWE network numbers will slide too.

WWE is doing worse numbers now than when WCW went out of business, and they dont even have any competition. Wrestling is dead. Its going to go off of cable TV when the next TV contract is up (unless USA cancels it before). Raw will end up on the Network, and then it'll be even more of a niche product than what it already is.


----------



## Romans Empire

tboneangle said:


> Your both my most hated as well as favorite poster here. You suck and your amazing at the same time. Lol. Your like a parody account. RAW was built around Romans revenge. He main evented. Worst rating ever. Deal with it!!!


The ratings decline is because of the fat neck Rollins. Reigns is trying to recover it but he can't because he isn't champion fucking the celtic cum is.


----------



## Trifektah

FUCKING BAFFLING

How do you look at those steadily dropping ratings and NOT completely revamp your entire fucking product? Put the title on Ambrose, let him loose. He has the potential to be an ATTRACTION. Get rid of the fucking Authority. How do you just KEEP REDOING SHIT THAT DIDN'T WORK IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!?!

Fucking give up on the Roman Reigns Project. Turn that fucker heel, let him earn his reactions, let the fans turn him face when they are ready to accept him. Stop ramming the boring fucker down our throats. 

Why do they keep neutering the Wyatts!!?!?? They should be the top heel faction in the company. I mean wtf is going on in those creative meetings?

*TRY SOMETHING NEW YOU STUPID ASSHOLES!*

"WE HAVE A HEEL AUTHORITY-ALIGNED CHAMPION! RATINGS ARE DROPPING!! WHAT DO WE DO?? GET A NEW HEEL AUTHORITY CHAMPION AND JUST REDO THE EXACT SAME STORY!!!"

Who thinks like that!?!?!


----------



## Erik.

:lol :lol :lol

Classic


----------



## The True Believer

Legit BOSS said:


> *Oh no, we're WAYYY past that point. Since the last 10 pages have directly blamed Roman for the decline despite not being champion and not taking up 40 minutes of the show with 8 unbearable segments, any increase shall be accredited to him and solely him. Roman will be declared the savior of the company with the inevitable Wrestlemania boost.*


Are we? Sheamus is getting his fair share of blame as far as I can tell. But let's not kid ourselves here. So many people in this company are either injured or irrelevant and the two people the WWE is running with to keep audience interest is Sheamus and Roman Reigns and we couldn't even get a post-PPV ratings bump for a PPV where a new champion was guaranteed to be crowned. This is Reigns vs. The Authority with Sheamus in a leading role of his own. Reigns can be the #2 merch seller all he wants, which is an overinflated statistic that doesn't expand upon how much he sells in comparison to everyone else, and over with more crowds than not on a weekly basis but the hard truth of the matter is that he's not drawing right now, either. The anti-indy brigade are running thin on excuses.


----------



## JTB33b

I hope Pittsburgh doesn't disappoint us next week. During Roman and Sheamus segments I want to hear 2.16 chants and save us Bryan chants.


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, I guess Rollins is the reason why Roman got no reaction when he won the title at SS, too.
> 
> unkout
> 
> And the reason why ratings have been falling for years and just continue to, now even with him gone.
> 
> WHAT A GREAT DAY.
> 
> :mark:


Your massive enjoyment out of this is making me :banderas :lol.


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> The ratings decline is because of the fat neck Rollins. Reigns is trying to recover it but he can't because he isn't champion fucking the celtic cum is.


Rollins as champ had higher ratings tho. And his neck isn't fat. So you just lied. TWICE


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

tboneangle said:


> I can't rep you for this!!! I already ripped you. But this made me laugh out load at work
> 
> 
> PLEASE make
> A meme of that and quote me. I need to put that in my Facebook. Your my new fav poster here



Thank you. @KO Bossy made this one. http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/1534058-funny-wrestling-pictures-v-565.html#post54485434


----------



## Romans Empire

JTB33b said:


> I hope Pittsburgh doesn't disappoint us next week. During Roman and Sheamus segments I want to hear 2.16 chants and save us Bryan chants.


They will cheer Roman because everyone normal likes roman besides the minority.


----------



## Stone Hot

JTB33b said:


> I hope Pittsburgh doesn't disappoint us next week. During Roman and Sheamus segments I want to hear *2.16 chants* and save us Bryan chants.


lol people aren't looking into it as much as we are doing. Doubt the majority of people going to raw read this site.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

SUPERIOR said:


> Are we? Sheamus is getting his fair share of blame as far as I can tell. But let's not kid ourselves here. So many people in this company are either injured or irrelevant and the two people the WWE is running with to keep audience interest is Sheamus and Roman Reigns and we couldn't even get a post-PPV ratings bump for a PPV where a new champion was guaranteed to be crowned. This is Reigns vs. The Authority with Sheamus in a leading role of his own. Reigns can be the #2 merch seller all he wants, which is an overinflated statistic that doesn't expand upon how much he sells in comparison to everyone else, and over with more crowds than not on a weekly basis but the hard truth of the matter is that he's not drawing right now, either. The anti-indy brigade are running thin on excuses.


*And I'm not making excuses for anything. I've blamed the mediocre product since the day I got here and you know that. That's why I want Vince Russo back in the first place. NO ONE is a draw. We need a MINIMUM of 5 strong guys at the top of the card to keep things fresh. I want protection and strong booking for the people who matter most, but you've got clowns running around wanting everyone to be pussified weak underdogs who lose all the time. "WAAA WE CAN'T RELATE, HE ALWAYZ WINZ!!!" No wonder they defended Seth's WOAT title reign.*


----------



## tboneangle

SHIV said:


> Thank you. @KO Bossy made this one. http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/1534058-funny-wrestling-pictures-v-565.html#post54485434


----------



## Romans Empire

tboneangle said:


> Rollins as champ had higher ratings tho. And his neck isn't fat. So you just lied. TWICE


Rollins is the reason for the decline but the celtic cum is just overall worse choice than rollins. Also Rollins neck is as thick and fat as fuck his neck is the majority of his head.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

At the end of the day, there isn't any direct competition for WWE, so as the far and away top dog of a very niche product, they'll never face real trouble. Added to the fact that Network Subscriptions are still fine AND they have guaranteed money coming in from the USA Network for the next few years, they have no incentive to use 1 of their 2 brain cells to create a decent product.


----------



## Bret Hart

:lmao This shit rating makes up for the shitty programming.


----------



## The True Believer

Legit BOSS said:


> *And I'm not making excuses for anything. I've blamed the mediocre product since the day I got here and you know that. That's why I want Vince Russo back in the first place. NO ONE is a draw. We need a MINIMUM of 5 strong guys at the top of the card to keep things fresh. I want protection and strong booking for the people who matter most, but you've got clowns running around wanting everyone to be a pussified weak underdog who lose all the time. "WAAA WE CAN'T RELATE, HE ALWAYZ WINZ!!!" No wonder they defended Seth's WOAT title reign.*


To be honest with you, they actually didn't do much wrong with Reigns from what I read online. Looks like all he did was come out, briefly tell Sheamus he wants a rematch, took a dig at Triple H and then later, got the best of Rusev and Barrett and told Sheamus to get back and fight. No sappy ass poems and shit about how sad he feels and how he's gonna climb the mountain and all that crap. Just short and simple dialogue. This is what we should've gotten all along if they wanted him to be a face but all we've been getting lately is disingenuously underdog narratives crammed down our throats. But the sad thing is, even if they did book him "right", there's just no mass appeal to babyface Reigns right now. We should've gotten a heel turn from him and maybe then, the ratings wouldn't have plummeted to such pathetic levels with Sheamus leading the charge off a cliff.


----------



## Stone Hot

Reigns booking is fine so he is not to blame. Its the booking around him and the booking of other stars.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Reigns booking is fine so he is not to blame. Its the booking around him and the booking of other stars.


Reigns booking is not fine. He shouldn't be a face. Lots of people don't want to see that, as we can see. It has nothing to do with "others."

Some will truly never get it.


----------



## JTB33b

Sheamus in the main event is bad. Reigns in the main event is bad. Sheamus vs Reigns in the main event is a disaster.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

SUPERIOR said:


> To be honest with you, they actually didn't do much wrong with Reigns from what I read online. Looks like all he did was come out, briefly tell Sheamus he wants a rematch, took a dig at Triple H and then later, got the best of Rusev and Barrett and told Sheamus to get back and fight. No sappy ass poems and shit about how sad he feels and how he's gonna climb the mountain and all that crap. Just short and simple dialogue. This is what we should've gotten all along if they wanted him to be a face but all we've been getting lately is disingenuously underdog narratives crammed down our throats. But the sad thing is, even if they did book him "right", there's just no mass appeal to babyface Reigns right now. We should've gotten a heel turn from him and maybe then, the ratings wouldn't have plummeted to such pathetic levels with Sheamus leading the charge off a cliff.


*
Yeah, even though he's a face, Roman was booked correctly, and last night's reaction was very similar to when he was at his hottest last summer:*





*The problem is that with all the injuries, Vince just put a bunch of jobbers that people forgot even had a job on the show last night with no real direction. If he had been building his entire roster like Russo did in the Attitude Era, this wouldn't even be an issue. Now, you've got a champion no one cares about, and a largely disappointed fanbase that there was no swerve at the PPV, so they saw no reason to watch.*


----------



## Romans Empire

Stone Hot said:


> Reigns booking is fine so he is not to blame. Its the booking around him and the booking of other stars.


Yeah, I am perfectly fine on how Reigns is. He is the badass the punches mouths and takes names. The samoan big dog underdog in the tournament and emerged victorious against all odds until an avalanche of celtic cum tossed him off that mountain and now he needs to work his way back up and defy the odds once again against 3 people taking cheap shots at him. So far this is turning out to be my favorite story.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

Not sure how far back I have to look, but it's now REALLY close to 1 mill range? WWE fucked up, plain and simple. They had GOLD in their hands, and they didn't use that gold to create more gold, they simply let it slip right out their hands.

DB and Punk I'm speaking of. Still think Owens should be bigger than he is atm off of EC. damn, such a shame. And then you're gonna tell me Cena needed to beat Owens who was MAD HOT, just to now leave him hanging with the IC title and Cena taking time off? fpalm I just don't know.

There are so many factors to this slump it's unreal.


----------



## RiC David

It should be painfully obvious by now that the low ratings aren't a result of their champion/choice of top face/heel.

There's so much that's so lacklustre (or flat out bad) about the shows, especially when watched in their entirety week after week. Changing the captain isn't going to stop the Titanic going down once the iceberg's hit.


----------



## Bret Hart

Legit BOSS said:


> *And I'm not making excuses for anything. I've blamed the mediocre product since the day I got here and you know that. That's why I want Vince Russo back in the first place. NO ONE is a draw. We need a MINIMUM of 5 strong guys at the top of the card to keep things fresh. I want protection and strong booking for the people who matter most, but you've got clowns running around wanting everyone to be pussified weak underdogs who lose all the time. "WAAA WE CAN'T RELATE, HE ALWAYZ WINZ!!!" No wonder they defended Seth's WOAT title reign.*


Indeed, we've always had a few strong stars.

Taker, Bret, Michaels, Austin, Mankind (sort of)

Rock, Austin, Taker, Kane, HHH, Mankind (again sort of, he was always up there)

Rock, Austin, HHH, Kurt Angle, Undertaker, Benoit (sort of), Rikishi was booked strong for a while as well and Kane was still a 'top' name, Cactus Jack etc etc. 

Right now?

Reigns, Cena?, Orton?, 

Two of the 'strong' stars are missing which only leaves you Reigns and Reigns can't do shit alone when there's no other strong stars and the creative and Vince are at their all time low. 

Rollins was a main-eventer but was never 'strong'.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JTB33b said:


> Sheamus in the main event is bad. Reigns in the main event is bad. Sheamus vs Reigns in the main event is a disaster.


That and the underdog face crap that we've had crammed down our throats for 10 years. Wrong place, wrong time for Reigns. It's not his fault, but he's at the wrong place at the wrong time with that character. Turn him heel and everything will be fine. Leave him as a face and they are going to continue to be in trouble. It's all up to WWE.


----------



## dougfisher_05

Man if there was ever a fucking time for another company to hit Monday nights with wrestling it's now. Jesus fuck, I've called it the great ratings decline of 2015, but I never thought it would sink below 3 million average viewers. 

Vince needs to wake the fuck up and completely shake up the production. It is unfortunate that he won't.

More than 1 million people have tuned out from last year. One. Million. Fucking. Viewers. Gone.


----------



## The XL

Some of this is probably because Sheamus has the belt. But he's in the same spot Rollins was in before, taking Ls all the time and being booked like a glorified midcard geek. It isn't their fault, Cena, Hogan, Goldberg, Warrior, Nash, Austin, Batista, etc, would all have had their drawing power killed after being booked like that, so to place blame on Rollins or in this case, Sheamus, is ludicrous. Roman Reigns, on the other hand, has some of the most protective booking EVER and this whole angle is centered around him, Sheamus is just a prop and everyone knows it.

Face it, the ratings are mostly on Reigns and WWE creative. I don't think this roster is all that talented, but the fact remains that they've never been put in a position to draw or get over because they're booked like midcard geeks and jobbers. Creative has cut the legs off everyone and only protected Reigns, who happens to be one of their most limited and boring performers. It's on Reigns and creative


----------



## Oakue

They cannot compete with Monday Night Football, and it doesn't help any that at the same time they are putting on a terrible product.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Reigns booking is not fine. He shouldn't be a face. Lots of people don't want to see that, as we can see. It has nothing to do with "others."
> 
> Some will truly never get it.


Thats not true because there is a lot of people who want to see him face more so than others. #2Merch seller says it all. 


Sheamus (cause I cant go back on that) and the booking of shows and other stars are to blame. And creative and Vince. 


Trust me I want him heel too, but theres just a lot who doesnt


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Thats not true because there is a lot of people who want to see him face more so than others. #Merch seller says it all.
> 
> 
> Sheamus (cause I cant go back on that) and the booking of shows and other stars are to blame. And creative and Vince.
> 
> 
> Trust me I want him heel too, but theres just a lot who doesnt


Then why aren't they watching him on Raw? Rollins is gone. He is now the focus of the show, the top face, no Cena, no Rollins, no Orton. Now is his time, yet they are tuning out in record droves. This isn't the first time in the last few weeks an hour of Raw slipped under 3 million, either, let's not forget that. Top face is the top face.


----------



## Romans Empire

Stone Hot said:


> Thats not true because there is a lot of people who want to see him face more so than others. #Merch seller says it all.
> 
> 
> Sheamus (cause I cant go back on that) and the booking of shows and other stars are to blame. And creative and Vince.
> 
> 
> Trust me I want him heel too, but theres just a lot who doesnt


 I bought his shirt for 25 dollars and I don't want him heel yet he needs to be face and emerge victorious overcoming all the odds against him.


----------



## Bret Hart

Ah, if TNA hadn't gone to the shits they would have benefited from this WWE slump a lot!


----------



## Kabraxal

If only LU could land a bigger network... I mean, pulling 100000 on El Rey is impressive. IMagine if they had a network people knew about. We could have that competition finally.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

:gameover *Me too Russo, me too :sasha3*


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> Rollins is the reason for the decline but the celtic cum is just overall worse choice than rollins. Also Rollins neck is as thick and fat as fuck his neck is the majority of his head.


If we didn't live In a pussified PC world I would threaten you with violence. 

So Rollins being better ratings as champ than we are now. Means it's his fault? Hmmmmmm.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Then why aren't they watching him on Raw? Rollins is gone. He is now the focus of the show, the top face, no Cena, no Rollins, no Orton. Now is his time, yet they are tuning out in record droves. This isn't the first time in the last few weeks an hour of Raw slipped under 3 million, either, let's not forget that. Top face is the top face.


Storyline is shit and remember it takes 2 to tango. 


Regins is fine, but when his tango partner is fuckin sheamus and other fuckin guys who have been nothing but mid card jobbers the past few months people will tune out. Cena always had good partners. Punk, Orton, Batista, HHH, Owens.


If this was Reigns vs Rollins, or Reigns vs Ambrose, or even Reigns vs Bryan ratings wouldn't be so bad because they are good partners for him

Reigns said it best in an interview this is a team effort. He cant do it alone. He needs strong and well booked partners to succeed.


----------



## Romans Empire

tboneangle said:


> If we didn't live In a pussified PC world I would threaten you with violence.
> 
> So Rollins being better ratings as champ than we are now. Means it's his fault? Hmmmmmm.


It is easily his fault and majority would agree.


----------



## Stone Hot

Romans Empire said:


> I bought his shirt for 25 dollars and I don't want him heel yet he needs to be face and emerge victorious overcoming all the odds against him.


lol I haven't bought any of his shirts, in fact the only guy on TVs shirt I owen is HHH


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Storyline is shit and remember it takes 2 to tango.
> 
> 
> Regins is fine, but when his tango partner is fuckin sheamus and other fuckin guys who have been nothing but mid card jobbers the past few months people will tune out. Cena always had good partners. Punk, Orton, Batista, HHH, Owens.
> 
> 
> If this was Reigns vs Rollins, or Reigns vs Ambrose, or even Reigns vs Bryan ratings wouldn't be so bad because they are good partners for him
> 
> Reigns said it best in an interview this is a team effort. He cant do it alone. He needs strong and well booked partners to succeed.


 Rollins feuded with fucking 342342 year old Kane and no one gave Rollins a break in re: ratings. Sheamus >>>> Kane. And a version of Kane that was playing 2 different characters at the same time. A direct insult to our intelligence. Next.

ut


----------



## T0M

Romans Empire said:


> I bought his shirt for 25 dollars and I don't want him heel yet he needs to be face and emerge victorious overcoming all the odds against him.


There are no odds against him though are there? 

He's McMahon's handpicked, manufactured baby face and everyone with a brain can see it. So what odds is he overcoming exactly?


----------



## Romans Empire

T0M said:


> There are no odds against him though are there?
> 
> He's McMahon's handpicked, manufactured baby face and everyone with a brain can see it. So what odds is he overcoming exactly?


In the tournament he won the belt for the first time he overcame the odds as being the winner of it without holding a single's title unlike the other competitors he was the underdog. He then won it and held it for 5mins and 15 seconds until an avalanche of celtic cum took him off the mountain making him lose his gold. He now needs to overcome even more odds with 3 people taking cheap shots at him so he can win the title back.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Rollins feuded with fucking 342342 year old Kane and no one gave Rollins a break in re: ratings. Sheamus >>>> Kane. And a version of Kane that was playing 2 different characters at the same time. A direct insult to our intelligence. Next.
> 
> ut


Hey I fuckin agree Rollins got his fair share of shitty partners too. Going from fuckin STING to kane was a complete abortion to Rollins. 


Team effort with good team mates is the key. Bad team mates = shit. Its what hurt Rollins, its whats hurting Reigns, and its whats hurting the ratings.


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> It is easily his fault and majority would agree.


The majority being you Legit Boss and like one other person? Vs the 50 plus on here who agree with me


----------



## T0M

Romans Empire said:


> In the tournament he won the belt for the first time he overcame the odds as being the winner of it without holding a single's title unlike the other competitors he was the underdog. He then won it and held it for 5mins and 15 seconds until an avalanche of celtic cum took him off the mountain making him lose his gold. He now needs to overcome even more odds with 3 people taking cheap shots at him so he can win the title back.


Oh :lmao

It's still real to you, isn't it?


----------



## Romans Empire

tboneangle said:


> The majority being you Legit Boss and like one other person? Vs the 50 plus on here who agree with me


 This site is the minority lol. I am just one of the few people on here that are good at recognizing someone creditable


----------



## SAMCRO

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

Lol what a surprise the ratings WAS an all time low, soon as Sheamus won the title i knew it was gonna happen, no one wants to watch his boring ass.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Rollins feuded with fucking 342342 year old Kane and no one gave Rollins a break in re: ratings. Sheamus >>>> Kane. And a version of Kane that was playing 2 different characters at the same time. A direct insult to our intelligence. Next.
> 
> ut


And you know I'm right hence a response like this. 

good partners its the key


----------



## Redzero

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

LMAOO


----------



## EBuzzMiller

tboneangle said:


> If we didn't live In a pussified PC world I would threaten you with violence.
> 
> So Rollins being better ratings as champ than we are now. Means it's his fault? Hmmmmmm.


Yeah no violence. Though judging by that guy's videos he seems like he wants to pick a fight with anyone who disagrees.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> And you know I'm right hence a response like this.
> 
> good partners its the key


Not really. There are certain guys that could wrestle nobodies and people still tune in; Hogan, Austin, Rock. None of these guys are on that level. Not. even. close. Fact.


----------



## EBuzzMiller

Romans Empire said:


> It is easily his fault and majority would agree.


No it isn't, it's because they booked him like a weaselly loser every week on Raw. You could give the character he was handed to The Rock and Shawn Michaels or in his prime Jericho and they couldn't do anything with it.


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> This site is the minority lol. I am just one of the few people on here that are good at recognizing someone creditable


200,000 ex raw viewers say your wrong. 

The best part about your posts is while me and others can offer data and statistical proof. You offer nothing but your own warped opinions.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Not really. There are certain guys that could wrestle nobodies and people still tune in; Hogan, Austin, Rock. None of these guys are on that level. Not. even. close. Fact.


Yea No fuckin shit. NOBODY will get on that level ever again never. Not Reigns, Not Rollins, Not Bryan NO ONE in 2015 can carry it alone. 


Its a team effort


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

Good booking won't fix anything because nobody cares about that shit. 

People wanna see car crash television and larger-than-life motherfuckers hitting each other in the head with weapons. Dudes being thrown from very tall structures would also help the situation.

I don't wanna sit down on a Monday night and slip into a fucking coma, but I don't give a fuck about "good storytelling" either. I don't want something I have to closely follow and pay attention to. This is professional wrestling, not GoT; an inherently stupid medium at its core, it's value is dependant solely on how entertaining that stupidity happens to be.


----------



## Desprado123

This is what happens when the whole show about only 1 overrated guy. WWE think people are stupid.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Legit BOSS said:


> :gameover *Me too Russo, me too :sasha3*


Between Vince and Triple H who is the one that has the problem with Vince Russo? Another way to put it: who is more likely to bring Russo back?

Russo brought up the point of "stand-alone" segments. Meaning segments that don't go through commercial breaks. This is the biggest problem with RAW. Too many matches get commercial breaks which just drives away viewers. More stand-alone segments will give fans the feeling that anything can happen at any time. It will also keep viewers tuned in throughout the show.


----------



## dan the marino

OwenSES said:


> The entire declining year has revolved around Reigns but lets blame the ratings on Sheamus right?


Can we just agree that they both suck to an extant. 



Tardbasher12 said:


> They'll just send Brock Lesnar out there next week instead of fixing the booking.


Except he doesn't draw anything either so that won't band-aid anything.



Wynter! said:


> Bryan was up against the biggest heat grabbers in WWE. Authority were amazing heels to Bryans babyface. Are you really comparing a heel no one gives a damn about to when Trips and Steph were at the height of their heel work? :ha


In all fairness, Authority-Orton was about as cold as he could've been too. Nobody gave two shits about him either.


----------



## Mad Jester

I hope the ratings go down even lower. They've given us nothing but crap so it's fitting they get it in return.


----------



## Blade Runner

Legit BOSS said:


> :gameover *Me too Russo, me too :sasha3*


I don't really care if he gives back to the WWE or not -- as long as he keeps giving us Mark & Mark PPV reviews i'll be happy. That sh^t was far more entertaining than the Survivor Series and this week's RAW combined

:russo:russo:russo:russo:russo _/ 5 *_


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

BEST FOR BUSINESS said:


> In all fairness, Authority-Orton was about as cold as he could've been too. Nobody gave two shits about him either.


Orton was a _much_ bigger star at that point than Sheamus is right now. It's not even close. Orton wasn't a great _draw_, but he was perceived as a much bigger star.

It helped Orton to have a white-hot rising babyface in Daniel Bryan to play heel against.

It helped everyone that a group of super strong heels like the Shield could help sell for Bryan when appropriate.

It helped to have a _fresh_ Authority and a _realistic_ storyline.

WWE have *none* of these things going for them right now.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Orton was a _much_ bigger star at that point than Sheamus is right now. It's not even close. Orton wasn't a great _draw_, but he was perceived as a much bigger star.
> 
> It helped Orton to have a white-hot rising babyface in Daniel Bryan to play heel against.
> 
> It helped everyone that a group of super strong heels like the Shield could help sell for Bryan when appropriate.
> 
> It helped to have a _fresh_ Authority and a _realistic_ storyline.
> 
> WWE have *none* of these things going for them right now.


Let's not forget the amount of guys that had to turn heel for Daniel Bryan: Randy Orton, Triple H and Shawn Michaels. Bryan was over in a big way during that time, but A LOT of people helped him out. Bryan got to work with The Shield before he got his title push whereas Reigns was working with Bray Wyatt. No offense to Bray, but I think fans just don't care about him anymore. 

I don't understand why people are complaining about this current storyline. This "copied" storyline wasn't planned out; they were forced to do this because of Seth's injury. This feud is only being done to get them to the Royal Rumble.


----------



## JTB33b

The Boy Wonder said:


> Let's not forget the amount of guys that had to turn heel for Daniel Bryan: Randy Orton, Triple H and Shawn Michaels. Bryan was over in a big way during that time, but A LOT of people helped him out. Bryan got to work with The Shield before he got his title push whereas Reigns was working with Bray Wyatt. No offense to Bray, but I think fans just don't care about him anymore.
> 
> I don't understand why people are complaining about this current storyline. This "copied" storyline wasn't planned out; they were forced to do this because of Seth's injury. This feud is only being done to get them to the Royal Rumble.


Bryan was massively over prior to the authority storyline and even prior to the tag matches against the shield. He was the most over superstar on the roster when he was doing comedy acts with Kane and Dr Shelby as team hell no in the midcard.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

JTB33b said:


> Bryan was massively over prior to the authority storyline and even prior to the tag matches against the shield. He was the most over superstar on the roster when he was doing comedy acts with Kane and Dr Shelby as team hell no in the midcard.


He was over, NOT massively over. It wasn't until he got sympathetic booking that he became really over. During that push he got to end The Shield's dominance, beat a face Randy Orton, a face Sheamus, and defeated Cena clean. He also defeated Cesaro clean in a gauntlet match when it was his second match. Bryan was over, but he got a lot of help on the way.

You bring up Kane. A lot of people think Bryan helped Kane, but it was actually the other way around. It was the association with Kane that allowed Bryan to build a connection with the causal fans.


----------



## dan the marino

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Orton was a _much_ bigger star at that point than Sheamus is right now. It's not even close. Orton wasn't a great _draw_, but he was perceived as a much bigger star.
> 
> It helped Orton to have a white-hot rising babyface in Daniel Bryan to play heel against.
> 
> It helped everyone that a group of super strong heels like the Shield could help sell for Bryan when appropriate.
> 
> It helped to have a _fresh_ Authority and a _realistic_ storyline.
> 
> WWE have *none* of these things going for them right now.



Oh I agree completely. Seamus means absolutely nothing and never has meant anything, Orton is at least a big name. My point is just that it's not as if he was at the height of his momentum during Bryans' rise to the top: if anything it was the exact opposite. Which is still more than what Seamus has going for him, but regardless...

At any rate and in all seriousness, ratings will be up next week as they aren't against a Pats MNF game. If by some miracle the ratings are actually lower, well, then, that'll be actually a huge problem. 

So was this a record-breaking low viewership for RAW, not counting the Christmas Eve one? That's interesting if so.


----------



## -Skullbone-

4everEyebrowRaisin said:


> Good booking won't fix anything because nobody cares about that shit.
> 
> People wanna see car crash television and larger-than-life motherfuckers hitting each other in the head with weapons. Dudes being thrown from very tall structures would also help the situation.
> 
> I don't wanna sit down on a Monday night and slip into a fucking coma, but I don't give a fuck about "good storytelling" either. I don't want something I have to closely follow and pay attention to. This is professional wrestling, not GoT; an inherently stupid medium at its core, it's value is dependant solely on how entertaining that stupidity happens to be.


Audiences shouldn't have to care about booking. That's what the insiders have to worry about. However, they should be exposed to the outcomes of good booking. 

The purpose isn't to come across as deep or anything like that, but actually put a context behind why all this stupidity is happening. Otherwise you get the stuff you see nowadays which has little rhyme or reason for actually happening, as well as a hugely apparent lack of intensity all round.


----------



## El_Absoluto

Romans Empire said:


> This site is the minority lol. I am just one of the few people on here that are good at recognizing someone creditable


This is the kind of shit that has to stop.

Virtually everyone who watches wrestling and is over 10 is part of the IWC community. If WWE fans from the official webpage are complaining and the ones on twitter are complaining and the ones in facebook are complaining and forums are complaining and youtubers are complaining and the ones from the dirtsheets are complaining then who the fuck is left???

This isn't 1999 and a those retards who cant tell the difference are going to kill any industry they are a part of.

Yes there are casuals who will just tune in to whatever is good on tv but what reason do they have to tune in to a show everyone is shitting on?

Win back your core audience and casuals will come, not the other way around.

What kind of stupid logic are these people following???

DAMN.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

:lol


----------



## Romans Empire

Pretty sure I proved everybody what really is the cause of the ratings as mine makes the most sense.


----------



## muttgeiger

As steiner would say, I don't have much sympy for WWE. 

Nobody in WWE ever caught on in over 10 FUCKING YEARS of steadily declining ratings? Because even though they were declining, ratings were still 'good enough'. That's their own fault. It's so much bigger than booking, or who the champ is. The whole product is bad top to bottom, and insults peoples' intelligence weekly. From the office, to the announcers, to the wrestlers themselves.


----------



## The True Believer

_*Road Dogg after hearing about RAW's low rating*_


----------



## mankind2112

Oh, how the mighty have fallen :lmao


----------



## RLStern

*Re: I Guarantee This Will be a Record Low Raw Rating.*

*Could've had Reigns or Ambrose turn heel, join The Authority then have the babyface(Ambrose or Reigns) go after the brother who betrayed like the other brother Rollins. build that up to Mania.

Instead, Sheamus is champion and we revert back to 2010.

Also we rehash a critically acclaimed storyline from 2013-2014, Daniel Bryan vs The Authority, where it starts as the underdog winning the Title then immediately losing it to The Authority's crown jewel via Money in the bank.*


----------



## Roach13

Hey Vince it's time to retire you old bastard and Fire Regins and Sheamus


----------



## Wonderllama

I'll never get why people care about ratings. The success or failure of RAW does nothing for me.

Honestly, the NFL juggernaut is too big right now. I love WWE but I gotta have my football. My opinion, RAW should move to Tuesday. Admit defeat. At least next year, people won't have to make a choice between WWE or football.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Wonderllama said:


> I'll never get why people care about ratings. The success or failure of RAW does nothing for me.
> 
> Honestly, the NFL juggernaut is too big right now. I love WWE but I gotta have my football. My opinion, RAW should move to Tuesday. Admit defeat. At least next year, people won't have to make a choice between WWE or football.


Because it's funny to see a lazy, uncreative, shit company get what deserves.


----------



## Roach13

TheLooseCanon said:


> Once again CM PUNK>WWE. They need him, so funny.


They be offering that Kershaw Money Soon.


----------



## tboneangle

Romans Empire said:


> Pretty sure I proved everybody what really is the cause of the ratings as mine makes the most sense.


Lmao!


----------



## Roach13

Romans Empire said:


> Pretty sure I proved everybody what really is the cause of the ratings as mine makes the most sense.


Ok baghdad bob


----------



## Badbadrobot

Wonderllama said:


> I'll never get why people care about ratings. The success or failure of RAW does nothing for me.
> 
> .



It's called caring. Obviously you don't so why have an opinion at all?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I don't really care if he gives back to the WWE or not -- as long as he keeps giving us Mark & Mark PPV reviews i'll be happy. That sh^t was far more entertaining than the Survivor Series and this week's RAW combined
> 
> :russo:russo:russo:russo:russo _/ 5 *_


*You're doing it wrong bro, we gotta go above and beyond the scale. 7 STARS BRO!!! 7!!!!*


----------



## Joshi Judas

This fucking thread is the best thing on this forum :lmao :lmao :lmao


Jesus Christ it's so good to see the fans screwing the WWE after getting screwed by Vince so long :hayden3 :maury :Jordan


----------



## Yes Era

The Boy Wonder said:


> He was over, NOT massively over. It wasn't until he got sympathetic booking that he became really over. During that push he got to end The Shield's dominance, beat a face Randy Orton, a face Sheamus, and defeated Cena clean. He also defeated Cesaro clean in a gauntlet match when it was his second match. Bryan was over, but he got a lot of help on the way.
> 
> You bring up Kane. A lot of people think Bryan helped Kane, but it was actually the other way around. It was the association with Kane that allowed Bryan to build a connection with the causal fans.


Can someone remind this kid that about the dark match after WM 28? Kane helped Bryan get over, huh? Fans didn't cheer for Bryan over CM Punk, Kofi, and Sheamus after WM 28 in follow up feuds? Stop lying.


----------



## Krokro

Yes Era said:


> Can someone remind this kid that about the dark match after WM 28? Kane helped Bryan get over, huh? Fans didn't cheer for Bryan over CM Punk, Kofi, and Sheamus after WM 28 in follow up feuds? Stop lying.


What? No Kane helped Bryan, Bryan himself even said working with Kane was exceptional. I don't want to exactly quote Bryan as I don't have the exact quote on hand.

Kane and Bryan clicked, Kane didn't help Bryan as in MAKE Bryan a star, but the fact they clicked so well and their segments were entertaining that Bryan was able to break out on his own. Lmao. Settle down, don't get violent!


----------



## chronoxiong

Can it go below 2.0 rating? Lol. I think it's coming guys.


----------



## JTB33b

The next 2 weeks will determine whether or not they keep the title on Sheamus or not. I think he loses it at TLC and Reigns gets roasted the following night in Philly. Sheamus uses his re-match clause that same night and loses.


----------



## Chrome

Kabraxal said:


> If only LU could land a bigger network... I mean, pulling 100000 on El Rey is impressive. IMagine if they had a network people knew about. We could have that competition finally.


At this rate, USA might throw WWE in the bushes and put LU there instead. Hell, USA's mantra is "Characters Welcome." Who's got characters? LU does because it sure as fuck isn't WWE right now.


----------



## Saved_masses

this thread is glorious. Stone Hot and Roman Empire are having breakdowns. 

The numbers will continue to fall, I predict a 1.9 rating over the next couple of weeks. That's what they get when they don't listen to the fans :shrug


----------



## OwenSES

BEST FOR BUSINESS said:


> Can we just agree that they both suck to an extant.
> 
> 
> 
> Except he doesn't draw anything either so that won't band-aid anything.
> 
> 
> 
> In all fairness, Authority-Orton was about as cold as he could've been too. Nobody gave two shits about him either.


Okay I agree to a certain extent thanks to booking. If Sheamus had the same amount of TV time Roman has had, he would be much more over than he is right now.


----------



## Fatcat

LOL. I remember people freaking out on here when they got a bad rating for Christmas. Now they get the same ratings for normal shows


----------



## Erik.

Whilst I agree that ratings dropping won't necessarily hurt WWE because they're still making money. Seeing the ratings declining every week and continue to do so leading into Wrestlemania (hopefully) will surely light a fire under their ass? - I mean if they keep decreasing it's a sign that fans are simply tuning out. If they leave it eventually they will LOSE money. Why wait until they start losing money to do anything? That could potentially be too late. 

I will be back in this thread next week to see if the ratings continue to drop. I don't see why they should rise, they haven't done anything on Raw that has made me want to tune in next week. Reigns got the upper hand. Ambrose doesn't care that he lost in the main event at SS, Owens still isn't even in a feud etc.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Yeah Bryan wasn't massively over before the Authority


----------



## Stone Hot

Saved_masses said:


> this thread is glorious. Stone Hot and Roman Empire are having breakdowns.
> 
> The numbers will continue to fall, I predict a 1.9 rating over the next couple of weeks. That's what they get when they don't listen to the fans :shrug


Please at least I have reasonable good arguments.

If you are expecting these low ratings to just push Reigns of a top guy stop its not gonna work. He is a top guy for life and low ratings wont change that. For those wanting that t happen


----------



## Badbadrobot

For all those questioning why dropping ratings is bad for the wwe this is why:

- lower ratings means less ad revenue means less bargaining power in a new to deal

- lower ratings means less interest in the product, less people attending house shows, less merch selling

- lower ratings mean stock prices fall, means the value of the company falls, means less ability to to invest

- dvr and Internet means fuck all in bargaining power because neither successfully gives additional ad revenue


----------



## Erik.

Badbadrobot said:


> For all those questioning why dropping ratings is bad for the wwe this is why:
> 
> - lower ratings means less ad revenue means less bargaining power in a new to deal
> 
> - lower ratings means less interest in the product, less people attending house shows, less merch selling
> 
> - lower ratings mean stock prices fall, means the value of the company falls, means less ability to to invest
> 
> - dvr and Internet means fuck all in bargaining power because neither successfully gives additional ad revenue


Lower ratings can also mean people just aren't watching live (because they are either doing something else or watching something else) - but they could always be watching Raw on a different day, so technically they are still getting the same amount of eyes on their product just not live.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Erik. said:


> Lower ratings can also mean people just aren't watching live (because they are either doing something else or watching something else) - but they could always be watching Raw on a different day, so technically they are still getting the same amount of eyes on their product just not live.


But we also need to look at the difference between how they were last year comparing to how they look this year, it doesn't look good when they were averaging 4m viewers a week and now they're at the under 3m mark, also RAW this year once had a viewership of over 5m


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Erik. said:


> Lower ratings can also mean people just aren't watching live (because they are either doing something else or watching something else) - but they could always be watching Raw on a different day, so technically they are still getting the same amount of eyes on their product just not live.


I don't think so. Live ratings are a gauge of interest. If fewer people are watching it live, most likely fewer people are watching a replay or on dvr, too. Very, very doubtful that the drop in live viewership is due to more people watching replays. Looking at the steady decline over a period of _years_ now, the only conclusion you can logically draw is that interest in the product is waning.


----------



## Marrakesh

Stone Hot said:


> Please at least I have reasonable good arguments.
> 
> If you are expecting these low ratings to just push Reigns of a top guy stop its not gonna work. He is a top guy for life and low ratings wont change that. For those wanting that t happen



You're one of the worst posters on the forum. Your arguments lack intelligence. You jump on whatever Legit Boss has to say (Who does make intelligent arguments) and then butcher his analysis by adding your own warped spin to it. 

No one is guaranteed to be a top guy for life. 

If Reigns is to be a main event guy his entire career, It wont be as a babyface. At least, It certainly won't be this character (or lack of) 

All of the hype, excitement and off the chart merch sales that accompanied Cena's rise to the top are notably absent from Reigns current push. Cena as a midcard US champion in 2004 was the top merch seller in a company that still had legit star power.

Reigns/Ambrose feud with Reigns as the heel might have been the biggest draw post Survivor Series. This is because it would have been the best story. 

In fact Reigns as a heel champion would definitely have been the best option. (Fuck his number 2 merch sales that aren't even making a dent on Cena)
No Authority stable, just Reigns with HHH (Stephanie should fuck off also)

You have Ambrose, Lesnar, Daniel Bryan (If/When he returns) Ryback? (If they build him for a month or two run in main event) and of course Seth Rollins who could return as a babyface in the summer to face him. 

People will want to see Reigns lose that title. As the ratings are suggesting already, they don't care to see the opposite.


----------



## The Tempest

Now let's hope SmackDown will suffer the same fate tomorrow :kobe10


----------



## Erik.

Sleepngbear said:


> I don't think so. Live ratings are a gauge of interest. If fewer people are watching it live, most likely fewer people are watching a replay or on dvr, too. Very, very doubtful that the drop in live viewership is due to more people watching replays. Looking at the steady decline over a period of _years_ now, the only conclusion you can logically draw is that interest in the product is waning.


I'm just looking at it in the perspective of how perhaps WWE hierarchy look at it. I think Vince will look at the ratings and will honestly believe nothing is wrong. He'll understand that Monday night is also a night for football etc. 

As long as he's making money still (which they are) they won't matter too much about the ratings, they will also look at YouTube views and Network subs etc.

I did say before though that the steady decline on ratings just this year, especially with the ratings decreasing every single week may light a fire up their ass because surely as a company you don't want to wait until it's too late to make a switch up. 

The thing is, does Vince and co even know how to shake things up anymore? What is a shape up in Vinces mind? Is it splashing cash on new production, new set up etc? or is it a chance of who we see on the show? - scary to think.


----------



## Erik.

ShadowSucks92 said:


> But we also need to look at the difference between how they were last year comparing to how they look this year, it doesn't look good when they were averaging 4m viewers a week and now they're at the under 3m mark, also RAW this year once had a viewership of over 5m


I completely agree and it's not like YouTube and the Network are relatively new concepts. I think we all know the reason as to why the ratings have decreased and that's because the viewers intelligence is constantly insulted and the product itself is stale.


----------



## Suplex city

They are making the peoduct stale but they have no competition.Even 2-3 million viewers are 10x more than viewers of other promotions combined


----------



## SóniaPortugal

WWE does not take risk, everything is predictable (if not in a PPV happens, happens in the other below).
This preditibilibilidade more a Face that people are not 100% rooting for him results these terrible ratigns.

Say is not Reigns fault is ridiculous. 
He is the only one that is being protected from WWE, all others were downloaded to sell Reigns as Top Face.
He is WWE Face (even Cena came down), and is not working, period
Do not invent excuses and put the blame on Shemaus when he only to sell Reigns as Top Face.


----------



## Stone Hot

The Tempest said:


> Now let's hope SmackDown will suffer the same fate tomorrow :kobe10


Lol its fuckin thanks giving. Should be below 1.0


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Erik. said:


> I'm just looking at it in the perspective of how perhaps WWE hierarchy look at it. I think Vince will look at the ratings and will honestly believe nothing is wrong. He'll understand that Monday night is also a night for football etc.
> 
> As long as he's making money still (which they are) they won't matter too much about the ratings, they will also look at YouTube views and Network subs etc.
> 
> I did say before though that the steady decline on ratings just this year, especially with the ratings decreasing every single week may light a fire up their ass because surely as a company you don't want to wait until it's too late to make a switch up.
> 
> The thing is, does Vince and co even know how to shake things up anymore? What is a shape up in Vinces mind? Is it splashing cash on new production, new set up etc? or is it a chance of who we see on the show? - scary to think.


I'm pretty sure he's paying attention to the ratings. But for as long as they've been dropping, I think it's pretty clear that they've run out of ideas on how to turn it around. They keep falling back on the same crap that might have worked once, maybe twice, but not week after week, ppv after ppv, year after year. The product is stale, pure and simple. 

I think if you look back, their greatest successes were flukes that managed to buck the tradition of bowing to the bookers. Hogan, Austin, the Rock, maybe even HHH and Michaels, for example. The guys in the NWO (at least when it first started). Punk came close, Daniel Bryan (with much help from the IWC) and maybe even Mick Foley to an extent. Cena is the closest thing they have to that now, but I don't put him up there on that same plateau. The point is, WWE's biggest successes came despite themselves. But the stars that did it had to first get themselves in a position where Vince & company would actually let them set their own direction, and there's really nobody out there right now that I can see with that kind of influence -- in any of the promotions. _That_ is the brass ring they're waiting for someone to grab. But until that next over-the-top personality arrives on the scene to take the wrestling world by storm, we're stuck dealing with the fruits of the feeble minds of creative. And Vince.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Romans Empire said:


> In the tournament he won the belt for the first time he overcame the odds as being the winner of it without holding a single's title unlike the other competitors he was the underdog. He then won it and held it for 5mins and 15 seconds until an avalanche of celtic cum took him off the mountain making him lose his gold. He now needs to overcome even more odds with 3 people taking cheap shots at him so he can win the title back.


Dude, is it still real to you?


----------



## Stone Hot

I'll say this about Sheamus again You can't blame him fully but you can put a huge chunk of it on him if why the ratings are bad.

Reigns is the only main eventer to be booked fine like a top guy. But his current opponents haven't been booked like top guys in months. In fact they haven't even been booked to be good mid carders.

It takes 2 to tango. If Reigns had well booked strong main event guys to tango with the ratings wouldn't be so bad. Regins vs Sheamus who has been booked like shit is gonna kill ratings because nobody is gonna take a guy like Sheamus serious over a guy like Reigns.

If Reigns was facing Rollins, Ambrose, Bryan, Cena, or even Orton people will tune in because those are believable opponents for Reigns. 

Reigns said it best in an interview about a month ago. It's a team effort and you have to have good team mates to succeed. But when your teammates are Seamus, wade Barrett, and Rusev you are not gonna succeed.

This was a problem Rollins had when he was facing Kane. Nobody took fuckin Kane serious.


^^^^^all this is what anti Reigns fans don't realize. They just want to point the finger at him cause they just hate everything the guy does. Blind hate really. When they don't see the real circumstances surrounding the product that's causing the low ratings.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

Ratings are down for obvious reasons

1. The product sucks, let's be honest
2. Reigns haters who refuse to watch him and want to make an impact
3. Sheamus is champion, so even Reigns fans like me won't be watching. At all
4. Reigns is a mainstream pull kind of guy, and mainstream aren't gonna watch when 1 and 3 are true


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Here are a couple of reasons why the ratings are bad:

1. The layout of the show needs to change. It's too predictable: Opening segment [commercial], match [commercial break], end of match, backstage segment, [commercial], etc.

2. More of the roster needs to be involved in weekly storylines, otherwise they are just having matches that no one cares about. What is Neville doing? Ryback? Titus? 

3. Brock Lesnar was NEVER really defeated. I think what hurts the WWE Championship is that Brock was never defeated for the title. To the fans they might view the title as the "Interim" WWE Championship. It's imperative that Brock gets put back into the title picture when he comes back. Perhaps he is the first to announce that he's entering the Royal Rumble. They need to make this Royal Rumble important — guys like Cena, Brock and Taker need to be in it.

4. A title change needs to happen on RAW. It will give fans the indication that anything can happen on RAW. Plans are for Reigns to win the title back at the Royal Rumble. Forget that. Let TLC end in controversy and have Reigns win the title on the first RAW of the new year.

5. Let guys take control over their characters. It's desperation time for WWE. Vince needs to give that talk once again where he tells the talent to put more input into their characters.


----------



## dmccourt95

Everything needs changed 

The shity stage setup 
The structure of the show 
The commentary team needs cut to two 
Storylines throughout the show
Well booked characters 

None of this will happen because there is no competition, USA would have to drop the show for anything to change 


Sent from Verticalsports.com Free App


----------



## Erik.

Stage set up won't change though because it cost them a lot of money and I doubt they'd be willing to spend a lot of money to change the stage. I know they're not losing money so they can afford to change the set up but they will look at it as the stage isn't the reason ratings are going down, that's just nitpicking.

The structure of the show definitely needs to change. More backstage promos, more short matches (which means less commercials during the matches), only match that should be long on Raw should be the main event and title matches. There needs to be more title defences on the show, in my view.

They have changed the commentary team now to add Byron Saxton, however this was the wrong move as he's not that good at all unless he's being bullied by the heel commentator (as shown in NXT). They could quite easily get rid of JBL. Push him down to NXT where he can commentate there perhaps as the heel commentator or just have him as a coach/promo guy in NXT. Cole can stay, there would be absolutely nothing for him to do otherwise and he's friends with the high guys. A commentary team of Cole, Graves and Saxton could work. 

It absolutely baffles me that they are not giving every superstar (or as much superstars as possible) storylines. This multi-million dollar company has a shit load of superstars who are literally doing NOTHING. How can that be good? Get the creative team (hopefully a new one) a list of superstars and give them a week to figure our what each and everyone of the superstars on the roster can do, how they can be an asset to the company, how they can highlight their positives and outweight the negatives to get them over with the crowd as either a face or a heel. It's not rocket science. This then ties in with well booked characters.

I think it could all happen WITHOUT competition. They're simply just lazy.


----------



## Mr.S

Boycott this shitty product, don't even watch it in Youtube, WWE Facebook page will anyways give 1 minute videos in your profile.

Make the ratings go under 2 and stay there consistently for 4-5 weeks. Vince will panic, shares will plummet and he has to improve his piece of shit. Not only most of these stale people should go, HHH, Lawler and the same old guys should also go and need blood needs to be injected at every stage. 

The mid-card titles are being wasted by Del Rio & Owens. As good as Owens is, both of them need to loose that title. We need real feuds in that division & we can build 2 real solid mid-card high flyers in Neville & Kalisto. These guys can put up 15-20 minute amazing matches for the IC/US title with a proper feud. Put managers for people some people.

Dump that charisma less bad mic and average in ring worker Charlotte and let Paige, Sasha rise, etc. 

Tag Team Division can be revitalized with 4 Way Matches - Ladder matches, table matches, TLC. We have so many tag teams -> Prime Time, New Day, Dudleys, Lucha Dragons, etc. We have powerhouse to high flyers to some good mic workers in them. Some of these teams can be made stars if we can have some Ladder or TLC matches.

Dump Sheamus, Rusev, etc and get Reigns to the upper mid card, let him loose cleanly too and let him improve his mic skills and learn new moves and then move up in 1-2 years. 

There is no other option than to bring back Brock, Bryan and some big part timers and let some guys like Ziggler a push or a turn


----------



## PraXitude

Want ratings? Forget Sheamus or Reigns. They can't draw.

Who can draw?

:brock4


----------



## The Dazzler

2.16 Holy shit! It's crazy how fast they're falling! :grin2:
Keep doing what you're doing WWE! >


----------



## T0M

Stone Hot said:


> ^^^^^all this is what anti Reigns fans don't realize. They just want to point the finger at him cause they just hate everything the guy does. Blind hate really. When they don't see the real circumstances surrounding the product that's causing the low ratings.


Nope.

He's cap on the mic, boring in the ring and has about as much charisma as a wanking sock.


----------



## The Renegade

I'm going to resist the urge to throw pie in people's faces who actually thought that the ratings were Rollins' fault. The truth of the matter is, the show is booked like garbage and people are tuning out. Doesn't matter who is at the top of the show when the rest of the show is, how do you say, "booty". They've got to utilize their talent better and get some interesting business going on for everyone on the roster. No more band-aid fixes, no more looking to part timers to bail you out. You've got to make lemonade with the lemons you have. No more excuses.


----------



## Stone Hot

T0M said:


> Nope.
> 
> He's cap on the mic, boring in the ring and has about as much charisma as a wanking sock.


:ti nope try harder next time


----------



## T0M

Stone Hot said:


> :ti nope try harder next time


hh


----------



## thegockster

Wristlock does not draw, We should be grateful that Sheamus cashed in otherwise the rating would have been much lower


----------



## GAD247

I bet right now Vince is blaming the fans for his own shitty product. . 

I bet multiple profanity filled tirades have been lashed out at the younger talent over the last 24 hours for not "seizing the opportunity". 

I bet instead of trying to figure out how to improve.Vince is, in a fit of rage, blaming everyone but himself. 

Because of all of this, I bet the worst is yet to come. I'm so happy

:ha


----------



## DoubtGin

:mj4


----------



## The Boy Wonder

DoubtGin said:


> :mj4


So when the ratings were falling with Rollins in the main event it was the fault of the creative team. But now all of a sudden it all falls on Reigns?



PraXitude said:


> Want ratings? Forget Sheamus or Reigns. They can't draw.
> 
> Who can draw?
> 
> :brock4


You would think so. But when he defeated Cena for the title at Summerslam the rating for RAW the next night was lower than the go-home RAW the previous week.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

The bottom line, Reigns/Rollins/whoever, is that WWE isn't creating compelling, enjoyable television. It's not enjoyable when the payoff to Brock Lesnar's reign is an extended Authority Champion reign. And it's not an enjoyable payoff to the Authority Champion reign when he gets injured and we're then switched out with another Authority Champion reign.

We're overdue for a babyface title run (not just due, *OVER*due) and there's no tension when there's no plot development after a significant amount of time. We're fatigued.

That the babyface we're seemingly waiting for is Roman Reigns is also problematic. He hasn't shown himself to be someone everyone can get behind. Even when Cena was catching boos, he still had armies of young fans behind him, so it was justified. Reigns is only the number two merch seller after two continuous years of pushing him in a dynamic where the merch sales should have come before the push. 

On top of that, even if Reigns were to win the title tomorrow, his list of heel challengers isn't so great either.

There's just no light at the end of the tunnel. Why watch?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I still can't believe they are under 3 million for two different hours on the same show. Such ineptitude. It's never been this bad. Not even a few months ago.


----------



## SnapOrTap

They picked the wrong guy in the Shield to be the face of the WWE lol.

They had a fucking 66% chance to get it right. But they botched it. Only this company.


----------



## NearFall

I remember when people thought 2012 and CM Punk was the worst they could get with ratings...but a 2.16 rating? I wish Rock316AE could just bury this shit like the good old days.


----------



## Chrome

These "holiday-like" ratings kinda make you wonder what rating the actual holiday episode will get.









Are we going to be talking about Roman *1.16* after that one?


----------



## Daemon_Rising

This isn't so much the fault of Roman Reigns, as the fault of WWE for failing to realise that nobody is interested in the * Types of stories* they have been trying to sell for the last 4-5 years.

We are truly in the realm of talking about 2 point something million viewers, and I think it's only going to get worse. This won't happen in WM32 however I do believe that by WM33 we may be discussing 1 point something million for a Raw. Even if it's just once, it'll happen.


----------



## Sick Graps-V2

Watching Raw is like watching 2 cars crash, really bad and a fucking mess. This is why I only catch small bits of the show very irregularly if I hear something interesting actually happens, but these days it never does. The ratings won't make them change anything while the live events are making money, the sponsors are paying out along with the TV deals, the merch is selling and the network is doing well; until Vince meets Jeebus we're stuck with this horseshit, he'll never retire he'll just die in his suit one day in the next 30 or so years. The ratings will get worse but WWE will keep on making money so Vince won't change anything, shit sandwiches all round.


----------



## Restomaniac

Soul Cat said:


> You know what the sad thing is? The company is still going to bring back all the old guys yet again in an attempt to get a ratings increase even though it failed last time. Big Show will be pushed. Kane will be pushed. Just like last time.
> 
> The injuries are very unfortunate, but the sad reality is that Cesaro wouldn't have been pushed anyway. That is why the ratings deserve to fall even more.


This is the strange thing.
You bring up Cesaro and he is a good example of the problem. Vince doesn't think he connects when he clearly does if booked properly. Then look at Owens, Bryan, Ambrose etc.
They still do have enough if they hadn't fucked everyone over.

The first thing Vince needs to do is fire his stupid creative dept and bring in REAL bookers who have a fucking clue. As an example I doubt any clued up booker would bother with a submission move on a fucking table!!!!!!!

I would also throw my net far and wide asking for ideas from former stars who still have connections with WWE. Everyone states that in the AE the talent had some control. Nobody can tell me therefore that SCSA, Taker, The Rock, Foley, Michaels etc can't add some new ideas into the mix.


----------



## Marv95

Pushing indy generic smark favorites to the moon while leaving everything else status quo ain't gonna work. Been there, done that. It needs an overhaul, from formatting to aesthetic presentation. It's a tv show that ends past 11pm on a school night on less restricted cable tv. Time to act like it.

Meanwhile these guys dish out some hard truths(yeah it's them, but deep down you know they're right).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUPKv6TBNw


----------



## Fissiks

Marv95 said:


> Pushing indy generic smark favorites to the moon while leaving everything else status quo ain't gonna work. Been there, done that. It needs an overhaul, from formatting to aesthetic presentation. It's a tv show that ends past 11pm on a school night on less restricted cable tv. Time to act like it.
> 
> Meanwhile these guys dish out some hard truths(yeah it's them, but deep down you know they're right).
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUPKv6TBNw


lol what a shit video. lol the comments are even worse than this place and that is saying something.


----------



## Krispenwah

While Raw ratings are on the floor, Cm Punks Drax comic book makes a top 5 must see list-

Dis is so fucking sweet.
:HA


----------



## CH25

Is that the worst rating since 96 or something ? Glad I didn't watch..


----------



## Sick Graps-V2

Fissiks said:


> lol what a shit video. lol the comments are even worse than this place and that is saying something.


You-Tube is like the wild west, this is known to be true.


----------



## Joshi Judas

Marv95 said:


> Pushing indy generic smark favorites to the moon while leaving everything else status quo ain't gonna work. Been there, done that. It needs an overhaul, from formatting to aesthetic presentation. It's a tv show that ends past 11pm on a school night on less restricted cable tv. Time to act like it.
> 
> Meanwhile these guys dish out some hard truths(yeah it's them, but deep down you know they're right).
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUPKv6TBNw



Yeah the main event scene is filled with indy smark favorites now :HHH


In fact the last time they pushed a smark favorite in Bryan, the ratings were far better than this. Having the Authority be in the spotlight for so long, Kane and Big Show interfering in everything and making the whole show and storylines super stale killed the ratings.


----------



## Nimbus

What if this whole low rating thing is just a work?, just think about it. it could be part of an angle


----------



## Deadman's Hand

Marv95 said:


> Pushing indy generic smark favorites to the moon while leaving everything else status quo ain't gonna work. Been there, done that. It needs an overhaul, from formatting to aesthetic presentation. It's a tv show that ends past 11pm on a school night on less restricted cable tv. Time to act like it.
> 
> Meanwhile these guys dish out some hard truths(yeah it's them, but deep down you know they're right).
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUPKv6TBNw


*Yeah, it's the smarks fault RAW sucks. It's totally not the bad writing team, or anything. :eyeroll*


----------



## abd alatife esa

well the biggest two draws in the company kane and the big show werent evan on the show so what would have you exepected


----------



## McCringleberry

Been reading this thread and I'm surprised by how many think the ratings don't matter. Here's 2 huge reasons why they do...

1. Sponsors. Commercials are sold with the guarantee that X amount of viewers will be watching the program advertised on. If that number isn't hit, then said sponsors get their money back, usually via free or discounted future ads. That can cost WWE mega bucks mega fast as these ads are usually sold way in advance of the program they are meant for.

2. Most important of all...remember a little over a year ago when WWE was shopping Raw around to other channels expecting NFL type tv rights money only to get chump change? If I remember right, Vince signed a 3 year deal as opposed to the usual 5. What do you think is gonna happen in less than 2 years when that contract is up for renewal. USA isn't gonna pay that same amount for these kinds of ratings. Again Vince loses big money and solid weekly advertising for his Network. BTW someone mentioned Smackdown coming to USA as proof things were ok ratings wise. Wrong. That option was put in as a part of the last contract. What triggered the switch, or when and how was in the fine print we don't get to see no doubt.


----------



## TrentBarretaFan

"Smarks favourites" are to blame for bad ratings? OK.

When they put SD on USA Network, bring back brand split, make "smarks favourites" like Bryan, Ambrose, Cesaro, Wyatt, Owens, Ziggler, Neville, Joe, Balor and Zayn SD exclusives and "Vince favourites" like Cena, Reigns, Sheamus, Triple H, Del Rio, Big Show and Kane RAW exclusives.

Then watch RAW ratings stay the same or plummet and SD ratings skyrocket.


But even if that happend, some "anti-smarks" wouldn't change their opinion...


----------



## eldoon

PENTAGON said:


> Yeah the main event scene is filled with indy smark favorites now :HHH
> 
> 
> In fact the last time they pushed a smark favorite in Bryan, the ratings were far better than this. Having the Authority be in the spotlight for so long, Kane and Big Show interfering in everything and making the whole show and storylines super stale killed the ratings.


Indie talent Tyler Black was champ for months during the downfall

Kane would pop bigger ratings


----------



## Suplex city

But indie favourites aren't even given chance they are booked like crap also wwe is over dependent on past prime, wrestlers and not creating new stars


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> Indie talent Tyler Black was champ for months during the downfall
> 
> Kane would pop bigger ratings


And they'd love to get back where they were when he was Champ.


----------



## EireUnited

eldoon said:


> Indie talent Tyler Black was champ for months during the downfall
> 
> Kane would pop bigger ratings


Then when didn't Kane's 5 month reign as World Heavyweight Champion in 2010 improve ratings???


----------



## Bret Hart

TrentBarretaFan said:


> "Smarks favourites" are to blame for bad ratings? OK.
> 
> When they put SD on USA Network, bring back brand split, make "smarks favourites" like Bryan, Ambrose, Cesaro, Wyatt, Owens, Ziggler, Neville, Joe, Balor and Zayn SD exclusives and "Vince favourites" like Cena, Reigns, Sheamus, Triple H, Del Rio, Big Show and Kane RAW exclusives.
> 
> Then watch RAW ratings stay the same or plummet and SD ratings skyrocket.
> 
> 
> But even if that happend, some "anti-smarks" wouldn't change their opinion...


That's actually a pretty good idea.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Man. Imagine a Smackdown lined with:

Cesaro
Bryan
Ambrose
Neville
Owens
Rollins

You basically have a Smackdown 6 (albeit slightly inferior).

Keep Romanda Reigns, Del Borio, Fat Show, Kane, and the Divas on Raw.

So much potential for Smackdown.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

This thread has been an absolute party ever since Tuesday afternoon.

:ha

I love it. Been :mark: out ever since Tuesday.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

SnapOrTap said:


> Man. Imagine a Smackdown lined with:
> 
> Cesaro
> Bryan
> Ambrose
> Neville
> Owens
> Rollins
> 
> You basically have a Smackdown 6 (albeit slightly inferior).
> 
> Keep Romanda Reigns, Del Borio, Fat Show, Kane, and the Divas on Raw.
> 
> So much potential for Smackdown.


That's what Bryan wanted when he came back. Basically him putting all those people over and building them and Smackdown.


----------



## roadkill_

Hey guys, next ratings release only 48 hrs away!


----------



## The Dazzler

roadkill_ said:


> Hey guys, next ratings release only 48 hrs away!


God if it goes down again. :grin2: Give us another shitty raw WWE! :dance


----------



## Chrome

Says a lot about the current product when people are more excited for Tuesday afternoons than Monday nights.


----------



## Marrakesh

Chrome said:


> Says a lot about the current product when people are more excited for Tuesday afternoons than Monday nights.


I have developed quite the addiction to TUESDAY NIGHT RATINGS :vince5


----------



## Shenroe

Wait guys, are we forgetting SD ratings? I don't know about y'all but I have extra room for another good laugh after all this 2:16 fiasco :ti


----------



## Stone Hot

Ill be on Vacation in the DR, so I wont be able to post my laughing GIFS so ill do them ahead of time. Hope it keeps getting lower to show making Sheamus wwe champ was a bad bad idea. 


Should of put the title on Reigns or Dean!!!


----------



## Chrome

Stone Hot said:


> Ill be on Vacation in the DR, so I wont be able to post my laughing GIFS so ill do them ahead of time. Hope it keeps getting lower to show making Sheamus wwe champ was a bad bad idea.
> 
> 
> Should of put the title on Reigns or Dean!!!


No one cares bro.


----------



## Stone Hot

Chrome said:


> No one cares bro.


Except you it seems


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

It is the Roman Reigns storyline that is defining RAW, make no mistake about that. Now MNF is Baltimore vs Cleveland and both teams are struggling. This should help RAW to rebound because they are not on against the super draw of New England and Tom Brady. So look for this







to look strong on Tuesday.


----------



## Blade Runner

Every Tuesday is like the WWE taking the long walk of shame


----------



## krai999

Marv95 said:


> Pushing indy generic smark favorites to the moon while leaving everything else status quo ain't gonna work. Been there, done that. It needs an overhaul, from formatting to aesthetic presentation. It's a tv show that ends past 11pm on a school night on less restricted cable tv. Time to act like it.
> 
> Meanwhile these guys dish out some hard truths(yeah it's them, but deep down you know they're right).
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwUPKv6TBNw


do you really believe deep down in your little troll heart that its smarks? 
Yeah smarkbusters are entertaining but at the same time they are irrationally biased and I wouldn't really take their arguments seriously

Btw who the fuck is saying raw is good on this forum?


----------



## JamJamGigolo

I don't get it. People are blaming Sheamus or Rollins because they're the champs? You don't get wrestling. From a storytelling perspective, this has been the Reigns show for at least a year, and people don't like the Reigns show. That's the main factor. Even when he's not the champ, he's clearly the protagonist of this show, and he's boring.


----------



## Marrakesh

Please let the ratings reflect how fucking bad this is tonight. Shit opening segment, pointless four minute title match in the middle of the show, the league of badly booked midcarders and an 8-man tag main event featuring said group of jobbers, The Usos and Roman Reigns. 

What am I doing to myself? This is fucking torture.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Let's do this!


----------



## CptRonCodpiece

I'd be just as concerned about attendances as well as ratings. The upper tier was empty tonight, and they used the ol' dim the lights trick to try and hide it.


----------



## Roach13

Tomorrow is going to be Fun


----------



## RatedR10

CptRonCodpiece said:


> I'd be just as concerned about attendances as well as ratings. The upper tier was empty tonight, and they used the ol' dim the lights trick to try and hide it.


Fans left early at a Sunday night house show in Huntsville according to reports when intros for Reigns/Sheamus were happening. People were reportedly leaving early tonight too.


----------



## ironyman

What little I watched was about as bad as I have seen it. I feel sorry for people that paid to go and see this clown show. It's like they are doubling down on how awful they can make it.


----------



## The XL

Wouldn't shock me if tomorrow is finally the day they drop below a 2. Can't wait, what a shit show I just watched.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Booking a WWE Title match at the bottom of the second hour and your main event is a pointless 8-man tag... Seriously, are they retarded or do they just not give a fuck anymore? That 3rd hour should be a ratings massacre.


----------



## sbzero546

People were leaving early a month ago in Chicago. The shows have been crap and this whole Authority thing is getting stale as hell. But hey lets still give Reigns that Mega push that will help.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The entire upper tier was dark from the beginning of the show. They also made sure to only show the upper tier when they absolutely had no choice during the matches. That shit is usually reserved for SD, not Raw.


----------



## Kabraxal

Daaamn.... that is bad. And I think the hour to hour drops are still going to be bad this week. That game was fun and I'm sure that drew more eyes as it went on (that ending... two jobber teams in the NFL just outdid a WWE show closing segment XD).


----------



## RatedR10

Are ratings delayed until Wednesday?


----------



## Chrome

RatedR10 said:


> Are ratings delayed until Wednesday?


I wouldn't think so, because aren't they only delayed during the week of a holiday, not a week after?

Would suck if they were though, Tuesday afternoon is my favorite time of the week and I don't really feel like waiting an extra day. :mj2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Yeah the ratings should be back on schedule. Still the Sunday Cable ratings weren't out today, so there is still some backlog from the holiday. I bet it'll be caught up tomorrow.

Edit:They have only released up to last Wednesday's cable's ratings so far, which means Wednesday is likely for RAW ratings because of the accrued backlog.


----------



## Dre

PWMania said:


> For those wondering, the TNA Impact Wrestling and Ring of Honor ratings are delayed due to the Thanksgiving holiday. They will be out on Monday while viewership for tonight’s WWE SmackDown won’t be out until Tuesday.* Numbers for Monday’s WWE RAW will be delayed also, they will be released on Wednesday.*


http://www.pwmania.com/wwe-tna-rati...from-xavier-woods-brad-maddox-thanks-his-team

Ratings will be delayed unfortunately :vince7.


----------



## Blade Runner

I have "a" theory -- maybe they're purposely putting on horrible shows to sink the ratings and get out of their contract with USA so that they can start airing RAW on the Network every week

No other explanation makes any more sense to me :draper2


----------



## 3ku1

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I have "a" theory -- maybe they're purposely putting on horrible shows to sink the ratings and get out of their contract with USA so that they can start airing RAW on the Network every week
> 
> No other explanation makes any more sense to me :draper2


Solid Conspiracy Theory LOL. Makes sense though. Considering how many subscribers they have, and seeing most broadcast tv is on Netflix these days. It is odd they don't at least offer Raw live on the Network.


----------



## roadkill_

Goddamnit. Tuesday Night Rawtings is delayed?! Best part of the week, apart from Vinny's Nuculur Heat.


----------



## JTB33b

If the ratings decrease even more that's going to look really pathetic for this company consider the MNF game was between two horrible non playoff teams and TV shows Scorpion and NCIS LA were repeats.


----------



## The Tempest

I think you guys will enjoy this:









Holy fuck.


----------



## Cliffy

Yeah smackdown is in impact on spike territory now


----------



## TheShieldSuck

What does Smackdown usually get?


----------



## Joshi Judas

They were actually doing something right for a while by making the match between Sheamus/Reigns matter. They had a stipulation, and Ambrose and the Usos' fate was riding on the match too. They added a certain intrigue factor that should've made some fans want to watch how everything unravels.

Then, the actual match ends in DQ, which means everyone gets their title match at TLC anyway, making the whole thing pointless. And then it is turned into a meaningless tag match for the main event. Who the fuck thought this was a good idea?


----------



## FITZ

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I have "a" theory -- maybe they're purposely putting on horrible shows to sink the ratings and get out of their contract with USA so that they can start airing RAW on the Network every week
> 
> No other explanation makes any more sense to me :draper2





3ku1 said:


> Solid Conspiracy Theory LOL. Makes sense though. Considering how many subscribers they have, and seeing most broadcast tv is on Netflix these days. It is odd they don't at least offer Raw live on the Network.


This really isn't a viable theory because they get paid $160 million a year for their TV content. 1 network subscriber pays $120 for a full year. To make up for the lost revenue they would need to get an additional 1.33 MILLION subscribers to the WWE Network.


----------



## P.H. Hatecraft

It's a viable theory. Vince hates making money. So it makes sense that he would secretly loathe the money he is making from TV.


----------



## Marrakesh

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I have "a" theory -- maybe they're purposely putting on horrible shows to sink the ratings and get out of their contract with USA so that they can start airing RAW on the Network every week
> 
> 
> No other explanation makes any more sense to me :draper2


:lol We wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they were. It is that bad right now. 

I actually think their TV deal though is a huge part of their income. If they were to actually lose that and air Raw exclusively to the network they would have to increase the cost. 

People aren't exactly queuing up to pay $9.99 :jbl as it is and I can't see Raw or Smackdown in their current states being considered as a huge incentive for people to pay more money for the network .

In fact, over the third quarter, the network numbers stagnated. From July through September they gained virtually no new customers. This is during a time when their second biggest PPV of the year had taken place. 

I don't think the network is anywhere near as stable as WWE suggest it is. Falling TV rating and falling attendances are clear signs of indifference or disinterest in the product right now. If the network has peaked already, then they are in serious trouble. 

This Wrestlemania could be a make or break scenario for them in many ways.



TheShieldSuck said:


> What does Smackdown usually get?


Usually hovers around the 2m mark. I would think under 2m will be the norm from now on.


----------



## Blade Runner

FITZ said:


> This really isn't a viable theory because they get paid $160 million a year for their TV content. 1 network subscriber pays $120 for a full. To make up for the lost revenue they would need to get an additional 1.33 MILLION subscribers to the WWE Network.





Marrakesh said:


> :lol We wouldn't be able to tell the difference if they were. It is that bad right now.
> 
> I actually think their TV deal though is a huge part of their income. If they were to actually lose that and air Raw exclusively to the network they would have to increase the cost.
> 
> People aren't exactly queuing up to pay $9.99 :jbl as it is and I can't see Raw or Smackdown in their current states being considered as a huge incentive for people to pay more money for the network .
> 
> In fact, over the third quarter, the network numbers stagnated. From July through September they gained virtually no new customers. This is during a time when their second biggest PPV of the year had taken place.
> 
> I don't think the network is anywhere near as stable as WWE suggest it is. Falling TV rating and falling attendances are clear signs of indifference or disinterest in the product right now. If the network has peaked already, then they are in serious trouble.
> 
> This Wrestlemania could be a make or break scenario for them in many ways.
> 
> 
> 
> Usually hovers around the 2m mark. I would think under 2m will be the norm from now on.


:lol I was being sarcastic and wasn't putting any kind of real weight behind that theory -- that's why I put "a" theory in quotation marks


but in a weird way I can almost see them thinking that RAW being on the Network exclusively would help them longterm because it'd bring far more subscribers being that it'd be the only option to watch their most "popular" weekly show. Idealistically having a strong Network in preparation for the inevitable digital age of almost all content being streamed is not a bad idea, but I agree that sacrificing your TV deals is a little extreme and risky because they'd be losing a lot of money trying to risk making their strategy work -- They DID purposely sour their relationship with PPV providers in the name of their Network so nothing would really surprise me at this point

tho if i'm being completely realistic, it's more than likely just WWE being lazy, complacent and creatively impaired than it is any kind of underlying master plan


----------



## Marrakesh

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> :lol I was being sarcastic and wasn't putting any kind of real weight behind that theory -- that's why I put "a" theory in quotation marks
> 
> 
> but in a weird way I can almost see them thinking that RAW being on the Network exclusively would help them longterm because it'd bring far more subscribers being that it'd be the only option to watch their most "popular" weekly show. Idealistically having a strong Network in preparation for the inevitable digital age of almost all content being streamed is not a bad idea, but I agree that sacrificing your TV deals is a little extreme and risky because they'd be losing a lot of money trying to risk making their strategy work -- They DID purposely sour their relationship with PPV providers so nothing would really surprise me at this point


Sure, I know you were suggesting it half jokingly but imagine if they really did. :lol 

It would be suicide. There is simply no way they could lose the revenue from TV deals and still give away the network for $10. 

You would have to think that the majority of people who are ever going to sign up to the network that watch Raw on a weekly basis, already have done. (Barring an explosion in popularity for wrestling again which is never going to happen)

I mean, it's a great deal :shrug Every PPV every month and endless hours of classic content. If you watch Raw weekly and you haven't already signed up then odds are you are never going to :lol 

How do you increase the price when it's been built on being dirt cheap to the point were '9.99' is one of the most over catchphrases on the show :lol 

You can't really. 

Most people watching Raw on a weekly basis aren't paying for the privilege. They are just watching their TV on a Monday night. You immediately lose a ton of people who simply won't pay a subscription fee. 

I enjoy watching plenty of TV shows but if i was asked to pay an extra subscription I wouldn't bother with it either. I'd find something else to watch. 

Only a relatively small percentage of wrestling fans are as invested in it as those of us who post on here are. It's just something to watch on their TV's on a Monday night for most people. 

I mean, we have already seen about a million people just give up in the last year anyway when we compare the current ratings to what they were in 2014. 

If Raw ever becomes a network exclusive then you can be sure Smackdown will be cancelled altogether, there will be a ton of talent/staff releases and the entire show would be scaled back in production. 

Having said that, it'd probably be a better show in spite of this. :lol


----------



## Born of Osiris

Praying for a terrible rating :mark: let it all burn.


----------



## LordKain

Ultimate Gohan said:


> Praying for a terrible rating :mark: let it all burn.


Oh don't worry I'm sure it will be a terrible rating.


----------



## Goldusto

You know what would really spell the end of the WWE? The TV Ratings thread dying . once we stop giving a shit about the numbers AND the show, that shows a total 100% disconnect from the product and that interest would probably be gone for good. So the few dozen-hundred people here , and other forums Stop our so called 'smark' attitude or whathaveyou then well that's it then really isn't it?


----------



## own1997

First time since '09 that I've actually not checked out what happened on RAW. This product is bad it beggers description. Absolutely no incentive to watch this product anymore for myself and I think alot more die-hards will be forced to stop watching by the pile of trash tehy produce on a weekly basis.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*WWE Smackdown rating: Final numbers for the November 26 Thanksgiving edition*

Thursday's WWE Smackdown scored a 1.15 rating, down from the previous week's 1.64 rating. The show averaged 1.652 million viewers, down from last week's 2.229 million viewers.

Powell's POV: The Thanksgiving holiday combined with the NFL game drawing 27.7 million viewers on NBC obviously hurt the number. The November 28, 2014 Smackdown delivered a 2.09 rating with 3.054 million viewers.

*Source: prowrestling.net*


----------



## DoubtGin

Ratings Hype :mark:


----------



## The Tempest

RAW ratings will be available Wednesday morning, I'll make sure to post them and enjoy RAW hitting rock bottom once again :gaga1


----------



## The XL

A 1.1 for smackdown? Holy fucking shit .


----------



## The XL

Smackdown is in spike tv TNA territory. What an embarrassment


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

The XL said:


> A 1.1 for smackdown? Holy fucking shit .





The XL said:


> Smackdown is in spike tv TNA territory. What an embarrassment


And RAW ratings are inching ever closer to what SD did less than a year ago.


----------



## The XL

They're going to collapse or at least downsize within a year unless they start taking this shit seriously. They're in as much trouble as they were in 95.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

The XL said:


> They're going to collapse or at least downsize within a year unless they start taking this shit seriously. They're in as much trouble as they were in 95.


Except during and after 95, there was some competition for them to at least take the fight to and try and adapt or innovate. Complacency is exacerbating the situation now.


----------



## Hawkke

The Tempest said:


> RAW ratings will be available Wednesday morning, I'll make sure to post them and enjoy RAW hitting rock bottom once again :gaga1


Wednesday? Damn, I always thought they were out on Tuesday. I really want to see how low this one is for the lolz. I really hope they hit below 2!


----------



## Marrakesh

The XL said:


> They're going to collapse or at least downsize within a year unless they start taking this shit seriously. They're in as much trouble as they were in 95.


I think you're right. They are in trouble. The real worry is that they probably are taking this seriously and this is the best they have to offer. 

It's really not as simple as just replacing Reigns and pushing another guy either at this stage. They are rotting to the core. 

A complete overhaul is necessary. What the fuck are the ratings going to be like this time next year if the quality of the shows remain the same?


----------



## Mainboy

Those smackdown ratings :ha


----------



## Bret Hart

Come on, hope it's around 2 or even lower, that would be fucking amazing!


----------



## Oakue

The XL said:


> They're going to collapse or at least downsize within a year unless they start taking this shit seriously. They're in as much trouble as they were in 95.


Sorry, but though people _want_ this to be true, it isn't close to true. The First-Quarter of 2015 Revenues increased 40% to $176.2 million,* the highest quarterly revenue in WWE history*. And the OIBDA of $21.0 million increased $28.2 million from the prior year quarter. WWE Network reached 1.3 million total subscribers, representing a 99% increase from the prior year WrestleMania. http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2015/wwe-reports-record-quarterly-revenue

This isn't the same world as compared to 1995. In 1995 they were a private family owned business where Jim Ross has said they had to skip paychecks because Vince had no money to pay them. Now it's a public company with a world wide presence. They have $176.2 million in revenues in Q1 alone. Highest ever. They have their own network which cuts out fees from the middle man needed for PPV distribution.

The product is lacking and boring. But there is no chance at all they are in any kind of financial trouble and I'm sorry to say, but the suggestion that this is 1995 bad, is void of any kind of accuracy at all.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Marrakesh said:


> I think you're right. They are in trouble. The real worry is that they probably are taking this seriously and this is the best they have to offer.
> 
> What the fuck are the ratings going to be like this time next year if the quality of the shows remain the same?


They aren't serious. They don't mind holiday ratings anyway, as they can resort to the holiday argument to placate executives and shareholders. 

The 5:15 stipulation ended with yet another makeshift tag match furthering nothing while randomly overexposing The New Day to push random segments. They're biding time until the post X'mas period when ratings will bottom out, and until SD's debut on USA network.

Brock will get more money to stop-gap the above travesty to make more dates that wont actually help stem the issue at hand. 

And once Cena returns, even he wouldn't want the main event or whatever card he returns to, to be this randomly juggled about or thrown together. He chose the right time of the year to try and diversify into other ventures as the ratings suggest he's better off that way these past few weeks.

Next year's ratings could remain stagnant or a little lower. But won't drop as badly as this year. They have absolutely cratered this year.


----------



## Marrakesh

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> They aren't serious. They don't mind holiday ratings anyway, as they can resort to the holiday argument to placate executives and shareholders.
> 
> The 5:15 stipulation ended with yet another makeshift tag match furthering nothing while randomly overexposing The New Day to push random segments. They're biding time until the post X'mas period when ratings will bottom out, and until SD's debut on USA network.
> 
> Brock will get more money to stop-gap the above travesty to make more dates that wont actually help stem the issue at hand.
> 
> And once Cena returns, even he wouldn't want the main event or whatever card he returns to, to be this randomly juggled about or thrown together. He chose the right time of the year to try and diversify into other ventures as the ratings suggest he's better off that way these past few weeks.
> 
> Next year's ratings could remain stagnant or a little lower. But won't drop as badly as this year. They have absolutely cratered this year.


Well if you remember how bad the build up last year was to Wrestlemania when they were 'serious' I don't think it's out of the question that this garbage is the best they can come up with :lol


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Marrakesh said:


> Well if you remember how bad the build up last year was to Wrestlemania when they were 'serious' I don't think it's out of the question that this garbage is the best they can come up with :lol


Once the injury list clears, a few more NXT call ups (lets hope they remain call ups and not demotions) are made to debut with good feuds and the main eventers return, they will hopefully (again using with caution) screw up lesser.

Even garbage can be recycled, but bad 3 hour RAWs are 3 hours wasted for good. :no:


----------



## ElTerrible

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *WWE Smackdown rating: Final numbers for the November 26 Thanksgiving edition*
> 
> Thursday's WWE Smackdown scored a 1.15 rating, down from the previous week's 1.64 rating. The show averaged 1.652 million viewers, down from last week's 2.229 million viewers.
> 
> Powell's POV: The Thanksgiving holiday combined with the NFL game drawing 27.7 million viewers on NBC obviously hurt the number. The November 28, 2014 Smackdown delivered a 2.09 rating with 3.054 million viewers.
> 
> *Source: prowrestling.net*


FINALLY....TNA Impact has come to WWE. >


----------



## Red Dead

Holy shit IF TNA maintained their 2009 ratings numbers to this day they could have legit be seen as competition to WWE right now


----------



## Marrakesh

Oakue said:


> Sorry, but though people _want_ this to be true, it isn't close to true. The First-Quarter of 2015 Revenues increased 40% to $176.2 million,* the highest quarterly revenue in WWE history*. And the OIBDA of $21.0 million increased $28.2 million from the prior year quarter. WWE Network reached 1.3 million total subscribers, representing a 99% increase from the prior year WrestleMania. http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2015/wwe-reports-record-quarterly-revenue
> 
> This isn't the same world as compared to 1995. In 1995 they were a private family owned business where Jim Ross has said they had to skip paychecks because Vince had no money to pay them. Now it's a public company with a world wide presence. They have $176.2 million in revenues in Q1 alone. Highest ever. They have their own network which cuts out fees from the middle man needed for PPV distribution.
> 
> The product is lacking and boring. But there is no chance at all they are in any kind of financial trouble and I'm sorry to say, but the suggestion that this is 1995 bad, is void of any kind of accuracy at all.


Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this revenue driven by their TV deals and the network expansion internationally during this time frame, specifically in the UK?

The TV deals which are dependent on certain ratings standards and the network which saw virtually no growth these last two quarters which included their second biggest PPV of the year? 

The quality of the content they are producing is arguably surpassing 1995 levels of awfulness and while it's obvious they are in no immediate financial peril, it would strike me as odd if they weren't more than a little concerned with the subscription stagnation of the past 6 months and the huge drop off in ratings from this time last year. 

I would think the USA network are more than a tad worried so in essence, if WWE are not worried, they should be.


----------



## RatedR10

That smackdown number :ti

Man, I can't wait to see these numbers for Raw tomorrow. At this point, you also have to wonder if WWE can significantly boost numbers for the Road to Wrestlemania. Every show had below 3.0 this year during the RTWM and the product is just in a horrible state.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Source: wrestlezone.com

Possible Reason Why Kevin Owens Was Not on Raw Last Night, Mick Foley’s Message to Vince McMahon On How to Use Sasha Banks

Nick Paglino
December 1, 2015 

Mick Foley’s Message to Vince McMahon On How to Use Sasha Banks*

Mick Foley appeared on the latest edition of “The Steve Austin Show” podcast to discuss the current state of WWE. You can listen to the full episode at PodcastOne.com.

As it pertains to Sasha Banks, here is Foley’s message to Vince McMahon:

“She’s living the dream, she’s got this character that works and I think she’s being messed with. If you have someone who is there, who is firing on all cylinders .. and I’m talking to Vince, leave her alone and let her do her thing. You’re 70, Vince. She’s 23. You don’t speak to everybody out there. Just because you don’t get it doesn’t mean it’s not there to be gotten.”

“You have people chanting “We Want Sasha” – it’s not without reason. Please, Mr. McMahon. Please leave her alone. Let her do her thing. If they want her, give her to them. Let her do her thing. You’re looking for faces, future faces of the company. Here’s one of them. It makes me sad to see someone work so hard, who is there and is being led in different directions.”

*Possible Reason Why Kevin Owens Was Not on Raw Last Night*

WWE IC Champion Kevin Owens was noticeably absent on Raw last night, and WZ’s Justin LaBar Tweeted the following:

RUMOR: Somebody ran into Kevin Owens here in Pitt and supposedly he is and looks pretty sick so #wwe is letting him get off road & fly home

More on Owens not on #rawpittsburgh , #wwe sent him home after few hours. He also had his son with him who came down with sickness


----------



## KO Bossy

What's WWE Smackdown doing in the Impact Zone, Tazz?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The XL said:


> A 1.1 for smackdown? Holy fucking shit .


I think not even WCW Thunder topped that.

That's Saturday Night territory somewhere around 99/00.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

KO Bossy said:


> What's WWE Smackdown doing in the Impact Zone, Tazz?


:nice

If Vince ever gets relieved of his duties, someone, somewhere, better make this joke.


----------



## Chrome

KO Bossy said:


> What's WWE Smackdown doing in the Impact Zone, Tazz?


Don't you mean DownSmack? :bron2


----------



## DoubtGin

SD being on Thanksgiving definitely influenced that but it is still horribly low.

And it airs on Christmas Eve this month, gotta be a new record :ti :ti


----------



## dan the marino

Eh, it was Thanksgiving after all, having a low SD rating is no real surprise.

If RAW is lower than last week, that'll be a bad sign. Last week they were against Tom RATINGS Brady, this week nobody gave a shit about the NFL game. This'll be interesting.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Give us Ratings Damn it!


----------



## The Dazzler

Ratings really not out until tomorrow? I was gonna laugh myself to sleep. unk3


----------



## RatedR10

It's Nielsen Twitter ratings, so it's the best we have today, but it's a new low for 2015. Only a unique audience of 1.077 million. That's down 21% from last week. 

I've learned that the Twitter ratings can give a decent idea of where the rating will be, and based off this number, it would seem that below 2.1 is possible, but a safer bet would be in the 2.13 - 2.25 range. It all depends on the demos. We'll find out tomorrow, but I wouldn't be shocked to see below 2.1...


----------



## TheShieldSuck

A source of a source has stated RAW got a 1.99 rating.


----------



## 3ku1

1.99 demo? Wouldent be surprising. 2.11 seems more solid guess though.


----------



## DoubtGin

November 28th 2014 = 3,054,000 viewers

for Smackdown, on Black Friday

and it had more viewers than last week's RAW :ti


----------



## TheLooseCanon

TheShieldSuck said:


> A source of a source has stated RAW got a 1.99 rating.


No 9.99? :vince7


----------



## Marrakesh

If this weeks Raw drops below 2 with that shitty football game then ....

:ha They have got to be in panic mode. They'll have been expecting a rebound.


----------



## RatedR10

Don't listen to any numbers that aren't the Nielsen Twitter ratings until tomorrow. That's when they'll be released.


----------



## Joshi Judas

I want the ratings dammit :mj2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Sometime tomorrow. I just can't imagine it drops when they were against a nowhere NFL game, albeit one with a great ending.


----------



## Kabraxal

SHIV said:


> Sometime tomorrow. I just can't imagine it drops when they were against a nowhere NFL game, albeit one with a great ending.


I don' know... I started with some Raw during commercials... game got good and I didn't want to miss it.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Kabraxal said:


> I don' know... I started with some Raw during commercials... game got good and I didn't want to miss it.


If it does, I'll be shocked because I never gave it a chance of happening, but it will be a very telling commentary on the state of RAW.


----------



## Kabraxal

SHIV said:


> If it does, I'll be shocked because I never gave it a chance of happening, but it will be a very telling commentary on the state of RAW.


Two jobber teams out entertained the WWE XD


----------



## Bret Hart

What's the lowest rating WWE has ever gotten for Monday night Raw?


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> What's the lowest rating WWE has ever gotten for Monday night Raw?


1.5 on 12-23-96
1.6 on 12-30-96

this year may get closer to those if things keep up(or down)


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> What's the lowest rating WWE has ever gotten for Monday night Raw?


12/23/96... 1.5.

Not going to happen. Maybe next fall...


----------



## Kabraxal

Soul Man Danny B said:


> 12/23/96... 1.5.
> 
> Not going to happen. Maybe next fall...


At this rate? Christmas week.


----------



## Bret Hart

Damn, in '96 really? I always thought their lowest rating ever would be in 94 or 95. 

Didn't WWF get it's shit together by late '96?


----------



## Kabraxal

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> Damn, in '96 really? I always thought their lowest rating ever would be in 94 or 95.
> 
> Didn't WWF get it's shit together by late '96?


It wasn't until the run up to the WM in 97 that it started to show "hey, things are changing just a little...". Austin had his big promo, then nothing for months. HBK was the babyface cliche still despite him clearly needing to be the douche and the rest of the card was... there? I mean, I remember very little off the top of my head about 96. Less than I did in 95 surprisingly.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> Damn, in '96 really? I always thought their lowest rating ever would be in 94 or 95.
> 
> Didn't WWF get it's shit together by late '96?


NWO was killing shit in mid to late 1996. Nitro didn't even exist until late 1995. That's why. WWE didn't get their shit together until late 1997, really. Part of the reason why 1997 is loved by so many on here who remember it and lived it.


----------



## Bret Hart

Thank you guys for your responses. 

Oh yeah, totally forgot about WCW! Ah, life must have been great in those days, you actually had a viable alternative to WWF. 

The closest thing we had was TNA but they fucked themselves over royally.


----------



## Londrick

ShowStopper said:


> NWO was killing shit in mid to late 1996. Nitro didn't even exist until late 1995. That's why. WWE didn't get their shit together until late 1997, really. Part of the reason why 1997 is loved by so many on here who remember it and lived it.


Bret in 1997 :banderas


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Brie Mode said:


> Bret in 1997 :banderas


:done

And practically all the top acts in WWF in 1997: Bret, HBK, Austin, Taker, Foley, Kane, etc.

Amazing how practically everyone was booked so well in that year, and you compare it to the booking now. . .


----------



## Londrick

ShowStopper said:


> :done
> 
> And practically all the top acts in WWF in 1997: Bret, HBK, Austin, Taker, Foley, Kane, etc.
> 
> Amazing how practically everyone was booked so well in that year, and you compare it to the booking now. . .


Back then you could book a good main event feud with any of those guys and nearly 20 years later we get Roman vs Sheamus as the top feud. :lmao


----------



## TheLooseCanon

1997 was 100% WWF's best year. Harts vs Stone Cold. Pillman. :banderas

But still was a WCW guy.


----------



## Restomaniac

Soul Man Danny B said:


> 12/23/96... 1.5.
> 
> Not going to happen. Maybe next fall...


Although it needs to be remembered that that figure was 'half' the numbers figuratively due to Nitro.

The total number for both was 4.6.How the hell WWE has managed to screw it up to this point when they have no competition is beyond belief.


----------



## El_Absoluto

TheLooseCanon said:


> 1997 was 100% WWF's best year. Harts vs Stone Cold. Pillman. :banderas
> 
> But still was a WCW guy.


I remember the first episode of RAW I ever saw, the bad blood between the Hart Foundation and SCSA got me instantly hooked.

Yes 97 is my favorite year in pro wrestling.

Sad that is overshadowed by the overrated 98.


----------



## Dre

*We

Want

Roman Ratings
:vincecry
*


----------



## 3ku1

Have to remember Broadcast even Cable ratings had a bigger share of the audience back then. It was like 50 odd percent, it is around 15-20 % these days. And WWE had competition. Best WWE has these days is TNA. WWE is shit right now, especially in terms of booking. Because WWE has no reason to book their shows better. Prob see an improvement, hopefully around January. As it is imo 1999 was WWE's best year ever, even had a ad spot on The Superbowl.


----------



## JTB33b

Vince buying WCW was the worst thing to happen to professional wrestling. Too bad there wasn't some other billionaire who could have bought it.


----------



## Annihilus

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



HankHill_85 said:


> There comes a time when the argument of "wrestling popularity is cyclical" gets thrown right out the window. That time has come.


This, and also I feel people are no longer allowed to say "you criticize it but you know you'll be watching next week", which was the WWE defender's catchphrase for the last few years. A large segment of the viewers are clearly not coming back.

Also can't wait to see the Raw rating this week, the anticipation of seeing how low the number will get is better than any recent WWE storyline builds.


----------



## Marrakesh

*Re: WWE Raw Ratings October 12th New lowest record*



Annihilus said:


> This, and also I feel people are no longer allowed to say "you criticize it but you know you'll be watching next week", which was the WWE defender's catchphrase for the last few years. A large segment of the viewers are clearly not coming back.
> 
> Also can't wait to see the Raw rating this week, the anticipation of seeing how low the number will get is better than any recent WWE storyline builds.


They've fucked up so badly. There was a maintainable number for Wrestling in today's climate. 

You'd think it was somewhere between 4-5 million with a good show. Possibly even slightly higher given how bad the shows been for nearly ten years now. 

They may have turned about a million people off it for good though this past year. Quite an achievement. 

It's impossible to win viewers back without changing. Everything that was bad about the show this past year is still there in abundance, in fact, it's arguably been amplified in recent times. 

Bad storytelling, weak characters, poor decision making and nauseating predictability. 

I'm hyped for this rating.


----------



## murder

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> 1.5 on 12-23-96
> 1.6 on 12-30-96
> 
> this year may get closer to those if things keep up(or down)


But keep in mind that was during Holiday season where ratings are always down. The real lowest rating is October 14th 1996, a 1.8.


----------



## Marrakesh

I'm not American so the actual number on the rating eg. 2.16 :reigns2 means very little to me as I'm always just concerned with how many people actually watch it. 

Can someone break down what that rating number is and how it's calculated?


----------



## The Tempest

There it is:


----------



## murder

Yay, above 3 Million, way to go Vince. Pad yourself on the back.


----------



## Marrakesh

*Averaged 3.168m for three hours. *

Was hoping for less but still a terrible number. 

*3.88m on December 1st 2014. *

Pretty minimal rebound considering The Patriots were playing last week. 

I'm mystified as to why there wasn't a larger drop off for the third hour like in previous weeks :shrug 

I guess it's just an anomaly. I'm certainly not going to credit the league of jobbers without further evidence. :lel


----------



## Fabregas

Still shit, but the fact that it went up is always sad news.


----------



## A-C-P

Let this sink in people we are claiming it as a good number when the number just creeps over 3 million viewers



Marrakesh said:


> *Averaged 3.168m for three hours. *
> 
> Was hoping for less but still a terrible number.
> 
> *3.88m on December 1st 2014. *
> 
> Pretty minimal rebound considering The Patriots were playing last week.
> 
> *I'm mystified as to why there wasn't a larger drop off for the third hour like in previous weeks *:shrug
> 
> I guess it's just an anomaly. I'm certainly not going to credit the league of jobbers without further evidence. :lel


My guess is alot of the people that have been tuning in for hour 1 and then leaving during the show just didn't bother tuning in at all this week. If this becomes a pattern to me it would kind of show the WWE have shrunk their base TV audience in the USA (the ones who watch every week regardless) down below 3 million now.


----------



## Cliffy

WWE wins :mark:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The number is very poor, but,as I assumed, it was on against a lesser football game, and that did help it. I do wonder how it will draw when MNF is over because that rating still isn't good.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Disappointing to say the least.


----------



## Joshi Judas

Well it didn't go down atleast :shrug

Lets see if they can continue this trend. Probably not. But it takes something colossally bad to drop below 3 million, so while the ratings will still be bad, I don't think we'll be seeing viewership drop below 3 million that often.


----------



## GAD247

I'm not concerned with this slight increase


----------



## Marrakesh

PENTAGON said:


> Well it didn't go down atleast :shrug
> 
> Lets see if they can continue this trend. Probably not. But it takes something colossally bad to drop below 3 million, so while the ratings will still be bad, I don't think we'll be seeing viewership drop below 3 million that often.


Well, it's a certainty over the holidays but they'll probably try and book a big show for the new year with a title defense or something :shrug to rebound that. 

I don't know how much rebound they will have though. I mean they seem to be settling around the 3m mark now consistently. 

With Lesnar and Cena returning they SHOULD be looking at better numbers in the new year but it's far from guaranteed.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Disappointed to hear that the ratings went back up, but I suppose there's always next week.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Even up against two shitty football teams, they're still barely above 3 million. Highest hour 3.3 million up against the Cleveland Browns? Yikes.


----------



## Joshi Judas

WWE vs the WWE Universe is the best feud in all of pro wrestling right now :banderas


----------



## GAD247

Ratings will be back down next week. You can Beleague dat...


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Vince has adapted the Playboy Buddy Rose Blow Away Diet Plan to his ratings and it is working like a charm.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Roman Reigns in the 3rd hour.

3rd hour with the lowest viewership.

Hmm.

Roman Reigns dominates the show last week.

Lowest ratings in RAW history.

Hmm.

Sensing a pattern here boys. Hehe.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Guys, it's not gonna be below 3 million every week. :lol But the fact that we were told the ratings would increase once they moved in a different direction, and they haven't increased, is something to celebrate. They're still mind-blowingly awful ratings.


----------



## Fighter Daron

SnapOrTap said:


> Roman Reigns in the 3rd hour.
> 
> 3rd hour with the lowest viewership.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Roman Reigns dominates the show last week.
> 
> Lowest ratings in RAW history.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> Sensing a pattern here boys. Hehe.


Every fucking week the third hour tanks, it doesn't matter who's there and who isn't, Raw is TOO DAMN LONG. No non-hardcore viewer would suffer through three hours of fucking struggle that Raw is.

Try harder, man.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

This is true, but we were told it would be different with a new face. :shrug


----------



## Marv95

Brandon Flowers said:


> WWE wins :mark:


For 1 week.

Awful numbers with nothing on tv and 2 jobbers on MNF.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

3rd hour was thisclose to going under 3 million again; 3.005 million. :lol They better do something to fix that third hour chopquick like. Still a big problem.


----------



## thegockster

People prefer to watch Street Outlaws on the Discovery Channel in the first hour


----------



## manchesterdud

Cowboys vs Redskins next Monday against raw, what we saying for the rating that's a pretty big divisional game


----------



## LordKain

SHIT.

I was really hoping that in the 3rd how they would dip below 2.5 million viewers. Oh well hopefully we'll all have better luck next week.


----------



## FROSTY

So when is the new face of the WWE suppose to pop those ratings, that shit isn't any better than Bryan or Rollins being champ. I wonder how much longer WWE corporate will allow a 70 year old senile man to be in charge of creative decision making. The numbers keep steadily dropping or stagnating, there hasn't been any growth in years. Despite making money off ad revenue, and the network, the board cannot be happy the flagship program is still in steady decline after all these years.


----------



## Fissiks

lol that 3rd hour even though a World title match was advertised early on the show.


----------



## FROSTY

LordKain said:


> SHIT.
> 
> I was really hoping that in the 3rd how they would dip below 2.5 million viewers. Oh well hopefully we'll all have better luck next week.


Unless things drastically change, it's inevitable man. If creative plans stay on this course, they will lose another 500-600 thousand fans by this time next year.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> *So when is the new face of the WWE suppose to pop those ratings, that shit isn't any better than Bryan or Rollins being champ.* I wonder how much longer WWE corporate will allow a 70 year old senile man to be in charge of creative decision making. The numbers keep steadily dropping or stagnating, there hasn't been any growth in years. Despite making money off ad revenue, and the network, the board cannot be happy the flagship program is still in steady decline after all these years.



And a World Title match, which is something we rarely see on Raw. Must be all of that MAINSTREAM APPEAL we were told about. EPIC SUPERSTARDOM, bro.


----------



## Rasslor

*WWE RAW RATINGS UP BY 210,000 VIEWERS*
thank you based new day :vince


----------



## A-C-P

Vince you crafty bastard....Reigns will win the title either at TLC or Royal Rumble, which will coincide with the end of MNF for the year, the return of Cena to TV, and the return of Lesnar to TV. Those three things combine HAVE to increase viewer numbers, right?

So then Vince can claim Reigns' chase and title win are increasing viewership.

Well Played Vince :vince2


----------



## Rasslor

* 2.21*

Not bad :vince2


----------



## FITZ

ShowStopper said:


> Even up against two shitty football teams, they're still barely above 3 million. Highest hour 3.3 million up against the Cleveland Browns? Yikes.


In fairness 10 million people watched that game and I don't even know if Raw has ever had 10 million viewers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

FITZ said:


> In fairness 10 million people watched that game and I don't even know if Raw has ever had 10 million viewers.


NFL > WWE, we all know that. Doesn't mean ratings have to be this bad, especially up against a non-marquee NFL matchup and Vince's new boy being shoved down our throats.

2.21 rating.

:lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Chrome

Marrakesh said:


> *Averaged 3.168m for three hours. *
> 
> Was hoping for less but still a terrible number.
> 
> *3.88m on December 1st 2014. *
> 
> Pretty minimal rebound considering The Patriots were playing last week.
> 
> I'm mystified as to why there wasn't a larger drop off for the third hour like in previous weeks :shrug
> 
> I guess it's just an anomaly. I'm certainly not going to credit the league of jobbers without further evidence. :lel


I remember that December 1st '14 Raw just because that was the one before the Austin/McMahon podcast. I remember it being a super shitty show and the podcast being WAY more interesting than it was. That one probably deserved the 3.168m viewers while this one deserved like 2.5 or some real low number. That said, it's still a shitty number, so lol.


----------



## Marrakesh

It's funny, I just waded through some old ratings from early 2015 and a recurring theme appears to be that Daniel Bryan centric main events were drawing.

On an episode on December 29th were he teased an announcement the third hour actually increased by 600,000 viewers. 

:ti 

This came after a really poor December. He actually had matches promoted for Smackdown during this time also and increased it's viewership to close to 3 million. 

Maybe I'm wrong to credit this to Bryan but it seems to me that sticking him in a multi man IC title match was a huge mistake. 

Whether main event or not, he clearly was deserving of a very prominent role in the show. 

Audiences were starting to tune in specifically for him. When was the last time that happened for anyone else on the roster not named Lesnar or Cena? 

Anyways, this concussion situation is just awful. I think Raw needs him back badly. Dead crowds, Superman and Jobbers galore. 

Fuck me, I hope he gets cleared.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TLC right now stands for This Looks Catastrophic.


----------



## GAD247

A-C-P said:


> Vince you crafty bastard....Reigns will win the title either at TLC or Royal Rumble, which will coincide with the end of MNF for the year, the return of Cena to TV, and the return of Lesnar to TV. Those three things combine HAVE to increase viewer numbers, right?
> 
> So then Vince can claim Reigns' chase and title win are increasing viewership.
> 
> Well Played Vince :vince2


This is so true. I can just see it now...





"It's working!!" :vince5


----------



## DoublePass

This is even funnier than the time Reigns was outdrawn by El Torito and Hornswoggle in the same quarter hour.


----------



## RatedR10

RatedR10 said:


> It's Nielsen Twitter ratings, so it's the best we have today, but it's a new low for 2015. Only a unique audience of 1.077 million. That's down 21% from last week.
> 
> I've learned that the Twitter ratings can give a decent idea of where the rating will be, and based off this number, it would seem that below 2.1 is possible, but a safer bet would be in the 2.13 - 2.25 range. It all depends on the demos. We'll find out tomorrow, but I wouldn't be shocked to see below 2.1...


Final rating is 2.21, so right in the range I predicted. 

Consistently declining viewership in a show, though... with a stronger football game, they would have easily been lower than last week's.


Viewership CONTINUED to drop in the 3rd hour DESPITE a title match with heavy implications for their upcoming PPV at the top of the hour AND an 11-man tag match in the main event. :ha


----------



## Chrome

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> TLC right now stands for This Looks Catastrophic.


I was gonna say "This Looks Crappy" but this works too. (Y)


----------



## LilOlMe

Marrakesh said:


> *Averaged 3.168m for three hours. *
> 
> Was hoping for less but still a terrible number.
> 
> *3.88m on December 1st 2014. *


Lost 700,000 viewers...phew. This huge drop off has been going on all year, and shows no signs of stopping.

The "they'll always watch" thing has been ruined. Now $$$ needs to be spoken for. Vince is so lucky he has no real wrestling competition.


From Meltzer:


> Going against a lower-rated Monday Night Football game, the ratings for the Monday, November 30th edition of WWE Raw were up to 3.16 million viewers, up from last week's record low by 210,000 viewers.
> 
> To put the number in perspective, 3.16 million viewers tied the November 9th show for the second lowest watched non-holiday episode of the show since 1997. The Cleveland Browns vs. Baltimore Ravens game on ESPN drew 10.11 million viewers, down four million from the week before when the New England Patriots played the Buffalo Bills.
> 
> The third hour dropped by 300,000 viewers from the first hour. The main event of the show was the new League of Nations faction (WWE Champion Sheamus, King Barrett, U.S. Champion Alberto del Rio and Rusev) teaming with WWE Tag Team champions The New Day to battle Roman Reigns, Dean Ambrose, and The Usos in a handicap match.
> 
> The three hour breakdown was:
> 
> - 8 p.m. 3.31 million viewers
> 
> - 9 p.m. 3.19 million viewers
> 
> - 10 p.m. 3.01 million viewers


So this show was still in the top 3 least watched non-holiday shows in 18 years.


----------



## A-C-P

Chrome said:


> I was gonna say "This Looks Crappy" but this works too. (Y)


This Looks Crappy...and STAIRS :jericho2


----------



## Chrome

Another Christmas Painkiller said:


> This Looks Crappy...and STAIRS :jericho2


Actually the 'S' stands for stupid this year. :jericho2


----------



## LilOlMe

So this show was still in the top 3 least watched non-holiday shows in 18 years.

ETA: Edited my post to reflect that.


----------



## HHHbkDX

Rasslor said:


> * 2.21*
> 
> Not bad :vince2



DAMN IT! I was hoping it'd dip some more. They deserve a 0.00 rating with the less than half-assed effort they put into writing their shows.


----------



## JTB33b

Scorpion and NCIS Los Angelas were repeats. I wonder if that had anything to do with with the slight increase.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Rasslor said:


> *WWE RAW RATINGS UP BY 210,000 VIEWERS*


Put the belt on Reigns NOW 

:vince


----------



## The CRA1GER

JTB33b said:


> Scorpion and NCIS Los Angelas were repeats. I wonder if that had anything to do with with the slight increase.


Could be. I watch NCIS:LA every Monday. Did not watch this week because it was a rerun.


----------



## Robbyfude

I cant believe im saying this, I hope John Cena returns soon. At least he's retiring soon, I want to dely this Roman Reigns one year long title reign as long as possible. I do not want 20 years of this mediocre piece of trash on top.


----------



## Snothlisberger

1.0 18-49 demo is TNA levels, eh?


----------



## 4 Horsewomen Fan

Please continue believing that Roman is a draw.

Please continue believing that we will watch no matter what.

Please keep thinking that when Lesnar Taker and Cena returns, ratings will improve

Please keep holding everybody down.

Never change, WWE. I want to see them failing to fill that 100,000 arena next year. I can't wait to see RAW in 3 years when Cena Taker and Lesnar are no longer here. :marking


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

4 Horsewomen Fan said:


> Please continue believing that Roman is a draw.
> 
> Please continue believing that we will watch no matter what.
> 
> Please keep thinking that when Lesnar Taker and Cena returns, ratings will improve
> 
> Please keep holding everybody down.
> 
> Never change, WWE. I want to see them failing to fill that 100,000 arena next year. I can't wait to see RAW in 3 years when Cena Taker and Lesnar are no longer here. :marking


i cant wait for lesnar and taker to return to the same ratings. 

RAW is doomed in its current format. Old fans are leaving and they're not going to attract new fans to a weekly 3 hour show.


----------



## ElTerrible

LilOlMe said:


> So this show was still in the top 3 least watched non-holiday shows in 18 years.
> 
> ETA: Edited my post to reflect that.


Against Ravens/Browns and re-runs of NCIS LA, Scorpion and Castle. :grin2:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I was just perusing my favorite tv ratings website and MNF was the lowest rated game of the year so far. That RAW did this poorly against it is quite telling.


----------



## 3ku1

2:21! WWE is back baby! Rollins is 2:06, Reigns is 2:21. A tenth better in demo, give the man the belt! Reigns is ratings! In all seriousness 2:21 is pretty solid for a cable show. Nothing like Big Bangs, Walking Deads, Empires 4.0's. But 2:21 is a solid demo. Problem is the viewers in audience, that needs to change.


----------



## Wildcat410

SHIV said:


> I was just perusing my favorite tv ratings website and MNF was the lowest rated game of the year so far. That RAW did this poorly against it is quite telling.


Yeah that rating was trash considering the lackluster competition between two losing smallish market MNF teams. And not even impressive by usual Raw standards when not considering it.

Last year's show on this week did what, a 2.79? 

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2014-ratings/


----------



## NearFall

Seeing the ratings drop consistently this time round is so weird, considering how quick-fire Vince is. Whenever things dropped before you heard stories that he'd lost faith in Punk/Bryan or whoever, and stories changed instantly as a result. With this he's apparently calm because the show/"story" is what he wants, while everyone else is losing their minds.


----------



## JTB33b

I expect the ratings to dip again next week. The Cowboys play a divisional game vs the Redskins in a must win game for the Cowboys. And shows like Scorpion, NCIS LA, and Castle will not be reruns. and for NCIS LA in particular it's the continuation from the cliffhanger 2 weeks ago.


----------



## Cliffy

Cowboys season is over

That game is all about the redskins and if they legit want to win the division


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIVVY POO said:


> I was just perusing my favorite tv ratings website and MNF was the lowest rated game of the year so far. That RAW did this poorly against it is quite telling.


That is really scary. Worst rated Football game of the year and Raw barely had an increase? Also, all of the sitcoms were repeats that night as well. That's terrible and pretty scary.


----------



## Chrome

Brandon's Christmas Cracker said:


> Cowboys season is over
> 
> That game is all about the redskins and if they legit want to win the division


That's true, but it'll still likely do numbers in the ratings. Raw about to go back down under 3 million next week. Poor Vinnie. :vince7


----------



## Marrakesh

Jolly Ol' St. Chrome said:


> That's true, but it'll still likely do numbers in the ratings. Raw about to go back down under 3 million next week. Poor Vinnie. :vince7


:rusevyes Right back where it deserves to be.


----------



## The Tempest

Chart time:










:dance:dance


----------



## SnapOrTap

.72 in the 18-49 demographic LMAO

Guess people really tuned in to see Reigns bury the Immigrants. 

Roman 2.16 strikes again.


----------



## Marrakesh

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/648...o-the-new-york-post-on-wwes-declining-ratings

All is well, eh? 

:ha


----------



## 3ku1

To be fair NBC weren't doom and gloom. They acknowledge the declining ratings. But also noted stock is up. Just saying people focus on the actual ratings too much. They have lost 25% in audience that is huge. But its not all negative.


----------



## Stone Hot

I just realized that WWE made sheamus a 5:15 :lmao could that be a shot at your little Roman 2:16 SHIV


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Everything's fine on the fucking Titanic, the upper class is still partying.


----------



## Marrakesh

TATER TOTS = RATINGS SON :reigns2


----------



## LaMelo

Wade Barrett is so done.

How does that equal ratings?


----------



## SnapOrTap

Please.

Please.

Let all 3 hours be below 3 million.

Please.

Please.

Santa, I've been a good boy. BELEEE DAT.


----------



## Marrakesh

New Day Jingle Bell Rocks! said:


> Wade Barrett is so done.
> 
> How does that equal ratings?


Barrett is so fucking good too. Pisses me off.


----------



## LPPrince

So from what I hear about tonight's Raw, I take it ratings are gonna sink some more.


----------



## Kabraxal

SnapOrTap said:


> Please.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Let all 3 hours be below 3 million.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Please.
> 
> Santa, I've been a good boy. BELEEE DAT.


Duck lips.. do the duck lips!


----------



## Dub J

Ryback's obviously been working to improve. Would like a little more spice in his feud with Rusev but it's been pretty entertaining.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Kabraxal said:


> Duck lips.. do the duck lips!


:reigns2


----------



## Kabraxal

Dub J said:


> Ryback's obviously been working to improve. Would like a little more spice in his feud with Rusev but it's been pretty entertaining.


I think he took Punk's criticisms like any real wrestler should... "Fuck you, I'll prove you wrong!".


----------



## Dub J

Kabraxal said:


> I think he took Punk's criticisms like any real wrestler should... "Fuck you, I'll prove you wrong!".


Whether you hate, love, are don't care about the guy you have to admit he's obviously working at it. Love seeing people in all walks of life trying to improve.


----------



## Hawkke

I always thought Ryback was good, They killed his early momentum with a needless heel turn to feed to Cena, lost 7 straight PPV matches, That's going to effect anyone negatively, anyone.


----------



## RatedR10

This show doesn't even deserve a 2.0 anymore. Let's get into those 1's :mark:


----------



## WakeUpMuricah

Interesting article on the decline of traditional TV viewership:

http://fortune.com/2015/12/07/smartphone-tv-report/



> A new study of media and attention by Nielsen Co. confirms what has now become conventional wisdom: Smartphones are winning and traditional television is losing, especially when it comes to viewers in the most desirable 18 to 34 demographic.
> 
> Nielsen also says that traditional TV viewing by all age groups peaked in the 2009-2010 season, and has been on the decline ever since. Until that point, the audience for TV had grown every year since 1949.
> 
> The data underlying the report shows that among 18 to 34-year-olds, the use of smartphones, tablets, and TV-connected devices such as streaming boxes or game consoles increased by more than 25% in May compared with the same period a year earlier, to about 8.5 million people per minute.
> 
> In that same category, TV viewing fell by 10% to 8.4 million people per minute.


----------



## Marrakesh

WakeUpMuricah said:


> Interesting article on the decline of traditional TV viewership:
> 
> http://fortune.com/2015/12/07/smartphone-tv-report/


I'm not an expert on any of this, but I highly doubt this accounts for WWE's huge ratings decline in the past year. 

They've lost around 25% of their total viewership. The general decline of the 18-34 demo effects all TV shows but they aren't all losing up to a quarter of their audience like WWE has this year. 

At least, the ones which are retaining their popularity by coming close to giving their viewers exactly what they want on a weekly basis are not. 

I think WWE is now feeling the effects of YEARS of bad decisions and that is exactly why there will be no quick fix, or rating's boost until the show is completely revamped top to bottom. 

It may take them losing another 25% of their audience for this to happen though given how deluded they are.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Ratings please!


----------



## Annihilus

This week's Raw, or at least the 3rd hour, deserves to set a new all-time-low. This pretty much sums it up:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674069821655511041


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Annihilus said:


> This week's Raw, or at least the 3rd hour, deserves to set a new all-time-low. This pretty much sums it up:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/674069821655511041


Obviously, all these viewers aren't gone, they just belong to someone else.


----------



## Stone Hot

I don't expect them to be better then last weeks at all. Even tho it was up by little.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

Bad as the last hour of Raw was it was still better than the damn MNF game fpalm


----------



## Stone Hot

I just want them to keep going down to prove that making Sheamus champion was the worst failed thing since #CancelWWENetwork


----------



## TheShieldSuck

when they come out?


----------



## From Death Valley

TheShieldSuck said:


> when they come out?


Tomorrow maybe,


----------



## Mifune Jackson

They came out on Wednesday last week because of Thanksgiving, but normally they come out Tuesday afternoons.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Saw this on Twitter. I dont know much about this egg ball stuff but maybe it has a clue to RAW rating.


----------



## Stone Hot

They will be out around 4EST


----------



## DoubtGin

Highest for MNF this season?

Yea RAW ratings will suffer from that.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Oh please let it be a 1.X!


----------



## Joesh

I watched the MNF game instead of RAW for the 3rd week in a row but it was so bad this week that I at least flipped over to RAW a few times. The MNF game only got good after RAW ended. I'm shocked the total ratings was so high for such a bad game, but I guess it is the Cowboys after all.


----------



## 3ku1

Not really getting why some are like "Oh I hope its a low number" aye?? Logically we want the show's ratings to go up, to appease the stockholders and shareholders. I get the idea if ratings go low enough, Vince and co well be forced to improve the product. But then again USA well just drop them if they get a 1.0. Vince has no reason to improve the product. As it is, for its timeslot its the highest rated show. Ratings as it is are very subjective.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

3ku1 said:


> Not really getting why some are like "Oh I hope its a low number" aye??


It's perfectly logical to want a terrible show to do terrible numbers. I don't understand the confusion.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

H1-3.270M
H2-3.042M
H3-2.850M

Avg-3.054M


----------



## RatedR10

3ku1 said:


> Not really getting why some are like "Oh I hope its a low number" aye?? Logically we want the show's ratings to go up, to appease the stockholders and shareholders. I get the idea if ratings go low enough, Vince and co well be forced to improve the product. But then again USA well just drop them if they get a 1.0. Vince has no reason to improve the product. As it is, for its timeslot its the highest rated show. Ratings as it is are very subjective.


No we don't. That would just tell WWE that nothing needs to be changed, when the reality is, a lot needs to be changed.

_Everything_ needs to be changed.


----------



## JBLoser

2.85 million viewers in hour 3 :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## D.M.N.

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...cable-originals-network-update-12-7-2015.html


----------



## DoublePass

Roman Reigns is trash. Confirmed.


----------



## LilOlMe

ETA: Nevermind, sorry, thought it was another troll poster.

Weird tvbythenumbers has been slacking with getting the numbers up quickly.


----------



## RatedR10

2.85 mil :ha


----------



## DoublePass

LilOlMe said:


> Mods ban this guy for making up false numbers.


Those are actually accurate.


----------



## RatedR10

LilOlMe said:


> Mods ban this guy for making up false numbers.


Except DMN just posted the link confirming the numbers...


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

They really are that low. :grin2:

I cant post links here because my post count hasn't reached 10 yet. :grin2:

So I posted the numbers from the showbuzzdaily site directly.:grin2:

Anyway you're kidding right? :wink2:


----------



## Stone Hot

Still not an all time low but good they deserve it. The first match should have been the last. Everything was backwards last night and just awful with the promos they deserve it


:ha :ha :ha


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Correct numbers.

The highest rated hour got 3.2 million viewers. :ha

That's the third time in the past month they got below 3 million viewers for at least one of the hours of Raw with one of the Raws getting 2 hours below 3 million a few weeks back. On the same night as an AWFUL football game and the go-home show to a PPV, too. Yikes.


----------



## JBLoser

RAW's 3rd hour got beat by a show on Discovery Channel. lol


----------



## ShadowSucks92

I wonder, out of them 2.85m viewers, I wonder how many just left the channel on but were instead talking on forums and laughing at how bad the show is


----------



## Chrome

Terrible numbers per usual. Wonder what the rating will be?


----------



## Stone Hot

This 3rd hour is cancer. It needs to go


----------



## RatedR10

Jolly Ol' St. Chrome said:


> Terrible numbers per usual. Wonder what the rating will be?


I'd guess 2.07 - 2.20 range. I'd need to see the same table from two weeks ago to make a better guess.


----------



## NearFall

ShowStopper said:


> Correct numbers.
> 
> The highest rated hour got 3.2 million viewers. :ha


I remember that kind of number was considered catastrophic back in 2012/2013. God damn.


----------



## DoublePass

Roman Reigns' new nickname should be "Sub Three (million)."


----------



## RatedR10

Found the table from two weeks ago where two hours were below 3 million. Looking at the demo numbers, I'd guess 2.14 - 2.23 for this show, actually.


----------



## Londrick

Why do I have a feeling Daniel Bryan will suddenly be cleared by WWE's "doctor" :mj


----------



## DoublePass

American Christmas X said:


> Why do I have a feeling Daniel Bryan will suddenly be cleared by WWE's "doctor" :mj


He won't.

Vince would rather stubbornly continue on with Reigns' journey than maximize his profits.


----------



## A-C-P

No guys, the 3rd hour only dropped b/c Reigns kept saying "Tater Tot" and it made all the viewers hungry so they tuned out to go make Tater Tots :reigns2


----------



## Blade Runner

ShadowSucks92 said:


> I wonder, out of them 2.85m viewers, I wonder how many just left the channel on but were instead talking on forums and laughing at how bad the show is


That or they left the TV on because they fell asleep


----------



## Stone Hot

American Christmas X said:


> Why do I have a feeling Daniel Bryan will suddenly be cleared by WWE's "doctor" :mj


fpalm not this again


----------



## TheShieldSuck




----------



## LilOlMe

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> They really are that low. :grin2:
> 
> I cant post links here because my post count hasn't reached 10 yet. :grin2:
> 
> So I posted the numbers from the showbuzzdaily site directly.:grin2:
> 
> Anyway you're kidding right? :wink2:


I edited my post pretty quickly, because I saw the other link.

There used to be a troll poster who would come here and just leave fake numbers like that. Had a long screenname like yours. With that history, and since it wasn't on tvbythenumbers, I thought it was that same poster pulling the same shtick. Sorry.


----------



## GAD247

"Why don't they love me?"


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

LilOlMe said:


> I edited my post pretty quickly, because I saw the other link.
> 
> There used to be a troll poster who would come here and just leave fake numbers like that. Had a long screenname like yours. With that history, and since it wasn't on tvbythenumbers, I thought it was that same poster pulling the same shtick. Sorry.


I think I remember bearing witness to his trollsploits during my pre-poster days here. 
On a side note, I had to post this to hit 10 post count and post links. :grin2:


----------



## LilOlMe

Last year's December 8, 2014 RAW (also the TLC go home show):


> *Raw averaged 3.69 million viewers*, down 3.88 million last week and way down from the 4.29 million the week before.
> 
> The hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 3.76 million
> Hour two: 3.81 million
> Hour three: 3.53 million


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-ratings-dec-8-2014-slammy-awards-viewers-tlc

That was considered bad at the time, btw, and way down from the weeks before.

They'd be praising God for these numbers now!

3.69 million last year to 3.054 million this year. A more than 600,000 viewer drop-off.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

3ku1 said:


> Not really getting why some are like "Oh I hope its a low number" aye?? Logically we want the show's ratings to go up, to appease the stockholders and shareholders. I get the idea if ratings go low enough, Vince and co well be forced to improve the product. But then again USA well just drop them if they get a 1.0. Vince has no reason to improve the product. As it is, for its timeslot its the highest rated show. Ratings as it is are very subjective.


Going from well above 3.0 to barely scraping low 2s within a few months is not subjective, dude.


----------



## Chrome

LilOlMe said:


> Last year's December 8, 2014 RAW (also the TLC go home show):
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-ratings-dec-8-2014-slammy-awards-viewers-tlc
> 
> That was considered bad at the time, btw, and way down from the weeks before.
> 
> They'd be praising God for these numbers now!
> 
> 3.69 million last year to 3.054 million this year. A more than 600,000 viewer drop-off.


Next year, they'll average like 2.5 million viewers and THESE numbers will look good in hindsight. :mj4


----------



## TheShieldSuck

TBH this weeks viewership was actually pretty good. I was hoping all three hrs would be under 3m.


----------



## Stone Hot

Wrestling is just dying in general IMO


----------



## Tardbasher12

1.99-2.05 reach Y/N


----------



## skarvika

ROMAN DA RATINGS KILLING GAWD
:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2








:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2


----------



## Stone Hot

skarvika said:


> ROMAN DA RATINGS KILLING GAWD
> :reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2


Yea to bad he is not to blame


----------



## ShadowSucks92

Happy to see all them creative changes worked out well for them


----------



## RatedR10

Tardbasher12 said:


> 1.99-2.05 reach Y/N


Like I said, it's lining up to be in the 2.14 - 2.23 range looking at the demos. I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's lower than 2.14.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

In before people start saying it's the DVR's fault.

People wanted to tape the third hour, so they can watch the glorious Reigns segment the next day in the bathtub with a glass of wine, surely.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> TBH this weeks viewership was actually pretty good. I was hoping all three hrs would be under 3m.


The fact that this is "pretty good" shows how bad it is. The highest hour had 3.2 million. Hour 2 had exactly 3 million. They're getting closer and closer.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Roman Ratings.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Let's see the resume of the Golden Boy.

*WWE Accomplishments:
WWE World Heavyweight Championship (1 time)
WWE Tag Team Championship (1 time) – with Seth Rollins[192]
Royal Rumble (2015)[193]
WWE World Heavyweight Championship Tournament (2015)
Slammy Awards (6 times)
Breakout Star of the Year (2013) with Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins as The Shield
Faction of the Year (2013, 2014) with Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins as The Shield[194]
Superstar of the Year (2014)[70]
Trending Now (Hashtag) of the Year (2013) – #BelieveInTheShield with Dean Ambrose and Seth Rollins as The Shield
"What a Maneuver" of the Year (2013) – Spear
Most Royal Rumble eliminations.
Most Survivor Series eliminations.
Biggest push since John Cena.
Cousin of the Rock.
Leader of the Shield.
Has wins over Daniel Bryan, Bray Wyatt, Cesaro, Kevin Owens, and Dean Ambrose.
Is the face of this company right now.*

AND

HE

CAN'T

DRAW

3

MILLION

VIEWERS FOR HIS MATCH.

DONEZO BOYS. THEY DONEZO.

:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2:reigns2


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> The fact that this is "pretty good" shows how bad it is. The highest hour had 3.2 million. Hour 2 had exactly 3 million. They're getting closer and closer.


It was against the most popular MNF game so far so to do that well shows they have plateaued for now. 

I reckon next year RAW will average around 2.55 mark. Would be interesting to see the ratings in 10-12 months time though. 

I think WWE are out of the woods now and will experience no more decline for a while.


----------



## Annihilus

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Roman Ratings.


Roamin' Ratings--the ratings have roamed to other channels.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> It was against the most popular MNF game so far so to do that well shows they have plateaued for now.
> 
> I reckon next year RAW will average around 2.55 mark. Would be interesting to see the ratings in 10-12 months time though.
> 
> I think WWE are out of the woods now and will experience no more decline for a while.


It was one of the most awful football games of the season. The score was 3-3 at HALFTIME. People were joking about the quality of the game all night and WWE STILL couldn't put a dent in the ratings. This is their decline and it's been a major one.


----------



## Stone Hot

Lol some of you are trying to hard


----------



## SnapOrTap

TheShieldSuck said:


> It was against the most popular MNF game so far so to do that well shows they have plateaued for now.
> 
> I reckon next year RAW will average around 2.55 mark. Would be interesting to see the ratings in 10-12 months time though.
> 
> I think WWE are out of the woods now and will experience no more decline for a while.


Nope.

Next NFL Monday Night games:
Giants vs Dolphins
Lions vs Saints
Bengals vs Broncos

It's going to get worse. 

They're lucky the NFL's biggest draw, Tom Brady, doesn't have a MNF game. Last time they went H2H with the WWE, the WWE had 2 hours below 3 million. What a beast.


----------



## From Death Valley

Yeah all the ***** who used to blame Seth Rollins for the ratings are now saying that wrestling is dying in general because they don't want the blame being pointed at their guy :ann1


----------



## Marrakesh

Was expecting worse due to better competition. 

All three hours are dipping below three million before the month is out. 

AND YOU CAN BELEE DAT FELLAAAAAAAA


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Lol some of you are trying to hard


Not even 50% as hard some were trying as earlier this year. As soon as Rollins is gone, the ratings will increase, they said!


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> It was one of the most awful football games of the season. The score was 3-3 at HALFTIME. People were joking about the quality of the game all night and WWE STILL couldn't put a dent in the ratings. This is their decline and it's been a major one.


Doesn't matter. I saw Man U v Man City and that ended 0-0 in one of the most boring matches ever but I watched it all cus its UTD v City. 

RAW has now stabilized.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TheShieldSuck said:


> It was against the most popular MNF game so far so to do that well shows they have plateaued for now.
> 
> I reckon next year RAW will average around 2.55 mark. Would be interesting to see the ratings in 10-12 months time though.
> 
> I think WWE are out of the woods now and will experience no more decline for a while.


The same wackos who brought the show to this level are still in charge, and are the biggest marks for themselves.
It won't get better one ounce.


----------



## Stone Hot

From Death Valley said:


> Yeah all the ***** who used to blame Seth Rollins for the ratings are now saying that wrestling is dying in general because they don't want the blame being pointed at their guy :ann1


Yea no I was never blaming Rollins it's the product in general. I only blamed Sheamus well cause it's Sheamus buy it's mostly the product


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Doesn't matter. I saw Man U v Man City and that ended 0-0 in one of the most boring matches ever but I watched it all cus its UTD v City.
> 
> RAW has now stabilized.


If being stable is not being able to draw 3 million viewers for it's main event, then it sure has! Enjoy that, Brownian!


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Not even 50% as hard some were trying as earlier this year. As soon as Rollins is gone, the ratings will increase, they said!]


Dude I never blamed him but you can see why some did. And TBH ratings did start to go down when he was champion but he wasn't the reason they went down. 


I can't wait until you start saying they will go up when he returns so when they actually don't I can go :ha


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Yea no I was never blaming Rollins it's the product in general. I only blamed Sheamus well cause it's Sheamus buy it's mostly the product


Liar. You never blamed the product until now because you never thought WWE could make mistakes until recently. Get lost.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> The same wackos who brought the show to this level are still in charge, and are the biggest marks for themselves.
> It won't get better one ounce.


Doesn't matter. (hardcore) Wrestling fans will watch shite if they are told to. Also WM season is coming. Wrestling fans are idiots. All WWE have to do is get some 57 year old pensioner to debut and shut up and take my money.


----------



## From Death Valley

Stone Hot said:


> Yea no I was never blaming Rollins it's the product in general. I only blamed Sheamus well cause it's Sheamus buy it's mostly the product


There's other people out there who blame Rollins and now are blaming it on what the WWE has become today. Never said you. I only blame Vince because he's the captain of the titanic known as the wwe and he set the course to go straight towards the ice berg. 

He never learns and never will.


----------



## Marrakesh

Stone Hot said:


> Lol some of you are trying to hard


I yearn for the day you are banned permanently.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Wrestling isn't dying. WWE isn't wrestling.

ICW (a UK company), sold out 4,000 seats for their biggest show of the year, a show that was headlined by Drew Galloway vs. Grado.
Hell, the British wrestling scene in general has gone through a bit of a resurgence this year.

PWG & Lucha Underground have tons of momentum and interest surrounding the product, after a great 2015. 

People are still interested in wrestling, they're just no longer interested in WWE.

And in regards to these ratings, they deserve it. I hope these ratings continue to fall. *


----------



## Mifune Jackson

The problem was never Seth Rollins himself. The problem was that he was with the Authority and we'd been dealing with a heel champion for well over a year by the time the ratings really started to tank. 

It's the story, not the performer. Always has been.


----------



## Marrakesh

Deadman's Hand said:


> *Wrestling isn't dying. WWE isn't wrestling.
> 
> ICW (a UK company), sold out 4,000 seats for their biggest show of the year, a show that was headlined by Drew Galloway vs. Grado.
> Hell, the British wrestling scene in general has gone through a bit of a resurgence this year.
> 
> PWG & Lucha Underground have tons of momentum and interest surrounding the product, after a great 2015.
> 
> People are still interested in wrestling, they're just no longer interested in WWE.
> 
> And in regards to these ratings, they deserve it. I hope these ratings continue to fall. *


:clap Well said.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Liar. You never blamed the product until now because you never thought WWE could make mistakes until recently. Get lost.


:lol angry much? 

Dude I've been blaming the poduct since fall of 2014 

But What ever can't please everyone :shrug


----------



## Stone Hot

From Death Valley said:


> There's other people out there who blame Rollins and now are blaming it on what the WWE has become today. Never said you. I only blame Vince because he's the captain of the titanic known as the wwe and he set the course to go straight towards the ice berg.
> 
> He never learns and never will.


Exactly. He is going to destroy what he created


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Doesn't matter. (hardcore) Wrestling fans will watch shite if they are told to. Also WM season is coming. Wrestling fans are idiots. All WWE have to do is get some 57 year old pensioner to debut and shut up and take my money.


Well, not sure if you noticed, but you just called yourself an idiot. I'm the biggest Sting mark alive, and not even I bothered buying Wrestlemania.

They don't know how to change the product, they don't want to change the product, and over the course of laborious 15 years, Vince finally arrived at his clear vision again, meaning mid-90s. No wonder the ratings are almost the same.


----------



## Kabraxal

Deadman's Hand said:


> *Wrestling isn't dying. WWE isn't wrestling.
> 
> ICW (a UK company), sold out 4,000 seats for their biggest show of the year, a show that was headlined by Drew Galloway vs. Grado.
> Hell, the British wrestling scene in general has gone through a bit of a resurgence this year.
> 
> PWG & Lucha Underground have tons of momentum and interest surrounding the product, after a great 2015.
> 
> People are still interested in wrestling, they're just no longer interested in WWE.
> 
> And in regards to these ratings, they deserve it. I hope these ratings continue to fall. *


If LU, NJPW, or NXT were the face of wrestling in the world, there wouldn't even be this "wrestling just isn't popular" bullshit going around... no, wrestling is popular, it's just the once flagship show is absolute shit. 

It's actually telling how much people want wrestling and will go out of their way to get it... NXT is one of the big reasons many still have the network, AXS-TV has done well for a nothing network because of NJPW, El Rey is only known because of Lucha Underground... I mean, if wrestling was as dead as some think, actual wrestling shows wouldn't be pulling in good numbers for the networks they are on. 

We just need one of those three to get the huge cable deal or Netflix... Raw is just a terrible brand to be the face of wrestling. Weird, Raw is basically Cena o.0


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Mifune Jackson said:


> The problem was never Seth Rollins himself. The problem was that he was with the Authority and we'd been dealing with a heel champion for well over a year by the time the ratings really started to tank.
> 
> It's the story, not the performer. Always has been.


The problem was that he was a chicken shit, like ALL heels are booked. And like all heels, he didn't have a strong baby face to play against. Heels are worthless if the audience knows there is no comeuppance coming from a guy they love.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Well, not sure if you noticed, but you just called yourself an idiot. I'm the biggest Sting mark alive, and not even I bothered buying Wrestlemania.
> 
> They don't know how to change the product, they don't want to change the product, and over the course of laborious 15 years, Vince finally arrived at his clear vision again, meaning mid-90s. No wonder the ratings are almost the same.


I havent purchased anything from WWE since 2007. However, judging by the Network sales WWE fans have awful taste. This show should be cancelled or atleast be getting sub 1m viewers per hour because this show is garbage. Its not entertaining in the slightest and is just background noise. 

I would love to see research done on how many people actually watch WWE's commercials because I get the feeling they aren't paying attention to the show or ads.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Can we all just agree that the Roman Reigns project has failed?

With the huge amount of investment they've put in the guy, he hasn't drawn a dime.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

SnapOrTap said:


> Can we all just agree that the Roman Reigns project has failed?
> 
> With the huge amount of investment they've put in the guy, he hasn't drawn a dime.


Nobody draws. The only recent guys that did are Lesnar, Cena, Batista and Rock. The only thing that does draw is the brand. 

Reigns has failed no more than the rest of the roster. 

Rollins is the guy who should be blamed more than anyone. From 2.8 the week after WM to 2.2s. He decimated the ratings and has left the show a wreck.


----------



## From Death Valley

I don't have a problem with Sting the only problem I had was how he was used .

For example at mania he should've gone over and Bray Wyatt should've faced him instead of the BOD with Sting putting Bray over. Rollins didn't need to go against Sting. When there's plenty of talent in the back waiting for a shot at the title. Hell they could've just had Rollins vs Ambrose with Reigns setting up Ambrose after the match and helping Sheamus cash in only for Sheamus to get beat by Triple H and Reigns with Reigns winning the title at the last ppv from Sheamus and Ambrose coming back from a "injury Angle"


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Nobody draws. The only recent guys that did are Lesnar, Cena, Batista and Rock. The only thing that does draw is the brand.
> 
> Reigns has failed no more than the rest of the roster.
> 
> Rollins is the guy who should be blamed more than anyone. From 2.8 the week after WM to 2.2s. He decimated the ratings and has left the show a wreck.


The first half of his reign was in the mid to high 3's. Once Labor Day and Football came around, they never recovered.

Oh and the RTWM this year had the lowest ratings they've had for that time period and Rollins was in a midcard feud with Orton going into WM. Try harder, Brownian. You have been proven wrong time and time again and big time in this case. You said ratings would increase once this is over, and the exact opposite happened. They went down and under 3 million.


----------



## Louaja89

ShowStopper said:


> The first half of his reign was in the mid to high 3's. Once Labor Day and Football came around, they never recovered.
> 
> Oh and the RTWM this year had the lowest ratings they've had for that time period and Rollins was in a midcard feud with Orton going into WM. Try harder, Brownian. You have been proven wrong time and time again and big time in this case. You said ratings would increase once this is over, and the exact opposite happened. They went down and under 3 million.


I can't believe some people are still trying to blame Rollins for the ratings after what we've just witnessed during the last month. I wonder what is it gonna take for them to realize that creative and Vince has been the problem all along.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> The first half of his reign was in the mid to high 3's. Once Labor Day and Football came around, they never recovered.
> 
> Oh and the RTWM this year had the lowest ratings they've had for that time period and Rollins was in a midcard feud with Orton going into WM. Try harder, Brownian. You have been proven wrong time and time again and big time in this case. You said ratings would increase once this is over, and the exact opposite happened. They went down and under 3 million.


The final episode of RAW in October got nearly a 2.5 rating so it did for once episode increase dramatically. 

Thing is Seth Rollins is a heel. A cowardly heel. Fans kinda want a cowardly heel to lose, to get his comeuppance. When he got injured fans were like "why the fuck did I watch SEVEN months of this boring guy only for him to get injured like that?" and so they tuned out.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> The final episode of RAW in October got nearly a 2.5 rating so it did for once episode increase dramatically.
> 
> Thing is Seth Rollins is a heel. A cowardly heel. Fans kinda want a cowardly heel to lose, to get his comeuppance. When he got injured fans were like "why the fuck did I watch SEVEN months of this boring guy only for him to get injured like that?" and so they tuned out.


Rollins got injured in early November, so he was on that episode, not that it matters.

Not even going to try to decipher that gibberish you posted after that. Must suck to have eat this L so hard, browinan. I love it!


----------



## Chrome

Kabraxal said:


> Weird, Raw is basically Cena o.0


They've pushed Cena for so long they've become Cena themselves. And both are starting to wind down. Isn't that something? :cena


----------



## PurityOfEvil

The ratings are low because of Vince McMahon. Not because of who has been or who is champion.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Amazing that they lose close to 0.5 million viewers once people realize what's in the main event.


----------



## Marrakesh

TheShieldSuck said:


> The final episode of RAW in October got nearly a 2.5 rating so it did for once episode increase dramatically.
> 
> Thing is Seth Rollins is a heel. A cowardly heel. Fans kinda want a cowardly heel to lose, to get his comeuppance. When he got injured fans were like "why the fuck did I watch SEVEN months of this boring guy only for him to get injured like that?" and so they tuned out.


Please stop babbling. 

Stop polluting this thread with your nonsensical interpretations of the ratings.

They've been on the decline all year in comparison to 2014. WWE's end game for 2016 is to have Roman Reigns as their babyface WWE champion. 

All anyone else is doing is pointing out how fucking stupid that would be, considering he has no effect on the numbers whatsoever in that position. 

If he has no effect on the numbers then people are right to question such a strong push, that could inevitably lead to the company focusing their entire brand around a guy who isn't drawing for them. 

If no one person is drawing, then why the fuck would they pursue that formula instead of deviating from these seemingly doomed plans and creating a brand based around a number of individuals.

Surely this would make more sense than relying on the misguided hope, that a relative rookie with minimal public speaking ability is the answer to all of your problems. 

:shrug


----------



## 3ku1

Once again no one person can change the ratings, these days other then Rock their is no such things as a draw. Blaming Seth for the numbers is as short sighted as blaming Sheamus or Reigns now lol. Regardless of Demo, its not an excuse to say see he sucks I told you, I mean really.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Marrakesh said:


> Please stop babbling.
> 
> Stop polluting this thread with your nonsensical interpretations of the ratings.
> 
> They've been on the decline all year in comparison to 2014. WWE's end game for 2016 is to have Roman Reigns as their babyface WWE champion.
> 
> All anyone else is doing is pointing out how fucking stupid that would be, considering he has no effect on the numbers whatsoever in that position.
> 
> If he has no effect on the numbers then people are right to question such a strong push, that could inevitably lead to the company focusing their entire brand around a guy who isn't drawing for them.
> 
> If no one person is drawing, then why the fuck would they pursue that formula instead of deviating from these seemingly doomed plans and creating a brand based around a number of individuals.
> 
> Surely this would make more sense than relying on the misguided hope, that a relative rookie with minimal public speaking ability is the answer to all of your problems.
> 
> :shrug


Nobody draws. The only thing that draws is the brand and quality. However, there are anti draws. Seth Rollins is one of them as are the divas.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> The problem was that he was a chicken shit, like ALL heels are booked. And like all heels, he didn't have a strong baby face to play against. Heels are worthless if the audience knows there is no comeuppance coming from a guy they love.


You can't have strong babyfaces if they never win. We've gone from Brock demolishing Cena to never really getting beaten to Seth Rollins being weak but still champion in a repetitive pattern that ends with him getting injured, and now we have Sheamus.

Yes, the heels are booked weak and that's a problem, but the faces are booked to beat the heels when it never counts and never really win. Cena can beat Rollins all he wants, but if he never beats him in a meaningful way, both guys look like crap.

Basically, everyone sucks and no one ever really wins. Zero-sum booking for all.


----------



## RatedR10

According to TheShieldSuck, viewership continuing to drop means it's stabilizing.

Alright, then. unk2


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

ShowStopper said:


> It was one of the most awful football games of the season. The score was 3-3 at HALFTIME. People were joking about the quality of the game all night and WWE STILL couldn't put a dent in the ratings. This is their decline and it's been a major one.


It's still Dallas and they are a big draw, even without Romo. A 4.81 in the demo is actually pretty decent for a MNF game. Roman's quest for the title against Sheamus has been an anti draw so far, save for children and fans of potato products.


----------



## Fissiks

SHIVVY POO said:


> It's still Dallas and they are a big draw, even without Romo. A 4.81 in the demo is actually pretty decent for a MNF game. Roman's quest for the title against Sheamus has been an anti draw so far, save for children and fans of potato products.


Yeah Dallas is the biggest draw in the NFL, Washington is to far behind and to the fact that New York and Philly had interest in the this game with first place on the line, it spells bad news for WWE. There is a reason why the NFC East have such a high amount of prime-time games...


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RatedR10 said:


> According to TheShieldSuck, viewership continuing to drop means it's stabilizing.
> 
> Alright, then. unk2


They have had worse viewership last month. I was expecting all hours sub 3m but they did well under a big football game.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> According to TheShieldSuck, viewership continuing to drop means it's stabilizing.
> 
> Alright, then. unk2


Almost every Raw since Rollins has been gone has had at least 1 hour of the show fall beneath 3 million viewers; something that never happened on Rollins' watch, not a once. The highest rated hour this week was a poultry 3.2 million. Ratings stabilized!



SHIVVY POO said:


> It's still Dallas and they are a big draw, even without Romo. A 4.81 in the demo is actually pretty decent for a MNF game. Roman's quest for the title against Sheamus has been an anti draw so far, save for children and fans of potato products.


No MNF ever does badly, especially compared to WWE. But this was a game between two under .500 teams without the biggest star between the two biggest teams (Romo) playing and they couldn't even put a dent in it. WWE barely broke 3 million viewers for a Ravens/Browns game.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Almost every Raw since Rollins has been gone has had at least 1 hour of the show fall beneath 3 million viewers; something that never happened on Rollins' watch, not a once. The highest rated hour this week was a poultry 3.2 million. Ratings stabilized!
> 
> 
> 
> No MNF ever does badly, especially compared to WWE. But this was a game between two under .500 teams without the biggest star between the two biggest teams (Romo) playing and they couldn't even put a dent in it. WWE barely broke 3 million viewers for a Ravens/Browns game.


For the last time. Last nights football game was the biggest so far and despite that RAW did OK. It should have all been sub 3m across the board.

Second, Rollins killed the ratings. If you think he did anything but change the channel you are deluded. The reason the ratings have dipped slightly since his departure is because the audience wanted to see Rollins get his comeuppance, as a heel should and gave up on the show when they realised that they had wasted 7 months of their life.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> For the last time. Last nights football game was the biggest so far and despite that RAW did OK. It should have all been sub 3m across the board.
> 
> Second, Rollins killed the ratings. If you think he did anything but change the channel you are deluded. The reason the ratings have dipped slightly since his departure is because the audience wanted to see Rollins get his comeuppance, as a heel should and gave up on the show when they realised that they had wasted 7 months of their life.


Last night's game was a game between two sub .500 teams and one of those teams playing without their starting QB and they STILL DEMOLISHED Raw. It wasn't even close. They got well below 3 million in hour 3 and hour 2 was just barely 3 million flat. Their highest rated hour, in which the football game doesn't even start for a half hour into the game, barely did above 3 million at 3.2 million. That is PITIFUL.

But we were told that once Rollins was gone the ratings would increase BIG TIME. Not only have they not done that, not only have they not maintained the audience they had during Rollins' reign, they've lost even MORE of their audience. Eat that L, brownian. Also eat an L for being a billion time re-joiner on a wrestling message board time and time again and being wrong time and time again.


----------



## Bazinga

The ratings for this thread could be more than RAW's rating.

I know that doesn't make sense but neither does WWE at the moment so let me talk nonsense.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Last night's game was a game between two sub .500 teams and one of those teams playing without their starting QB and they STILL DEMOLISHED Raw. It wasn't even close. They got well below 3 million in hour 3 and hour 2 was just barely 3 million flat. Their highest rated hour, in which the football game doesn't even start for a half hour into the game, barely did above 3 million at 3.2 million. That is PITIFUL.
> 
> But we were told that once Rollins was gone the ratings would increase BIG TIME. Not only have they not done that, not only have they not maintained the audience they had during Rollins' reign, they've lost even MORE of their audience. Eat that L, brownian. Also eat an L for being a billion time re-joiner on a wrestling message board time and time again and being wrong time and time again.


AGAIN. It doesnt matter what you think about the game. It was the highest rated MNF game so far. 

As for Rollins. Its like it goes through one ear and out the other. Rollins 7 months of cancer put WWE in terminal decline. Rollins killed the will to live for the audience and they didnt even get to see this pathetic indie guy lose his title.


----------



## TheGmGoken

ShowStopper said:


> Last night's game was a game between two sub .500 teams and one of those teams playing without their starting QB and they STILL DEMOLISHED Raw. It wasn't even close. They got well below 3 million in hour 3 and hour 2 was just barely 3 million flat. Their highest rated hour, in which the football game doesn't even start for a half hour into the game, barely did above 3 million at 3.2 million. That is PITIFUL.
> 
> But we were told that once Rollins was gone the ratings would increase BIG TIME. Not only have they not done that, not only have they not maintained the audience they had during Rollins' reign, they've lost even MORE of their audience. Eat that L, brownian. Also eat an L for being a billion time re-joiner on a wrestling message board time and time again and being wrong time and time again.


Tell em Giants fan.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> AGAIN. It doesnt matter what you think about the game. It was the highest rated MNF game so far.
> 
> As for Rollins. Its like it goes through one ear and out the other. Rollins 7 months of cancer put WWE in terminal decline. Rollins killed the will to live for the audience and they didnt even get to see this pathetic indie guy lose his title.


It's not what I think about the game. It was a game featuring two bad teams, one without their starting QB. Browns/Ravens also beat the piss out of Raw.

Also, it's not like this was some random edition of Raw. This was the go-home show to the last PPV of the year.

More jibberish about Rollins because you can't handle the fact that he is far from the worst draw in this company. Literally ZERO weeks of Raw went under 3 million viewers on his watch. And 3 episodes in the past month without him have had at least 1 hour go under that. Even on the go-home show to a PPV. Enjoy that.



TheGmGoken said:


> Tell em Giants fan.


Our entire division sucks. I don't know whether to :lel or :mj2


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> It's not what I think about the game. It was a game featuring two bad teams, one without their starting QB. Browns/Ravens also beat the piss out of Raw.
> 
> Also, it's not like this was some random edition of Raw. This was the go-home show to the last PPV of the year.
> 
> More jibberish about Rollins because you can't handle the fact that he is far from the worst draw in this company. Literally ZERO weeks of Raw went under 3 million viewers on his watch. And 3 episodes in the past month without him have had at least 1 hour go under that. Even on the go-home show to a PPV. Enjoy that.


Far from the worst draw? He went from 2.8 to 2.2

That is one seventh of the ratings that died under his reign. So there has been lower ratings, such as the 2.16 but that is a fraction of the ratings Seth lost.


----------



## TheGmGoken

ShowStopper said:


> It's not what I think about the game. It was a game featuring two bad teams, one without their starting QB. Browns/Ravens also beat the piss out of Raw.
> 
> Also, it's not like this was some random edition of Raw. This was the go-home show to the last PPV of the year.
> 
> More jibberish about Rollins because you can't handle the fact that he is far from the worst draw in this company. Literally ZERO weeks of Raw went under 3 million viewers on his watch. And 3 episodes in the past month without him have had at least 1 hour go under that. Even on the go-home show to a PPV. Enjoy that.
> 
> 
> 
> Our entire division sucks. I don't know whether to :lel or :mj2


Tbh if it was up to me. No one in our division gets into playoffs.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Far from the worst draw? He went from 2.8 to 2.2
> 
> That is one seventh of the ratings that died under his reign. So there has been lower ratings, such as the 2.16 but that is a fraction of the ratings Seth lost.


It's only been 4 weeks and there's been a huge drop. Ratings under Seth were for nearly a year. Huge difference. In one line you say ratings aren't that bad, now they are. Make up your mind and decide who you want to blame. 

Besides if it was all Rollins fault, ratings would have immediately gone up when he left, like you said they would. Ratings have gone down even more because they are even more disgusted with what WWE has given them. Deal with it. And yes, far from the worst draw. Rollins never drew these ratings. :jay

Shame on me for entertaining the troll. My bad, guys.


----------



## Chrome

Anyone seen this yet?






This shit's starting to get mainstream attention. :haha


----------



## TheShieldSuck

It's only been 4 weeks and there's been a huge drop.
--
No there hasn't. If the ratings early this year went from a 2.8 to a 2.7 the next week we wouldn't bother reporting it ESPECIALLY in football territory. 

Ratings under Seth were for nearly a year. Huge difference. 
---
7 months 

In one line you say ratings aren't that bad, now they are. Make up your mind and decide who you want to blame. 
---
The ratings are horrible. Everyone can see that. Hell, I would consider sub 3.5 a bad rating but this is the new norrmal, thanks to Rollins. 

Besides if it was all Rollins fault, ratings would have immediately gone up when he left, like you said they would.
---
I didnt say that. In fact I stated the opposite. Rollins' vacation of the title devalued the title and caused the casual to question why they bothered watching the show for 7 months. Its like what Dutch Mantel said in the rise and fall of WCW, how they are loyal until you smack em in the face. Then they question why they continue to watch the show. That is what happened with Rollins. 

Ratings have gone down even more because they are even more disgusted with what WWE has given them. Deal with it.
---
Ratings went down under Rollins much more drastically and without the excuse of MNF so they must have been disgusted back then and guess what? Rollins was getting "boring" chants and was on almost every segment.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheShieldSuck said:


> It's only been 4 weeks and there's been a huge drop.
> --
> No there hasn't. If the ratings early this year went from a 2.8 to a 2.7 the next week we wouldn't bother reporting it ESPECIALLY in football territory.
> 
> Ratings under Seth were for nearly a year. Huge difference.
> ---
> 7 months
> 
> In one line you say ratings aren't that bad, now they are. Make up your mind and decide who you want to blame.
> ---
> The ratings are horrible. Everyone can see that. Hell, I would consider sub 3.5 a bad rating but this is the new norrmal, thanks to Rollins.
> 
> Besides if it was all Rollins fault, ratings would have immediately gone up when he left, like you said they would.
> ---
> I didnt say that. In fact I stated the opposite. Rollins' vacation of the title devalued the title and caused the casual to question why they bothered watching the show for 7 months. Its like what Dutch Mantel said in the rise and fall of WCW, how they are loyal until you smack em in the face. Then they question why they continue to watch the show. That is what happened with Rollins.
> 
> Ratings have gone down even more because they are even more disgusted with what WWE has given them. Deal with it.
> ---
> Ratings went down under Rollins much more drastically and without the excuse of MNF so they must have been disgusted back then and guess what? Rollins was getting "boring" chants and was on almost every segment.


Um, yeah there has. And it's convienent of you not to note that ratings have been falling for quite sometime, way before Rollins was the World Champion.

You and a BUNCH of others said ratings would go up as soon as he left. Not only has that not happened, not only have they not maintained that audience, but they lost a ton more and have almost every single week dipped way under 3 million. Something that never happened with Rollins. Before football started, starting in April after WM, Raw's ratings were in the mid to high 3's every week. It was at Labor Day, start of football season that they went down and never recovered. Rollins got ONE boring chant his entire run; and Reigns has also already had one boring chant in alot less time.

This also doesn't take into consideration the past two weeks that most of if not the entire upper tier at the past two Raw's has been blacked out and empty. It was never this bad until now. Deal with it. Your logic is hilariously awful.


----------



## FROSTY

Stone Hot said:


> Wrestling is just dying in general IMO


If Vince wasn't such a stubborn old man and actually gave everyone what they want (that includes Reigns fans) seeing Owens, Ambrose, Lesnar, Rollins, Rusev maybe even Cesaro & Reigns in the main title picture and winning it like when you never knew if Jericho, Austin, Rock Triple H, Foley etc could be champion at anytime WWE would be just fine. Having a actual main event tier and not just Roman Reigns whether you like it or not (and judging by the numbers from week to week a lot of people don't) has always been best for business as your COO Triple H would say.


----------



## Stone Hot

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> If Vince wasn't such a stubborn old man and actually gave everyone what they want (that includes Reigns fans) seeing Owens, Ambrose, Lesnar, Rollins, Rusev maybe even Cesaro & Reigns in the main title picture and winning it like when you never knew if Jericho, Austin, Rock Triple H, Foley etc could be champion at anytime WWE would be just fine. Having a actual main event tier and not just Roman Reigns whether you like it or not (*and judging by the numbers from week to week a lot of people don't*) has always been best for business as your COO Triple H would say.


No reason to put this in. Its not his fault its everything else you just said.


----------



## FROSTY

Stone Hot said:


> Yea to bad he is not to blame


He's the central focus of the show, so yes he does get the focus of the blame. Just like you'd be lol'ing and carrying on right now that Roman being the main reason if the ratings were improved.


----------



## Stone Hot

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> He's the central focus of the show, so yes he does get the focus of the blame. Just like you'd be lol'ing and carrying on right now that Roman being the main reason if the ratings were improved.


Nope its the product. And last I checked he wasn't champion so he cant be the focus of the show :draper2 :shrug


----------



## CptRonCodpiece

Stone Hot said:


> Nope its the product. And last I checked he wasn't champion *so he cant be the focus of the show* :draper2 :shrug


He's clearly the main man, he gets more segments than anyone else, he gets the prime timeslots (the hour marks) and he's getting more mic time than anyone else, and he's beating everyone put in his path without breaking a sweat, there's no feasible way you can seriously argue that Reigns isn't the focus of the show, he's getting even more airtime than Rollins was when they were overexposing him a while back.


----------



## 3ku1

Lol "Ratings under Seth" Wow your giving Seth that much credit? He's a genius. I would want to tell you again Seth nor any one talent is responsible for ratings going up or down, its the overall product. But ignorance knows no bounds.


----------



## Stone Hot

CptRonCodpiece said:


> He's clearly the main man, he gets more segments than anyone else, he gets the prime timeslots (the hour marks) and he's getting more mic time than anyone else, and he's beating everyone put in his path without breaking a sweat, there's no feasible way you can seriously argue that Reigns isn't the focus of the show, *he's getting even more airtime than Rollins was when they were overexposing him a while back.*


:ha :ha :ha :ha


not even close


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CptRonCodpiece said:


> He's clearly the main man, he gets more segments than anyone else, he gets the prime timeslots (the hour marks) and he's getting more mic time than anyone else, and he's beating everyone put in his path without breaking a sweat, there's no feasible way you can seriously argue that Reigns isn't the focus of the show, he's getting even more airtime than Rollins was when they were overexposing him a while back.


Come on, bro. You know with these guys. The talent is to blame depending on who the focus is. When it's Punk, Bryan, and Rollins, you can blame them. Someone else? It's the product! Been like this dating back to 2012. And the over-exposing is just beginning and only going to get worse as time goes on.


----------



## FROSTY

CptRonCodpiece said:


> He's clearly the main man, he gets more segments than anyone else, he gets the prime timeslots (the hour marks) and he's getting more mic time than anyone else, and he's beating everyone put in his path without breaking a sweat, there's no feasible way you can seriously argue that Reigns isn't the focus of the show, he's getting even more airtime than Rollins was when they were overexposing him a while back.



Yeah, 2 of the best talkers on the company Ambrose and Owens haven't even been allowed promos leading up to the TLC I-C title match, but Reigns can talk about Tater Tots for 10 minutes to really send the audience home happy.


----------



## skarvika

Deadman's Hand said:


> *Wrestling isn't dying. WWE isn't wrestling.
> 
> ICW (a UK company), sold out 4,000 seats for their biggest show of the year, a show that was headlined by Drew Galloway vs. Grado.
> Hell, the British wrestling scene in general has gone through a bit of a resurgence this year.
> 
> PWG & Lucha Underground have tons of momentum and interest surrounding the product, after a great 2015.
> 
> People are still interested in wrestling, they're just no longer interested in WWE.
> 
> And in regards to these ratings, they deserve it. I hope these ratings continue to fall. *


Off hand do you know anything that gets close to WWE's production values? The only thing I really _like_ about WWE that I haven't seen in other promotions is that 'big' feel, like the presentation, entrances, crowds etc.
Do any other promotions come even close to WWE in that regard?


----------



## CptRonCodpiece

Stone Hot said:


> :ha :ha :ha :ha
> 
> 
> not even close


Believe it or not, using gifs doesn't automatically make you correct. 

I watched the shows back then, and i've watched up until last week, and i tried to watch this week but couldn't last an hour, and these past few weeks has been nothing but Reigns on screen, or matches with implications involving Reigns, or commentary talking endlessly about Reigns etc. Even when he's not on screen, he's still featured in some capacity, and even Rollins didn't have that. He'd be in a few 2-3 minute authority segments (playing second fiddle to mum and dad/HHH and Steph) and then a main event 4/6 person tag match that he'd inevitably lose, whereas as i just mentioned, Reigns is featured even when he's not featured (if that makes sense) and never loses or even has to face adversity. Fuck, even Cena's had less screentime (prior to his break) than Reigns.

And finally, i find it funny how you saw fit to only bold that one part, because you know i'm totally 200% right with the other parts and even you can't argue with that.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Some legend will soon make a Roman 2:16 smiley. 

I'd wager that smiley would have more use than the current WWE talent.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Come on, bro. You know with these guys. The talent is to blame depending on who the focus is. When it's Punk, Bryan, and Rollins, you can blame them. Someone else? It's the product! Been like this dating back to 2012. And the over-exposing is just beginning and only going to get worse as time goes on.


Oh god the hypocrisy is just spewing out of this comment


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Oh god the hypocrisy is just spewing out of this comment


The truth hurts. It all started with Punk back in 2012. :shrug


----------



## Stone Hot

CptRonCodpiece said:


> Believe it or not, using gifs doesn't automatically make you correct.
> 
> I watched the shows back then, and i've watched up until last week, and i tried to watch this week but couldn't last an hour, and these past few weeks has been nothing but Reigns on screen, or matches with implications involving Reigns, or commentary talking endlessly about Reigns etc. Even when he's not on screen, he's still featured in some capacity, and even Rollins didn't have that. He'd be in a few 2-3 minute authority segments (playing second fiddle to mum and dad/HHH and Steph) and then a main event 4/6 person tag match that he'd inevitably lose, whereas as i just mentioned, Reigns is featured even when he's not featured (if that makes sense) and never loses or even has to face adversity. Fuck, even Cena's had less screentime (prior to his break) than Reigns.


And believe it or not making big paragraph responses doesn't make you right either. 

And BULLSHIT Rollins had much more screen time when he was champ then Reigns and a HUGE HUGE portion of this site was bitching about it.


will just agree to disagree because this will just end up going no where except back and forth nonsense


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> The truth hurts. It all started with Punk back in 2012. :shrug


Punk did have low ratings when he was champ but like Rollins Im not blaming him for that either


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Punk did have low ratings when he was champ but like Rollins Im not blaming him for that either


You (and others) aren't blaming them *now*. But you guys were at the time they were champions, just like we're returning the favor now. Simple as that. Cat and mouse game that goes back and forth. :shrug


----------



## chops52

SnapOrTap said:


> Nope.
> 
> Next NFL Monday Night games:
> Giants vs Dolphins
> Lions vs Saints
> Bengals vs Broncos
> 
> It's going to get worse.
> 
> They're lucky the NFL's biggest draw, Tom Brady, doesn't have a MNF game. Last time they went H2H with the WWE, the WWE had 2 hours below 3 million. What a beast.


I could see that bengals vs Broncos game could drop the ratings pretty good.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

"Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.15 rating, down from the 2.21 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.054 million viewers, down from the 3.168 million average from last week."

http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-December-7-TLC-go-home-edition-45092


----------



## FROSTY

Stone Hot said:


> Nope its the product. And last I checked he wasn't champion so he cant be the focus of the show :draper2 :shrug


You know, I can't take you seriously. I try to give you the benefit of the doubt every now and then because I've read a good post or two from you before, but then you go and post this kinda crap. I have read threads that you have started about backstage news, and how Vince will not waiver off Roman being the guy. I've read posts where you're having a laugh at everyone while making reference to Roman being the top guy. But now that the show really sucks, and the ratings keep getting worse he's not "the man" it's the dufus wearing a prop. That's funny because when Cena was around, he didn't have to be the champion to still be considered the face of the WWE. Vince has not even tried to hide that for better or worse he's riding Reigns as the top face, that makes him the focus. Just like Cena was still the focus when Punk was champ for 434 days, and honestly using the WWE championship belt as your indicator of who the man is in this day and age would be hilarious if I didn't know you're trolling and aren't stupid enough to actually Belee Dat.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

StraightYesSociety said:


> "Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.15 rating, down from the 2.21 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.054 million viewers, down from the 3.168 million average from last week."
> 
> http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-December-7-TLC-go-home-edition-45092


Rating and viewers down, on the go-home show for a PPV. 

2.15 Rating.

:ha :ha :ha :ha :ha

2.16 was the all time low, so is this the new all time low???

"Stabilized" as someone would say.

:ti


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> You (and others) aren't blaming them *now*. But you guys were at the time they were champions, just like we're returning the favor now. Simple as that. Cat and mouse game that goes back and forth. :shrug


Show me proof. Go back in the archives last month and fine me Stone Hot blaming Rollins for the low ratings. If not you have nothing. :drapter2


----------



## TheLooseCanon

*Dem No Watches!*


----------



## The Boy Wonder

ShowStopper said:


> You (and others) aren't blaming them *now*. But you guys were at the time they were champions, just like we're returning the favor now. Simple as that. Cat and mouse game that goes back and forth. :shrug


I don't think I ever blamed Rollins for the ratings falling, but I did blame his booking. For some reason ratings tanked after Summerslam. No one brought this up, but it's very possible that Jon Stewart's involvement in the Rollins/Cena match had something to do with the ratings slipping. It didn't help Rollins at all. To get help from a comedian?


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

I'm going back in the archives of this thread and people were freaking out that Rollins had hours that did 3.4-3.5 million viewers LMAO


----------



## chops52

Stone Hot said:


> Nope its the product. And last I checked he wasn't champion so he cant be the focus of the show :draper2 :shrug


The fact you think he is not the main focus of the show is delusional. Cena was not champ during punks reign but still main evented ppvs. Same thing happening here just on tv. Being champ does not mean shit this day in the wwe.


----------



## tboneangle

2.15 new record low?


----------



## Arkham258

How long til Raw starts getting TNA ratings?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Show me proof. Go back in the archives last month and fine me Stone Hot blaming Rollins for the low ratings. If not you have nothing. :drapter2


Here's one insinuating it's on Rollins:

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...ere-ratings-war-part-iv-106.html#post53181498

From October 14th:

What it reads:



Stone Hot said:


> And if Reigns was champion right now he wouldn't be losing at all.



:lol

:heyman6


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

ShowStopper said:


> Here's one insinuating it's on Rollins:
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...ere-ratings-war-part-iv-106.html#post53181498
> 
> From October 14th:
> 
> What it reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> :heyman6


:lmao


----------



## SnapOrTap

@SHIVVY POO 

Do the honors mate.

Roman 2.15


----------



## From Death Valley

Vince 2.15


----------



## CretinHop138

2.15 their lowest ratings since February 1997.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Showstopper is cutting better promos than Roman Reigns has in his entire career.

#PushShowStopper


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Even Caligula be like, "A Roman Empire shouldn't fall like this, let's go fuck some horses."


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

We've got 3 more weeks to see if the rating can flatline before MNF is over and the ratings rebound a bit without the direct football competition. It should be very troubling for Vince to see the show has shed so many hundreds of thousands in just a year. Makes you wonder what the new normal will be come January.


----------



## From Death Valley

The ratings keep going down and Vince still think he isn't of touch. Why isn't anybody in the back telling him that all of this is his goddamned fault?


----------



## SnapOrTap

So if my math is correct - 

Roman Reigns had 2 monologues last night.

Ratings were lowest since 1997.

Man Imagine what kind of IMPACT he would have if we had 3 or 4 monologues.

Dam.

#GiveRomanTheMic 
#RawIsRoman 
#Can 'tSpellPromosWithoutROMAN


----------



## almostfamous

:lmao:lmao:lmao

:vince "We can go lower!"


----------



## RatedR10

RatedR10 said:


> Like I said, it's lining up to be in the 2.14 - 2.23 range looking at the demos. I'd be pleasantly surprised if it's lower than 2.14.





StraightYesSociety said:


> "Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.15 rating, down from the 2.21 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.054 million viewers, down from the 3.168 million average from last week."
> 
> http://www.prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-December-7-TLC-go-home-edition-45092


I'm getting pretty good at my predictions. :rollins



SHIVVY POO said:


> We've got 3 more weeks to see if the rating can flatline before MNF is over and the ratings rebound a bit without the direct football competition. It should be very troubling for Vince to see the show has shed so many hundreds of thousands in just a year. Makes you wonder what the new normal will be come January.


2.2-2.5...


----------



## dougfisher_05

So I went back and looked at the ratings for raw twenty years ago. 

On December 4th, 1995 they drew a 2.6. 

Let that sink in for a minute... 

Fuck me. I officially have to change my signature now. Yep. Raw 2015 unequivocally was worse than raw in 1995. 

For shits and giggles I went back just ten years and the picture is even nastier. 

On December 5th, 2005 raw drew 4.1. 

So not only did raw double it's viewership from 1995 to 2005 (and set viewership records in between) but they have lost half there audience in last decade...

Yep. The great ratings decline of 2015. I'll be interested to see if they actually rebound come mania season. 


They better pray more diehard international fans travel to see mania than ever before if they have any hope of selling out that stadium in Dallas. Because clearly the domestic audience just isn't there anymore.


----------



## 3ku1

You guys do realize that all broadcast and cable tv in terms of ratings have declined by about 11-15% right? Of course WWE had a bigger demo in 2005, all tv did. That is not a fair comparison. A better comparison would be to compare WWE Raw on anything in its time slot. And while the numbers are low, and are bad. They are doing enough to maintain their timeslot. The time of draws are gone, it is going to take a fundamental change of the product to change anything. Heck bring back Rock for one night, have him in the ring. The dude has 34 million followers on IG, he has a huge fanbase outside of pro wrestling. I still stand by 2015 is far better then 1995, NXT. I wonder if WWE would gain much from putting Raw on the Network, might make more revenue their. It has lost half of its audience the past decade, but whos fault is that? Vince bloody Mcmahon, who refuses to listin to reason, until he dies probably.


----------



## RatedR10

Last year's fall season average seemed to hover in the 2.65 - 2.7 range. Wrestlemania season hovered in the 2.7 - 2.9 range.

If the pattern continues (I did a huge write up analyzing the ratings of the past four Fall seasons side-by-side-by-side-by-side about a month or two ago) then this year's Wrestlemania season will only see a boost in the 2.2 - 2.5 range.

And for what it's worth, when I compared the ratings of the past four Fall seasons against each other, and this year's up to October, my thesis coming out of it was that "the worst has yet to come" and the ratings would go lower in November and December, and that was when October was in the 2.3s. Well, here we are, done November and into December, and I've been proven right based off the evidence of the past four years - November and December continue to go lower, now hitting the 2.1s. 

So, I'll stand by my prediction of a 2.2 - 2.5 range for Wrestlemania season before the Spring dips back down again. I just... don't see Wrestlemania exciting many people this year.


----------



## Vox Machina

Sheamus 2:15 and Roman 2:16 running wild, brothers. 

If it drops to 2.0, we might see some big changes finally. It has to get even worse to get better. Let's all support the downfall.


----------



## LilOlMe

WWE should be compared to live sports, not television shows, since that's how Vince & the WWE tried to sell themselves. Compare their numbers to live sports and see where they're at.

From Meltzer's latest column:


> Raw last night did 3.04 million viewers, the second lowest modern number, beating only the 2.95 million of the 11/23 show.


----------



## LilOlMe

[email protected] saying that that last segment went on longer than some wars do.


----------



## RatedR10

For reference sake, here's my post from October: http://www.wrestlingforum.com/53018586-post860.html

I compared the RTWM and Fall season viewership changes and made predictions at the bottom of the post based off the data, which have come true (predicting 2.2s and 2.1s by the end of October and November).


----------



## SnapOrTap

RatedR10 said:


> Last year's fall season average seemed to hover in the 2.65 - 2.7 range. Wrestlemania season hovered in the 2.7 - 2.9 range.
> 
> If the pattern continues (I did a huge write up analyzing the ratings of the past four Fall seasons side-by-side-by-side-by-side about a month or two ago) then this year's Wrestlemania season will only see a boost in the 2.2 - 2.5 range.
> 
> And for what it's worth, when I compared the ratings of the past four Fall seasons against each other, and this year's up to October, my thesis coming out of it was that "the worst has yet to come" and the ratings would go lower in November and December, and that was when October was in the 2.3s. Well, here we are, done November and into December, and I've been proven right based off the evidence of the past four years - November and December continue to go lower, now hitting the 2.1s.
> 
> So, I'll stand by my prediction of a 2.2 - 2.5 range for Wrestlemania season before the Spring dips back down again. I just... don't see Wrestlemania exciting many people this year.


*RatedR10: Winter is coming. *

:reigns2


----------



## Joshi Judas

Think this is relevant here:







:woo :woo :woo

:dance


----------



## Deadman's Hand

skarvika said:


> Off hand do you know anything that gets close to WWE's production values? The only thing I really _like_ about WWE that I haven't seen in other promotions is that 'big' feel, like the presentation, entrances, crowds etc.
> Do any other promotions come even close to WWE in that regard?


*Lucha Underground and NJPW has some great production values, and they aren't as bland as WWE's. NJPW has WWE's big feel, and both promotion's still has personality. 

And in regards to crowds, both have great crowds, my personal favorite being NJPW's. And NJPW does have special entrances, especially at Wrestle Kingdom (their WrestleMania).*


----------



## samizayn

WWE breaking records every day! :hb I can't wait for them to dip below a 2. Ratings have been anaemic as is, but deeper in the throes of the holidays, forget about it.


----------



## LilOlMe

2.15 rating.

Also, here were the ratings for the first 13 RAWs of the NFL season:

2012 - 2.74
2013 - 2.80
2014 - 2.78
2015 - 2.30

Remarkably steady, and then quite a drop-off this year. 

This has been the same story throughout the year, in comparison to the past few years.


----------



## RandomLurker

Holy fucking shit. I dont know how you guys do it, arguing with apologists and Reigns marks. But reading their dogshit comments while the ratings are sinking is just lolololol.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

Officially on the hoping it drops more and more team. Nothing is changing, everyone on the roster is being treated/booked like shit. They have to learn.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

3ku1 said:


> You guys do realize that all broadcast and cable tv in terms of ratings have declined by about 11-15% right? Of course WWE had a bigger demo in 2005, all tv did. That is not a fair comparison. A better comparison would be to compare WWE Raw on anything in its time slot. And while the numbers are low, and are bad. They are doing enough to maintain their timeslot. The time of draws are gone, it is going to take a fundamental change of the product to change anything. Heck bring back Rock for one night, have him in the ring. The dude has 34 million followers on IG, he has a huge fanbase outside of pro wrestling. I still stand by 2015 is far better then 1995, NXT. I wonder if WWE would gain much from putting Raw on the Network, might make more revenue their. It has lost half of its audience the past decade, but whos fault is that? Vince bloody Mcmahon, who refuses to listin to reason, until he dies probably.



Yeah, people hate their TVs nowadays.


----------



## Ronaldo Messi

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Yeah, people hate their TVs nowadays.


You're an obvious fail troll.


----------



## GNR4LIFE

ShowStopper said:


> Here's one insinuating it's on Rollins:
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...ere-ratings-war-part-iv-106.html#post53181498
> 
> From October 14th:
> 
> What it reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> :heyman6


You're wasting your time dude, the guy has the credibility of a tapeworm.

This was him in the Survivor Series thread before the Reigns/Ambrose ME



Stone Hot: said:


> :lmao so many salty people it seems. Oh boy gonna have so much fun when reigns wins


And this was him straight after



Stone Hot said:


> awful just awful and theres people actually happy about this ending? fuck this shit. Nobody wants fuckin sheamus as champion.


He also told people for months that HHH/Rock was a lock for Wrestlemania, but once the report came out that that wasn't happening he back tracked quick fucking smart and tried to tell people it was never happening. Then there was also the shit he tried to sell people about Bryan never being in the plans going into WM 30, but when he was, he said it was the plan all along. My memory is long when it comes to this guy. Not one ounce of credibility.


----------



## From Death Valley

Vince doesn't give a shit as long he has a fan base who are still watching making him money in ads revenues and B people giving him money for events network merch etc he still gonna do what he's doing.


----------



## roadkill_

Lol USA is going to lowball MacMayun so badly during their next renewal.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Yeah, put Raw on the network, that'll work out great! Slice your audience clean in half - again.
The number of people on this earth who want to pay 9.99 a month for this shitty show is pretty fucking low. 

Plus, production values would sink even more.

With the weeklies also on the Network, WWE will be little more than a private porn site. Less, actually because I can guarantee you an average pay porn site has more paying subscribers than the WWE Network.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Um, yeah there has. And it's convienent of you not to note that ratings have been falling for quite sometime, way before Rollins was the World Champion.
> 
> You and a BUNCH of others said ratings would go up as soon as he left. Not only has that not happened, not only have they not maintained that audience, but they lost a ton more and have almost every single week dipped way under 3 million. Something that never happened with Rollins. Before football started, starting in April after WM, Raw's ratings were in the mid to high 3's every week. It was at Labor Day, start of football season that they went down and never recovered. Rollins got ONE boring chant his entire run; and Reigns has also already had one boring chant in alot less time.
> 
> This also doesn't take into consideration the past two weeks that most of if not the entire upper tier at the past two Raw's has been blacked out and empty. It was never this bad until now. Deal with it. Your logic is hilariously awful.


The only time RAW has been in the "mid to high 3's" was the day after WM which it always does. Prior to WM RAW averaged 2.91 which is in line with how ratings should be. After WM, excluding the RAW immediately after, RAW declined slowly then dramatically under Rollins. He went from 2.81 to 2.54 by the end of May. This is WITHOUT MNF. 

As for Reigns, Reigns is actually more proven as a draw because a month or so ago when Reigns took on the Big Show after that match children and women tuned out of the show altogether. The IWC may not like him but he is liked by the casuals and the female demographic.


----------



## Stone Hot

ShowStopper said:


> Here's one insinuating it's on Rollins:
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...ere-ratings-war-part-iv-106.html#post53181498
> 
> From October 14th:
> 
> What it reads:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol
> 
> :heyman6


Where does it say Rollins is the reason ratings were low? That was about Rollins Booking and how he was losing all the time. I said if Reigns was in that position at the time as champion he wouldnt be losing. 

Nothing about Ratings :shrug 

try again


----------



## Stone Hot

GNR4LIFE said:


> You're wasting your time dude, the guy has the credibility of a tapeworm.
> 
> 
> 
> He also told people for months that HHH/Rock was a lock for Wrestlemania, but once the report came out that that wasn't happening he back tracked quick fucking smart and tried to tell people it was never happening. Then there was also the shit he tried to sell people about Bryan never being in the plans going into WM 30, but when he was, he said it was the plan all along. My memory is long when it comes to this guy. Not one ounce of credibility.


:lmao coming from the kid


First off I never said Rock/HHH was a lock for WM never ever ever. I said Rock will only wrestle if his movie schedule lets him. I said if he was gonna wrestle it be against HHH and not anyone else cause Rock would want a save match. Never said it was a lock. Try again

When it came to Bryan and WM30 main event plans it was actually the opposite. I was saying immediately right after summerslam that it was going to be HHH vs Bryan at WM30 and people kept shutting me down that it was never going to happen. At the time I was wrong because he was never going to be in main event plans for 30, but I actually ended up being right after all and Bryan was in 2 big matches at WM30. 

So please do you research before posting 

Have a nice day


----------



## Rabid_Sloth

Maybe they should get Dewey in sooner than expected, Vinnie Ru back in creative head honcho, Bischoff back as the general manager, and ditch "The Authority" once and for all..all the McMahons and HHH can fuck right off and just focus on business not having their ugly mutt faces on T.V...turn Reigns heel scrap the League of Nations all together..make Ambrose a badass lonewolf face type be a thorn in Bischoff's side weekly. Give Owens a monster push in there somewhere. Fire Daniel Bryan on T.V. have some legend come back have a power struggle with Bischoff get Bryan hired back and wrestling..all setting up the most epic of returns Seth Rollins. Oh have Heyman turn on Lesnar and Heyman finds a new guy in Owens. Sheamus gets a haircut fuck the beard too. Big Show Mark Henry and Kane retire for good

All that would be a step in the right direction


----------



## The Tempest

See, I told you that the only thing that was gonna change on RAW was the record low, 2.15 :ti



Stone Hot said:


> Where does it say Rollins is the reason ratings were low? That was about Rollins Booking and how he was losing all the time. I said if Reigns was in that position at the time as champion he wouldnt be losing.
> 
> Nothing about Ratings :shrug
> 
> try again


Also I'm looking forward to the day you get moron'd from the forum, you are one of the most annoying and obtuse user I've ever seen in my life, and I've joined plenty of forums before this one. All you do is making useless post and then when you get called out on your bullshit that is your response.

Just retire from posting breh.


----------



## Marv95

Shame-Ass 2:15 FTW. Unless something big happens on Sunday don't be shocked if it drops again next week.



> Vince doesn't give a shit as long he has a fan base who are still watching making him money in ads revenues and B people giving him money for events network merch etc he still gonna do what he's doing.


He better give a shit. 40% of their revenue comes from TV rights fees. USA gets the ads. The lower the viewership the lower the fees WWE receives.


----------



## Stone Hot

The Christmas Tempest said:


> Also I'm looking forward to the day you get moron'd from the forum, you are one of the most annoying and obtuse user I've ever seen in my life, and I've joined plenty of forums before this one. All you do is making useless post and then when you get called out on your bullshit that is your response.
> 
> Just retire from posting breh.


Dude there is a very simple solution to help you with all this. If you don't like what I have to say and you don't like my honesty then all you have to do it add me to your ignore list and then you will never see my posts again. I suggest you do that because I'm not going anywhere. 

So either block me or have fun reading what I have to say.


----------



## Marrakesh

Wake up and see that Stone Hot is still posting in this thread. :MAD


----------



## Stone Hot

Marrakesh said:


> Wake up and see that Stone Hot is still posting in this thread. :MAD


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Stone Hot said:


> Where does it say Rollins is the reason ratings were low? That was about Rollins Booking and how he was losing all the time. I said if Reigns was in that position at the time as champion he wouldnt be losing.
> 
> Nothing about Ratings :shrug
> 
> try again


Actually, in that post you were responding to someone who said how Rollins lost all of those viewers. So, no, it was about the ratings. Wrong again.

I thought you were putting me on ignore? So much for that.



> The only time RAW has been in the "mid to high 3's" was the day after WM which it always does. Prior to WM RAW averaged 2.91 which is in line with how ratings should be. After WM, excluding the RAW immediately after, RAW declined slowly then dramatically under Rollins. He went from 2.81 to 2.54 by the end of May. This is WITHOUT MNF.


Wrong. Go check the archives. And ratings never fell below 3 million with Rollins on the show. :shrug Enjoy that.


----------



## Stinger Fan

From Death Valley said:


> Vince doesn't give a shit as long he has a fan base who are still watching making him money in ads revenues and B people giving him money for events network merch etc he still gonna do what he's doing.


Well, even their die hard fans are leaving and the ratings are a record low which will mean less money.


----------



## RatedR10

Ugh... how saddening is it that TNA has pretty much died? Imagine they kept the momentum and quality from their 2005-2009 run? They'd easily be competing against modern day WWE.


----------



## troubleman1218

RatedR10 said:


> Ugh... how saddening is it that TNA has pretty much died? Imagine they kept the momentum and quality from their 2005-2009 run? They'd easily be competing against modern day WWE.


Not with Dixie Carter in charge.


----------



## LPPrince

Roman is definitely the star of the show currently. Can't blame Sheamus too much when he's booked to lose in the opening match of the show AND get his ass beat in the main event segment. Just makes the championship look like a joke.

But its not just Roman. Its the show as a whole, its management. People solely blaming Sheamus are being silly, just as those blaming solely Roman are being silly. There's far more behind those low ratings than the focus of the programs.


----------



## Annihilus

2.15 :damn

I think we officially need to change his name to Roamin' Ratings: when he's on TV, the ratings start roaming to other channels. :fact 

Roamin' 2.15 says I just killed your product! :reigns2


----------



## Nimbus

Its a work, the rating cant be that low


----------



## Blade Runner




----------



## THANOS

Nimbus said:


> Its a work, the rating cant be that low


:lol


----------



## chops52

LPPrince said:


> Roman is definitely the star of the show currently. Can't blame Sheamus too much when he's booked to lose in the opening match of the show AND get his ass beat in the main event segment. Just makes the championship look like a joke.
> 
> But its not just Roman. Its the show as a whole, its management. People solely blaming Sheamus are being silly, just as those blaming solely Roman are being silly. There's far more behind those low ratings than the focus of the programs.


I agree RR cannot be soley blamed but when you are the entire focus of the show at the cost of the entire roster. Then you are going to get blamed. Many posts have thought Vince would rather take the ship down then change what he wants. I am starting to beleeh dat!


----------



## NearFall

LilOlMe said:


> 2.15 rating.


----------



## Reaper

chops52 said:


> I agree RR cannot be soley blamed but when you are the entire focus of the show at the cost of the entire roster. Then you are going to get blamed. Many posts have thought Vince would rather take the ship down then change what he wants. I am starting to beleeh dat!


Reigns isn't just the focus of the show, but also the focus of emails being sent to ex-subscribers. 

Make no mistake, Reigns is pretty much the entire WWE show right now and will be till Mania, or till they give up pushing him and then blame him for it while sitting pretty themselves. 

No matter how you look at it, Reigns did not deserve this - at all ... It's not like he asked them to make him the center of the show and watch it all tank.


----------



## Londrick

Obviously not Roman's fault since he sells some T-shirts and has some of the fans cheering for him.


----------



## RatedR10

Reaper said:


> Reigns isn't just the focus of the show, but also the focus of emails being sent to ex-subscribers.
> 
> Make no mistake, Reigns is pretty much the entire WWE show right now and will be till Mania, or till they give up pushing him and then blame him for it while sitting pretty themselves.
> 
> No matter how you look at it, Reigns did not deserve this - at all ... It's not like he asked them to make him the center of the show and watch it all tank.


What are the emails that Roman is the focus of to ex-subscribers? Please subscribe to the WWE Network again, we'll throw in a free Roman Reigns t-shirt, wristband, sweatpants, collectors cup, headband, poster for your wall and a free kitchen backsplash?


----------



## Reaper

RatedR10 said:


> What are the emails that Roman is the focus of to ex-subscribers? Please subscribe to the WWE Network again, we'll throw in a free Roman Reigns t-shirt, wristband, sweatpants, collectors cup, headband, poster for your wall and a free kitchen backsplash?












Yeah. Silly marketing. 

I've already been over this with someone else in another thread. 

I don't want to waste time on it with someone else who doesn't understand branding and marketing.


----------



## RatedR10

Reaper said:


> Yeah. Silly marketing.
> 
> I've already been over this with someone else in another thread.
> 
> I don't want to waste time on it with someone else who doesn't understand branding and marketing.


I expected something way worse than an advert for TLC based off the "...also the emails being sent to ex-subscribers" line. 

Oh well.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

From Death Valley said:


> Vince doesn't give a shit as long he has a fan base who are still watching making him money in ads revenues and B people giving him money for events network merch etc he still gonna do what he's doing.


Again, TV is HALF of WWE's revenue.
If someone thinks they would do fine without it, or with the station cutting their paychecks, that someone is severely mistaken.

WCW Nitro did rating like Raw does now. What did Bischoff say when he found out about TNT canceling their shows? "Without TV, that company was worth nothing."

WWE without a good TV deal is simply dead in the water. Their shitty network won't make nearly enough dough.


----------



## chops52

RatedR10 said:


> I expected something way worse than an advert for TLC based off the "...also the emails being sent to ex-subscribers" line.
> 
> Oh well.


While agree the tlc poster is stupid to argue about. I looked at my old emails for the last month. It has Roman only poster for tlc ppv from dec 1. Then a few days before survivor series it said watch Romans journey to survivor series. Nothing about the other three men still in the championship tournament. I think that is where he was coming from with the emails comment.


----------



## SnapOrTap

YOU GUYS NEED TO RELAX

It can't get any worse. 

































































Lol. Who am I kidding. Next week will be worse.


----------



## Dre

*Raw had ratings, 'til they got punched in the mouth!*


----------



## Marrakesh

WWE trying to sell out the forum in LA for December 19th by advertising Brock and it's backfired

:ti 

(Who'd have thought people weren't that interested in seeing him show up for four minutes to squash a midcard jobber? )

Under 5k tickets sold. Less than a 1/3rd of it's capacity. 

This is better news than the TV ratings as they cant give the bullshit excuses about 'Ratings declining all across the board' :vince5

NXT outdrawing a WWE show featuring Brock Lesnar? 

:ha


----------



## krillep

*Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

2.15 rating this monday on RAW...

The lowest rating in 18 years.

Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon? People are writing Boycott WWE.

The product is at it's worst state then perhaps it ever have been.

Hell, they hade Stone Cold, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Ric Flair in October RAW - *but they had the lowest rating in 18 years even with them**!*

http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-raw-hits-lowest-rating-in-18-years.php

Will WWE drop under 2.0 soon?


----------



## A PG Attitude

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

Yes I've watched through some shit over the years and I always watch because there's something worth seeing or there's the chance that something good might happen. Right now I don't feel that for Raw and I haven't watched in the last two weeks, first time I've not watched Raw since I started watching again at Mania 28.


----------



## TheDevilsPimp

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

I really hope so.


----------



## Yuffie Kisaragi

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

*I hope they do. I gave up on RAW already and no longer waste my time with such an un-watchable program. This company needs that wake up call.*


----------



## TheGimmickKiller

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

Yes, it probably will. And I think it _needs_ to in order to show Vince that if you keep force-feeding fans shit they don't like, they'll just stop watching. And if people stop watching, the WWE will die.

I don't want the WWE to die, but I do want Vince to get his head out of his ass and accept that the fans aren't happy about the quality of the product.


----------



## Rick Sanchez

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

I actually watch a couple shows that can barely get a 1. It's amazing how shitty Raw is and can still get that many people to watch. This show deserves even way less than 2.15.

But WWE knows a lot of fans will still watch. A lot of wrestling fans are masochists at heart, so many continue to watch a show they hate. Thankfully I only watch shows that actually entertain me.

And to answer the question, they will definitely fall under 2. They're not going to change anytime soon.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*

The ratinvs have been going down for 15 years so yeah.


----------



## PurityOfEvil

It's inevitable. If the product doesn't improve, the ratings won't.


----------



## NinjaCPU09

*Re: Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon?*



krillep said:


> 2.15 rating this monday on RAW...
> 
> The lowest rating in 18 years.
> 
> Do you think WWE will drop under 2.0 in ratings soon? People are writing Boycott WWE.
> 
> The product is at it's worst state then perhaps it ever have been.
> 
> Hell, they hade Stone Cold, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, and Ric Flair in October RAW - *but they had the lowest rating in 18 years even with them**!*
> 
> http://whatculture.com/wwe/wwe-raw-hits-lowest-rating-in-18-years.php
> 
> *Will WWE drop under 2.0 soon?*


The question isn't _will _ WWE drop 2.0 soon, but more along the lines of _when_? 

If the level of quality stays where it is now, then probably post-mania.


----------



## DoubtGin

The ratings are the only thing that have not made Reigns look strong yet.

Let's see if they put him over today.


----------



## Marrakesh

DoubtGin said:


> The ratings are the only thing that have not made Reigns look strong yet.
> 
> Let's see if they put him over today.


I'd be surprised if there wasn't an increase on last week. I'd be surprised if the last hour did not gain viewers for a change. 

For once, they actually gave their audience a reason to tune in for the last hour.


----------



## THANOS

It would be interesting to see the comments if the 3rd hour dips lower than last weeks. It would be even more interesting it the ratings drop next week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ratings better go up BIG time today. World title match, title change, Vince himself on the show. WWE threw the kitchen sink at us last night. Oh, and last week's Raw was the lowest rated of all time. Nowhere to go but up, but let's see how up.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Ratings should be up following a ppv and Vince's return, but the question is by how much? If they get the standard ppv bounce, that would have to be a disappointment. One thing to consider is that the New York Giants, now tied for first place, were involved in a very competitive game. They represent the largest media market and that could really hurt WWE in that young male demo that Vince covets.

Next week is The Slammys, which should be a draw, plus follow up to Reigns, then the year closes out. So the new year brings no NFL competition, so the ratings will be higher, but are most likely going to suffer in the yearly comparison. We'll know the true ratings decline then, once there are no excuses for depressed ratings. The Road to Mania,which is a draw, begins and Vince can survey just how many viewers they have shed from their piss poor booking during the last year.


----------



## The True Believer

They deserve higher ratings for having a good show. Keep this quality up.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Off the hot TLC ending and then hoe they built up the main event through the night, with it being a WWE world title match and Vince there, there is no reason the viewership shouldn't go up a lot. You couple that with the fact that the show as a whole remained consistent, if this Raw doesn't boost the ratings then there really is no hope for Roman. He's had the past month built around him and it all culminated tonight. 

Next week the slammys should bring the viewership up, the week after might be low due to being between Christmas and New Year's, and then we have the new year and he direct build to the Rumble with a Lesnar appearance all mixed in. Numbers should be back up in the next few weeks, looks like no sub 2.0 rating this year... although at least we had one show dip below 3 million viewers average.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I still want the ratings to go lower just as a FUCK YOU for wasting 12 months of my life for 1 episode of RAW. 

Probably will be a 2.2 or 2.3 my bet being the latter.


----------



## ironyman

I am hoping for a spike so that they will take a hint that they need to keep doing more shows like this. Shows that feel like old RAW.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

ShowStopper said:


> Ratings better go up BIG time today. World title match, title change, Vince himself on the show. WWE threw the kitchen sink at us last night. Oh, and last week's Raw was the lowest rated of all time. Nowhere to go but up, but let's see how up.


I'm still in the "they need to learn" club, but that RAW was the best one all year. If it doesn't go up a nice bit (not asking for a lot), then Vince's mistakes should be crystal clear to him by now.



Spoiler: you done fucked up


----------



## FITZ

Even if the rating doesn't go up huge this week it should do better next week. For the first time in a very long time if you missed Raw last night you really missed some important stuff happening.


----------



## silverspirit2001

Ratings may hold steady, but a big increase?!

You see, for fans like me, that have given up on the WWE - no WWE for six weeks - no matter how well the show was supposedly booked - Reigns win is bad. I stopped watching because of the WWE sacrificing everyone to get this guy over. And now he is the WWE champion!

You think that will entice me back?

BTW I'll read reviews so hopefully one day, I can come back when wrestling is decent.


----------



## The Dazzler

It was a good show. I still want a bad rating though. :laugh:


----------



## ironyman

Reigns got the taste knocked out of his mouth by Stephanie, kicked in the balls by Vince, then knocked out Vince and won the title all in the same night. Plus we had an amazing extreme rules match and even seeing Rick Flair being his old heelish self as he helps Charlotte was fun. 

I don't know what the hell they have been doing for the past good while, but last night what we got was good old Monday Night RAW and it was good to have it back. Somebody took control over the writers and I am guessing it was Vince. His fingerprints were all over that show.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

It has to go up, they pulled out all the stops. If they can't get it up then they're fucked.


----------



## Marv95

The tater tots promo last week might have drove people away, and the fact that Shame-Ass won the night before.

Also neither Vince or a world title match was advertised beforehand.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

The viewership this week will all depend on how people reacted to the TLC PPV (such as Ambrose winning and Reigns beating down HHH), they gave the viewers a reason to watch each hour so if the viewership holds steady throughout the show then the formula worked but it all depends on how much fans were interested to see Reigns and Sheamus, right now the main aim should be to keep viewership steady throughout the show and eventually it'll begin to rise


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*I expect a modest increase at least. Viewership next week is what we should look at the most. No one had any way of knowing last night's show would be that epic. Now, they have all week to get the word out and get the people tuning back in.*


----------



## brxd

Vince McMahon is a draw and I expect it to show in the ratings. With a Championship match as well, this should see a big increase from last week.


----------



## Dr. Middy

Merry Blissmas said:


> *I expect a modest increase at least. Viewership next week is what we should look at the most. No one had any way of knowing last night's show would be that epic. Now, they have all week to get the word out and get the people tuning back in.*


As good as last night was, I would have stretched it out over a couple of weeks. Have Stephanie come out and say Vince was going to be there next week, and that he would be under arrest until the time being. Then police bring out Reigns next week to have a face to face where Sheamus/Vince ends up giving Reigns the match. And then in the third week, Reigns wins. 

They could have built it up and marketed it considerably more than they did for this one show, and it would have probably done fairly well.


----------



## A-C-P

I hope for the WWE's sake that the show last night increased ratings either for this week or the following weeks and they can follow it up going into WM season, b/c they played a hell of alot of chips last night that they can't get back, and IF they didn't work, I am kind of scared to see what they would try next.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I still am curious to see if @ShowStopper 's team, The NY Giants took a considerable bite out of RAW. Should know pretty soon.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Dr. Middy Prescribes More Christmas said:


> As good as last night was, I would have stretched it out over a couple of weeks. Have Stephanie come out and say Vince was going to be there next week, and that he would be under arrest until the time being. Then police bring out Reigns next week to have a face to face where Sheamus/Vince ends up giving Reigns the match. And then in the third week, Reigns wins.
> 
> They could have built it up and marketed it considerably more than they did for this one show, and it would have probably done fairly well.


*I think they did the right thing by getting it out of the way. Now, the stressing haters don't have to worry about Reigns in the Rumble. They can just sit back and enjoy the show.*


----------



## JBLoser

Merry Blissmas said:


> *I think they did the right thing by getting it out of the way. Now, the stressing haters don't have to worry about Reigns in the Rumble. They can just sit back and enjoy the show.*


Agreed. I don't think they really "blew their load" or anything like that. It was well put together over the course of a 3-hour stretch. All you can ask for.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHIVVY POO said:


> I still am curious to see if @ShowStopper 's team, The NY Giants took a considerable bite out of RAW. Should know pretty soon.


I doubt it, bro. The Giants suck this year. They won last night and they're still under .500. Not our year.

:ha


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

This Week

H1-4.043M
H2-3.786M
H3-3.825M

Avg-3.884M

Last Week

H1-3.270M
H2-3.042M
H3-2.850M

Avg-3.054M


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

JBLoser said:


> Agreed. I don't think they really "blew their load" or anything like that. It was well put together over the course of a 3-hour stretch. All you can ask for.


*Yeah, I think people haven't seen booking like this in so long that it's shocking to them. This was a regular occurrence in the Attitude Era.*


----------



## JBLoser

OMG

Hour 1: 4.043M
Hour 2: 3.786M
Hour 3: 3.825M

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...able-originals-network-update-12-14-2015.html


----------



## RatedR10

Wow. Vince did it.


----------



## D.M.N.

Funny thing is that, as low as Raw's ratings have gone, Vince still has the audience at the palm of his hand. :lmao


----------



## ShadowSucks92

JBLoser said:


> OMG
> 
> Hour 1: 4.043M
> Hour 2: 3.786M
> Hour 3: 3.825M
> 
> http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...able-originals-network-update-12-14-2015.html


Who would have thought people would be interested in watching a well booked show


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

That's up a lot. Hour 3 had the highest demo, but one had the most viewers.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*ROMAN RATINGS!!!!!!!!!!!! :WOO. I hope all the embarrassing shit talking is over now. I'm smart enough to know the booking of the show was the draw, but some petty people have spent the last 2 months attributing the poor ratings to Reigns. That's too many L's handed out to Roman haters in the span of two days







.*


----------



## A-C-P

Nice job this week, now you have to keep them WWE, b/c I hope you realized over the past few months that the people will quit watching now.


----------



## RatedR10

I'm not COMPLETELY shocked to see it rise after the ending of TLC, but god damn I did not expect an hour with 4+ million. 

See what happens when WWE books Roman Reigns the way he SHOULD have been booked from the beginning of the split? It draws! Unbelievable, I know. It only took WWE 18 months to figure it out.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Holy shit. :lmao

Well, I guess they made the right call then. Should be interesting to see if they keep it.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Not surprised to see that the show did good ratings. It was a post-PPV show, it had Vince McMahon returning, & a title match in the main event.

Of course the show is gonna do a good rating.*


----------



## Frost99

Another Christmas Painkiller said:


> I hope for the WWE's sake that the show last night increased ratings either for this week or the following weeks and they can follow it up going into WM season, b/c they played a hell of alot of chips last night that they can't get back, and *IF they didn't work, I am kind of scared to see what they would try next.*


(Inside a WWE "creative" meeting following tumbling ratings)

:trips "_Alright everyone now I know we've, well YOU guys have had a couple of rough weeks with your ratings. I on the other hand continue to make our developmental league more of a BIG deal than you but I think..._"

:vince2 "_I think we've all heard enough from my Aardvark Son in Law, right Paul?_'

:trips4

:vince2 "_Great just great, now I want to say have no FEAR, Papa Vince is here and I've got a GREAT way to get Roman over with the crowd_"


:heyman5 "_He's already...._"


:vince5 "_No Paul he's NO WHERE close to being over enough. Let's not forget our talk about Bobby all those years ago_."

:heyman6

:vince5 _"Now who knows the story of Jesus here? Hmmm noobody well I'll tell you how he got over, he came back from the DEAD. YEAHHHH so next week LIVE on RAW Paul you'll get Kevin on the show and he'll SHOOT Roman right in the chest to start things...._

:nash 

:vince5 "_And then for the first time since Survivor Series we'll have the UNDERTAKER appear and he'll SHOOT LIGHTING BOLTS OUT HIS ASS BRINGING ROMAN BACK FROM THE DEAD!!!!!!!! Imagine MY erection ...I mean imagine that RESURRECTION POP. #RATINGS_"

:trips7


----------



## Neweinsten

*Its official Roman Reings DRAWs!!! 27.2% Increase in Viewership!*

Last Week Viewership - 

3.270M
3.042M
2.850M

Average Viewership --3.054 million Viewers

This week's Number - 

4.043M
3.786M
3.825M

Average Viewership - 3.884 million viewers.


----------



## Erik.

I'm happy that the ratings increased. The Raw was really good and felt so fresh compared to what we've got in recent years. 

It all started from the opening. They allowed Reigns to be straight to the point, they had Stephanie be villainous. They then followed that up with great booking for Owens who destroyed two men and looked dominant coming off the back of losing his belt clean. We got some backstage segments starting once again with Owens and then the cool one with the ECW guys.

We got great matches that all served a purpose and we got a title change!


----------



## D.M.N.

Excluding post-Christmas and night after WrestleMania bumps, the last time Raw jumped *831,000 viewers or more* week-on-week was Raw 1000, which jumped 1.14 million compared with the previous week.

Before then, you have to go back to February 21st, 2011 for a bump bigger than last night's (the week after The Rock returned).

*Biggest Raw week-on-week jumps - 2010 onwards*
1.18 million - 23/03/2015 to 30/03/2015 (post-WrestleMania)
1.14 million - 16/07/2012 to 23/07/2012 (Raw 1000)
1.10 million - 14/02/2011 to 21/02/2011 (The Rock return)
1.00 million - 22/03/2010 to 29/03/2010 (post-WrestleMania)
975,000 - 27/09/2010 to 04/10/10 (John Cena joins Nexus)
870,000 - 31/12/2012 to 07/01/2013 (The Rock return/Royal Rumble build)
831,000 - 07/14/2015 to 14/12/2015 (Mr. McMahon return)


----------



## WakeUpMuricah

The fact that hour 3 went up from hour 2 is the big sign that it worked. Usually the 3rd hour is the lowest rated.


----------



## Dr. Middy

For all who are curious, I calculated an overall ratings increase of 27.1% from last week

That's pretty damn impressive, and there wasn't even much of a drop off.


----------



## anirioc

*Re: Its official Roman Reings DRAWs!!! 27.2% Increase in Viewership!*

lets go haters lets hear what do you have to say about it.


----------



## Empress

JBLoser said:


> OMG
> 
> Hour 1: 4.043M
> Hour 2: 3.786M
> Hour 3: 3.825M
> 
> http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...able-originals-network-update-12-14-2015.html


Excuse my French, but Holy Shit.

Vince McMahon always wins in the end. When the WWE wants to put on a good show, they hit it out of the park. The show was great from start to finish. They deserve these ratings. That third hour. :grin2: These look like post Mania numbers. 

Reigns as champ is good for business.


----------



## DoubtGin

A (apparently, havent watched yet) well-booked show increased ratings ??!


----------



## ShadowSucks92

They gave fans a reason to tune in and watch each hour, that's all we've really asked for for the past freaking 2 years


----------



## StraightYesSociety

I figured as they went all out. I was pleased, everyone had a bit of character progression and was doing something. Next week they need to keep booking it well.


----------



## The Renegade

Holy shit, man!



Merry Blissmas said:


> *ROMAN RATINGS!!!!!!!!!!!! :WOO. I hope all the embarrassing shit talking is over now. I'm smart enough to know the booking of the show was the draw, but some petty people have spent the last 2 months attributing the poor ratings to Reigns. That's too many L's handed out to Roman haters in the span of two days
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .*


I respect your modesty here, lol.


----------



## RatedR10

Please WWE, don't fuck this up. Keep the momentum going and keep having well-booked shows.


----------



## Neweinsten

*27% bump *is huge. Reigns is officially a success.




D.M.N. said:


> Excluding post-Christmas and night after WrestleMania bumps, the last time Raw jumped *831,000 viewers or more* week-on-week was Raw 1000, which jumped 1.14 million compared with the previous week.
> 
> Before then, you have to go back to February 21st, 2011 for a bump bigger than last night's (the week after The Rock returned).


Amazing. 




DoubtGin said:


> A (apparently, havent watched yet) well-booked show increased ratings ??!


There's been a ton of well booked show that bombed, this year alone.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

What is the standard increase post ppv? This exceeded that obviously.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Big increase as expected. They threw everything they had into this show, it was a great show and although they still lost 200 thousand viewers between the first and third hours, hour 3 increased which means the title vs career stop worked out very well.

Next week should remain strong with the quality of this show and he Slammy awards. If not then this was just a fluke, but with how good the show was and how many people were watching, it should be in the same ballpark.


----------



## The Tempest

RAW chart:









Dat bump :sodone looks like RAW wasn't a disaster after all :hmm:


----------



## Neweinsten

SHIVVY POO said:


> What is the standard increase post ppv? This exceeded that obviously.


Last month's Post PPV RAW show drew one of the all time low numbers. There is no standard. 

Almost 4 million viewers in a era of 3 million and less is simply *INCREDIBLE.*


----------



## Wynter

:ha

One ass whooping by Reigns and he brings yall 4s 

Can't call it post ppv bump because Survivor Series surely didn't have one after Sheamus won. 

:ha

I guess people were interested after that epic ass kicking. It should be higher next week Because that's the true telling of interest after Monday 

:ha


----------



## Arkham258

So everyone tunes back in to see the guy they hate become champ?

You know what, screw WWE fans. They suck as much as WWE does. They will keep this company afloat no matter what. Sheep.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> :ha
> 
> One ass whooping by Reigns and he brings yall 4s
> 
> Can't call it post ppv bump because Survivor Series surely didn't have one after Sheamus won.
> 
> :ha
> 
> I guess people were interested after that epic ass kicking. It should be higher next week Because that's the true telling of interest after Monday
> 
> :ha


*Two months of Reigns being blamed for ratings WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE BELT! According to their logic, he's now the biggest draw on the roster. My God, this is SO embarrassing for them. Words cannot even explain it. The numbers do such a better job.*


----------



## Neweinsten

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Big increase as expected. They threw everything they had into this show, it was a great show.


Actually they didn't. It was only Roman and Vince. They threw everything on a show last month with Undertaker, Brock, Austin, Shawn and Flair and that one was mega failure. *Reigns has essentially outdone all those names. *


----------



## LilOlMe

What this tells me is that there's a sizable portion of the fanbase who have tuned out of RAW, and only watch PPVs. When something noteworthy happens on PPV, they'll check back into RAW. 

We've seen this happen after a couple of PPVs now. I think it's a great thing for Vince that he has the network, because it is a useful tool for getting people back into RAW.

We are seeing that there is an audience there to grab, but so many have tuned out and only check in with the minimum lately (PPVs). It is a hopeful sign for the WWE that the audience still follows along, even if passively, which is something I've said for awhile.


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

:reigns2


----------



## Deadman's Hand

Merry Blissmas said:


> *Two months of Reigns being blamed for ratings WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE BELT! According to their logic, he's now the biggest draw on the roster. My God, this is SO embarrassing for them. Words cannot even explain it. The numbers do such a better job.*


*Calm down. This RAW had the return of Vince McMahon, and a title change practically promised in the main event. People actually had a reason to tune in for once.

If Roman Reigns gives RAW a great number next week, then you can say I told you so. I'm not being a "Roman Reigns hater," I'm just stating the facts. *


----------



## Wynter

Excuse me as I post this again just in case yall missed it

Excluding post-Christmas and night after WrestleMania bumps, the last time Raw jumped 831,000 viewers or more week-on-week was Raw 1000, which jumped 1.14 million compared with the previous week.

*Before then, you have to go back to February 21st, 2011 for a bump bigger than last night's (the week after The Rock returned).*


:ha


----------



## MoxleyMoxx

Good for them I suppose. Now lets see if they can keep it that way.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

So can this finally put to bed all the shit about it being a certain wrestlers fault and just agree that a good show with a reason to watch will produce good numbers and bad show with no reason to watch will produce shit numbers


----------



## LilOlMe

This thread really should be shut down for stupidity alone. The leaps in logic and mark wars are always the worst I've ever seen on any forum.

180 degree turns and everything.

The very definition of a clusterfuck...


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Deadman's Hand said:


> Calm down. This RAW had the return of Vince McMahon, and a title change practically promised in the main event. People actually had a reason to tune in for


*
:bitchplz. Not trying to hear that after two months of whining about Reigns SINGLE HANDEDLY killing the show.*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Neweinsten said:


> Actually they didn't. It was only Roman and Vince. They threw everything on a show last month with Undertaker, Brock, Austin, Shawn and Flair and that one was mega failure. *Reigns has essentially outdone all those names. *


I'm not talking about names, I'm talking about throwing all the reasons to tune in. They had a WWE Title match, put one of the top stars in the current era career on the line, had Vince returning for the first time in a year, had a hot fallout from the night prior and most importantly, focused on more aspects than just the main event throughout the show to deliver quality segments throughout. That's WWE throwing everything they have out there. It's been long proven that a name itself will only get them so far. Only the Rock can make a difference on name value alone.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Merry Blissmas said:


> *Two months of Reigns being blamed for ratings WITHOUT EVEN HAVING THE BELT! According to their logic, he's now the biggest draw on the roster. My God, this is SO embarrassing for them. Words cannot even explain it. The numbers do such a better job.*


It was on both sides. Reigns' haters blaming him and Reigns' fans saying you can't blame one person. Now it just flips, Reigns' fans will credit Reigns and Reigns' haters will say you can't credit one person. 

I personally Credit R-Truth.


----------



## Neweinsten

Deadman's Hand said:


> *Calm down. This RAW had the return of Vince McMahon*


^ Desperate folks trying to credit Vince now. I bet if the numbers had bombed, Reigns would take the sole blame and as for Vince Mcmahon, the overused excuse - "HE WAS UNADVERTISED".

Pathetic.


----------



## Wynter

StraightYesSociety said:


> It was on both sides. Reigns' haters blaming him and Reigns' fans saying you can't blame one person. Now it just flips, Reigns' fans will credit Reigns and Reigns' haters will say you can't credit one person.
> 
> I personally Credit R-Truth.


Did you see Truth steal Vince's limo on Fallout?? :banderas :lmao


----------



## HankHill_85

Nice numbers for Raw last night. The question will be what they can do to keep up the momentum and get them even higher.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> Did you see Truth steal Vince's limo on Fallout?? :banderas :lmao


Yeah, we need more R-Truth on our TVs.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

StraightYesSociety said:


> It was on both sides. Reigns' haters blaming him and Reigns' fans saying you can't blame one person. Now it just flips, Reigns' fans will credit Reigns and Reigns' haters will say you can't credit one person.
> 
> I personally Credit R-Truth.


*
No, we won't, and we haven't if you've been paying attention. We've been saying since midway through Seth's reign that the shitty booking is to blame and he won't get any eyes on the product with the way he's presented. His easily offended fans took that as blaming HIM for the ratings. Reigns haters have gone out of their way to blame HIM and ONLY HIM SINCE the RTWM. Completely different situations, and any backlash they get is totally justified.*


----------



## Deadman's Hand

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> :bitchplz. Not trying to hear that after two months of whining about Reigns SINGLE HANDEDLY killing the show.*


*Yeah, and it happened because people were going "ROLLINS IS KILLING THE RATINGS!!! PUT THE BELT ON ROMAN!" Of course Rollins fans were going to put the blame on Reigns, when he was the star of the show in November.*


----------



## Deadman's Hand

Neweinsten said:


> ^ Desperate folks trying to credit Vince now. I bet if the numbers had bombed, Reigns would take the sole blame and as for Vince Mcmahon, the overused excuse - "HE WAS UNADVERTISED".
> 
> Pathetic.


*Look through my post history, bro. I never blamed Roman Reigns for the bad ratings, I blamed the product being shit.

Nice try, tho.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I personally don't have a problem with Reigns marks hamming it up. They've put up with alot of crap recently, just like I did earlier this year when people were putting it all wrongly on Rollins. And I was proud as a pig in shit when the ratings fell as soon as Rollins got hurt and they put up the lowest rated Raws of ALL TIME when Rollins got hurt. So, they can brag. 

Even if you don't agree with some of my opinions, unlike some, one thing no one can claim is that I'm not here _every_ week rain or shine, good ratings or bad. I'm here no matter what.


----------



## Neweinsten

#BadNewsSanta said:


> I'm not talking about names, I'm talking about throwing all the reasons to tune in. They had a WWE Title match, put one of the top stars in the current era career on the line, had Vince returning for the first time in a year, had a hot fallout from the night prior and most importantly, focused on more aspects than just the main event throughout the show to deliver quality segments throughout. That's WWE throwing everything they have out there. It's been long proven that a name itself will only get them so far. Only the Rock can make a difference on name value alone.


Its still just Vince and Roman in the end. You're describing the same thing in different ways. We've had ton of title matches in this 3 hr era, how many times has this "career on the line" stipulation been done? hell with Reigns alone, I recall atleast 3 times. PPV fallouts haven't been a draw, certainly not of this caliber in ages. And they focused on Reigns throught the show which is a clear success.


----------



## Brollins

They just have to make things interesting on their TV SHOWS. Allow for titles changes again, anything can happen sort of thing..

Do the TV shows like they were PPV's, high risk moves, crazy rules.. Just look at Lucha! Make PPV'S even better, I have no idea how but they could eventually do it..


----------



## Chrome

Wow, that's a hell of a ratings increase. Hopefully they do more unpredictable shit more often now.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

I will say, Reigns marks have earned their day to troll the fuck out of us "haters." As Legit Boss pointed out, it was the other way around for two months (which I admit I was part of). Let them have their day of fun, the rest of us will have ours whenever it is the ratings slip back down.  

(Just as long as people know what the true reasons are, it's all good).


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> I personally don't have a problem with Reigns marks hamming it up. They've put up with alot of crap recently, just like I did earlier this year when people were putting it all wrongly on Rollins. And I was proud as a pig in shit when the ratings fell as soon as Rollins got hurt and they put up the lowest rated Raws of ALL TIME when Rollins got hurt. So, they can brag.
> 
> Even if you don't agree with some of my opinions, unlike some, one thing no one can claim is that I'm not here _every_ week rain or shine, good ratings or bad. I'm here no matter what.


I'll be here to congratulate you when the ratings come in after Face Seth comes back :banderas


----------



## LilOlMe

For months, I've been posting the comparisons to last year. Will continue doing so this week...:


> WWE Raw ratings (Dec. 15, 2014): TLC fallout show draws lowest viewership total of the year
> 
> Last night's episode of Monday Night Raw in Detroit represented the fallout show to the TLC pay-per-view the night before. It also featured the return of WWE World Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar though, in fairness, that fact wasn't promoted beforehand. Still, the show drew the lowest viewership total all year.
> 
> All three hours averaged 3.52 million viewers, which beats the previous low of 3.60 million on Memorial Day. The hourly breakdown is even uglier:
> 
> Hour one: 3.70 million
> Hour two: 3.47 million
> Hour three: 3.38 million
> 
> That third hour is the lowest they've recorded all year. That hour featured the John Cena vs. Seth Rollins steel cage match that was promoted during the hour with the most viewers. This shows how little interest that match carried. What's more, the entire show revealed the complete lack of connection fans had to the TLC event.
> 
> The good news is football season is ending soon and the Royal Rumble is the next show on the schedule to kick off the road to WrestleMania.


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...4-tlc-fallout-show-viewership-lowest-all-year

Last year has been trouncing this year in ratings. Let's see if they can continue reversing that trend for the rest of the year.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I personally don't have a problem with Reigns marks hamming it up. They've put up with alot of crap recently, just like I did earlier this year when people were putting it all wrongly on Rollins. And I was proud as a pig in shit when the ratings fell as soon as Rollins got hurt and they put up the lowest rated Raws of ALL TIME when Rollins got hurt. So, they can brag.
> 
> Even if you don't agree with some of my opinions, unlike some, one thing no one can claim is that I'm not here _every_ week rain or shine, good ratings or bad. I'm here no matter what.


*
Showstopper is one of the few with the balls to man up and take his :lose with pride :clap.*



#BadNewsSanta said:


> I will say, Reigns marks have earned their day to troll the fuck out of us "haters." As Legit Boss pointed out, it was the other way around for two months (which I admit I was part of). Let them have their day of fun, the rest of us will have ours whenever it is the ratings slip back down.
> 
> (Just as long as people know what the true reasons are, it's all good).


*Respect to Santa as well :cudi. I'll be handing out receipts in the form of green rep for being such good sports about it.*


----------



## Lone Star

This is awesome. Please WWE, don't get lazy just because you've spiked the ratings.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> I'll be here to congratulate you when the ratings come in after Face Seth comes back :banderas


I appreciate that, but I don't and never have considered Rollins to be a draw. I know he's not. I've always known he's not. HBK wasn't either. If my favorites not being a draw bothered me so much, HBK and Rollins wouldn't be my favorites. But that is mighty nice of you. Thanks.  How about we just mark together when he comes back, irregardless of the ratings?


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Neweinsten said:


> Its still just Vince and Roman in the end. You're describing the same thing in different ways. We've had ton of title matches in this 3 hr era, how many times has this "career on the line" stipulation been done? hell with Reigns alone, I recall atleast 3 times. PPV fallouts haven't been a draw, certainly not of this caliber in ages. And they focused on Reigns throught the show which is a clear success.


Look, if you seriously believe that, Reigns has been the center of shows for he past month while ratings have tanked. The only differences here is Vince, and that the show was quality throughout.


----------



## LilOlMe

I think a positive thing for the WWE is that they can build on this storyline.

The last time they had a hot angle that had people buzzing and a huge viewership increase was the "Brock on a rampage" storyline. That lasted literally just a week, so they couldn't capitalize on it. This, they can.

I still say that they dropped the ball when they had the Authority welcome Brock back (so stupid). Yeah, it was months later, but they could have continued the storyline, and it would have been far more compelling. Why not go with what has proven to work?


----------



## The XL

McMahon needs to stay on tv. He least heavily contributed to that number


----------



## DoubtGin

The Reigns lovers surely waited for this moment for a long, everyone attempting to take revenge on here :lmao Comes across as desperate, but it was the other way around beforehand so whatever.

I've watched the highlights on youtube (I haven't watched RAW for over a month now), because the increase got me interested and I must say that it looked like it was a very good show overall:

- Mr McMahon (not Vince McMahon) is an awesome character and was much-needed here. He made the babyface this week. 
- FINALLY Owens looked like a beast. I hope he doesn't go back to the coward in the following week.
- The Extreme Rules match looked like fun. Just a big brawl, hope the Wyatts get something to do.
- The Divas were mostly pointless but Ric Flair is the GOAT at everything.
- The New Day segment made zero sense. 
- The main event storyline was pretty much perfect, imo. I still can't stand Reigns and he shouldn't be the guy, but they have done everything now to get him over and I guess it worked. Hope they book the rest well because we are getting a combination of Reigns/Cena/Lesnar/(Bryan) in the next months and that doesn't sound too great for me.

I can definitely see why the ratings did well. The third hour showed that people were interested in how the title match will go since it actually increased from the hour before. The first hour can be credited to the TLC PPV I guess (I still didn't like that one). 

I don't think they can keep this up next week.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

HOLY SHIT THAT BUMP.

What do you know? You put on an entertaining show where <gasp> something actually happens </gasp> and people actually watch it. 

It's sad that it took a year for them to figure this shit out. I reckon the fans leaving early last RAW triggered it. That for Vince was his enough is enough. Or maybe USA Network gave Vince a phone call. Regardless, it make you wonder why it took this to finally get a reaction. Is it HHH and Stephanie being awful? Is it the writing staff?


----------



## LilOlMe

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Look, if you seriously believe that, Reigns has been the center of shows for he past month while ratings have tanked. The only differences here is Vince, and that the show was quality throughout.


I agree with this totally, however, where Reigns deserves credit is that I do believe that he brought in viewership due to the TLC ending. Like I said earlier, I think a large part of this audience gain was due to people who watch PPVS, but don't usually watch RAW anymore.

I think a lot of them tuned in at the start after witnessing Roman's rampage. Plus, I think that there was curiosity in seeing how the audience would react, after watching the weird Boston reactions last night. 

Same reason a lot of people tuned in after the Royal Rumble.

However, they were very, very, smart to announce that Vince was coming early in the show. That kept viewers hooked, IMO.


ETA: Added some more about curiosity playing a part.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Hey, if the ratings continue to do well under Roman Reigns, then I wouldn't complain. Despite being critical of his booking, I am a fan of the guy. I was just giving possible reasons why the show did good viewership. :justsayin*


----------



## skarvika

Vince return, proper hardcore match, title match main event. Not surprising really. We'll see more average numbers in 2 weeks (provided this was a one-off)


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> I appreciate that, but I don't and never have considered Rollins to be a draw. I know he's not. I've always known he's not. HBK wasn't either. If my favorites not being a draw bothered me so much, HBK and Rollins wouldn't be my favorites. But that is mighty nice of you. Thanks.  How about we just mark together when he comes back, irregardless of the ratings?



We always agreed Seth as face will equal money though. Just like us Roman fans were screaming letting him wreck shit was best for business. 

I veery much think Seth will be different from hbk in that respect. Something about face Seth is so perfect and electrifying. He captures the crowd in the ring with ease. 

I am. Because you know I've been begging for Seth to turn. It's time to see the rise of Seth and leave the horribly booked Heel Seth behind.


----------



## ironyman

HankHill_85 said:


> Nice numbers for Raw last night. The question will be what they can do to keep up the momentum and get them even higher.


Just keep making shows like last night that proves they still give a shit and remember what used to make RAW great. That is what last night was, so people naturally watched. 

But if they really want things to skyrocket, then they need Reigns vs Cena in an epic feud that goes back and forth, with Reigns finally coming out on top. Preferably with a Corporate Cena angle. 

WWE would have the most attention it has had in years if they pulled something like that and the time is ripe for it. Imagine Cena being enjoyable and fresh and a new star being made at the same time. #Bestforbusiness


----------



## Saved_masses

a title match, the return of Vince, great booking in the IC, Tag and Wyatts vs ECW feuds. No surprise there was a ratings increase, they made me watch. They need to keep it up, they can't start to think they've won and go back into another slump.


----------



## Neweinsten

#BadNewsSanta said:


> (Just as long as people know what the true reasons are, it's all good).



And what are these apparent "true reasons", I wonder? 

Let me state a few facts - 

1. Last month alone they put all the big names starting with Undertaker, Brock, Shawn, Flair, Austin and that didn't even make a blip. 

2. Undertaker-Brock feud was essentially a bust interms of drawing ratings for the show. 

3. Almost all PPV fallouts since wrestlemania have failed to bring in any kind of increase. 

4. Every champion they pushed and put the title on has failed to draw, infact led RAW to its lowest ever.

5. Crowds got smark heavy, chose to cheer only indy favourites and shit on WWE pushed guys especially Roman. 

6. No John Cena, No Orton, No Bryan, No Seth Rollins, No Brock ,No Rock on the show. Most injured, rest part timers. 

DESPITE all of this, Roman Reigns(along with Vince) has brought about 27% increase to RAW, the biggest since Rock's return in 2011. And you nonchalantly post "true reasons" ?? as if this is some normal event and too easy to draw.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Deadman's Hand said:


> *Calm down. This RAW had the return of Vince McMahon, and a title change practically promised in the main event. People actually had a reason to tune in for once.
> 
> If Roman Reigns gives RAW a great number next week, then you can say I told you so. I'm not being a "Roman Reigns hater," I'm just stating the facts. *


Vince wasnt advertised.


----------



## skarvika

The XL said:


> McMahon needs to stay on tv. He least heavily contributed to that number


Agreed. I still think he's out of touch for the most part but he's entertaining as shit when he's on tv.



TheShieldSuck said:


> Vince wasnt advertised.


Stephanie announced him during the first segment.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

TheShieldSuck said:


> Vince wasnt advertised.


*They announced Vince's appearance in the first hour.*


----------



## #Naomi'sButtIsLife

JBLoser said:


> OMG
> 
> Hour 1: 4.043M
> Hour 2: 3.786M
> Hour 3: 3.825M
> 
> http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...able-originals-network-update-12-14-2015.html


:WTF Holy shit. HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!:ambrose4

Reigns is a draw. Hallelujah!!!
:drose

@SHIVVY POO where my :reigns2 3.88 gif at?
:mj


----------



## Lone Star

skarvika said:


> Vince return, proper hardcore match, title match main event. Not surprising really.


Well booked show, with a perfectly executed main event angle involving Roman Reigns. If the numbers stick next week, Reigns deserves more credit.



> We'll see more average numbers in 2 weeks (provided this was a one-off)


That's highly questionable with Lesnar and John Cena coming back shortly.


----------



## skarvika

Lone Star said:


> Well booked show, with a perfectly executed main event angle involving Roman Reigns. If the numbers stick next week, Reigns deserves more credit.


Ratings will stick next week because we have a new champion. That's why I said 2 weeks from now will give us a more realistic idea of what numbers will be averaging, once the hype has worn off.
It wasn't perfectly executed because it was too predictable. They have the dude coming out "TODAY IS MY DAUGHTER'S BIRTHDAY" before getting a title match. Anybody who thought there was a chance of the title not switching hands after those 2 factors alone is delusional. I still am glad we got a title change on Raw though, because damn it's been years since that's happened...I enjoyed the US open challenge thing Cena was doing but there wasn't much excitement behind it because everyone knew before the show even started that he wouldn't lose it on Raw.


----------



## DoublePass

This reminds me of Rollins fans claiming he was a mega draw after WM when RAW had over 5 million viewers. Then everything went to shit immediately after that.

It's embarrassing that Reigns fans think the exact same thing won't happen starting next week.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*I'm in such a good mood right now. Lets just take a break from getting on each other's nerves and look forward to the potentially amazing Takeover:London PPV tomorrow. It's a FANTASTIC week to be a wrestling fan, ladies and gentlemen*


----------



## Lone Star

Why does this Vince McMahon announced in the 1st segment shit even matter? It was a great hook for the show, something we haven't saw on RAW in ages. :shrug

Vince has always been a draw, he's just as much of a factor as Reigns.


----------



## CJohn3:16

The fallout from TLC (everyone wanted to know what was gonna happen between Reigns and HHH), the return of Vince and the WWE title match (which most realized it was gonna end with a Reigns victory) made that rating happen. The show was also excellent. So we all know the next year of RAWs will be absolute crap.


----------



## Neweinsten

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Look, if you seriously believe that, Reigns has been the center of shows for he past month while ratings have tanked. The only differences here is Vince, and that the show was quality throughout.


No, not really. He was getting over but the champion reflects viewer's interest. No one cared about Sheamus, same way no one cared about Seth before. 

Do you mean to tell me Vince alone making a appearance on RAW will draw up a 27% increase? Really?

I've seen "Show was quality throughout" many times in IWC, never did it make a difference in ratings. So stop using that crap as if it is a fact. Casuals don't even sit around and rate the show like IWC. Its retarded. They just tune in if they like what they see, tune out if they don't care.


----------



## Wynter

Neweinsten said:


> And what are these apparent "true reasons", I wonder?
> 
> Let me state a few facts -
> 
> 1. Last month alone they put all the big names starting with Undertaker, Brock, Shawn, Flair, Austin and that didn't even make a blip.
> 
> 2. Undertaker-Brock feud was essentially a bust interms of drawing ratings for the show.
> 
> 3. Almost all PPV fallouts since wrestlemania have failed to bring in any kind of increase.
> 
> 4. Every champion they pushed and put the title on has failed to draw, infact led RAW to its lowest ever.
> 
> 5. Crowds got smark heavy, chose to cheer only indy favourites and shit on WWE pushed guys especially Roman.
> 
> 6. No John Cena, No Orton, No Bryan, No Seth Rollins, No Brock ,No Rock on the show. Most injured, rest part timers.
> 
> DESPITE all of this, Roman Reigns(along with Vince) has brought about 27% increase to RAW, the biggest since Rock's return in 2011. And you nonchalantly post "true reasons" ?? as if this is some normal event and too easy to draw.


That's ether! 










Straight like that . You can't argue with those facts. Thank you for breaking this down so perfectly


----------



## Saved_masses

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> No, we won't, and we haven't if you've been paying attention. We've been saying since midway through Seth's reign that the shitty booking is to blame and he won't get any eyes on the product with the way he's presented. His easily offended fans took that as blaming HIM for the ratings. Reigns haters have gone out of their way to blame HIM and ONLY HIM SINCE the RTWM. Completely different situations, and any backlash they get is totally justified.*


come on, don't be blind. you might of blamed the product and booking but people on here did blame Rollins, people called him a ratings killer. Now you're acting like EVERYONE was blaming Reigns. Some people still blamed the product and the booking. It happens, people who hate Rollins blamed Rollins, people who hate Reigns blamed Reigns, then people continued to blame the product and booking.


----------



## RatedR10

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> Did you see Truth steal Vince's limo on Fallout?? :banderas :lmao





StraightYesSociety said:


> It was on both sides. Reigns' haters blaming him and Reigns' fans saying you can't blame one person. Now it just flips, Reigns' fans will credit Reigns and Reigns' haters will say you can't credit one person.
> 
> I personally Credit R-Truth.


It was mostly the trolls that blamed Rollins. You could blatantly see it. New(er) users, lower post counts, red rep... they were trolling. The actual Reigns' fans knew it was the product, and everyone else knows it's the product.

Let's be real, for the past 3 months or so, WWE has shown no indication of building to anything compelling or giving us a well-booked show. Last night was both and it was a great show from top-to-bottom with all the elements of popping a big number.

As for R-Truth... I think if they want 4.5m viewers next week, they have to follow Truth around after he stole the limo and see what adventures he goes on. That's money. :vince2


----------



## Lone Star

skarvika said:


> Ratings will stick next week because we have a new champion.


Like they did for Seth Rollins and Sheamus, right? :sip


----------



## Empress

Merry Blissmas said:


> *I'm in such a good mood right now. Lets just take a break from getting on each other's nerves and look forward to the potentially amazing Takeover:London PPV tomorrow. It's a FANTASTIC week to be a wrestling fan, ladies and gentlemen*


That's tomorrow? I need to get the Network again. 

What a week to be a Reigns fan. And I'm definitely gonna enjoy the salt since some folks have blamed him for everything but the world ending. Roman (helped) do what Brock and all these part timers couldn't. This is his Wrestlemania moment, belatedly.

I hope creative keeps putting on entertaining shows. If you book a show right, the viewers will come.


----------



## Bubba Chuck

The ratings increased by that much :wee-bey









Now I don't want WWE to think everything is all good now. They still have a lot of work to do heading into Mania season and starting it off at the Royal Rumble.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Crediting one person for the ratings decline/rise :lose


----------



## ironyman

#BadNewsSanta said:


> (Just as long as people know what the true reasons are, it's all good).












Reigns got the taste slapped out of his mouth by Steph, got kicked in the balls by Vince and then went on to knock Vince out and win the title all in the same night. Pretty sure that had the most to do with it. And even Philly loved it. The guy has arrived.


----------



## skarvika

Lone Star said:


> Like they did for Seth Rollins and Sheamus, right? :sip


Sheamus had absolutely no build, he was about hot as a bag of ice, so it's unfair to compare him to this situation. Rollins is also unfair to compare because the next Raw after his title win was post Wrestlemania, so the following Raw had a good rating. That one also doesn't work because we're talking about next week's ratings, not ratings over an extended period of time.
Reigns' push had a build and isn't post WM. Because of this I think there will be a slight bump next week and the numbers in a couple weeks will give us an idea of what the average will be.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Dat timing for Roman to be champ during the time of year for the highest ratings rise for WWE :mj


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Neweinsten said:


> No, not really. He was getting over but the champion reflects viewer's interest. No one cared about Sheamus, same way no one cared about Seth before.
> 
> Do you mean to tell me Vince alone making a appearance on RAW will draw up a 27% increase? Really?
> 
> I've seen "Show was quality throughout" many times in IWC, never did it make a difference in ratings. So stop using that crap as if it is a fact. Casuals don't even sit around and rate the show like IWC. Its retarded. They just tune in if they like what they see, tune out if they don't care.


Again, Reigns was the center of those shows. Ratings tanked. If you're crediting him for this, you blame him for that. Sheamus was also the champion for this Raw until the end, which moots that point as well. The champion has something to do with the ratings if he's who the show revolves around, but the show has been revolving around Reigns since the Wyatt feud ended.

In any event, the whole point is it's not just Reigns, it's not just Vince, its not just the stipulation, it's not just the quality of the show from top to bottom, not just the booking of the show, it's not just the PPV fallout that got the show the boost it did, it's everything. And it's very rare in this day and age a show has all of those elements in one show. This had it and it worked.

But again, you want to shove this down our throats that it's a victor for Reigns after months of having to eat crap sandwiches, by all means go for it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Neweinsten said:


> No, not really. He was getting over but the champion reflects viewer's interest. No one cared about Sheamus, same way no one cared about Seth before.
> 
> Do you mean to tell me Vince alone making a appearance on RAW will draw up a 27% increase? Really?
> 
> I've seen "Show was quality throughout" many times in IWC, never did it make a difference in ratings. So stop using that crap as if it is a fact. Casuals don't even sit around and rate the show like IWC. Its retarded. They just tune in if they like what they see, tune out if they don't care.


*I really hope you're not a rejoiner, because you're making a lot of sense and I want you to stick around. That breakdown was amazing and 100% correct. We've never had a post PPV increase like that since Mania. It's no coincidence that this has been the most compelling storyline since Mania, and only took two days to be effective.*


----------



## ironyman




----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Just like how the world's most famous eyebrow went from getting 'DIE ROCKY DIE' chants almost everywhere to being cheered and eventually clamored for in those same arenas he was boo'd in, Mr.Strong is finally getting some poetic justice. In the same arena that boo'd him to oblivion less than 11 months ago. He's gotten over, albeit with YES chants that are like a contemporary version of those WHAT chants.

Wonder how Cena's return, SD's debut on Jan 7th & Bwak's appearance on Jan 11th will play into the current scenario.

And can Sheamus still invoke his rematch clause. Maybe they can book it for their debut on USA when SD goes live on Jan 7th. From then on Cena and Brock's return can raise the stakes.

As for Bryan, never say never.


----------



## #Naomi'sButtIsLife

Saved_masses said:


> come on, don't be blind. you might of blamed the product and booking but people on here did blame Rollins, people called him a ratings killer. Now you're acting like EVERYONE was blaming Reigns. Some people still blamed the product and the booking. It happens, people who hate Rollins blamed Rollins, people who hate Reigns blamed Reigns, then people continued to blame the product and booking.


Basically everyone was blaming Reigns. At least Rollins was champ while getting blamed for bad ratings. Roman was No.1 contender for 5 weeks & he was solely blamed for the record low numbers despite Sheamus being champ. 

So Rollins & Reigns are actually incomparable in this aspect until we're further into Reigns' title run.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Deadman's Hand said:


> *They announced Vince's appearance in the first hour.*


That doesn't matter. He wasnt advertised before the show and the 1st hr bumped dramatically. Also people dont channel surf based on who is on the show. Its not the late 90s anymore. 

Reigns is the best looking horse in the glue factory. He draws in the sense that he is appeals to children and women.


----------



## #Naomi'sButtIsLife

☆Shala's Christmas Waifu Party☆;55165650 said:


> Dat timing for Roman to be champ during the time of year for the highest ratings rise for WWE :mj


And ratings are usually lower during the holidays.
:mj


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

Proper builds and Vince.

Cena return and Brock return. 

HHH in the ME?

Dean and Roman as Champs?

Owens!!!

:mj2 Should I trust WWE? :mj2 no I'm not ready just yet. 

Shala, you were riding Roman and Dean in the box, stop your hating plz :mj2


----------



## Wynter

swagger_ROCKS said:


> Proper builds and Vince.
> 
> Cena return and Brock return.
> 
> HHH in the ME?
> 
> Dean and Roman as Champs?
> 
> Owens!!!
> 
> :mj2 Should I trust WWE? :mj2 no I'm not ready just yet.
> 
> Shala, you were riding Roman and Dean in the box, stop your hating plz :mj2


Shala is a battered wife with Roman. Sometimes he hates his very existence, but then he comes back, loves him for a month and then hates him again :lmao


----------



## TheShieldSuck

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Again, Reigns was the center of those shows. Ratings tanked. If you're crediting him for this, you blame him for that. Sheamus was also the champion for this Raw until the end, which moots that point as well. The champion has something to do with the ratings if he's who the show revolves around, but the show has been revolving around Reigns since the Wyatt feud ended.
> 
> In any event, the whole point is it's not just Reigns, it's not just Vince, its not just the stipulation, it's not just the quality of the show from top to bottom, not just the booking of the show, it's not just the PPV fallout that got the show the boost it did, it's everything. And it's very rare in this day and age a show has all of those elements in one show. This had it and it worked.
> 
> But again, you want to shove this down our throats that it's a victor for Reigns after months of having to eat crap sandwiches, by all means go for it.


Roman Reigns is a type cast wrestler. He is a Goldberg and if they treat him as such, like a prop, an avatar, then "he" will draw. Roman Reigns himself is not a draw.


----------



## Wonderllama

Roman Reigns = ratings

DEAL WITH IT.


----------



## Swissblade

W-wait, you mean a good show = good ratings? :wee-bey


----------



## PunkDrunk

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Again, Reigns was the center of those shows. Ratings tanked. If you're crediting him for this, you blame him for that. Sheamus was also the champion for this Raw until the end, which moots that point as well. The champion has something to do with the ratings if he's who the show revolves around, but the show has been revolving around Reigns since the Wyatt feud ended.
> 
> In any event, the whole point is it's not just Reigns, it's not just Vince, its not just the stipulation, it's not just the quality of the show from top to bottom, not just the booking of the show, it's not just the PPV fallout that got the show the boost it did, it's everything. And it's very rare in this day and age a show has all of those elements in one show. This had it and it worked.
> 
> But again, you want to shove this down our throats that it's a victor for Reigns after months of having to eat crap sandwiches, by all means go for it.


Absolute bullshit.
The point of this is that Reigns is finally being booked as he should. What he did with shit booking is irrelevant.
The ratings saored for this Raw due to TLC. What was the major angle coming out of TLC?
They followed up this angle with a fantastic Raw for Reigns that kept the interest of the returning fans. Thats a fact.
Unless Owens v Ambrose jumped this freaking thing then there is no way Reigns doesn't get credit.


----------



## PunkDrunk

ShadowKiller said:


> W-wait, you mean a good show = good ratings? :wee-bey


Theres been plenty of good Raws that have tanked in the ratings.


----------



## swagger_ROCKS

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> Shala is a battered wife with Roman. Sometimes he hates his very existence, but then he comes back, loves him for a month and then hates him again :lmao


:Jordan you already know.


----------



## Wynter

Ok, I'm good now. It's been a rough as fuck year for Roman fans. We need this W :lmao

I just need WWE to not fuck it up next week. Not just with Roman, but the rest of the roster. They did so good on Monday and obviously put in a lot of effort. Even down to the old school backstage segment with Team ECW.

You want them ratings? Keep booking with god damn sense and actually, you know, BOOK YOUR TALENTS WITH SENSE AND IMPORTANCE.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

Roman Gains


----------



## Louaja89

Wow that viewership sure as hell did surprise me. It seems that the TLC ending and the beginning of Raw got people interested. I hope they continue to book quality RAWs like last night and they'll get their viewers back like me for example.
I just hope they don't rest on their laurels. Oh and good for Roman and his fans, you've earned the right to brag lol.


----------



## Robbyfude

Vince McMahon bringing in those ratings.


----------



## Blade Runner

F^CK

Now I need to hold back from posting my weekly







GIF in this thread after such a big increase

:sadbron (posted it anyway)






but seriously, good for them. It'll take much more than that for me to regain confidence in the product, but I guess it's a start and the ratings are reflecting the effort made


----------



## Trivette

:vince$

hate to admit it, but that's the main reason I tuned in for the last half hour.

Old man can still sell with the best of 'em.










The question still remains if they can keep this momentum up. Next week is the Slammys, after all...


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

A 70 year old Alzheimer patient outdrawing Roman Reigns.

->

:ha


----------



## gabrielcev

Ratings increase had nothing to do with Reigns. lmao. Bro Reigns was not champion during the time of RAW. He became champion at the end of RAW. So how is that any correlation with it being Reigns?


----------



## Wynter

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> F^CK
> 
> now I need to hold back from posting my weekly
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> GIF in this thread after such a big increase
> 
> :sadbron (foumd a loophole and posted it anyway)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but seriously, good for them. It's take much more than that for me to regain confidence in the product, but I guess it's a start and the ratings are reflecting the effort made


That's the biggest fear I have right now. Nobody gets complacent after one great show like Vince. I would love to be confident in thinking Vince has a fire lit up his ass. But history has shown us time and time again, when they get it right, they then get it wrong the next 3-5 weeks :lol

Just don't fuck it up. Continue to make Roman look bad ass. Continue this aggressive and pissed Owens. Make Dean look like a credible IC Champ. Continue Wyatt's dominance (really surprised they won and it wasn't 50/50 bullshit)

Key is being consistent. Not expecting them to hit it out of the park every week, but they gotta give us something here. 

A great TLC ending AND proper follow up was vastly important. And they delivered and they were rewarded.

Crazy how such a system works. Even when most of the top guys gone, they managed to pull a really good viewership and rating. Have faith in your roster and they will rise to the occasion.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

PunkDrunk said:


> Absolute bullshit.
> The point of this is that Reigns is finally being booked as he should. What he did with shit booking is irrelevant.
> The ratings saored for this Raw due to TLC. What was the major angle coming out of TLC?
> They followed up this angle with a fantastic Raw for Reigns that kept the interest of the returning fans. Thats a fact.
> Unless Owens v Ambrose jumped this freaking thing then there is no way Reigns doesn't get credit.


Again, that's all fine and dandy. Reigns was the center of this show like he was when numbers were dropping. You want to give him credit, blame him as well... unless you're trolling of course, but the vibe I get is you're not.


----------



## BlahBlahJapanBlah

Smarks taking so many L's right now, First they blamed the ratings crush on Reigns the second Rollins got hurt and they couldn't make anymore excuse now Vince is the reason for the ratings. They can't give Reigns credit for anything, even mad at Philly for cheering him. 


Get Rekt


----------



## Blade Runner

I Saw Wyatt Killing Santa Claus said:


> That's the biggest fear I have right now. Nobody gets complacent after one great show like Vince. I would love to be confident in thinking Vince has a fire lit up his ass. But history has shown us time and time again, when they get it right, they then get it wrong the next 3-5 weeks :lol
> 
> Just don't fuck it up. Continue to make Roman look bad ass. Continue this aggressive and pissed Owens. Make Dean look like a credible IC Champ. Continue Wyatt's dominance (really surprised they won and it wasn't 50/50 bullshit)
> 
> Key is being consistent. Not expecting them to hit it out of the park every week, but they gotta give us something here.
> 
> A great TLC ending AND proper follow up was vastly important. And they delivered and they were rewarded.
> 
> Crazy how such a system works. Even when most of the top guys gone, they managed to pull a really good viewership and rating. Have faith in your roster and they will rise to the occasion.


I agree. I've seen it happen far too many times -- The ratings dip, Vince panics and puts effort in a few shows to regain fan confidence -- then settles right back into the status quo

This will obviously feed Vince's ego massively -- He basically won the war against the smarks in his mind. The ratings went up AND they gave Reigns a standing ovation in Philly. I don't know if this means that he'll start getting even more complacent in the coming weeks or be smart enough to use this as a launching pad for bigger and better things -- We'll see

Personally i'm completely fine with Reigns as champ, especially if the fans are taking to him now -- Only thing that makes me cringe about this is the likeliness of seing HHH in yet another WM main event in 2016 -- Since the beginning of the year i've been predicting that the guy would find a way to sneak his ^ss into the spotlight of the biggest show with the biggest attendance holding, and now he has his ticket. I'd MUCH rather see Bryan/Reigns, Cena/Reigns, or f^ck even Lesnar/Reigns again sounds better to me

So we'll see. I applaud and appreciate the effort but i'm worried about where things might be going -- and my worries have little to do with Reigns as champion


----------



## RiC David

Ugh, this thread is incredibly frustrating if you don't already know which page the ratings were posted on. Could I suggest including the week's ratings in the front page OP? Otherwise it's pages and pages of people talking about it but not actually mentioning it.

Obviously I can look around for the rating and find it eventually but Google's pretty shit when it comes to searching for recent information while omitting all the old results.

...nope, still only finding results that are talking about hourly viewership and overall viewership number and I've never known how the hell that translates to rating - I just want to know the overall rating.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Awesome news. Isn't it interesting what happens when you actually put effort into the show and tell your viewers that important, exciting things may be happening in the third hour, too? That being said, if they go back to booking the same old worthless, meaningless 6-man tags next week, they can go fuck themselves. Bring the effort, the excitement, etc CONSISTENTLY and the ratings will continue to improve.


----------



## Q-MAN

The goodwill is not going to last very long, I am sorry but this modern WWE we are talking about. The reaction to Reigns winning the title as a sign of better things is no different than when Bryan win. Nothing is going to change and will be back to the normal BS tonight. Hell we still have no threating heels, a extremely weak midcard, and a joke of a divas division. Reigns will be back to being public enemy number one in no time because the lazy writing and effort will come back. Get ready for nothing meaningful happen with Reigns being champion.


----------



## thegockster

Vince at the age of 70 is a bigger draw than anyone on the roster, You can see why the USA network want him back on tv


----------



## NearFall

Well would ya look at that. You actually book a compelling and coherent STORY for only two nights straight and the ratings pop-up. The logic is so simple you think they would have understood it years ago. Let's just hope they keep the whole Reigns storyline on track and actually build credible heels to face him.


----------



## Saved_masses

#Naomi'sButtIsLife said:


> Basically everyone was blaming Reigns. At least Rollins was champ while getting blamed for bad ratings. Roman was No.1 contender for 5 weeks & he was solely blamed for the record low numbers despite Sheamus being champ.
> 
> So Rollins & Reigns are actually incomparable in this aspect until we're further into Reigns' title run.


no not everyone, please stop this blindness. A lot of people, Reigns fans and non Reigns fans, blamed it on the booking of the overall show. 

Will be interesting to see if they keep this level of programming up now, If they can continue on a hot streak then I can imagine returning guys like Rollins, Cesaro, Brock, Cena, Orton will only help the show further improve the ratings.


----------



## CookiePuss

Another one for The Empire :drose


----------



## Chrome

Saved_masses said:


> *no not everyone, please stop this blindness. A lot of people, Reigns fans and non Reigns fans, blamed it on the booking of the overall show.*
> 
> Will be interesting to see if they keep this level of programming up now, If they can continue on a hot streak then I can imagine returning guys like Rollins, Cesaro, Brock, Cena, Orton will only help the show further improve the ratings.


This is true, most people in here blamed Vince and the booking for the shitty ratings. Only hardcore haters really blamed Reigns for this mess. Anyone else was just doing it as a joke.


----------



## The True Believer

Holy fuck. I knew ratings would go up but...

...that's fucking monstrous. Congratulations, Reigns marks. And all the same, poor Sheamus marks. Just goes to show that not too many people were happy with him being champion.


----------



## rocknblues81

lol at people crediting Roman. Jeez.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Chrome said:


> This is true, most people in here blamed Vince and the booking for the shitty ratings. Only hardcore haters really blamed Reigns for this mess. Anyone else was just doing it as a joke.


Exactly. And it was always some of the Roman fans taking those obvious jokes seriously and trying to play the victim complex as always :chan 

It was a decent Raw. Thus it got good ratings. It's a pretty simple concept. Make the whole show good and something someone will want to sit through and they won't leave. Reigns deserves credit just as the rest of the talent who kept the audience.


----------



## The True Believer

PunkDrunk said:


> Theres been plenty of good Raws that have tanked in the ratings.


To be fair, those RAW's didn't have Vince McMahon and a world title change take place.


----------



## thegockster

Ratings are up because the first segment Steph told everyone Vince is back

Then Vince first segment a title match was made and Vince put in the your fired angle

It's all down to Vince, The old man is still a draw


----------



## birthday_massacre

Gotta love Reigns fans, so it wasn't his fault when he was the spotlight and the ratings were shit but now the want to give him credit when they go up when he is still the spotlight LOL

Not sure how you can give Reigns credit since he lost at the PPV and was screwed over once again. Cant wait until the ratings drop again then they will have their build in excuse well its not just Reigns fault its all the booking LOL

Cant have it both ways. But of course Reigns fans always do.

Lets see how the next Raw does without Vince being announced and there not being a WWE title match next week.


----------



## Robbyfude

Funny Reigns mark are saying he bought the ratings up. It sure wasn't Vince McMahon appearing the first time in a year and his name trending on facebook and twitter, it was REIGNS! If Reigns won at TLC and the ratings went up, then sure it was him.


----------



## ironyman

rocknblues81 said:


> lol at people crediting Roman. Jeez.


LOL at blind haters not giving him any credit. They were in Philly of all places and they went nuts when he won. Were people not interested in seeing him win the title, they would have tuned the fuck out and Philly would have booed the hell out of him. He is over now, plain as day.


----------



## kendoo

Vinny Mac bringing that dolla dolla, Dudleys and co was match of the night, reigns getting that cred :lol


----------



## Chrome

Spidey said:


> Holy fuck. I knew ratings would go up but...
> 
> ...that's fucking monstrous. Congratulations, Reigns marks. And all the same, poor Sheamus marks. Just goes to show that not too many people were happy with him being champion.


Yeah I like Sheamus and think he's a good talent, but they need to quit giving him world title runs at this point.


----------



## rocknblues81

ironyman said:


> LOL at blind haters not giving him any credit. They were in Philly of all places and they went nuts when he won. Were people not interested in seeing him win the title, they would have tuned the fuck out and Philly would have booed the hell out of him. He is over now, plain as day.


Roman has been on all of these other weeks and no ratings increase.

If people were overly interested in him winning the title the ratings would have been going up since Rollins went down (if not before). Why didn't they go up after Survivor Series when it was clear that his push as the top dog was starting?


----------



## BlahBlahJapanBlah

Robbyfude said:


> Funny Reigns mark are saying he bought the ratings up. It sure wasn't Vince McMahon appearing the first time in a year and his name trending on facebook and twitter, it was REIGNS! If Reigns won at TLC and the ratings went up, then sure it was him.


Vince wasn't even announced until 15 minutes into the show...but Reigns was the sole problem with WWE the last two months.


Smarks taking this news hard.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ironyman said:


> LOL at blind haters not giving him any credit. They were in Philly of all places and they went nuts when he won. Were people not interested in seeing him win the title, they would have tuned the fuck out and Philly would have booed the hell out of him. He is over now, plain as day.


Give him credit for what? Reigns was not champion when the show started, and in the first few minutes of Raw she said Vince was coming, and that started to trend on twitter. As for the place going nuts when he won, you did hear EVERYTHING before that right when Reigns got booed in the first segment of the night then he got almost zero reaction in his new two appearances especially right when he was announced during the title match?

Seamus was the one guy who fans wanted to be champion less than Reigns. So were those fans cheering for Reigns winning or Sheamus finally losing the title because everyone hates him more than Reigns.

Its just like at RR when the fans were cheering for Rusev to win because they didn't want Reigns to win. 

Wait to see RR reaction next week on Raw when he is champion at the start of the show to see the reaction and also see how the ratings do without Vince.

People wanted to see Sheamus lose the title more than Reigns win it.

HE is not over yet, because he wasn't over all night at both TLC until the last 5 minutes when he was wrecking everyone and that didn't carry over to raw. and he wasn't over on raw until he took the title off Sheamus. Now you need to wait to see if that carries over the next few weeks before you claim he is over for 5 minutes of being cheered .

You cant not blame Reigns for the poor ratings that were some of the lowest ever, then give him credit for this increase. But of course Reigns fans are trying to do that which is laughable.


----------



## ironyman

rocknblues81 said:


> Roman has been on all of these other weeks and no ratings increase.
> 
> If people were overly interested in him winning the title the ratings would have been going up since Rollins went down (if not before). Why didn't they go up after Survivor Series when it was clear that his push as the top dog was starting?


Because it was coming off the back of a solid PPV, which finally made more people want to tune in. And yes, Vince was certainly a huge part of it, as was the good show in general. 

But the fact of the matter is that Reigns was over last night in a smarky town and people wanted to see what happened after he got slapped silly and kicked in the balls. Then of course they went nuts when he knocked out Vince and won the title in the same night. He was a huge part of why the show was a success and to deny that is to be blind.


----------



## rocknblues81

BlahBlahJapanBlah said:


> Vince wasn't even announced until 15 minutes into the show...but Reigns was the sole problem with WWE the last two months.
> 
> 
> Smarks taking this news hard.


No, no one single wrestler is the sole problem with the WWE product.


----------



## BlahBlahJapanBlah

People are so butthurt about Reigns that now they are giving all the credit to Vince, a man they have treated like Satan on this forum ever since the rise of CM Punk.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ironyman said:


> Because it was coming off the back of a solid PPV, which finally made more people want to tune in. And yes, Vince was certainly a huge part of it, as was the good show in general.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that Reigns was over last night in a smarky town and people wanted to see what happened after he got slapped silly and kicked in the balls. Then of course they went nuts when he knocked out Vince and won the title in the same night. He was a huge part of why the show was a success and to deny that is to be blind.


Reigns was not over for 90% of the time he was on screen. Just the last few minutes when he was going to win and won the title. Lets not kid ourselves he wasn't getting booed in that first segment then got almost zero reaction when he came out for the title match.

Reigns fans love to do this kind of thing where he goes booed 90% of the time then for a very short time he gets cheered and they forget how during his TLC match they were chanting for John fuckign Cena to come out because they didn't want either of those guys in the title matching being champion.


----------



## Nine99

I thought we established that one star does not make or break rating. Wasn't that literally the conversations we were having just before this Raw?

Reigns marks blame Rollins for rating. 
Rollins goes out, Reigns main events and doesn't improve rating.
Reigns marks take back blaming one talent on ratings.
Raw improves ratings.
Reigns marks put Reigns over for rating. 

Anyway...great improvement this week. It does remind me of a very bad football team looking good for one week and I have no faith they could do it again the next. Could you imagine if they booked good shows every week??? What a concept.


----------



## Londrick

It's been fun guys. Goodbye everyone. :mj2


----------



## rocknblues81

ironyman said:


> Because it was coming off the back of a solid PPV, which finally made more people want to tune in. And yes, Vince was certainly a huge part of it, as was the good show in general.
> 
> But the fact of the matter is that Reigns was over last night in a smarky town and people wanted to see what happened after he got slapped silly and kicked in the balls. Then of course they went nuts when he knocked out Vince and won the title in the same night. He was a huge part of why the show was a success and to deny that is to be blind.


A solid PPV? 

You call that a solid PPV? 

All of the matches were average (at best) with the exception of the first one. The crowd was cheering for other wrestlers during the main event match.

Some of you guys are just as low brow as the product is.

Roman Reigns is (at best) a mid carder in any strong era of wrestling.

Do I care that he has the belt? Not really because who else do they have to give it to anyway? The WWE doesn't have any real main event level talent.


----------



## Empress

Spidey said:


> Holy fuck. I knew ratings would go up but...
> 
> ...that's fucking monstrous. *Congratulations, Reigns marks.* And all the same, poor Sheamus marks. Just goes to show that not too many people were happy with him being champion.


:homer6

The show was built around Roman Reigns and the booking was there. He deserves all credit afforded for doing his part. I saw him trending and Twitter even made his win a "moment". I hope they will capitalize on this buzz. ESPN is a good look tonight. All in all, creative got it right last night with most of their talents. I hope they don't fall back into habits and just keep connecting the dots. 

As for Sheamus, he's a very solid performer in the ring. But I didn't care about his latest championship run. He was horribly booked as MITB winner and worse as champ.


----------



## birthday_massacre

BlahBlahJapanBlah said:


> People are so butthurt about Reigns that now they are giving all the credit to Vince, a man they have treated like Satan on this forum ever since the rise of CM Punk.


You really think the ratings will be this high next week when Vince is not on the show?


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Source: prowrestling.net*

*WWE Raw rating for the December 14 episode (Roman Reigns wins the WWE World Heavyweight Championship)*

Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.66 rating, up from the 2.15 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.88 million viewers, up from the 3.054 million average from last week.

Powell's POV: WWE officials obviously have to be happy today with the big increase for the night after TLC, Vince McMahon's return to television, and Roman Reigns capturing the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Monday Night Football led the night, yet was down from its average with 11.547 million viewers watching the Giants vs. Dolphins game on ESPN. The December 15, 2014 edition of Raw delivered a 2.66 rating with 3.521 million viewers.

_The same exact rating around the same exact time last year despite there being around 360,000 more viewers._


----------



## 3ku1

You know Reigns marks are just as obnoxious as his smarks lol, oh I told you so e.t.c. Just saying. As for the ratings, up or down has nothing to do with Roman or who ever they give the belt too. It well be because the overall product is better. Reigns is what 90% over. If this was Daniel Bryan he would come out to overwhelming yes yes yes, and huge pop. Roman comes out to crickets. Then he gets a big pop in the end. Now is that because he is the lesser of two evils, even in a smark place like Philly? They enjoyed seeing Roman take out the boss? Because when its just him, they didn't seem to give two damns when he walked out. Like at the beginning of Raw, Steph generated so much heat Roman played off it. But he cannot do that on his own. Yes Roman in another era is a midcarder at best. Right now he is their best shot, he is the best in a very very bad situation. But just because Raw was better, and just because TLC was a solid ppv. Does not mean Vince is suddenly with it now, BS. The IWC has been tearing this guy down for what a year now? He is senile, out of touch, racist e.t.c. You name it. What he shows up on Raw, he is now a genius? Got ya. As it is Ratings aint up because of Roman, nor were they down because of Roman. They are up because probably Vince showing up, oh I want to see that says the casual smark lol. And a title change on raw, you don't see on Raw every day, that is why. When Roman won the pop wasen't omg this guy we have been waiting for him to win the title. It was almost like well at least they are now being honest with the guys push. It was a uthoria that swept over the crowd.

ETA: So a 2.66 rating in demo, up from 2:16 last week. And 350,000 more viewers. with 3.88 mill viewers. Same as this time last year though. But that's a good start. Shows they so things different, people well watch.


----------



## rocknblues81

birthday_massacre said:


> You really think the ratings will be this high next week when Vince is not on the show?


When the fans realize that Vince is not sticking around and the product falls back to normal it will be the same as before. There might be some that think Vince will be back next week, but the ratings will start going back down in a few weeks.


----------



## Nine99

birthday_massacre said:


> Nine99 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I thought we established that one star does not make or break rating. Wasn't that literally the conversations we were having just before this Raw?
> 
> Reigns marks blame Rollins for rating.
> Rollins goes out, Reigns main events and doesn't improve rating.
> Reigns marks take back blaming one talent on ratings.
> Raw improves ratings.
> Reigns marks put Reigns over for rating.
> 
> Anyway...great improvement this week. It does remind me of a very bad football team looking good for one week and I have no faith they could do it again the next. Could you imagine if they booked good shows every week??? What a concept.
> 
> 
> 
> You really think the ratings will be this high next week when Vince is not on the show?
Click to expand...

No. I said it reminds me of a bad football team looking good for *one week and I have no faith they could do it again the next.*


----------



## birthday_massacre

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *Source: prowrestling.net*
> 
> *WWE Raw rating for the December 14 episode (Roman Reigns wins the WWE World Heavyweight Championship)*
> 
> Monday's WWE Raw scored a 2.66 rating, up from the 2.15 rating the show drew last week. Raw averaged 3.88 million viewers, up from the 3.054 million average from last week.
> 
> Powell's POV: WWE officials obviously have to be happy today with the big increase for the night after TLC, Vince McMahon's return to television, and Roman Reigns capturing the WWE World Heavyweight Championship. Monday Night Football led the night, yet was down from its average with 11.547 million viewers watching the Giants vs. Dolphins game on ESPN. The December 15, 2014 edition of Raw delivered a 2.66 rating with 3.521 million viewers.
> 
> _The same exact rating around the same exact time last year despite there being around 360,000 more viewers._


So going by that, like one or two people with a ratings box decided to watch Raw and that is why the ratings went up. It didn't even hit a 3 share. That isn't even that good.


----------



## Bret Hart

Lol at all of you blaming and congratulating the wrestlers themselves as if they single handedly changed the direction of the ratings. 

Rollins/Brock/Cena/Reigns none of them are reasons for a ratings decrease or increase.

It's the fucking booking and writing. Last nights show was pretty damn good and they gave us a reason to tune in till the end and hence the ratings increased.

You can't just have a fucking wrestler show up and not do anything and expect a ratings increase. You have to book them and write for them accordingly.


----------



## Membar

Neweinsten said:


> And what are these apparent "true reasons", I wonder?
> 
> Let me state a few facts -
> 
> 1. Last month alone they put all the big names starting with Undertaker, Brock, Shawn, Flair, Austin and that didn't even make a blip.
> 
> 2. Undertaker-Brock feud was essentially a bust interms of drawing ratings for the show.
> 
> 3. Almost all PPV fallouts since wrestlemania have failed to bring in any kind of increase.
> 
> 4. Every champion they pushed and put the title on has failed to draw, infact led RAW to its lowest ever.
> 
> 5. Crowds got smark heavy, chose to cheer only indy favourites and shit on WWE pushed guys especially Roman.
> 
> 6. No John Cena, No Orton, No Bryan, No Seth Rollins, No Brock ,No Rock on the show. Most injured, rest part timers.
> 
> DESPITE all of this, Roman Reigns(along with Vince) has brought about 27% increase to RAW, the biggest since Rock's return in 2011. And you nonchalantly post "true reasons" ?? as if this is some normal event and too easy to draw.





Neweinsten said:


> ^ Desperate folks trying to credit Vince now. I bet if the numbers had bombed, Reigns would take the sole blame and as for Vince Mcmahon, the overused excuse - "HE WAS UNADVERTISED".
> 
> Pathetic.





Neweinsten said:


> No, not really. He was getting over but the champion reflects viewer's interest. No one cared about Sheamus, same way no one cared about Seth before.
> 
> Do you mean to tell me Vince alone making a appearance on RAW will draw up a 27% increase? Really?
> 
> I've seen "Show was quality throughout" many times in IWC, never did it make a difference in ratings. So stop using that crap as if it is a fact. Casuals don't even sit around and rate the show like IWC. Its retarded. They just tune in if they like what they see, tune out if they don't care.


:clap :clap 
This guy knows whats up! 





ironyman said:


> Reigns got the taste slapped out of his mouth by Steph, got kicked in the balls by Vince and then went on to knock Vince out and win the title all in the same night. Pretty sure that had the most to do with it. And even Philly loved it. The guy has arrived.



roudroudroud






#Naomi'sButtIsLife said:


> :WTF Holy shit. HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT HOLY SHIT!!!!!!!!:ambrose4
> 
> Reigns is a draw. Hallelujah!!!
> :drose
> 
> @SHIVVY POO where my :reigns2 3.88 gif at?
> :mj





:Banderas:Banderas


----------



## birthday_massacre

Jolly Jim Ross said:


> Lol at all of you blaming and congratulating the wrestlers themselves as if they single handedly changed the direction of the ratings.
> 
> Rollins/Brock/Cena/Reigns none of them are reasons for a ratings decrease or increase.
> 
> It's the fucking booking and writing. Last nights show was pretty damn good and they gave us a reason to tune in till the end and hence the ratings increased


Most people say that. How this whole thing start was when Rollins was champion and the booking was shit, Reigns fans started saying Rollins is the reason for the low ratings but most people said it was the shit booking of the overall product.

Then when Rollins got hurt and Reigns was the center of the show and the ratings went down ever more, people turned the Reigns fans logic against them and claimed oh so I guess its Reigns fault for the ratings being so low, even though then knew it was the booking.

Now that the ratings went up one week. Reigns fans are acting like he is the reason why they went up, and not the booking.

Most fans know the booking is what causes the ratings to go up and down and that is why those people call for better booking and making more than one person seem like big deal since when they do that the booking is always better.


----------



## ironyman

rocknblues81 said:


> A solid PPV?
> 
> You call that a solid PPV?
> 
> All of the matches were average (at best) with the exception of the first one. The crowd was cheering for other wrestlers during the main event match.
> 
> Some of you guys are just as low brow as the product is.
> 
> Roman Reigns is (at best) a mid carder in any strong era of wrestling.
> 
> Do I care that he has the belt? Not really because who else do they have to give it to anyway? The WWE doesn't have any real main event level talent.


Yeah, it was pretty strong. Particularly the ending, where Reigns went on a rampage. It did the job of making more people want to tune in. And the entire theme of RAW was centered around the guy and people hung around to watch to the tune of a huge ratings increase, so obviously it worked.

Low brow? No, I am just a realist. They put on a better show after months of shit and the ratings reflect that. And whether you like it or not, Reigns was a big part of that and he is finally getting over. 

I am merely calling a spade a spade, instead of acting like some teenage smark who refuses to see the obvious out of blind hatred for a wrestler they get off on taking a shit on because their guy is not getting the push. It's just sad, man. Not to mention OLD. I am out.


----------



## The True Believer

Sasha Fierce said:


> :homer6
> 
> The show was built around Roman Reigns and the booking was there. He deserves all credit afforded for doing his part. I saw him trending and Twitter even made his win a "moment". I hope they will capitalize on this buzz. ESPN is a good look tonight. All in all, creative got it right last night with most of their talents. I hope they don't fall back into habits and just keep connecting the dots.
> 
> As for Sheamus, he's a very solid performer in the ring. But I didn't care about his latest championship run. He was horribly booked as MITB winner and worse as champ.


They absolutely cannot pull back on this by having Reigns get screwed out of it to give it back to Sheamus. They have to go all out and make his reign into something people want to see. Outside of those stupid tater tots promos, they've actually been doing him a solid job as far as character wise since Survivor Series. Like I've said before, if he should be booked as anyone from the past, it ought to be Batista: man of few words but an intense ass kicker that can get everyone on their feet with his explosive, hard hitting arsenal.

On a somewhat unrelated note, WWE needs to not drop the ball. Yes, Reigns is the eye of the storm but their was solid booking for most of the people on the show and WWE ought to understand that yes, what we're getting with Reigns now is working but what we got with mostly everyone else worked, too. Keep the Wyatt's momentum going up along with Ambrose, Owens, the tag teams, Charlotte, etc.


----------



## Fighter Daron

DoublePass said:


> This reminds me of Rollins fans claiming he was a mega draw after WM when RAW had over 5 million viewers. Then everything went to shit immediately after that.
> 
> It's embarrassing that Reigns fans think the exact same thing won't happen starting next week.


Except that Sunday wasn't Wrestlemania and Monday Night Football is still on.



Old Saint RiC said:


> Ugh, this thread is incredibly frustrating if you don't already know which page the ratings were posted on. Could I suggest including the week's ratings in the front page OP? Otherwise it's pages and pages of people talking about it but not actually mentioning it.
> 
> Obviously I can look around for the rating and find it eventually but Google's pretty shit when it comes to searching for recent information while omitting all the old results.
> 
> ...nope, still only finding results that are talking about hourly viewership and overall viewership number and I've never known how the hell that translates to rating - I just want to know the overall rating.


You're exactly right, fella. 3'88 average.









LOL at the haters, when the ratings are down is Reigns' fault, but now they increase and it's because Vince's presence even though Reigns appears in all three hours.

I really know that the true draw is the quality of the product, but you haters need to get your shit together for once.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ironyman said:


> Yeah, it was pretty strong. Particularly the ending, where Reigns went on a rampage. It did the job of making more people want to tune in. And the entire theme of RAW was centered around the guy and people hung around to watch to the tune of a huge ratings increase, so obviously it worked.
> 
> Low brow? No, I am just a realist. They put on a better show after months of shit and the ratings reflect that. And whether you like it or not, Reigns was a big part of that and he is finally getting over.
> 
> I am merely calling a spade a spade, instead of acting like some teenage smark who refuses to see the obvious out of blind hatred for a wrestler they get off on taking a shit on because their guy is not getting the push. It's just sad, man. Not to mention OLD. I am out.


How was the ending strong when it was totally illogical kayfabe wise? When the LON came down to jump Reigns, where was Ambrose and the Uso's? How did it make any sense the did not show up to help him? The whole point of the family was to have Reigns back against the LON and two nights in a row they didn't help Reigns. I think we all know why and I will get to that with my next point.

The Smarks are not refusing to see the obvious and its not blind hate, we see exactly what is going on. Vince is turning Reigns into Super Cena 2.0 and that is exactly why the family did not come out to help Reigns. Because Vince didn't want Reigns to get any help, so he could overcome all the odds just like they have had Cena doing the past 10 years.

We see they are just going to be doing the same thing everyone has hated with Cena but now with Reigns.

It has nothing to do with the guy they don't want pushed. He is being pushed like Cena was at the expensive of shitting on and holding back the rest of your roster.

that is why the WWE has been so bad in the Cena era overall and just when Cena is almost done, Vince puts another guy who is much worse in his place that will fill that same type of role.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Spidey said:


> They absolutely cannot pull back on this by having Reigns get screwed out of it to give it back to Sheamus. They have to go all out and make his reign into something people want to see. Outside of those stupid tater tots promos, they've actually been doing him a solid job as far as character wise since Survivor Series. Like I've said before, if he should be booked as anyone from the past, it ought to be Batista: man of few words but an intense ass kicker that can get everyone on their feet with his explosive, hard hitting arsenal.
> 
> On a somewhat unrelated note, WWE needs to not drop the ball. Yes, Reigns is the eye of the storm but their was solid booking for most of the people on the show and WWE ought to understand that yes, what we're getting with Reigns now is working but what we got with mostly everyone else worked, too. Keep the Wyatt's momentum going up along with Ambrose, Owens, the tag teams, Charlotte, etc.


The way to book their rematch, is Reigns squashing Sheamus.


----------



## Membar

birthday_massacre said:


> When the LON came down to jump Reigns, where was Ambrose and the Uso's?



Your nitpicking is moronic. 

Do you see Reigns show up everytime Ambrose or Usos get in trouble? No, you don't because he's not going to mess with their individual feuds, just like they won't mess with his. Besides, post TLC show the aftermath, Reigns went absolutely nuts and beat every heel up including Triple H. So why would these guys show up to help someone who was perfectly capable of destroying the heels by himself? Plus, he is babyface he'd want to win the title by himself anyway. 

Now, stop complaining like a fool and go to bed quietly.


----------



## Empress

Spidey said:


> They absolutely cannot pull back on this by having Reigns get screwed out of it to give it back to Sheamus. They have to go all out and make his reign into something people want to see. Outside of those stupid tater tots promos, they've actually been doing him a solid job as far as character wise since Survivor Series. Like I've said before, if he should be booked as anyone from the past, it ought to be Batista: man of few words but an intense ass kicker that can get everyone on their feet with his explosive, hard hitting arsenal.
> 
> On a somewhat unrelated note, WWE needs to not drop the ball. Yes, Reigns is the eye of the storm but their was solid booking for most of the people on the show and WWE ought to understand that yes, what we're getting with Reigns now is working but what we got with mostly everyone else worked, too. Keep the Wyatt's momentum going up along with Ambrose, Owens, the tag teams, Charlotte, etc.


RAW felt like there was a roster full of stars and not just the Roman Reigns show. Kevin Owens looked like a true threat and he has a great babyface in Ambrose to play off against. 

As for Bray, do he and the Wyatt's really have momentum? The WWE books them like a yo yo. Strong one week and fed to legends the next. But the Extreme match was my favorite of the night.

I do hope that Reigns has a solid run with the belt, possibly ending at Fastlane or Wrestlemania. Vince can't be on the show each week and I'd like for the character development to continue with him. 

I'm glad Ricki Flair turned. If she's going to steal from her father, she's tolerable as a heel. 

The tag team division is shaping up nice. I want the Uso's to get more of an edge though. Last night was a start. I loved their walk to the ring but I had to laugh since they were bright as hell while trying to be hard. 

All I want is effort and I'll watch & pay for the Network. The last few months have been a chore.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Membar said:


> Your nitpicking is moronic.
> 
> Do you see Reigns show up everytime Ambrose or Usos get in trouble? No, you don't because he's not going to mess with their individual feuds, just like they won't mess with his. Besides, post TLC show the aftermath, Reigns went absolutely nuts and beat every heel up including Triple H. So why would these guys show up to help someone who was perfectly capable of destroying the heels by himself? Plus, he is babyface he'd want to win the title by himself anyway.
> 
> Now, stop complaining like a fool and go to bed quietly.


How exactly is that nitpicking? And sorry but Reigns at TLC was not capable of handling it himself since HE LOST THE MATCH. 

The reason why they did it was like I said, they wanted him to beat all the odds just like Cena always does.

Its a perfectly logical criticism of how bad the WWEs booking is. Especially when Ambrose is always tells Reigns he has his back.


----------



## Marv95

"Vince was advertised at the beginning so he's the reason" Except viewership dropped from the 1st hour(not by much) and what good does that do for the folks who _weren't_ watching at 8pm and aren't too active on social media/dirtsheets?

Little disappointed at the 3rd hour but it still went up from the 2nd hour. Good work. NOW the test will be next week. If it stays the same or actually goes up you might have something. Do something on SD to make sure people tune in as the Slammy Awards may pose a problem.


----------



## RapShepard

ShowStopper said:


> I doubt it, bro. The Giants suck this year. They won last night and they're still under .500. Not our year.
> 
> :ha


Hopefully we can sneakbin rhe playoffs and make a miracle happen.

I'd give a lot to see the Giants vs Bengals or see Eli take another ring up from ubder Brady


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RapShepard said:


> Hopefully we can sneakbin rhe playoffs and make a miracle happen.
> 
> I'd give a lot to see the Giants vs Bengals or see Eli take another ring up from ubder Brady


You're a Giants fan, too?!?!?!

Sadly, it's not happening this year, bro. The season was the Redskins and Jets games from these past few weeks. Losing those two games did them in. The rest of their schedule is tough, too. Carolina, Minnesota, and Philly. Not happening. I love Coughlin and Reese, but it's time for a new coaching staff and GM. They had a GREAT run; 2 Championships in 8 years. But it's time.


----------



## FROSTY

Arkham258 said:


> So everyone tunes back in to see the guy they hate become champ?
> 
> You know what, screw WWE fans. They suck as much as WWE does. They will keep this company afloat no matter what. Sheep.


Baaa motherfucker, lol joking. 

Steph castrating + *VINCE* + Nut kicks + Assassin Reigns + WWE title change = *Roman Rating's!*


----------



## LilOlMe

Wow, where did all of these "new" member Reigns fans come from? Why did it take you all so long to show your faces?

Not just in this thread, but throughout the board in general.

Either you believe(d) in the dude or not. Interesting people who only show up when they perceive that it's safe because a dude is hot.


----------



## FROSTY

LilOlMe said:


> Wow, where did all of these "new" member Reigns fans come from? Why did it take you all so long to show your faces?
> 
> Not just in this thread, but throughout the board in general.
> 
> Either you believe(d) in the dude or not. Interesting people who only show up when they perceive that it's safe because a dude is hot.


Well for me in particular, I've stated numerous times I wouldn't be a fan until they made him or his storyline interesting. They have, hope they can keep it up.


----------



## Hurin

Takes more than one week to tell if someone is a draw. You're dumb as FUCK if you attribute this to Roman, while at least the people attributing the lowered ratings to him can point to the fact that he was the centerpiece of a lot of those RECORD LOW RATINGS Raws.

That's all I gotta say to you all unk2

Enjoy your momentary victory though


----------



## Annihilus

lol at people acting like Reigns had anything to do with the ratings increase, he was the focus of the show for the all time low ratings in recent months, why would 25% more people magically tune in to see more of his superman booking when they didn't want it last week? Ratings are up because they announced at the top of the show Vince was returning, and because Raw was in philly and had ECW nostalgia match, and because there was just a decent PPV last night.


----------



## Blade Runner

LilOlMe said:


> Wow, where did all of these "new" member Reigns fans come from? Why did it take you all so long to show your faces?
> 
> Not just in this thread, but throughout the board in general.
> 
> Either you believe(d) in the dude or not. Interesting people who only show up when they perceive that it's safe because a dude is hot.


It is kinda hilarious to see some people continuously bash Reigns for his supposed lack of talent and how much of a cancer he is to the product, then out of the f^cking blue act like he's the best thing to happen in the WWE as soon as the concensus shifts in the other direction-- tbh. I think the proper term for that is "bandwagoning"


----------



## Alchemind

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> It is kinda hilarious to see people continuously bash Reigns for his supposed lack of talent and then out of the f^cking blue act like he's the best thing to happen in the WWE as soon as the concensus shifts in the other direction-- tbh. I think the proper term for that is "bandwagoning"


They were masterfully manipulated. Vince wins again!


----------



## DoublePass

RapShepard said:


> Hopefully we can sneakbin rhe playoffs and make a miracle happen.
> 
> I'd give a lot to see the Giants vs Bengals or see Eli take another ring up from ubder Brady


Your shit team doesn't have Strahan, Osi, Tuck, etc., this time around. They're not taking another ring from anyone, let alone the GOAT, little guy.


----------



## RapShepard

DoublePass said:


> Your shit team doesn't have Strahan, Osi, Tuck, etc., this time around. They're not taking another ring from anyone, let alone the GOAT, little guy.


Eli will do it for The Peyton


----------



## LPPrince

Ratings went up? Good for WWE from their perspective. Not from mine as I want them to improve and I doubt they will if they don't sink lower and lower. But its a post-PPV Raw, Vince was announced as returning quite early, and there was a world title change on free television. I'm not surprised.

Lets see how this holds up over the next few weeks. Leading into the Rumble and eventually Mania, I'd be shocked if ratings didn't climb.


----------



## Brodus Clay

It was a somewhat better booked RAW but not enough for a rating increase, Vince it's a draw I didn't know he was going to be there so I did my typical skip of RAW and latter watch what I read it was worth, if I knew Vince would be there I would watch it live. 

Not hating on Reigns, but until now mi perception of him it's that hes probably another ratings killer like Sheamus and Rollins but this it's his first reign, not gonna take into account his drawing ability until hes done with Sheamus who already proved after numerous championships he just can't draw.


----------



## From Death Valley

It don't matter ratings will sink once again. Raw will go back as the same shit next week.


----------



## RapShepard

ShowStopper said:


> You're a Giants fan, too?!?!?!
> 
> Sadly, it's not happening this year, bro. The season was the Redskins and Jets games from these past few weeks. Losing those two games did them in. The rest of their schedule is tough, too. Carolina, Minnesota, and Philly. Not happening. I love Coughlin and Reese, but it's time for a new coaching staff and GM. They had a GREAT run; 2 Championships in 8 years. But it's time.


The asshole in me has been a fan of Eli since he said fuck the rules i'm not playing for the Chargers. Then I feel in love with the D-line with Strahan and Osi and became a fan of the team since.

I'm a Bengals fan due to region(Columbus) but a Giants fan by choice.

But yeah Coughlin should bo on his way out with love. But i'm also thinking Cruz might unfortunately be done too. He can't stay healthy for shit.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RapShepard said:


> The asshole in me has been a fan of Eli since he said fuck the rules i'm not playing for the Chargers. Then I feel in love with the D-line with Strahan and Osi and became a fan of the team since.
> 
> I'm a Bengals fan due to region(Columbus) but a Giants fan by choice.
> 
> But yeah Coughlin should bo on his way out with love. But i'm also thinking Cruz might unfortunately be done too. He can't stay healthy for shit.


Yeah, Cruz is going to have to take a paycut next year. They're paying him a good amount of money and he's barely played the last 2 seasons. A paycut is in order. Also, the Giants have alot of money coming off the books this off-season. They need to sign alot of guys in Free Agency. Alot of holes to fill on this roster.


----------



## StompKing

Awesome on the ratings. I am really curious assuming Reigns is still champ what the numbers will be like the Raw before and the Raw after Rumble are like. Same for Fast Lane. Maybe even the before and after Raw's for Mania. Could be very telling as if they are anything like this Vinnie Mac HHH might decide let Reigns run with a epic reign take the belt well beyond the summer.


----------



## Joshi Judas

On the back of a good TLC with a buzzworthy ending, and a great Raw, I expected Raw to do well and it did. Should be good for next week too on the back of this week. Let's see how they book their shows with RTWM right round the corner.

Good show = good ratings. Such a simple concept that they seem unable to grasp.


----------



## skarvika

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> It is kinda hilarious to see some people continuously bash Reigns for his supposed lack of talent and how much of a cancer he is to the product, then out of the f^cking blue act like he's the best thing to happen in the WWE as soon as the concensus shifts in the other direction-- tbh. I think the proper term for that is "bandwagoning"


:damn SKIPPY
That's ultimately why I'm so pissed off. I wouldn't have anything in my avatar/sig about him if it weren't for these bandwagoning hypocrites because at the end of the day, I don't really care about Roman Reigns. He bores the piss outta me and I space out through most of his segments.


----------



## Redzero

Decent product = Decent ratings

Is that hard Vince and co?


----------



## Marrakesh

skarvika said:


> :damn SKIPPY
> That's ultimately why I'm so pissed off. I wouldn't have anything in my avatar/sig about him if it weren't for these bandwagoning hypocrites because at the end of the day, I don't really care about Roman Reigns. He bores the piss outta me and I space out through most of his segments.


I hope you aren't referring to the people who are just acknowledging the fact that they've booked him well for two nights now. 

All the criticism of before still stands, but it doesn't mean it needs to be included in every fucking post about the guy. 

I haven't seen anyone who wasn't a fan of his beforehand, immediately jump on any bandwagon and proclaim him to be the savior of wrestling. 

They are booking a story and angle around him that has potential and they've done an excellent job of getting it over in the space of two days. Anyone who puts bias to one side can see that.


----------



## The True Believer

Marrakesh said:


> I hope you aren't referring to the people who are just acknowledging the fact that they've booked him well for two nights now.
> 
> All the criticism of before still stands, but it doesn't mean it needs to be included in every fucking post about the guy.
> 
> I haven't seen anyone who wasn't a fan of his beforehand, immediately jump on any bandwagon and proclaim him to be the savior of wrestling.
> 
> They are booking a story and angle around him that has potential and they've done an excellent job of getting it over in the space of two days. Anyone who puts bias to one side can see that.


That's the way I see it. I'm not a Reigns fan but his booking the past two nights is the kind of stuff we should've been getting all along and with the fact that Philly of all places gave it a positive reception, it shows that wrestling fans from all different backgrounds and who harbor different preferences on who should be on top all appreciate good storytelling, no matter who's at the center.


----------



## Starbuck

If Rollins or Bryan saw a 27% jump week on week we'd never hear the end of it and the success would be all because of them.

Lol @ the butthurt though.

4 million to open shows people were very clearly interested in the fallout to HHH/Reigns from TLC. Vince's return kept them there for hour 2. Roman's chase kept them further still for hour 3. 

A combined effort for sure but nobody can deny that Roman Reigns potentially winning the world title after mauling HHH complete with a Vince McMahon return has drawn more interest than any storyline since the summer and they did it without Lesnar, Taker, Cena, Rock, Orton, Rollins, Sting, Austin or Jesus Christ on the damn show. 

GOAT heels + babyface actually in peril + strong unpredictable creative = 27% ratings increase bitches.

Belee dat.


----------



## 3ku1

Philly are bipolar though lol. Big Pop opening raw. No reaction walking out to this match. Big Pop when he wins the title. Then in same arena last year, gets booed out of the building when even Rock himself cannot get him over. I think difference is, different set of booking. And having some transparency. And obviously good shows = Ratings.


----------



## 3ku1

Starbuck said:


> If Rollins or Bryan saw a 27% jump week on week we'd never hear the end of it and the success would be all because of them.
> 
> Lol @ the butthurt though.
> 
> 4 million to open shows people were very clearly interested in the fallout to HHH/Reigns from TLC. Vince's return kept them there for hour 2. Roman's chase kept them further still for hour 3.
> 
> A combined effort for sure but nobody can deny that Roman Reigns potentially winning the world title after mauling HHH complete with a Vince McMahon return has drawn more interest than any storyline since the summer and they did it without Lesnar, Taker, Cena, Rock, Orton, Rollins, Sting, Austin or Jesus Christ on the damn show.
> 
> GOAT heels + babyface actually in peril + strong unpredictable creative = 27% ratings increase bitches.
> 
> Belee dat.


Actually I think its more a variation of a few things. Vince returning. Roman winning was an attraction, because it indicated change. Heath Slater did it, would of been the same thing. It was the overall product was so much better. Hence the 27% ratings increase.


----------



## NinjaCPU09

Neweinsten said:


> *27% bump *is huge. _Reigns is officially a success._
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Amazing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's been a ton of well booked show that bombed, this year alone.


For one week of high ratings? Maybe when he's consistent. Still, rather impressive numbers/bump


----------



## Blade Runner

Marrakesh said:


> I hope you aren't referring to the people who are just acknowledging the fact that they've booked him well for two nights now.
> 
> All the criticism of before still stands, but it doesn't mean it needs to be included in every fucking post about the guy.
> 
> *I haven't seen anyone who wasn't a fan of his beforehand, immediately jump on any bandwagon and proclaim him to be the savior of wrestling. *
> 
> They are booking a story and angle around him that has potential and they've done an excellent job of getting it over in the space of two days. Anyone who puts bias to one side can see that.


I've seen some of it -- obviously not to that degree (which is an egaggeration) but i've noticed some people get all excited/marking out about last night's outcome when weeks prior they were talking about how Reigns was a failure, how (in many words) putting the belt on him was a mistake and that he lacked the talent of a top star, and how he's the next Cena. (a few are even suddenly defending Reigns when they never did in the past) I think that if you're harboring that sentiment, then there should be some consistancy to it otherwise it comes across as bandwagoning to me. Of course people can change their minds over time, but we're talking about 2 consecutive days of booking that has been positively received. You can't possibly go from thinking that a guy sucks to being excited about his title win overnight. It makes no sense to me

I'm not talking about EVERYONE mind you -- some people were criticizing Reigns with objective and sound opinions, and tried their best to be fair about it -- those people didn't seem like their criticism came from a place of biased dislike or personal resentment for the guy. If those people were happy about yesterday then it's completely understandible. Hell i'm not what you'd call a huge Reigns fan, and I have my reservations about this storyline going forward, but I do give props for the segment being effective last night and i'm very happy for Reigns (the guy behind the character). I never blamed him directly for WWE's incompetence. Yes he can improve in certain areas but I always considered him an overall good talent. I just don't understand how people's beliefs fail to align with their actions/reactions once the concensus shifts in a different direction, it puts into question the sincerity of their beliefs in the first place :shrug


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

This proves they can still draw a decent rating. If they can do this with NFL competition, then there is no excuse why they cant exceed these numbers weekly, once football is over. Booking needs to keep stepping it up because the show can easily backslide.


----------



## sarcasma

I have to disagree with people saying Reigns is the reason for the ratings bump. Im not drinking the cool aid on that one. 

1. Vince draws period, watching the 70 old man do his thing ONE MORE TIME is a draw. He milked it, he made sure he was on multiple segments. 

2. It was a post PPV show, they usually draw. 

3. GUARANTEED TITLE CHANGE. There was no doubt Reigns was winning. 

4. Ambrose won the IC championship....my boy was in that 4.0 first hour...just sayin. 

5. Everyone loves the authority getting theirs, put ANYONE in that spot and it would've drawn, VINCE IS THE DRAW HERE. 

Next week the SLAMMIES WILL DRAW, then LESNAR starts coming back, Roman will be protected with bigger draws upcoming. 

After the novelty of Reigns as champ and the fact that hes never going to lose has worn off, well see what happens. If Im wrong, Ill admit it, I still... am not impressed.


----------



## TKOW

:vince3


----------



## Darkness is here

Vince is sitting on his couch with trips right now and laughing at the smarks.
Blee dat bitches


----------



## chronoxiong

Vince McMahon equals ratings! He was heeling it up on RAW and was entertaining out there. And yes, I was entertained.


----------



## fabi1982

I dont want to be the guy not congratulating Roman for his title and the effect on the ratings, but honestly, as others stated, the whole show was a draw and you could have put any other superstar in there for the 12 month (maybe he would be more over by now) and have this end cenario and would earn a good rating.

And to the ones saying it didnt take Brock, Hogan, etc., there was Vince, in his old bastard role, the role which everyone loved back in the days, of course this would bring in viewers and as said, the whole show was booked well and I as well nearly watched every minute, which I usually dont do.

And a clever and stupid move from WWE to make it happen, when the next couple of month usually tend to draw more viewers because of RTWM, so they can say "Roman draws", when it is mostly the whole CENArio (oh yeah, I did it). I would have loved to have all this at SVS and then have a month of Roman being champ and see how he performs etc.

Again I dont mind having him as champ, but what now? Someone said they took a storyline worth at least a month and put it in one weekend. Now what? Rematch? Boring. Other feud? With whom? Do they really want to "waste" the Roman vs. HHH match on RR with Reigns being champ and no chance he will lose his title to HHH?

I am definitelly more interested in RAW, but as said, WWE made a clever move to make the decision to put the strap on him now as other stuff will have an impact on ratings.

And lastly, cudos for WWE to pull this rating against MNF, well played.


----------



## Redzero

So acording to Reigns marks *he's* the reason for the high ratings but he *WASN'T* when the ratings were shit?

Top LeL


----------



## Fighter Daron

Redzero said:


> So acording to Reigns haters *he was* the reason for the shit ratings but he *ISN'T* when the ratings are good?
> 
> Top LeL


Fixed.


----------



## Stinger Fan

I think some people here need to calm down about the ratings because some are being pretty hypocritical. Reigns was the guy who was the main focus of the Road to Wrestlemania which saw its lowest rated numbers during Wrestlemania season, he was also the main focus on that title tournament which saw record lows too. You can't pick and choose which ratings matter and which don't. TLC had good buzz and RAW saw the return of Vince, that plays a factor as well as the title match for the title. It wasn't entirely on Roman . Unfortunately, Vince and co will say "see Roman is a draw!" which in reality there was a hell of a lot more factors at play. Lets wait and see where the ratings go from here


----------



## Naka Moora

Okay I don't follow ratings at all, but I'm impressed with such a big spike!
Can someone explain to me in your opinion why did the ratings spike so much?
Better show? McMahon? Blood? Title Change?

Or were people just interested in Reigns? 

Good job to Reigns non the less, It was probably the best RAW i've seen in months.


----------



## Marrakesh

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I've seen some of it -- obviously not to that degree (which is an egaggeration) but i've noticed some people get all excited/marking out about last night's outcome when weeks prior they were talking about how Reigns was a failure, how (in many words) putting the belt on him was a mistake and that he lacked the talent of a top star, and how he's the next Cena. (a few are even suddenly defending Reigns when they never did in the past) I think that if you're harboring that sentiment, then there should be some consistancy to it otherwise it comes across as bandwagoning to me. Of course people can change their minds over time, but we're talking about 2 consecutive days of booking that has been positively received. You can't possibly go from thinking that a guy sucks to being excited about his title win overnight. It makes no sense to me
> 
> I'm not talking about EVERYONE mind you -- some people were criticizing Reigns with objective and sound opinions, and tried their best to be fair about it -- those people didn't seem like their criticism came from a place of biased dislike or personal resentment for the guy. If those people were happy about yesterday then it's completely understandible. Hell i'm not what you'd call a huge Reigns fan, and I have my reservations about this storyline going forward, but I do give props for the segment being effective last night and i'm very happy for Reigns (the guy behind the character). I never blamed him directly for WWE's incompetence. Yes he can improve in certain areas but I always considered him an overall good talent. I just don't understand how people's beliefs fail to align with their actions/reactions once the concensus shifts in a different direction, it puts into question the sincerity of their beliefs in the first place :shrug


Good post. Pretty much the same way I feel about it. Skeptical they can maintain the momentum of these past two days, but willing to give credit were it's due. I didn't think they were capable of making Reigns look legit ever again after Tater Tot but they did just that. 

I've been scathing on some of the Reigns segments over these past few months as they were atrocious but I've always held out of hope they'd produce something worth watching. TLC and Raw provided that, so it's hard to complain about it, for now. 

I've never been one of those guys who thought of Reigns as a talentless hack or anything though. Most of my criticisms centered on booking him better, which they've done.

He was completely miscast in John Cena's smiley babyface role. I really do hope they don't slowly start trying to revert him back to this though, because it's unbearable to watch. 

They have a rotten habit of getting someone over one way, and then abandoning it in favor of what they'd like to be over. 

Hope these ratings give them the shot of adrenaline required to start trying to maximize the potential of their entire roster now. It's unlikely given how badly they fuck up on a regular basis, but there would be no point in watching if I wasn't able to hope for it.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Reigns probably had something to do with the high rating in hour 1. What he did to Triple H probably had something to do with the hour 1 rating. The most impressive thing to me is that the ratings went higher from hour 2 to 3.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Come to think of it, when was the last time hour 3 increased in hour 2?

Also would be nice if we still had the quarterly breakdowns to see how much exactly the main event angle itself really did impact the ratings.


----------



## thegockster

Their was a title match it's not rocket science


----------



## Wonderllama

In the end, WWE always win.

Always.


----------



## DoubtGin

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Come to think of it, when was the last time hour 3 increased in hour 2?
> 
> Also would be nice if we still had the quarterly breakdowns to see how much exactly the main event angle itself really did impact the ratings.


Yup, those confirmed that Bryan was the GOAT.

:bryan


----------



## Deepansh Lakra

Nothing to do with Cena not being on the show or Reigns winning the title last Monday. The overall show was consistent af and drew them ratings.


----------



## PurityOfEvil

Maybe now WWE will learn that if they put effort into their shows, the ratings will start to increase.

Give people a reason to keep watching and they will. Monday proved that.


----------



## bigdog40

Deepansh Lakra said:


> Nothing to do with Cena not being on the show or Reigns winning the title last Monday. The overall show was consistent af and drew them ratings.





Cena hasn't been on the show in almost 2 months now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

#BadNewsSanta said:


> I will say, Reigns marks have earned their day to troll the fuck out of us "haters." As Legit Boss pointed out, it was the other way around for two months (which I admit I was part of). Let them have their day of fun, the rest of us will have ours whenever it is the ratings slip back down.
> 
> (Just as long as people know what the true reasons are, it's all good).


Until next week when Vince is not on the show and the ratings are back to where they were again then the Reigns fans will be claiming its not Reings fault the ratings are so low again LOL


----------



## THANOS

DoubtGin said:


> Yup, those confirmed that Bryan was the GOAT.
> 
> :bryan


Did they ever .



Deepansh Lakra said:


> Nothing to do with Cena not being on the show or Reigns winning the title last Monday. The overall show was consistent af and drew them ratings.


This is quite true, but the peaks do suggest that the stakes placed on the main event inspired a lot of interest. Kayfabe-wise, it would have Reigns-fans tuning in hoping to see him finally win, and Reigns-haters tuning in hoping he would fail and be fired/off their screens. It was a perfect booking plan which fostered intrigue.

The fact that the entire show was well-booked kept the viewers from dipping throughout the show. I'm curious if a lot of this show was written by Dewey Foley, as HHH reportedly "LOVED" his ideas, which spawned the hiring.


----------



## Darkness is here

The ratings for next week should be interesting.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

birthday_massacre said:


> Until next week when Vince is not on the show and the ratings are back to where they were again then the Reigns fans will be claiming its not Reings fault the ratings are so low again LOL


Well if they are low again, of course. How would this thread be any fun if they were saying it was Reigns fault.


----------



## LPPrince

Darkness is here said:


> The ratings for next week should be interesting.


Well, coming off of the last Raw, absolutely. Again, I imagine ratings will increase what with the Road to Wrestlemania inbound.


----------



## thegockster

The Slammy show should do well


----------



## TheGmGoken

ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, Cruz is going to have to take a paycut next year. They're paying him a good amount of money and he's barely played the last 2 seasons. A paycut is in order. Also, the Giants have alot of money coming off the books this off-season. They need to sign alot of guys in Free Agency. Alot of holes to fill on this roster.


Least you don't have the pain of a Cowboys fan...


----------



## StraightYesSociety

THANOS said:


> Did they ever .
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite true, but the peaks do suggest that the stakes placed on the main event inspired a lot of interest. Kayfabe-wise, it would have Reigns-fans tuning in hoping to see him finally win, and Reigns-haters tuning in hoping he would fail and be fired/off their screens. It was a perfect booking plan which fostered intrigue.
> 
> The fact that the entire show was well-booked kept the viewers from dipping throughout the show. I'm curious if a lot of this show was written by Dewey Foley, as HHH reportedly "LOVED" his ideas, which spawned the hiring.


Dewy is also a huge Bryan mark... I hope that means we get some cool Bryan stuff when he comes back (I believe he will return). Apparently Mauro will not have Vince in his ear on Smackdown... I don't know what that means for the commentary and Smackdown in general but I love it. Give Bryan the Smackdown brand.


----------



## Lone Star

Darkness is here said:


> The ratings for next week should be interesting.


Monday night football is Lions/Saints. Not exactly a big game at all. So competition shouldn't be too much.

I'm curious as to if they bring Lesnar in next week for his Royal Rumble hype, as more of a reason to keep viewers. 



TheGmGoken said:


> Least you don't have the pain of a Cowboys fan...


At that the truth. Christ.


----------



## KO Bossy

How far standards have fallen when people are considering 2.66 a success...


----------



## StraightYesSociety

KO Bossy said:


> How far standards have fallen when people are considering 2.66 a success...


The December 15, 2014 edition of Raw delivered a 2.66 rating with 3.521 million viewers too.


----------



## Nimbus

well its a fact now, Roman Reings is a draw, the day he became champ the ratings sky rocketd. WOW


----------



## Lone Star

KO Bossy said:


> How far standards have fallen when people are considering 2.66 a success...


It's not that standards have fallen, it's the fact RAW drew like a 1.9 the night after Sheamus won the title, and has garnered this many viewers rather quickly, that's impressive.


----------



## Marrakesh

StraightYesSociety said:


> Dewy is also a huge Bryan mark... I hope that means we get some cool Bryan stuff when he comes back (I believe he will return). Apparently Mauro will not have Vince in his ear on Smackdown... I don't know what that means for the commentary and Smackdown in general but I love it. Give Bryan the Smackdown brand.


:lol Man, Dewey will be an errand boy for the senior writers for years before he's ever actually contributing anything of importance. (If he manages to last in there) 

He's basically on an internship and no matter what Foley says, he's got the gig because of who his dad is. 

As if they give a shit about some scribbles or the armchair booking he did on a blog on the internet. 

He certainly won't be in charge of any segments related to Daniel Bryan, one of the bigger stars on the roster :lol 

I personally don't see Bryan returning though. The issue is related to lawsuits and press coverage involving concussions. WWE's own doctor is in some way implicated in the NFL cases. 

Christian couldn't get cleared for the same reasons.


----------



## 3ku1

People need to realize 2.66 in the current landscape is solid. Most tv ratings are down by about 12% this year alone. A demo of around 2.5 is good. So when some say oh standards must have dropped. No its just relative. WWE is not going to get any where near a 3.5 at any point. So why act they well? In the current landscape, this is where they are at. Tv Broadcast ratings are declining. It is all about keeping above water.


----------



## 3ku1

Nimbus said:


> well its a fact now, Roman Reings is a draw, the day he became champ the ratings sky rocketd. WOW


Sky Rocketed? Oh yeah if you consider a 0.5-1.0 increase demo sky rocketed. OR a 350,000 increase in viewership sky rocketed, then what ever. The ratings are exactly the same as this time last year. The reason for the increase, is down to various factors. Like a title change on raw, buzz from the ppv. And a good show. Not just Reigns going over as wwe champion, some are giving Roman too much credit lol.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Marrakesh said:


> :lol Man, Dewey will be an errand boy for the senior writers for years before he's ever actually contributing anything of importance. (If he manages to last in there)
> 
> He's basically on an internship and no matter what Foley says, he's got the gig because of who his dad is.
> 
> As if they give a shit about some scribbles or the armchair booking he did on a blog on the internet.
> 
> He certainly won't be in charge of any segments related to Daniel Bryan, one of the bigger stars on the roster :lol
> 
> I personally don't see Bryan returning though. The issue is related to lawsuits and press coverage involving concussions. WWE's own doctor is in some way implicated in the NFL cases.
> 
> Christian couldn't get cleared for the same reasons.


Don't underestimate nepotism. Besides Road Dogg is essentially Booking Smackdown and he's friends with Mick. It's not that hard to pitch things to people. He's probably in a better position than the writers who until recently were screamed at if they used "insider terms."

Bryan is interesting because he just said they're working on a compromise. 

“Because of my history with concussions, the WWE medical doctor wouldn’t clear me. We’re in the process of trying to figure out some compromise. They keep sending me to do more tests, brain MRIs, brain EGs and all my tests have come back great to the point where my brain is better than someone my age with no concussion.”

Before it was a hard no which shows they're changing their minds.


----------



## Marrakesh

StraightYesSociety said:


> Don't underestimate nepotism. Besides Road Dogg is essentially Booking Smackdown and he's friends with Mick. It's not that hard to pitch things to people. He's probably in a better position than the writers who until recently were screamed at if they used "insider terms."
> 
> Bryan is interesting because he just said they're working on a compromise.
> 
> “Because of my history with concussions, the WWE medical doctor wouldn’t clear me. We’re in the process of trying to figure out some compromise. They keep sending me to do more tests, brain MRIs, brain EGs and all my tests have come back great to the point where my brain is better than someone my age with no concussion.”
> 
> Before it was a hard no which shows they're changing their minds.


I hope he comes back but it's hard to imagine at this stage. 

With him being one of their few genuine stars on that roster, I think they'd be terrified of him leaving and showing up on TNA or Lucha Underground. 

Sure, It doesn't make them immediate competitors to WWE :lol but it would bring a lot of new eyes to their product and they'd hate every second of it. 

Most of the evidence seemed to point to DB being a fairly good draw during his short time at the top.


----------



## Nimbus

I was a set rollings fan but i have to admit he is not a draw, his tittle reing had very low ratings. Roman reings proved he can draw and im sure he can carry the company just like cena did in the past


----------



## ironyman

Internet nerd wrestling fans lose, WWE wins. Oh, see ya next week.


----------



## Frost99

Nimbus said:


> well its a fact now, Roman Reings is a draw, the day he became champ the ratings sky rocketd. WOW


And what did it take to 'sky rocket" because if Roman was such a draw before he won the title then why wasn't anybody watching?

#BlindedbytheFANDOM 

It took the RETURN of the most HATED on air persona in Wrestling back in the day, Vincent Kenney McMahon :vince5, it then took Vince to believe in #WWELogic long enough to punish Roman with a title match, the return of an EXTREME Rulez match with members of the tribe of Extreme & then a Title match which had everything but the kitchen sink thrown out at it (Runs in, Blood, Vince) to give Roman a MOMENT, kudos to the crowd for adding to the moment but again this is a SINGLE moment of positive gain from a "star" who has been LESS than over up till this point.

Lets see if people tuned into the see a title change or will they now tune into see Roman as Champion before we call him a "DRAW"

#WaitandSee #StillwatchingMNFootbal


----------



## Xenoblade

Frost99 said:


> And what did it take to 'sky rocket" because if Roman was such a draw before he won the title then why wasn't anybody watching?
> 
> #BlindedbytheFANDOM
> 
> It took the RETURN of the most HATED on air persona in Wrestling back in the day, Vincent Kenney McMahon :vince5, it then took Vince to believe in #WWELogic long enough to punish Roman with a title match, the return of an EXTREME Rulez match with members of the tribe of Extreme & then a Title match which had everything but the kitchen sink thrown out at it (Runs in, Blood, Vince) to give Roman a MOMENT, kudos to the crowd for adding to the moment but again this is a SINGLE moment of positive gain from a "star" who has been LESS than over up till this point.
> 
> Lets see if people tuned into the see a title change or will they now tune into see Roman as Champion before we call him a "DRAW"
> 
> #WaitandSee #StillwatchingMNFootbal


not really.. It actually was the ending of TLC that caused people to turn in more than anything. Vince wasn't even advertised for the show. People wanted to see what the consiquences for Roman beating the hell out of HHH would be. 

The ending was good and people wanted to know what happened next.


----------



## FITZ

ironyman said:


> Internet nerd wrestling fans lose, WWE wins. Oh, see ya next week.


I don't feel like I lost at all. I got to see a really good episode of Raw and WWE hopefully sees the benefits of doing something like that now.


----------



## birthday_massacre

FITZ said:


> I don't feel like I lost at all. I got to see a really good episode of Raw and WWE hopefully sees the benefits of doing something like that now.


the booking of raw was laughably bad logic wise. Its a joke people even claim it was good.
Not to mention they crammed a month of storytelling into three segments just to get Reigns over which was totally a joke.


----------



## Badbadrobot

birthday_massacre said:


> the booking of raw was laughably bad logic wise. Its a joke people even claim it was good.
> Not to mention they crammed a month of storytelling into three segments just to get Reigns over which was totally a joke.


It's was simply entertaining, and must see 'what happens next' tv. the bigger question is have they got anything good to follow it up?

Let's get this this straight the product isn't fixed, apart from reigns no one on the active roster has been built up, there's hope for Owens but that relies on them booking him right from here.


----------



## GetDown

Results + Videos: http://www.onlineworldofwrestling.com/135270/wwe-monday-night-raw-12-14-2015/


----------



## Phantomdreamer

I have said it once and i'll say it again, absolutely no one in the WWE is a draw. Not Vince, not Cena, not Rollins, not Reigns, not even Brock Lesnar. The WWE show and brand is the draw, the ratings will go up and down based on booking. It's no wonder the ratings went up with a title change on Raw. They got to see something which hasn't happened on Raw since Cena beat Rey Mysterio (Someone will have to correct me if i'm wrong as i'm only going by memory there).

If anyone thinks any individual is a legitimate draw then you're kidding yourselves.


----------



## NearFall

This thread is amazing. 

A well written show gets viewers. WWE is a show. It needs good writing to get viewers. 
-> LOST
-> The Walking Dead
-> The Sopranos
-> Breaking Bad
Loads of actors in these shows, many of who were phenomenal, were never in big roles or highly rated shows before. Does that take away from their ability? No.

No need to argue about Rollins or Reigns abilities based on ratings.


----------



## FITZ

NearFall said:


> This thread is amazing.
> 
> A well written show gets viewers. WWE is a show. It needs good writing to get viewers.
> -> LOST
> -> The Walking Dead
> -> The Sopranos
> -> Breaking Bad
> Loads of actors in these shows, many of who were phenomenal, were never in big roles or highly rated shows before. Does that take away from their ability? No.
> 
> No need to argue about Rollins or Reigns abilities based on ratings.


I mostly agree with you here. I think that if the WWE is able to produce a good show people are going to watch it. 

The TV show comparison isn't perfect though because WWE is somewhere between a movie, a TV show, and a sporting event in regards to what gets people to buy a ticket, a Network subscription, or just watch on TV. In sports and movies and individual has a lot of drawing power. If Tom Hanks is in a movie people will buy a ticket, when Ronda Rousey has a fight people will pay to see it on PPV. But WWE also has the weekly component of a TV show to throw in so it sort of gets really muddy when you talk about it that way.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Love it how wet people's panties are just because a title change and the return of Vince brought the shit ratings to a slightly less shit, but still shit, rating.


----------



## The Caped Crusader

Starbuck said:


> If Rollins or Bryan saw a 27% jump week on week we'd never hear the end of it and the success would be all because of them.
> 
> Lol @ the butthurt though.
> 
> 4 million to open shows people were very clearly interested in the fallout to HHH/Reigns from TLC. Vince's return kept them there for hour 2. Roman's chase kept them further still for hour 3.
> 
> A combined effort for sure but nobody can deny that Roman Reigns potentially winning the world title after mauling HHH complete with a Vince McMahon return has drawn more interest than any storyline since the summer and they did it without Lesnar, Taker, Cena, Rock, Orton, Rollins, Sting, Austin or Jesus Christ on the damn show.
> 
> GOAT heels + babyface actually in peril + strong unpredictable creative = 27% ratings increase bitches.
> 
> Belee dat.


Pretty much.


----------



## Believe That

birthday_massacre said:


> the booking of raw was laughably bad logic wise. Its a joke people even claim it was good.
> Not to mention they crammed a month of storytelling into three segments just to get Reigns over which was totally a joke.


Dude shut the hell up all you do is bitch and moan 

We get it you hate WWE but continue to watch every week and see you next week too with more bitching and moaning


----------



## Peerless

I would wait a fair bit, before claiming Roman's a draw (ratings wise). Ratings were fine with Seth until post MITB, where they went down and fans got tired of his lame ass shtick. Seth drove ratings so down that it took a Vince appearance, and Roman going Super Roman for the ratings to be somewhat respectable.


----------



## D.M.N.

SmackDown - 2.332m










Highest since August 20th, so the Raw bump continued - still a bit down on the 2.5m and 2.6m range that it was doing earlier this year, but its progress.


----------



## murder

And it will continue this Monday with the Slammys and with possible appearances from Jericho, Lesnar, Sting and Undertaker, who are all nominated, and the possible returns of Cena and HHH, the rating should remain the same if not increase.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Roman Ratings putting eyes on Smackdown too :rusevyes*


----------



## Marrakesh

birthday_massacre said:


> the booking of raw was laughably bad logic wise. Its a joke people even claim it was good.
> Not to mention they crammed a month of storytelling into three segments just to get Reigns over which was totally a joke.


A month of storytelling? Where are some people getting this notion from? 

Has the fact that nothing ever happens on Raw warped your minds so much that you think nothing ever should happen? :lol 

I mean, what the fuck would have been the point in stretching that out over a month? It would have lost all it's steam. 

They needed to strike while the iron was hot, and for once, they did it. 

Whether you liked the story or not is completely irrelevant. So is your ridiculous opinion that no one else should. 

They delivered on it, advanced it, and they were rewarded in their ratings and reviews.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Marrakesh said:


> A month of storytelling? Where are some people getting this notion from?
> 
> Has the fact that nothing ever happens on Raw warped your minds so much that you think nothing ever should happen? :lol
> 
> I mean, what the fuck would have been the point in stretching that out over a month? It would have lost all it's steam.
> 
> They needed to strike while the iron was hot, and for once, they did it.
> 
> Whether you liked the story or not is completely irrelevant. So is your ridiculous opinion that no one else should.
> 
> They delivered on it, advanced it, and they were rewarded in their ratings and reviews.


*
This says a lot coming from someone who doesn't particularly care for Reigns. Anyone finding reasons to whine at this point is desperately hating.*


----------



## Empress

Why is it the end of the world if the ratings have gotten a bump? As DDP would say, that's not a bad thing. I honestly thought the WWE was about to let the ratings continue to free fall without doing anything because $$$ was still coming in. Reigns getting credit, just as he would blame, isn't stopping the world. 

I'm just glad the WWE finally stopped half assing Reigns' push and went all in. Vince needed to drag himself to RAW months ago and let the bookers do their jobs. For once, the roster didn't look like a bunch of glorified jobbers.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> Why is it the end of the world if the ratings have gotten a bump? As DDP would say, that's not a bad thing. I honestly thought the WWE was about to let the ratings continue to free fall without doing anything because $$$ was still coming in. Reigns getting credit, just as he would blame, isn't stopping the world.
> 
> I'm just glad the WWE finally stopped half assing Reigns' push and went all in. Vince needed to drag himself to RAW months ago and let the bookers do their jobs. For once, the roster didn't look like a bunch of glorified jobbers.


*
All this shows is who the bitter haters will be through and through. The vast majority of posters are being at least reasonable about Reigns at this point.*


----------



## Lone Star

Roman done sparked interest. Positive step forward. The ass hurt in this thread, among everyone on the road to WM shall be epic.

Cena and Lesnar are about to be back. Monday night football is almost over. Smackdown moving to USA. What perfect timing for Vince to execute that angle and draw interest in his chosen one and product as it was falling into a black hole. :applause


----------



## Empress

THANOS said:


> Did they ever .
> 
> 
> 
> This is quite true, but the peaks do suggest that the stakes placed on the main event inspired a lot of interest. Kayfabe-wise, it would have Reigns-fans tuning in hoping to see him finally win, and Reigns-haters tuning in hoping he would fail and be fired/off their screens. It was a perfect booking plan which fostered intrigue.
> 
> *The fact that the entire show was well-booked kept the viewers from dipping throughout the show. I'm curious if a lot of this show was written by Dewey Foley, as HHH reportedly "LOVED" his ideas, which spawned the hiring.*


Would they really give a newbie, even if it is Foley's son, that much consideration? I'm not complaining. I loved RAW and am happy that creative seems to be turning things around.

I hope Lesnar shows up to smash a Slammy into the ground and set up an angle with another wrestler. All hands will have to be on deck if this momentum will continue.

As much as I think Rollins is Superstar of the Year, I hope he doesn't show. Yeah, it could boost ratings but it would take away from the huge pop he'd probably get on his eventual return.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> Would they really give a newbie, even if it is Foley's son, that much consideration? I'm not complaining. I loved RAW and am happy that creative seems to be turning things around.
> 
> I hope Lesnar shows up to smash a Slammy into the ground and set up an angle with another wrestler. All hands will have to be on deck if this momentum will continue.
> 
> As much as I think Rollins is Superstar of the Year, I hope he doesn't show. Yeah, it could boost ratings but it would take away from the huge pop he'd probably get on his eventual return.


*TBF, Reigns coming back to accept his Slammy last year didn't stop him from getting his name chanted up until Daniel Bryan's return. Also, Lesnar entering the Rumble is much more needed than a pointless singles angle.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I don't want Rollins on TV until he comes back, either. Especially for a worthless Slammy. Fuck that. If that's the case, give it to somebody else. Not like the Slammy's mean anything. Just my opinion.


----------



## Strike Force

Too many of you people insist on taking black-and-white perspectives (Roman's great! Roman sucks!) instead of acknowledging that more than one thing can be true.

Everyone involved, from the writers to the McMahons to Sheamus to, yes, Roman Reigns, deserves credit for two excellent nights of storytelling.

WWE deserved a ratings bump and got one because they told a good story and created a show that was solid THROUGHOUT, not just at the main event level.

Does this mean Roman Reigns is the greatest thing ever? Of course not. He's better than many say, but he's still ridiculously weak on the mic and will need to improve in order to carry the title effectively. Whether the answer is giving him more freedom and less of a script, I can't say, since I'm not in the production meetings. The answer might just be to keep him a (mostly) silent killer for the time being.

What people on BOTH sides of the debate must admit is that WWE had to throw pretty much everything in their arsenal into these two shows to gin up fan interest and ratings. In the span of two nights, we got pay-per-view featuring a brutal TLC match, a Triple H beatdown, Stephanie going crazy, Vince returning, a WWE Championship "Win or You're Fired" Match, Vince getting assaulted, and a world title change. That's all wonderful, but it's not sustainable. WWE is going to have to work extremely, incredibly hard to keep fans from realizing that WWE simply isn't capable of pulling off that sort of action week after week. Maybe they are! I can't see the future. I'll need to see it to believe it.


----------



## validreasoning

its interesting to go out of the wwe bubble for a while and compare and contrast with stuff like ufc

last nights strong ufc card on fox with a lot of advertising on fox nfl games leading in averaged 2.28 million viewers in the fast nationals..around the average of what taped sds have drawn this fall. ufc you would imagine should be redhot now with rousey and mcgregor on fire (rising tide lifts all boats)

just for reference fox is in 116.4 million homes to syfys 93.6 million


----------



## Krokro

Strike Force said:


> Too many of you people insist on taking black-and-white perspectives (Roman's great! Roman sucks!) instead of acknowledging that more than one thing can be true.
> 
> Everyone involved, from the writers to the McMahons to Sheamus to, yes, Roman Reigns, deserves credit for two excellent nights of storytelling.
> 
> WWE deserved a ratings bump and got one because they told a good story and created a show that was solid THROUGHOUT, not just at the main event level.
> 
> Does this mean Roman Reigns is the greatest thing ever? Of course not. He's better than many say, but he's still ridiculously weak on the mic and will need to improve in order to carry the title effectively. Whether the answer is giving him more freedom and less of a script, I can't say, since I'm not in the production meetings. The answer might just be to keep him a (mostly) silent killer for the time being.
> 
> What people on BOTH sides of the debate must admit is that WWE had to throw pretty much everything in their arsenal into these two shows to gin up fan interest and ratings. In the span of two nights, we got pay-per-view featuring a brutal TLC match, a Triple H beatdown, Stephanie going crazy, Vince returning, a WWE Championship "Win or You're Fired" Match, Vince getting assaulted, and a world title change. That's all wonderful, but it's not sustainable. WWE is going to have to work extremely, incredibly hard to keep fans from realizing that WWE simply isn't capable of pulling off that sort of action week after week. Maybe they are! I can't see the future. I'll need to see it to believe it.


Extremely good post and said everything I was going to say. Nicely done.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Dec. 14, 2015): Roman Reigns' title win a HUGE hit*

This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Dec. 14 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a fantastic show featuring a WWE world heavyweight title change and the ratings were up to reflect that. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).

Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):

1. Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus (4,241,340)
2. Mr. McMahon decides Roman Reigns' fate (1,903,563)
3. Stephanie McMahon is furious with Roman Reigns (1,493,666)
4. Extreme Rules eight man tag team match (934,967)
5. Mr. McMahon returns, cancels Bo Dallas-R-Truth match (721,692)
6. The New Day extend an olive branch (515,806)
7. Dean Ambrose vs. Dolph Ziggler (495,674)
8. Ryback & Jack Swagger vs. Alberto Del Rio & Rusev (355,216)
9. Neville vs. Tyler Breeze (308,685)
10. Becky Lynch & Charlotte vs. Brie Bella & Alicia Fox (303,549)
11. ECW Originals bring "Extreme" back to Philadelphia (177,136)
12. The Rose Bush (119,282)

It's impossible to tell if the fact that it was a WWE world heavyweight title win is what put it so far over the top, but Roman Reigns' big win was a massive hit. It's worth noting that his segments have done incredibly well on YouTube for WWE, no matter what time slot they get on Raw.

As you can see, Mr. McMahon's big return did well but his interaction with Reigns added over one million viewers.

It's also worth noting that WWE uploaded two videos of Reigns from after Raw went off the air and both did really well:

1. Roman Reigns celebrates winning the WWE world heavyweight title (2,611,371)
2. Roman Reigns opens up about his WWE world heavyweight title win (930,233)

Elsewhere, Charlotte came crashing back down to Earth with the rest of the Divas division and The Rose Bush continues to be wildly unpopular.

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...dec-14-2015-roman-reigns-title-win-a-huge-hit


----------



## The Renegade

Empress said:


> *WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Dec. 14, 2015): Roman Reigns' title win a HUGE hit*
> 
> This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Dec. 14 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. It was a fantastic show featuring a WWE world heavyweight title change and the ratings were up to reflect that. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).
> 
> Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):
> 
> 1. Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus (4,241,340)
> 2. Mr. McMahon decides Roman Reigns' fate (1,903,563)
> 3. Stephanie McMahon is furious with Roman Reigns (1,493,666)
> 4. Extreme Rules eight man tag team match (934,967)
> 5. Mr. McMahon returns, cancels Bo Dallas-R-Truth match (721,692)
> 6. The New Day extend an olive branch (515,806)
> 7. Dean Ambrose vs. Dolph Ziggler (495,674)
> 8. Ryback & Jack Swagger vs. Alberto Del Rio & Rusev (355,216)
> 9. Neville vs. Tyler Breeze (308,685)
> 10. Becky Lynch & Charlotte vs. Brie Bella & Alicia Fox (303,549)
> 11. ECW Originals bring "Extreme" back to Philadelphia (177,136)
> 12. The Rose Bush (119,282)
> 
> It's impossible to tell if the fact that it was a WWE world heavyweight title win is what put it so far over the top, but Roman Reigns' big win was a massive hit. It's worth noting that his segments have done incredibly well on YouTube for WWE, no matter what time slot they get on Raw.
> 
> As you can see, Mr. McMahon's big return did well but his interaction with Reigns added over one million viewers.
> 
> It's also worth noting that WWE uploaded two videos of Reigns from after Raw went off the air and both did really well:
> 
> 1. Roman Reigns celebrates winning the WWE world heavyweight title (2,611,371)
> 2. Roman Reigns opens up about his WWE world heavyweight title win (930,233)
> 
> Elsewhere, Charlotte came crashing back down to Earth with the rest of the Divas division and The Rose Bush continues to be wildly unpopular.
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...dec-14-2015-roman-reigns-title-win-a-huge-hit


For what its worth, if you follow the WWE Instagram page, you realize you can get a pretty good indication of a particular star's overness by the amount of likes their posts receive (faces at least). Reign's title post got about 230,000 likes at my last check. For reference sake, John Cena usually amasses 100,000 likes per post, Ambrose around 90,000, and a usual Reigns post (pre-title) was in the same ball park. 

Now obviously that's just instagram, so take what you will from it, but I thought the numbers showed that there is a ton of interest in Reigns as a champ.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

If I remember correctly, that BIIIIIIIG Raw rating just barely reached the level from when Rollins became champ.

People rave about it like it's the second coming or something.


----------



## Wynter

Shout out to Vince for doing his best to kill the ratings bump he got last week with this trash ass Slammys episode. 

:ha

*sits and waits for the plummet*


----------



## Marrakesh

There is no fucking way this show didn't drop off huge from last week. 

The moment that Stephanie/Reigns promo opened it had to be night, night for so many :lol 

What a fucking trash show. They abandoned every single aspect of the show that they got right last week in favor of everything they've been doing wrong for the entirety of the rest of the year. 

This slammy trash is barely even Pre show worthy let alone fit to be broadcast to a national TV audience.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

The Renegade said:


> For what its worth, if you follow the WWE Instagram page, you realize you can get a pretty good indication of a particular star's overness by the amount of likes their posts receive (faces at least). Reign's title post got about 230,000 likes at my last check. For reference sake, John Cena usually amasses 100,000 likes per post, Ambrose around 90,000, and a usual Reigns post (pre-title) was in the same ball park.
> 
> Now obviously that's just instagram, so take what you will from it, but I thought the numbers showed that there is a ton of interest in Reigns as a champ.


*I keep being told social media doesn't matter though :cena*


----------



## LPPrince

Merry Blissmas said:


> *I keep being told social media doesn't matter though :cena*


It really doesn't. Otherwise Ryder would've been pushed to the moon when he was getting over as fuck thru his show. And Ryder to this day is a warning to all talents that even think about trying to get over on their own.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

LPPrince said:


> It really doesn't. Otherwise Ryder would've been pushed to the moon when he was getting over as fuck thru his show. And Ryder to this day is a warning to all talents that even think about trying to get over on their own.


*
Actually it does, because Ryder is the reason they're so active on social media in the first place; Youtube especially. If you thought Ryder could be FOTC, that's YOUR problem.*


----------



## LPPrince

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> Actually it does, because Ryder is the reason they're so active on social media in the first place; Youtube especially. If you thought Ryder could be FOTC, that's YOUR problem.*


Never said he'd be face of the company or that he even could. Just saying the company could've embraced it and didn't. And Ryder is definitely not the reason WWE is active on social media;they're active on social media out of pure necessity.

Without twitter, Facebook, instagram, reddit, etc etc, WWE would reach far less people in today's day and age. WWE management didn't learn of this thru Ryder;they learned of it thru desperation.

Hell even Ryder said it himself that WWE was trying to make their own shit successful when there was already pre-existing social media sites that were far more important to embrace, but nobody listened to him when he suggested they just use those platforms instead of trying to make their own.

WWE never gave a fuck about Ryder, Z True Long Island Story or not.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

LPPrince said:


> Never said he'd be face of the company or that he even could. Just saying the company could've embraced it and didn't. And Ryder is definitely not the reason WWE is active on social media;they're active on social media out of pure necessity.
> 
> Without twitter, Facebook, instagram, reddit, etc etc, WWE would reach far less people in today's day and age. WWE management didn't learn of this thru Ryder;they learned of it thru desperation.
> 
> Hell even Ryder said it himself that WWE was trying to make their own shit successful when there was already pre-existing social media sites that were far more important to embrace, but nobody listened to him when he suggested they just use those platforms instead of trying to make their own.
> 
> WWE never gave a fuck about Ryder, Z True Long Island Story or not.


http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...perstar-true-long-island-story-wrestlemania/2


> What were your thoughts and emotions when you uploaded the last episode of Z True Long Island Story?
> 
> That episode was two years in the making. The actual editing process was three hours straight of me on my computer editing and editing. WWE may have put in on their channel, but they didn’t help out with the editing. It was still all me. It was bittersweet. I was glad the show was done -- it had run its course. It had become sort of a job, but at the same time it saved my career and doing that last episode and watching it, I cried a lot. It was emotional. The beginning episode, it changed my life. It was a lot of fun. It was so time consuming, but it was a lot of fun creating an outlet that was leading to something. Doing the show and my status in the company just went up and up and up. So it added motivation there. The second year of the show I was forced to bring it to the WWE channel. It just wasn’t fun anymore and I think the fans could see that. WWE’s editing the content on the show was different, and it just became like a job. *I’m glad the show is over, I’m glad I did it and it definitely changed the way WWE, whether they want to admit it or not, looked at social media. *(Last Friday was) Social Media Smackdown. It’s pretty crazy.


*
Words from Zack Ryder himself. Does WWE go to him for advice? No, but you are only lying to yourself if you think his Youtube show wasn't directly responsible for their increased social media awareness.*


----------



## LPPrince

Merry Blissmas said:


> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/20...perstar-true-long-island-story-wrestlemania/2
> 
> *
> Words from Zack Ryder himself. Does WWE go to him for advice? No, but you are only lying to yourself if you think his Youtube show wasn't directly responsible for their increased social media awareness.*


We know they didn't care about him. We know they still don't. That bolded line was his opinion. Perhaps he's on point, perhaps he's not, hell I'm even willing to take his word for it, but regardless of how they got the social media presence they have now, its done fuck all good for them since then.

You'd think with all the social media followers some of the talents have that WWE would be getting ten million+ viewers a show. Instead, WWE's social media presence is made up of people that are already fans of the shows and those that aren't anymore but like some of us here still follow events in some form or other.

WWE isn't going to get anything out of their social media presence unless people not already connected to WWE are finding them through those that are, but the way its been going, WWE's social media base is made up of pre-existing connections and those that frankly mock them.

Even Ryder managed to get some outside-WWE attention with his little show. Not much, but it happened. Gotta give him that.

With WWE, their existence on the internet doesn't translate to much as far as bringing people in. But if I'm wrong and it actually does, then HOLY CRAP things would be bad if they still had their heads stuck up their asses about how to use the web.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

LPPrince said:


> We know they didn't care about him. We know they still don't. That bolded line was his opinion. Perhaps he's on point, perhaps he's not, hell I'm even willing to take his word for it, but regardless of how they got the social media presence they have now, its done fuck all good for them since then.
> 
> You'd think with all the social media followers some of the talents have that WWE would be getting ten million+ viewers a show. Instead, WWE's social media presence is made up of people that are already fans of the shows and those that aren't anymore but like some of us here still follow events in some form or other.
> 
> WWE isn't going to get anything out of their social media presence unless people not already connected to WWE are finding them through those that are, but the way its been going, WWE's social media base is made up of pre-existing connections and those that frankly mock them.
> 
> Even Ryder managed to get some outside-WWE attention with his little show. Not much, but it happened. Gotta give him that.
> 
> With WWE, their existence on the internet doesn't translate to much as far as bringing people in. But if I'm wrong and it actually does, then HOLY CRAP things would be bad if they still had their heads stuck up their asses about how to use the web.


*
It has a much bigger effect than you think. Take last week for example. They managed to get the word out about such an awesome show while it was airing, increased week to week viewership by 27%, highest since The Rock in 2011, and had a very small viewer dropoff. I thought it would take a week to get a lot of people tuning back in, but they managed to do it in the same day. There hadn't been that must post PPV interest in the show since Mania, so that excuse is out the window. So now we have two options: everyone wanted to see Ratings God Roman vs. Triple H, or they just did an excellent job of spreading the word about Vince's return and the title match via social media.*


----------



## LPPrince

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> It has a much bigger effect than you think. Take last week for example. They managed to get the word out about such an awesome show while it was airing, increased week to week viewership by 21%, highest since The Rock in 2011, and had a very small viewer dropoff. I thought it would take a week to get a lot of people tuning back in, but they managed to do it in the same day. There hadn't been that must post PPV interest in the show since Mania, so that excuse is out the window. So now we have two options: everyone wanted to see Ratings God Roman vs. Triple H, or they just did an excellent job of spreading the word about Vince's return and the title match via social media.*


Well there's always more elements than that. People are often quick to say, "This person is a draw" "This person isn't a draw" "People tuned in to see this" "People tuned out because of this" "This person is responsible for ratings being great" "This person is responsible for ratings being shit" etc etc, but in reality there's millions and millions of factors that go into the ratings of a show. One definitely being how well you get word out online, though how much of an effect it has is hard to weigh against all the other factors.

I mean hell, we could have Raws as entertaining as some of the best rated shows in its history airing today and the ratings might still be shit due to whatever outside influence. Its never a case of "it either has to be this or that", but its always a case of "this had an effect on the end result". How much is the question.

I doubt anyone will deny Roman's title win on Raw and Vince's appearance helped. If someone does, they're fooling themselves. But I think for Raw to get some higher ratings, you(as in WWE management) can't rely on one or two factors. You gotta do more shit to make things interesting and keep people around.

Like what the fuck happened to free-TV title changes? They're so rare now you can almost always expect titles to only change hands at PPVs. Roman's win by virtue of being on Raw was a refreshing change of pace even for people who aren't big fans of him.

We need more sudden title changes like his or this for example(I always bring this one up)-


----------



## Marrakesh

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> It has a much bigger effect than you think. Take last week for example. They managed to get the word out about such an awesome show while it was airing, increased week to week viewership by 21%, highest since The Rock in 2011, and had a very small viewer dropoff. I thought it would take a week to get a lot of people tuning back in, but they managed to do it in the same day. There hadn't been that must post PPV interest in the show since Mania, so that excuse is out the window. So now we have two options: everyone wanted to see Ratings God Roman vs. Triple H, or they just did an excellent job of spreading the word about Vince's return and the title match via social media.*


This is proof at how terrible they are at their jobs on a weekly basis. 

The fact that they can increase viewership in this way yet they regularly lose about 20% of their audience over the course of the three hours is just mind blowing. 

Sure, they can't gain 21% every week and if the show was consistently good, obviously they would never even have to. 

Vince still doesn't understand the power of social media at all. If he did there would be a lot more blurring of the lines and a ton more interest created for their story lines and shows.


----------



## Marrakesh

The first hour of Raw last night must have put people into a coma, and the second hour was no better. 

There has got to be a huge drop off AGAIN in hour three for last night. 

Sheamus and Ambrose in a barely promoted cage match that actually started after 10pm :ti 

Predicting half a mill minimum drop from hour one to three.


----------



## Peerless

Christmas RAW, shit raw, shit slammys and those mofos decided to put Ambrose in the main event against Sheamus in a barely promoted cage match. It seems like they're just trying to find someone to blame, when the ratings drop by more than half a million in the third hour.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Peerless said:


> Christmas RAW, shit raw, shit slammys and those mofos decided to put Ambrose in the main event against Sheamus in a barely promoted cage match. It seems like they're just trying to find someone to blame, when the ratings drop by more than half a million in the third hour.


Damn, Vince is an evil genius, isn't he?


----------



## Wynter

Please give me the viewership so I can laugh 

Imagine that 3rd hour :ha


----------



## RatedR10

There was a 17% drop in the Twitter ratings compared to last week's show. Considering the Slammy voting was done on social media, that's pretty bad. This show might end up back in the 2.2 - 2.3 area. I didn't even watch last night's show except to see Seth Rollins' speech and the main event while waiting for Breaking Ground.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

H1-3.443M
H2-3.374M
H3-3.316M

Avg-3.378M

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Finals-Cable-2015-Dec-MON.21.png


----------



## RatedR10

Hour 1 - 3.443 million
Hour 2 - 3.374 million
Hour 3 - 3.316 million

Average - 3.378 million


----------



## BlazeOfG

Reigns fails AGAIN. This time with some help from his ratings killing brother, Seth Rollins.

0 interest in Reigns winning the title.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Welp, Reigns is back to being a failure.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

:lmao

Right back to where they belong. No Vince to bail them out last night.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Tell me more about how Roman Reigns is a draw friends. 

Even after last week's show being built around him, more than 600,000 viewers didn't care and tuned out.

THE ROMAN EMPIRE BOYS AND GIRLS.

BELIEVE DAT. 

BELEIVE DAT.

BELIVE DAT.

COCK THOSE FISTS.

BECAUSE THE ONLY THAT'S TAKING A DICKING, ARE THE RATINGZZZ.


----------



## RatedR10

Looking at the demos, it looks like the rating will probably be in the 2.33 - 2.41 range.


----------



## BlazeOfG

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Welp, Reigns is back to being a failure.


He never stopped being one.


----------



## Cliffy

BeeeeeeeeliiiiiiieveDaaaaaaaat!


----------



## SnapOrTap

Lmao @ the people shitting on Rollins last week and getting ready to proclaim Reigns as the next big WWE draw last week.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

BlazeOfG said:


> He never stopped being one.


Hm, you may have a point there. I stand corrected.


----------



## Empress

The ratings fell off from last week but seemed consistent all three hours. It's not as if they took a nosedive straight to hell. It was stable. 

Why would this prove Roman is a "failure"? He was in the first hour and then appeared in the closing minutes again. 

Wish the show hadn't been filler though.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Oh, so we're back to the embarrassing trash talk again and blaming Reigns, despite being on the show for a total of 10 minutes? The Road to Wrestlemania increase WILL be entirely attributed to him.*


----------



## BlazeOfG

People tuned in hoping to see Reigns get fired last week.

Not only did he not get fired, but he won the title.

Hence, everyone tuned out this week once again.


----------



## Wynter

How in the world did they manage to stay consistent in viewership in a horrible ass show? I actually expected a big drop off. Guess Slammys were entertaining enough for majority 

:lose to that first hour


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

That is a bigger nosedive than I thought they'd get from last week, tbh.

Bring back Vince!


----------



## RatedR10

Why the fuck are you guys still blaming one guy? Last week was a good show, this week's was ass. Ratings were higher for last week's, while they dropped again for this week's. It's not rocket science. Good shows draw. The Slammys always suck.

I said months ago that it would take six months of consistently good programming to rebuild the good will with fans again to bring viewership back up at a constant rate. WWE's too inconsistent, thus ratings drop.


----------



## BlazeOfG

Merry Blissmas said:


> *Oh, so we're back to the embarrassing trash talk again and blaming Reigns, despite being on the show for a total of 10 minutes? The Road to Wrestlemania increase WILL be entirely attributed to him.*


Why would RTWM get an increase? Reigns main evented last year and they had atrocious numbers.


----------



## Cliffy

People were furious with Reigns winning the belt

FURIOUS


----------



## ShadowSucks92

That's a huge drop compared to what they got last week though I'm surprised the viewership was steady throughout the 3 hours, maybe Ambrose really does draw


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

RatedR10 said:


> Why the fuck are you guys still blaming one guy? Last week was a good show, this week's was ass. Ratings were higher for last week's, while they dropped again for this week's. It's not rocket science. Good shows draw. The Slammys always suck.


*They'll never learn, and they'll just eat their crow again next month. *


----------



## BlazeOfG

RatedR10 said:


> Why the fuck are you guys still blaming one guy? Last week was a good show, this week's was ass. Ratings were higher for last week's, while they dropped again for this week's. It's not rocket science. Good shows draw. The Slammys always suck.
> 
> I said months ago that it would take six months of consistently good programming to rebuild the good will with fans again to bring viewership back up at a constant rate. WWE's too inconsistent, thus ratings drop.


The prospect of Reigns getting fired is what drew last week.

It was not a good show by any means.


----------



## The Renegade

Not going to put this on Reigns, but that first hour number was pretty amusing. Definitely expected it to be higher. At any rate, we all know that the only thing that'll get numbers up consistently is a quality programming, not who is the champ.


----------



## Chrome

Probably gonna get worse next week with it being a holiday episode and Broncos/Bengals on MNF. Maybe Vince can make another appearance or something.


----------



## RatedR10

BlazeOfG said:


> The prospect of Reigns getting fired is what drew last week.
> 
> It was not a good show by any means.


The prospect of Reigns character shifting to where it should have been immediately after The Shield split and destroying Triple H like a fucking bad ass monster is what drew last week.

See, I can play that game as well without anything to back it up.

Last week's show was pretty damn good, don't kid yourself.


----------



## Empress

RatedR10 said:


> Why the fuck are you guys still blaming one guy? Last week was a good show, this week's was ass. Ratings were higher for last week's, while they dropped again for this week's. It's not rocket science. Good shows draw. The Slammys always suck.
> 
> I said months ago that it would take six months of consistently good programming to rebuild the good will with fans again to bring viewership back up at a constant rate. WWE's too inconsistent, thus ratings drop.


Do you listen to Vince Russo's podcast by any chance? Last night, he said something similar, that it would take six months or more. He felt last night was a missed opportunity.

It's telling that some didn't feel Roman deserved any credit last week for the ratings increase despite appearing in each hour. But when he only appeared for 10 minutes this week, the dip is on him.



Chrome said:


> Probably gonna get worse next week with it being a holiday episode and Broncos/Bengals on MNF. Maybe Vince can make another appearance or something.


I think they need solid booking from week to week, not just Vince.


----------



## BlazeOfG

RatedR10 said:


> The prospect of Reigns character shifting to where it should have been immediately after The Shield split and destroying Triple H like a fucking bad ass monster is what drew last week.
> 
> See, I can play that game as well without anything to back it up.
> 
> Last week's show was pretty damn good, don't kid yourself.


You're the one who started hypothesizing about what led to an increase last week. That the show was "good" is entirely subjective.

One thing we do know - this week's numbers are in line with every other week Reigns has been the center of the show.

An outlier isn't going to change anything.


----------



## RatedR10

Empress said:


> Do you listen to Vince Russo's podcast by any chance? Last night, he said something similar, that it would take six months or more. He felt last night was a missed opportunity.
> 
> It's telling that some didn't feel Roman deserved any credit last week for the ratings increase despite appearing in each hour. But when he only appeared for 10 minutes this week, the dip is on him.


no, I don't listen to it, I only see some snippets when they're posted around here or on reddit. I've been saying it'd take 6-9 months of consistent programming to rebuild good will with the portion of the fans that they've lost since late October, though. It's the only way. One good show will temporarily boost numbers, but as indicated in the drop this week from last week, you need more than one good show to rebuild the number. Consistent, quality programming is the only way. The big question is: *Does WWE have the patience to put out at least 6 months of consistently good programming and seeing slow, gradual improvements?*

I don't think a Vince McMahon-run WWE does anymore.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> It's telling that some didn't feel Roman deserved any credit last week for the ratings increase despite appearing in each hour. But when he only appeared for 10 minutes this week, the dip is on him.


*Seriously, how desperate can they be? Before ratings came out it was "OH LOOK ROMAN'S TAKING UP MULTIPLE SEGMENTS, CAN'T WAIT TO SEE RATINGS PLUMMET!!!" And afterwards it was "OH IT'S JUST BECUZ VINCE AND A TITLE MATCH!1!" It's pathetic.*


----------



## Peerless

A small drop in the 3rd hour, guess they won't blame him after all. :ambrose


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Also last week's Raw lost about 230k viewers on average between hour 1 and hour 3. This week's lost only about 130k viewers between hour 1 and hour 3. Ambrose/Sheamus in some meaningless cage match with no title on the line > Reigns/Sheamus in a WWE title match with Reigns' career on the line. Ambrose>Reigns. WWE should just do a segment where the two officially switch championships so ratings have a chance of going back up.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

I will take a little break until Mania season. Last week got my hopes up. They gave character development to a lot of guys (KO, Neville, ECW guys, etc). It was a really well booked show. Now we're back to the same thing. And GOD do I hate Steph's character. Not even good heat, just annoying because she'll never put anyone over.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> Why the fuck are you guys still blaming one guy? Last week was a good show, this week's was ass. Ratings were higher for last week's, while they dropped again for this week's. It's not rocket science. Good shows draw. The Slammys always suck.
> 
> I said months ago that it would take six months of consistently good programming to rebuild the good will with fans again to bring viewership back up at a constant rate. WWE's too inconsistent, thus ratings drop.


I think people were just curious to see if last week's number would carry over to this week. Some thought it would and were celebrating like "RAW WAS BACK!!!11" or something. Some didn't think the number would carry over. Some weren't sure (that where I was at). Well, now we get the number and see that they took a huge nosedive from last week.

I agree it's more on the show quality than anything else. Been saying since back in 2012 when I first joined here. But it is somewhat interesting and I suppose depressing for WWE themselves that the one man draws are officially gone from WWE, thanks mostly to WWE themselves.


----------



## Louaja89

I can't believe some people are blaming Reigns again, I'm by no means a Reigns fan and even I know that's bullshit. I thought it had been definitely established after last week that as soon as the show gets better, the ratings will improve. It seems that last night's show was not as good, so of course the ratings decline. It's not rocket science people. There are no more legit draws, the draw now is the quality of the show. Get that through your heads.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Given what I read about RAW, it seems like the show sucked ass. That probably has something to do with the low ratings. *


----------



## RatedR10

BlazeOfG said:


> You're the one who started hypothesizing about what led to an increase last week. That the show was "good" is entirely subjective.
> 
> One thing we do know - this week's numbers are in line with every other week Reigns has been the center of the show.
> 
> An outlier isn't going to change anything.


Except if you read and listen to reviews about last week's show, it's mostly agreed upon that it was a pretty damn good show and GREAT compared to the past three months of programming, combined with the hot crowd they had in Philadelphia and the follow-up to the TLC main event.

Even this board generally praised last week's show, and many in this thread did the same exact thing. You may not have enjoyed it because you're blinded by your Roman Reigns hate or whatever, but it was a damn good show and it's generally agreed upon that it was - it's not just from me.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Louaja89 said:


> I can't believe some people are blaming Reigns again, I'm by no means a Reigns fan and even I know that's bullshit. I thought it had been definitely established after last week that as soon as the show gets better, the ratings will improve. It seems that last night's show was not as good, so of course the ratings decline. It's not rocket science people. There are no more legit draws, the draw now is the quality of the show. Get that through your heads.


Pretty much. Should've listened to some of us months and months ago. Oh well. Now, they know.


----------



## Lone Star

Dean Ambrose keeping them viewers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> Except if you read and listen to reviews about last week's show, it's mostly agreed upon that it was a pretty damn good show and GREAT compared to the past three months of programming, combined with the hot crowd they had in Philadelphia and the follow-up to the TLC main event.
> 
> Even this board generally praised last week's show, and many in this thread did the same exact thing. You may not have enjoyed it because you're blinded by your Roman Reigns hate or whatever, but it was a damn good show and it's generally agreed upon that it was - it's not just from me.


True. And some were celebrating like Raw was going to be good going forward every week. They were wrong, which was extremely predictable.


----------



## BlazeOfG

RatedR10 said:


> Except if you read and listen to reviews about last week's show, it's mostly agreed upon that it was a pretty damn good show and GREAT compared to the past three months of programming, combined with the hot crowd they had in Philadelphia and the follow-up to the TLC main event.
> 
> Even this board generally praised last week's show, and many in this thread did the same exact thing. You may not have enjoyed it because you're blinded by your Roman Reigns hate or whatever, but it was a damn good show and it's generally agreed upon that it was - it's not just from me.


That's an absurd thing you just said and it's not how it works. A show that is favorably viewed by a significant number of its viewers is not going to draw 3.4 million in the 1st hour. 

If the show had drawn 4+ million in the first hour and then decreased abruptly, you would have a point.

That first hour suggests that the end of last week's episode left a bitter taste for many viewers.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

The thing is though, if RAW was as good as most people claimed it to be, then wouldn't viewers want to see what happens this week, I mean with it being Xmas week and the Slammy Awards obviously it was going to take some sort of hit but this is huge, last weeks third hour drew more than this weeks first hour


----------



## RatedR10

ShowStopper said:


> I think people were just curious to see if last week's number would carry over to this week. Some thought it would and were celebrating like "RAW WAS BACK!!!11" or something. Some didn't think the number would carry over. Some weren't sure (that where I was at). Well, now we get the number and see that they took a huge nosedive from last week.
> 
> I agree it's more on the show quality than anything else. Been saying since back in 2012 when I first joined here. But it is somewhat interesting and I suppose depressing for WWE themselves that the one man draws are officially gone from WWE, thanks mostly to WWE themselves.


Over the past four years, Punk, Rollins and Reigns are the biggest whipping boys on this forum when it comes to ratings. It was so bad with Punk that people claimed he was killing the company as champ, he couldn't draw, etc., and then the numbers kept dipping every Fall season (with the exception of when Bryan was in the title picture in 2013), and *we all know it's a programming quality* issue, but people still decide to pick out their whipping boys and who to blame like it makes a fucking difference. This year it was Rollins and Reigns.

When a show that has Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and Brock Lesnar can't pop a big number, it's a quality issue, but people will overlook this and blame the guys they don't like and push their own agendas.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> True. And some were celebrating like Raw was going to be good going forward every week. They were wrong, which was extremely predictable.


*
Oh no, how dare we praise the greatest episode of RAW we've seen all year :grande? Maybe we should just be miserable and nitpick for no reason. It was fantastic and had Attitude Era booking all over it. Your point? Where did ANYONE say we were guaranteed to see RAWs like that every single week? Please show me.*


----------



## Empress

Merry Blissmas said:


> *Seriously, how desperate can they be? Before ratings came out it was "OH LOOK ROMAN'S TAKING UP MULTIPLE SEGMENTS, CAN'T WAIT TO SEE RATINGS PLUMMET!!!" And afterwards it was "OH IT'S JUST BECUZ VINCE AND A TITLE MATCH!1!" It's pathetic.*


It's like pulling teeth. 



#BadNewsSanta said:


> Also last week's Raw lost about 230k viewers on average between hour 1 and hour 3. This week's lost only about 130k viewers between hour 1 and hour 3. Ambrose/Sheamus in some meaningless cage match with no title on the line > Reigns/Sheamus in a WWE title match with Reigns' career on the line. Ambrose>Reigns. WWE should just do a segment where the two officially switch championships so ratings have a chance of going back up.


I know you're half trolling, but last night was a filler show and I think it's a small victory that all three hours were above 3 million. Just like it was a big deal that last week saw 4 million and it featured Reigns more.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

what a failure and a joke reigns has been take the belt of him immediatly and give it to bo dallas


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> Oh no, how dare they praise the greatest episode of RAW we've seen all year :grande? Maybe we should just be miserable and nitpick for no reason. It was fantastic and had Attitude Era booking all over it. Your point? Where did ANYONE say we were guaranteed to see RAWs like this every single week. Please show me.*


Nothing wrong with praising a better than usual episode. But seeing some comments like "ATTITUDE ERA BOOKING IZ BAK!!!" was hilarious. Can't take it, then don't dish it.


----------



## RatedR10

Oy... I gotta stop giving people who blame the ratings on one person in 2015 the time of day.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Nothing wrong with praising a better than usual episode. But seeing some comments like "ATTITUDE ERA BOOKING IZ BAK!!!" was hilarious. Can't take it, then don't dish it.


*
So as expected, you have nothing to show for the lie you just told. Nowhere did I ever say every RAW would be like that going forward. That was definitely AE booking done on a 3 hour format. Do you really need it broken down for you?*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Some people still taking this thread seriously? I thought after last week everything was clear as far as this stuff goes? Marks praise when their favorites do well, haters hate when a guy they hate does well and vice versa. Just take this thread for the lols it is. :lol

Seriously though, I hope the people who were praising Reigns for last week's numbers inetead of what really led to the increase as a whole and are seeing their delusion now. Same with those who said its all about the champion, not who's the center of the show for 6-7 weeks between the HIAC and TLC when ratings were tanking hard.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> Over the past four years, Punk, Rollins and Reigns are the biggest whipping boys on this forum when it comes to ratings. It was so bad with Punk that people claimed he was killing the company as champ, he couldn't draw, etc., and then the numbers kept dipping every Fall season (with the exception of when Bryan was in the title picture in 2013), and *we all know it's a programming quality* issue, but people still decide to pick out their whipping boys and who to blame like it makes a fucking difference. This year it was Rollins and Reigns.
> 
> When a show that has Steve Austin, The Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Ric Flair and Brock Lesnar can't pop a big number, it's a quality issue, but people will overlook this and blame the guys they don't like and push their own agendas.


WELL SAID. And now the same people who bashed all of those guys for MONTHS and in some cases YEARS on end are getting it thrown back in their faces and they can't handle it. What goes around, comes around. :shrug

Now, that it has "gone around," I'm done with the crap myself. Like I said in my last post, it's about the quality of the show more than anything else and the single name draws are GONE. I'm cool with that.


----------



## 3MB4Life

Last week's episode of Raw was shit. First episode I've watched since October last year and it was boring as shit. Just feel like that needs to be said. If this week was worse, I don't know how the ratings are above zero unless viewers killed themselves and accidentally left the TV on


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> So as expected, you have nothing to show for the lie you just told. Nowhere did I ever say every RAW would be like that going forward. That was definitely AE booking done on a 3 hour format. Do you really need it broken down for you?*


I don't need to show shit. People saw it themselves. It is what it is. The fact that there was even legitimate hope and even a tiny bit of faith that WWE would be that good going forward is hilarious unto itself.


----------



## RatedR10

I wish we still had rating breakdowns like we used to get. Anyone know why the Observer stopped getting them and why PWTorch stopped doing them for the main 18-34 demo?


----------



## Brodus Clay

Like I predicted when it was know that Rollins was going to appear, ratings dropped, that motherfucker it's fucking useless.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

RatedR10 said:


> I wish we still had rating breakdowns like we used to get. Anyone know why the Observer stopped getting them and why PWTorch stopped doing them for the main 18-34 demo?


*
They stopped doing them shortly after Bryan got injured and I don't think it was a coincidence. Reigns was doing higher ratings while in the main event and never got credit for that either, despite being preemptively blamed for a supposed decrease.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Brodus Clay said:


> Like I predicted when it was know that Rollins was going to appear, ratings dropped, that motherfucker it's fucking useless.


Says the Brodus Clay fan. And he was in the 2nd highest rated hour of the night.

:rollins


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW RATINGS DOWN 13% FROM LAST WEEK
*
The Monday, December 21st edition of WWE RAW featuring the Slammy Awards show maintained its audience better than most weeks, and did better than most weeks this past Fall.

The three-hour show did 3.37 million viewers, down 13 percent from last week's unusually large number. However, it was still above the levels of most of the Fall season. Just two weeks ago, the show had fallen to 3.16 million viewers.

Raw probably benefited from a low-rated NFL game on ESPN as competition as the Detroit Lions vs. New Orleans Saints game did 10.90 million viewers.

The first hour started at normal Fall levels, but the second and third hour decline wasn't there at the rate it usually is.

The three hours were:

8 p.m. 3.44 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.37 million viewers
10 p.m. 3.32 million viewers
The show's main event was WWE Intercontinental Champion Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus in a cage match. The other big item of note is that John Cena returns next week, so it will be interesting to see how that affects viewership.

http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/w...-204246?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## A-C-P

:ambrose4 and possible :rollins appearence keeping the audience til the end :drose


----------



## RatedR10

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> They stopped doing them shortly after Bryan got injured and I don't think it was a coincidence. Reigns was doing higher ratings while in the main event and never got credit for that either, despite being preemptively blamed for a supposed decrease.*


I think I remember the observer stopping it before The Shield split for some reason whereas PWTorch carried it on with only the 18-34 demo for a bit. 

I preferred WON's anyways because it was all viewers, not just the 18-34 demo, although both were informative and fun to look at.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

John Cena coming back will put that bum Roman Reigns in his place. 

5 million+ viewers for all three hours incoming.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

RatedR10 said:


> I think I remember the observer stopping it before The Shield split for some reason whereas PWTorch carried it on with only the 18-34 demo for a bit.
> 
> I preferred WON's anyways because it was all viewers, not just the 18-34 demo, although both were informative and fun to look at.


*It was questionable to me because it seemed like they were only doing it while Bryan was on top to "prove" he was a draw, when in fact it was the storyline that drew. Reigns proved this last week. No individual is a draw without the proper booking. Does anyone seriously think WCW workhorse Austin would be anything beyond Cesaro in this era? Even HE admits he'd be destined to fail with all the restrictions.*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

RatedR10 said:


> I wish we still had rating breakdowns like we used to get. Anyone know why the Observer stopped getting them and why PWTorch stopped doing them for the main 18-34 demo?


I said it last week and in the past, would be nice if we had them so we knew how well Roman himself did, how well Vince did, how well the title match main event actually did, etc. Would be nice to see the same for this week as well.

I think either Keller or Meltzer said in a podcast in order to get the breakdowns - it's in a way getting someone to do them a favor. But because trends usually keep up, like the turn of the hour almost always getting an increase and the third hour getting lowest viewership, he just doesn't find it worth getting anymore.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Well its not quite normal service resumed but that was a big drop. 

RAW has such huge structural problems. It wasnt bad per se it was just so damn long and stretched out. Same with every episode. Its going to take a radical change and not just Vince popping up every once and a while to change things. 

Also I am so tired of the Authority.


----------



## Brodus Clay

ShowStopper said:


> Says the Brodus Clay fan. And he was in the 2nd highest rated hour of the night.
> 
> :rollins


LOL only 2nd highest of that shitty rating, oh well that must be like awesome numbers for his fanboys.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Brodus Clay said:


> LOL only 2nd highest of that shitty rating, oh well that must be like awesome numbers for his fanboys.


Better than Brodus Clay has ever done in shit career.


----------



## BlazeOfG

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


Simple. Casual fans disagreed with the people on this forum.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


*This is actually a good and reasonable discussion. I have no correct answer for this, because theoretically, the Slammys should increase social media activity, given that's the basis for how a lot of the awards were chosen. However, Slammy episodes are generally lackluster and many probably felt that nothing of note would happen(and they were right). Mistakes were made by not bringing back Cena and/or Lesnar in his own hometown. I was hoping to hear APPLEDOOOOOOOOO after Del Rio squashed Swagger and ZERO fucks were given.*


----------



## ShadowSucks92

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


The only thing I can think of is that it was the Slammy Awards so maybe most people didn't really expect anything from this show along with it being the Holidays which don't do well anyway


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. *Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)?* Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


There was no hook. 

Reigns won the belt and it ended a great night of viewing. I think most can agree that last week's RAW was better than it had been in quite some time.

Last night's show was bogged down by the Slammy's and it was clear by the first hour, there were no high stakes. I knew it would be a filler show by the 8:30 mark. But I still kept watching. 

I do think that last week's good will helped the show from going into a free fall. It only dropped 13% and there was stability across the board. That's a small silver lining. If the booking had been solid last night, I'd be more concerned with the drop.


----------



## BlazeOfG

ShadowSucks92 said:


> The only thing I can think of is that it was the Slammy Awards so maybe most people didn't really expect anything from this show along with it being the Holidays which don't do well anyway


Slammy Award episodes don't usually see such a dramatic decrease from the previous week, though. So that can't be it.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


Maybe the Slammys itself has become an anti-draw? Most should know what to expect from a Slammys Raw and it could be people weren't interested this year - but I don't know how well the past couple of years did. I think 2012's did pretty well.

Beyond that, the way I look at it is this: The hook to last week's Raw was Reigns beating the hell out of HHH and people wanting to see what happens based off that - not even necessarily because either one of them are draws (not saying either of them aren't, but as you asked I'll take out the individual drawing factor). Then because of the quality of last week's show, the hook of Vince coming back after the first segment, he WWE Title ve career angle for the main event, and the booking of all superstars very well got a lot of people not just to tune in, but to stay tuned in.

Of course going by that theory, Raw was even more consistent this week - so by that maybe people thought this was a great Raw? Or maybe what I said about the Slammys being an anti-draw is actually the opposite of its somewhere in the middle, where people who tuned in because they liked the Slammys stayed tuned in throughout. Then you have to consider the hook for this show was basically Reigns title celebration/possible repercussions from the Authority, and with the way the first hour was, losing 400k from hour 3 last week, that might suggest the angle has already fizzled out.


----------



## Brodus Clay

ShowStopper said:


> Better than Brodus Clay has ever done in shit career.


I don't care about Clay at all hes shit, ironically you bringing him to this to compare him with your darling it's like a insult to your beloved Seth Rollins xD.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> *This is actually a good and reasonable discussion. I have no correct answer for this, because theoretically, the Slammys should increase social media activity, given that's the basis for how a lot of the awards were chosen. However, Slammy episodes are generally lackluster and many probably felt that nothing of note would happen(and they were right). Mistakes were made by not bringing back Cena and/or Lesnar in his own hometown. I was hoping to hear APPLEDOOOOOOOOO after Del Rio squashed Swagger and ZERO fucks were given.*


Yeah, between last week's good episode and people voting for the Slammy's on Twitter and whatnot, I thought they'd do better. Maybe not as well as last week; but still better than what they got. I hate Slammy episodes of Raw, BUT if there is one good thing about this episode from a WWE perspective; you'd think getting the fans involved and having somewhat of an interactive show would help keep people's focus. But I guess that wasn't the case last night. Between the interactive factor and the previous week's show, I'd think this is somewhat of a disappointment for them.

@Brodus Clay

Good one. You really got me there.


----------



## Born of Osiris

The ending did suck. Last week was fine but having two happy vanilla endings in a row? :mjout


----------



## murder

☆Shala's Christmas Waifu Party☆;55383665 said:


> The ending did suck. Last week was fine but having two happy vanilla endings in a row?


I agree that the ending was crap, but they are clearly building to HHH's return destroying Reigns, much like he did Austin in 01. 

So this week and next week will be shit Ratings, but starting the new year with HHH' return, hopefully as The Game and not as The Suit, and most of all no Football should do the trick to Keep those 4 Million from last week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> There was no hook.
> 
> Reigns won the belt and it ended a great night of viewing. I think most can agree that last week's RAW was better than it had been in quite some time.
> 
> Last night's show was bogged down by the Slammy's and it was clear by the first hour, there were no high stakes. I knew it would be a filler show by the 8:30 mark. But I still kept watching.
> 
> I do think that last week's good will helped the show from going into a free fall. It only dropped 13% and there was stability across the board. That's a small silver lining. If the booking had been solid last night, I'd be more concerned with the drop.


The thing I'd be concerned about is that this was Reigns' first Raw with the title. I thought more people would tune in to see him with the belt for the first time on their flagship show. That has to be disappointing to them.

Also with last week, they throw the kitchen sink at us. World title match on Raw for the first time in ages, Vince on Raw, etc and it payed off last week. But they're not going to be able to throw the kitchen sink at us every week, as we saw last night. Last night's Raw is much closer to the quality of this booking team on a weekly basis than last weeks. Last week is the outlier until they prove us all wrong.


----------



## Kabraxal

So... They blew the whole load last week (just to be bad anyway) and it's already going back to the decline. And they have very little to hotshot now.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Another thing to add to my previous post - I think the numbers for this week would've actually been better had Reigns lost the match with Sheamus last week, got fired, and then this time unleash hell on Vince - granted I doubt Vince can take the bumps/beating HHH took, but that would've gathered a ton of interest instead of just having Reigns win the title, which did have a feel good moment, but now he's already accomplished his mission and now it's the authority trying to play catch-up, not the other way around like it should be. Had Reigns been fired, but then made a "surprise" return at the Rumble, the pop could've been huge and they'd still have the momentum of the storyline going through to Mania, whether Reigns wins the Rumble or gets screwed by The Authority again. Now the only question is how would Reigns be brought back if the whole McMahon on-screen family is against him? Bring back Shane? That would be nice but probably isn't happening. Linda has always been the one to represent the face cause and in this case, it probably would've worked.


----------



## Srdjan99

I actually expected a worse rating, because the Slammy's always suck and do terrible ratings, as the fans learnt a long time ago that they are not worth the watch. Also, it's 4 days before Christmas, it's the holiday season, so yeah compared to the last year's ratings it might look bad, but for 2015 it's actually a decent rating for a holiday season show


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> The thing I'd be concerned about is that this was Reigns' first Raw with the title. *I thought more people would tune in to see him with the belt for the first time on their flagship show.  That has to be disappointing to them.*
> 
> Also with last week, they throw the kitchen sink at us. World title match on Raw for the first time in ages, Vince on Raw, etc and it payed off last week. But they're not going to be able to throw the kitchen sink at us every week, as we saw last night. Last night's Raw is much closer to the quality of this booking team on a weekly basis than last weeks. Last week is the outlier until they prove us all wrong.


After that opening promo, I knew that the show would be a throwaway. It's frustrating seeing a smiling Reigns against Stephanie. Reigns trolling her was cool, but it's just odd to see him smiling all the time. But I know the alternative is for him to be a chickenshit champ. 

I really hope HHH comes back next week. It's very annoying to see Stephanie standing in for HHH now. I'm not sexist, clearly, but I want to see two grown men go at it. Stephanie's shrieking is out of a bad soap opera. If this were AE, Roman would've told her to shut up or block some of her slaps. Or kiss her. Those two have some nice chemistry between them. 

In my wildest dreams, Shane would come back and make Roman's life miserable. But Steph probably emasculated him in real life too. 

I hope they throw everything at the wall in Brooklyn.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

How do people not see the connection between last week and this week?
The ratings this week show how interested people are in Reigns as champion. He won the title last week, if people were interested, they'd tune in this week. They didn't.


----------



## Marrakesh

There wasn't even any attempt to maintain last week's rating. None at all. 

The rating is shit, but to be honest, it deserved to be so much worse. 

How can you book a show like last week and then fall right back down to the gutter with this shit? 

Whether you like Reigns or not, last week's show had a rejuvenated feel to it. 

Even setting the title change aside, The Wyatts had a fantastic match and looked really strong for once, while Owens, Ambrose and Ziggler began what could be a very entertaining feud (which was followed up quite well on Smackdown) 

This week had literally zero plot development. Absolutely none. It was one of the most pointless three hours of TV I've ever had the misfortune to endure.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Back to square one, eh?

:ti


----------



## FROSTY

Merry Blissmas said:


> *Oh, so we're back to the embarrassing trash talk again and blaming Reigns, despite being on the show for a total of 10 minutes? The Road to Wrestlemania increase WILL be entirely attributed to him.*


Was Reigns given substantial credit from the fans for last weeks ratings bump? I seem to remember so. Last weeks Raw, just like this weeks central plot point centered around Roman Reigns. That's why he gets the lions share of the credit from a talent perspective for last weeks ratings, but that goes both ways like when a significant ratings drop happens the following week.


----------



## thegockster

Roman Bland is an anti draw even attendances are down, Time to take the title off him before everyone tunes out


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> Was Reigns given substantial credit from the fans for last weeks ratings bump? I seem to remember so. Last weeks Raw, just like this weeks central plot point centered around Roman Reigns. That's why he gets the lions share of the credit from a talent perspective for last weeks ratings, but that goes both ways like when a significant ratings drop happens the following week.


*No, this week was not centered around him, but the Slammys, The Usos, and Ambrose. As far as we knew, Roman was done after the first segment. The drop should in no way be attributed to him. He was on screen for 40 minutes last week and the entire show was centered around him.*


----------



## Erik.

Put on a shit show and ratings will be shit. 

Last weeks Raw started with Stephanie and Reigns in the ring but we got an announcement that Vince was coming so that brought interest. This weeks Raw started with Stepahnie and Reigns in the ring but all we got was Usos vs. New Day and Ambrose vs. Sheamus. Quite the come down on last week.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Source: *http://prowrestling.net/site/2015/12/22/wwe-raw-rating-for-the-december-21-slammy-awards-edition/
*
WWE Raw rating for the December 21, Slammy Awards edition

Monday’s WWE Raw scored a *2.33 rating, down from the 2.66 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *3.377 million viewers, down from the 3.88 million average* from last week.

Powell’s POV: Raw *lost 500,000 viewers from last week*, but it’s still a decent number when compared to some of the numbers they were delivering prior to last week. The December 22, 2014 edition of Raw delivered a *2.66 rating with 3.521 million viewers*. The 2014 Slammy Awards aired on December 8 last year and produced a *2.66 rating with 3.70 million viewers.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Reigns fans say when Sheamus was Champion that nothing should be blamed on Reigns until he is World Champion? Plenty of the other previous World Champions in years past have been blamed for far less.


----------



## Armani

I don't know what people expected this week. It was a decent show for what it was.


----------



## Chrome

Maybe the "He might get fired" angle was what helped last week? Maybe they should've done that to Ambrose this week? :draper2


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> I'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Reigns fans say when Sheamus was Champion that nothing should be blamed on Reigns until he is World Champion? Plenty of the other previous World Champions in years past have been blamed for far less.


I wasn't posting during Sheamus' run, but if last night was centered around Roman, I'd own that. It wasn't. Just like last week's bump should partially be credited to Roman who was the main focus. 

As for Sheamus, he was dead on arrival. I've never seen such a cold reaction towards a Champ in quite some time. 

Back to Reigns, he was getting blamed during the RTW when he wasn't even champ. He's an easy scapegoat.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I wasn't posting during Sheamus' run, but if last night was centered around Roman, I'd own that. It wasn't. Just like last week's bump should partially be credited to Roman who was the main focus.
> 
> As for Sheamus, he was dead on arrival. I've never seen such a cold reaction towards a Champ in quite some time.
> 
> Back to Reigns, he was getting blamed during the RTW when he wasn't even champ. He's an easy scapegoat.



Yeah, they did say that.

That's what happens when you are top face and World Champion, though. You are the main focus of the product by proxy.


----------



## Goldusto

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Another thing to add to my previous post - I think the numbers for this week would've actually been better had Reigns lost the match with Sheamus last week, got fired, and then this time unleash hell on Vince - granted I doubt Vince can take the bumps/beating HHH took, but that would've gathered a ton of interest instead of just having Reigns win the title, which did have a feel good moment, but now he's already accomplished his mission and now it's the authority trying to play catch-up, not the other way around like it should be. Had Reigns been fired, but then made a "surprise" return at the Rumble, the pop could've been huge and they'd still have the momentum of the storyline going through to Mania, whether Reigns wins the Rumble or gets screwed by The Authority again. Now the only question is how would Reigns be brought back if the whole McMahon on-screen family is against him? Bring back Shane? That would be nice but probably isn't happening. Linda has always been the one to represent the face cause and in this case, it probably would've worked.


If WWE Hadn't stuffed up Roman so much then this would have been a good payoff *HOOOWWWEEVVEERRR
*

The issue is that EVERYONE knew that Reigns was their new go to champion, everyone knew he was going to get the title it was just a matter of when, No one NO ONE cared about the chase, he isn't Bryan or Sami Zayn, he isn't anyone had invested in due to the superman booking he recieved.

Rollins Injury had really stuffed a lot of potential storyline and build, If he was after Rollins then people would have got behind that, but against a charisma Vacuum in Sheamus and the league of Jobbers, Booking Up and down in the CHARACTERS as opposed to the story meant that no one would have given the remotest shit.

They just had to pull the trigger on Reigns with the Vince Story, there was no other option Ratings were in absolute termnal decline and freefalling every week, with the* Lowest Ratings in 18 Years* .

There was no Chase Story because the Title was always his, it was just a case of placating the show around it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I'm not trying to start anything, but didn't Reigns fans say when Sheamus was Champion that nothing should be blamed on Reigns until he is World Champion? Plenty of the other previous World Champions in years past have been blamed for far less.


*
Didn't Roman fans say if Seth is taking up 40 minutes of screentime and doing nothing of use with them, that that's the issue, not him holding the title, or is that being conveniently forgotten?*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> *
> Didn't Roman fans say if Seth is taking up 40 minutes of screentime and doing nothing of use with them, that that's the issue, not him holding the title, or is that being conveniently forgotten?*


Not for the majority of his reign was that being said, no. The last couple of months or so, yes.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Not for the majority of his reign was that being said, no. The last couple of months or so, yes.


http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...se-20-minute-whining-promos.html#post43172729 

*December 19th 2014, 4 months before his title reign. I never changed my tune since then in regards to Seth's awful booking and presentation. *


----------



## FROSTY

One thing I can say with absolute belief, next week they'll get some of those viewers back in the first hour just to see if they respond to the ratings drop this week with a hot angle or something to liven things up. If the opening segment next week, isn't good or doesn't give the viewers a reason to stay tuned in, then the final numbers next week will be even worse.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...se-20-minute-whining-promos.html#post43172729
> 
> *December 19th 2014, 4 months before his title reign. I never changed my tune since then in regards to Seth's awful booking and presentation. *


I don't see what that post has to do with any of this. During his title reign, there were alot of Reigns fans blaming the ratings on him. This is fact.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I don't see what that post has to do with any of this. During his title reign, there were alot of Reigns fans blaming the ratings on him. This is fact.


*It has everything to do with this. In that thread that I just linked, I'm pointing out the bad ratings and drawing a link to Seth's awful character. That is me directly blaming the ratings on his presentation IN ADDITION to the awful show. Did you even read it?*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Merry Blissmas said:


> *It has everything to do with this. In that thread that I just linked, I'm pointing out the bad ratings and drawing a link to Seth's awful character. That is me directly blaming the ratings on his presentation. Did you even read it?*


Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that alot of Reigns fans and trolls in general were in this very thread (and others) blaming it on one person.


----------



## 3ku1

Are we still blaming Talent for the ratings? Look I am not Reigns biggest fan. But I agree by proxy by being the world champion, he is the main focus. So of course he is going to be the scapegoat. Just like Rollins was. Their is no distinction between the two. You can call Punk the Scapegoat for poor ratings, you could say Bryan was, Rollins was, Sheamus was, and Now Reigns is. The reason why the ratings are poor, is because hardly anyone is watching cable or network tv these days. Ratings have declined by 10-11% the past year alone. And it is December, ratings are usually low. IT is going to take an overall, fundamental change of the product to increase ratings. The time of a draw is gone. Rollins nor Reigns well change much, just enjoy them for very different reasons. And stop placing blame on the talent, they don't book the show.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Yes. But that doesn't change the fact that alot of Reigns fans and trolls in general were in this very thread (and others) blaming it on one person.


*
Well, as long as I'm not included in that list, we have no argument. I never blamed the individual, but the shitty booking of his character.*


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> Was Reigns given substantial credit from the fans for last weeks ratings bump? I seem to remember so. Last weeks Raw, just like this weeks central plot point centered around Roman Reigns. That's why he gets the lions share of the credit from a talent perspective for last weeks ratings, but that goes both ways like when a significant ratings drop happens the following week.


I don't get this train of thought at all. It's illogical to the extreme. Last week's ratings can't be pinned on Reigns winning the title, showing people are interested in him. If they were interested in him, they'd have tuned into Raw the weeks earlier, which were centered around him. They didn't.
Number one.

Number two, reading comments like "Reigns title win popped that rating" makes me wonder if people are familiar with the concept of time and physics. People don't telepathically know that something interesting is happening right now at that moment, and tune in. More people watch, usually, AFTER something interesting has happened, to see how it continues. That means THIS week should have seen an increase. It didn't. 

Last week's Raw didn't see a drop off between the hours, which means something must have kept viewers interested through the show. The only singular factor on that show was Vince's appearance and its announcement. A couple more viewers watched Raw because of how TLC ended, then they heard Vince will be there, so instead of tuning out as usual, they stayed for that. It has nothing to do with Reigns winning the title. People couldn't care less.


----------



## LPPrince

Merry Blissmas said:


> *I was hoping to hear APPLEDOOOOOOOOO*


Okay stop stop stop

We have to talk about this for a bit.

What the hell is it with Cena and his preference for apple flavored pastries? Like, apple dough? Why? J...just why? I've never understood why its Doo doo doo doo, doo doo doo DOOBLY DOO APPLEDOUGH DOO DOO DOO DOO, DOO DOO DOO DOO

Someone make sense of this for me


----------



## RatedR10

2.33 rating. I'm getting good with these predictions, damn. :lmao


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RatedR10 said:


> 2.33 rating. I'm getting good with these predictions, damn. :lmao


Now now. That's a good rating.


----------



## Delbusto

Empress said:


> but I want to see two grown men go at it.


Ayyyee 











Nah but foreal Steph needs to go already, tired of the Steph/Roman shit.


----------



## StraightYesSociety

Merry Blissmas said:


> *It was questionable to me because it seemed like they were only doing it while Bryan was on top to "prove" he was a draw, when in fact it was the storyline that drew. Reigns proved this last week. No individual is a draw without the proper booking. Does anyone seriously think WCW workhorse Austin would be anything beyond Cesaro in this era? Even HE admits he'd be destined to fail with all the restrictions.*


Both Keller and Meltzer said they became harder and harder to get because they have to get them from WWE. Had nothing to do with Bryan at all. Keller was the last one to continue and he felt calling in favors for the quarter breakdowns wasn't worth it as it didn't show anything really. He explained it all on his podcast. 

Basically he felt comparing quarterlies was a waste of time as it was apples to oranges. Commercial breaks also affected the segment's ratings so it wasn't really easy to compare. 

Besides Keller literally stooped when BOTH Reigns and Bryan were losing viewers with their feud. Remember when the numbers didn't recover on the road to Mania?


----------



## birthday_massacre

Live smackdown fuckery time


----------



## Chrome

birthday_massacre said:


> Live smackdown fuckery time


IIRC Live Smackdowns tend to do poorly in the ratings because most people forget they're even on lol.


----------



## squarebox

ShowStopper said:


> WELL SAID. And now the same people who bashed all of those guys for MONTHS and in some cases YEARS on end are getting it thrown back in their faces and they can't handle it. What goes around, comes around. :shrug


exactly, those same people were largely blaming Rollins during his run as well. Suck it up princesses.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Like some of us said the ratings pop for last week was because of VINCE and there being a title match. If people really cared about Reigns being champion they would have came back but they didnt.

Reigns fans just cant deal with it.


----------



## Randy Lahey

Next week's rating the real bottom will drop out again. Denver vs Cincinnati is one of the better MNF matchups of the season. I could see the rating possibly breaking the 2.0 barrier.


----------



## JTB33b

The only reason the ratings went up 2 weeks ago was because it came off a PPV and people wanted to see the fallout.


----------



## Erik.

JTB33b said:


> The only reason the ratings went up 2 weeks ago was because it came off a PPV and people wanted to see the fallout.


It came off TLC, though.

Ratings weren't good on the fallout from Survivor Series and that's one of the "big four"


----------



## Oxidamus

ShowStopper said:


> Anyway, this week's rating is interesting not from an anyone person on the show perspective, but from a quality of the show from last week perspective. People always say that the rating depends on the quality of the previous week's show and if Raw is good one week, the impact will be felt the next week. Last week Raw was agreed by many to be the best in quite sometime, but the impact wasn't felt the next week (last night). Does anyone have any thoughts on this and why this wasn't the case last night from a serious perspective and not blaming it all on one or two people (like it never should've been in the first place dating back to years ago)? Why was the impact of last week's good show not felt this week? Thoughts?


I only stepped into this WOAT thread to see the ratings so I can understand the coming arguments about Reigns making the show great, assuming there would be any.

To me, it seems that there is only one thing. Triple H getting his ass handed to him. Old fans who loved the AE would've wanted to see him on Raw fight Reigns, so they'd tune in. Then Vince came on and most of them stayed.

Then when HHH never came out and Vince got whipped at the end of the show, they figured the next week would have neither.

Honestly can't see any other reason. Other than people just being busy/preoccupied through the holiday season.


----------



## RatedR10

JTB33b said:


> The only reason the ratings went up 2 weeks ago was because it came off a PPV and people wanted to see the fallout.


Why didn't Survivor Series fall-out get the same boost?


----------



## Empress

RatedR10 said:


> Why didn't Survivor Series fall-out get the same boost?


I canceled the Network after Survivor Series. Seth's poorly booked title reign had already put my patience on edge but SS was the final straw. I also skipped TLC but my interest was piqued by the ending. Reigns' "meltdown" and last week's show got me interested in the WWE again when I was ready to just find something else on the dial.


----------



## Empress

*WWE SUPER SMACKDOWN LIVE AUDIENCE ON USA NETWORK WAS....*
By Mike Johnson on 2015-12-23 16:02:41
The 12/22 live broadcast of Super Smackdown Live on the USA Network garnered 2,264,000 viewers, a little below what the 12/17 episode of WWE Smackdown on Syfy brought in 2,332,000 viewers. 
http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=98614&p=1


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

:lmao

The live SD on USA doing even less than the taped version the week before on SyFy. Hilarious.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

In all fairness to the live version, doesn't that usually do less than the taped shows (since people are used to taped editions)? If so, Ambrose really came through and his IC Title reign kept SD from sinking even further.

If however they usually do better and this decrease is out of the ordinary, then Reigns fails to draw again and needs to be de-pushed before he sinks the ship as a whotrolololle.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

Um...isn't that a big increase in comparison to the 2.16 ratings and lower than 3 million viewers we were getting just weeks before? Not sure why anyone would be blamed here. It's a good thing in context.


----------



## Chrome

Yeah, like I said earlier, live shows tend to do bad because a # of people forget it's on a different night. Guaranteed they'll be some people tuning in tomorrow night wondering "where's Smackdown?" I would hope not though, as it'll be Christmas Eve, and why spend Christmas Eve wanting to watch a shitty wrestling show?


----------



## thegockster

I prefer to go by attendances and again they're down and empty seats are aplenty, Fans getting told to move closer together so they can do the old camera trick to make the place look full, Reigns is not a draw and never will be


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

#BadNewsSanta said:


> In all fairness to the live version, doesn't that usually do less than the taped shows (since people are used to taped editions)? If so, Ambrose really came through and his IC Title reign kept SD from sinking even further.
> 
> If however they usually do better and this decrease is out of the ordinary, then Reigns fails to draw again and needs to be de-pushed before he sinks the ship as a whotrolololle.


I thought a live edition would do better due to live shows being alot more exciting than taped ones, and no spoilers to read on the internet. Doesn't matter, I guess. Either way not a good number and Raw ratings are back in the crapper after 1 week.


----------



## RatedR10

Live Smackdown always "flops" in numbers because WWE usually does a shitty job of telling viewers it's LIVE on a different night. I didn't watch Raw so I don't know how they advertised this week's Smackdown. It's still a larger number than usual in comparison to the previous week's taped version iirc, which points to most people just getting it out of the way in time for Christmas Eve because who the hell is gonna watch Smackdown on Christmas Eve?


----------



## LilOlMe

91ReasonsYouLose said:


> One thing I can say with absolute belief, next week they'll get some of those viewers back in the first hour just to see if they respond to the ratings drop this week with a hot angle or something to liven things up. If the opening segment next week, isn't good or doesn't give the viewers a reason to stay tuned in, then the final numbers next week will be even worse.


They're in Brooklyn next week I believe, so maybe they'll try to do a hot show for that reason. They tend to try to get it up when they know they're gonna be in a "smark" city.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Source: http://prowrestling.net/site/2015/1...nal-numbers-for-the-december-22-live-special/

WWE Smackdown rating: Final numbers for the December 22 live special*

Tuesday’s WWE Smackdown scored a *1.53 rating, down from the previous week’s 1.68 rating.* The show averaged *2.264 million viewers, down from last week’s 2.332 million viewers.*

Powell’s POV: The number was down, but WWE will double dip with a replay of Smackdown tonight on Syfy. The December 19, 2014 Smackdown delivered a *1.51 rating with 2.027 million viewers.* The December 19 show was a replay of a show that aired live earlier in the week.


----------



## LPPrince

No reason to give a fuck about Smackdown anyway. The show's unnecessary at this point.


----------



## Fighter Daron

I don't want to go 20 pages back to see the numbers, can someone tell me what the chart was like for Raw this monday?


----------



## Empress

Fighter Daron said:


> I don't want to go 20 pages back to see the numbers, can someone tell me what the chart was like for Raw this monday?


These are the numbers

8 PM: 1.16 demo rating (3.443 million viewers)
9 PM: 1.11 demo rating (3.374 million viewers)
10 PM: 1.15 demo rating (3.316 million viewers)

Monday’s episode brought in 3.378 million viewers and a 1.14 rating in the 18 – 49 demographic, down 13% and 15% from last week’s 3.885 million and 1.34 demo rating.

http://411mania.com/wrestling/wwe-raw-rating-slips-after-last-weeks-surge/


----------



## DoubtGin

Next week has Mr. McMahon again + Cena's return

ratings gonna increase


----------



## Empress

*WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Dec. 21, 2015): The Slammy Awards*

This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Dec. 21 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It wasn't a terrible show but because of The Slammy Awards it was disjointed and awkward. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).

And, because of The Slammys, we'll break this up into two parts.

Here they are (with view counts as of this writing) for Raw:

1. Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus (1,926,068)
2. Stephanie McMahon and Roman Reigns verbal battle (1,618,902)
3. The New Day vs. The Usos (638,247)
4. Kane, Dudley Boyz, Tommy Dreamer vs. The Wyatt Family (534,452)
5. Kane vs. Bray Wyatt (404,394)
6. Neville vs. Rusev (353,216)
7. Dolph Ziggler vs. Kevin Owens (346,586)
8. Jack Swagger vs. Alberto Del Rio (301,451)
9. Becky Lynch vs. Brie Bella (210,249)
10. Foley family Christmas message (206,339)

Again, it sure looks like the main event segment is a draw no matter what they put there.

And The Slammy Awards:

1. Superstar of the Year (1,010,549)
2. Diva of the Year (879,478)
3. Surprise Return of the Year (739,422)
4. Match of the Year (664,895)
5. LOL! Moment of the Year (638,949)
6. OMG! Shocking Moment of the Year (627,839)
7. Pre-show (484,203)
8. Breakout Star of the Year (464,058)
9. This is Awesome Moment of the Year (448,520)
10. The Hero in All of Us (414,637)

No surprises there.

Watch a playlist of this week's show here.
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...outube-rankings-dec-21-2015-the-slammy-awards


----------



## DoubtGin

I'm pretty sure ratings will increase again.


----------



## Empress

RAW Twitter Ratings,

- Monday's WWE RAW ranked #1 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings. RAW had a unique audience of 1.788 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.177 million. RAW had total impressions of 10.385 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from last week's 8.969 million impressions.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/1229/606189/did-jerry-mcdevitt-really-appear-on-wwe-raw/



-----
*Updated SmackDown Numbers*

- Thursday's WWE Super SmackDown replay of Tuesday's live special drew 1.228 million viewers. This is down from Tuesday's 2.264 million viewers and last Thursday's 2.332 million viewers. The final rating was a 0.92, down from Tuesday's 1.53 rating and last Thursday's 1.68 rating.

With Tuesday's live show and Thursday's replay, this week's Super SmackDown episode drew a 2.45 rating with 3.492 million viewers.
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/1229/606180/wwe-breaking-ground-season-finale-preview/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I don't care how well or how shit ratings were last night. From a quality standpoint, that was a shit-house awful Raw.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> RAW Twitter Ratings,
> 
> - Monday's WWE RAW ranked [URL=http://www.wrestlingforum.com/usertag.php?do=list&action=hash&hash=1]#1 [/URL] among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings. RAW had a unique audience of 1.788 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.177 million. RAW had total impressions of 10.385 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from last week's 8.969 million impressions.
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/1229/606189/did-jerry-mcdevitt-really-appear-on-wwe-raw/
> 
> 
> 
> -----
> *Updated SmackDown Numbers*
> 
> - Thursday's WWE Super SmackDown replay of Tuesday's live special drew 1.228 million viewers. This is down from Tuesday's 2.264 million viewers and last Thursday's 2.332 million viewers. The final rating was a 0.92, down from Tuesday's 1.53 rating and last Thursday's 1.68 rating.
> 
> With Tuesday's live show and Thursday's replay, this week's Super SmackDown episode drew a 2.45 rating with 3.492 million viewers.
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2015/1229/606180/wwe-breaking-ground-season-finale-preview/


I love how when the WWE beats sporting events they include that in the Twitter numbers but when they lose to them, they don't so they can claim they were #1 no matter what.
The WWE is always fudging the numbers to claim they were #1 .

Also just because you have a high twitter impressions doesnt mean its positive tweets lol And based on last nights show, it was probably mostly bad.


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> I love how when the WWE beats sporting events they include that in the Twitter numbers but when they lose to them, they don't so they can claim they were #1 no matter what.
> The WWE is always fudging the numbers to claim they were #1 .
> 
> Also just because you have a high twitter impressions doesnt mean its positive tweets lol And based on last nights show, it was probably mostly bad.


1. Welcome to premium 

2. The show was bad. Vince was trending a lot though. 

At this point, I think the ratings could go either way.


----------



## Wynter

Over/under 3.4 million for that terrible Raw? 

Does ratings even come out today or is there a delay?


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/681925379867684865


----------



## Kuja

Where is Wrestmania taking place? I hope it is an easy place to fill. 

I finally come back to wrestling and the numbers are this low.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Empress said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/681925379867684865


I was reading about that methodology and it is going to be interesting to see how all shows are impacted whether positively or adversely.


----------



## Empress

THE SHIV said:


> I was reading about that methodology and it is going to be interesting to see how all shows are impacted whether positively or adversely.


It seems to be a way of giving shows more viewers since people are watching differently. But as you said, it can go either way. PW Torch thinks MNF may have cut into RAW's ratings.

*
12/28 Raw Ratings – early info from MNF*
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2015/12/29/1228-raw-ratings-early-info-from-mnf/


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Vince's arrest and Owens and Reigns unleashing were the only high points of the show. Vince's arrest for the sake of getting mainstream attention, and Owens and Reigns being booked as they should always be.*


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Empress said:


> It seems to be a way of giving shows more viewers since people are watching differently. But as you said, it can go either way. PW Torch thinks MNF may have cut into RAW's ratings.
> 
> *
> 12/28 Raw Ratings – early info from MNF*
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2015/12/29/1228-raw-ratings-early-info-from-mnf/


It was a big game and actually went into overtime, so that would normally hurt RAW. Football is over and it will be interesting to see what the new normal is for unopposed Road to Mania numbers. They may completely burn out Vince's drawing ability if they overexpose him.


----------



## skarvika

Turned off Raw after that horrible opening segment and come back to see the ratings this low :banderas Roman Ratings coming through again!!


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Attitude era is back, what are you all talking about?



:booklel


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

H1-3.695M
H2-3.488M
H3-3.425M

Avg-3.536M

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/Finals-Cable-2015-Dec-MON.28.png


----------



## DoublePass

Remember when people thought Reigns would bring 4+ million viewers each week after that anomaly a couple of weeks ago?


----------



## RatedR10

John Cena the ratings savior... oh wait.

(No, I'm not blaming a single superstar for the decline throughout the show again, I'm joking, before anyone gets their panties in a bunch...)


Probably a rating in the 2.38 - 2.45 range.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Not good at all with advertised appearances by both Vince McMahon and John Cena (the 2 biggest names they have to offer). Pretty sizable drops from each hour, too. Especially Hour 3 in which it was advertised that a returning John Cena was in the main event. No one's a draw; we all know that. It's up to WWE themselves and the quality of their shows.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

DoublePass said:


> Remember when people thought Reigns would bring 4+ million viewers each week after that anomaly a couple of weeks ago?


I wouldnt be surprised if it's over 4 million next week with the Vince hype and no Monday Night Football. January 11 is the College Football Championship game and it draws even higher ratings than any MNF game, so that could be a down week for RAW.


----------



## DoublePass

THE SHIV said:


> *I wouldnt be surprised if it's over 4 million next week* with the Vince hype and no Monday Night Football. January 11 is the College Football Championship game and it draws even higher ratings than any MNF game, so that could be a down week for RAW.


I'd be very surprised.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Didn't even break 4 mill with Super Golden Boy Reigns, Cena, and Vince.


----------



## Erik.

Isn't Brock scheduled back next week?


----------



## Empress

I'm surprised they managed to get over 3 million for each hour. At least the third hour is finally holding steady.

They could easily get 4 million if they put more effort into the shows.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Dam, we need more Tom Brady on MNFs. Last time he was there, he single handedly put this dogshit company below 3 million viewers. What a draw :brady

Sad we'll have to wait till next year before he gets another chance to bury em again. The NFL's biggest draw vs The WWE :bird


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I'm surprised they managed to get over 3 million for each hour. At least the third hour is finally holding steady.
> 
> They could easily get 4 million if they put more effort into the shows.


They almost always get over 3 million per hour. Only time they had trouble with that was November. Also, there was nearly a 300,000 viewer drop from Hour 1 to Hour 3 (270,000) to be exact. Could be worse, I suppose, but they probably want to improve on that. Much worse when you take into consideration the advertised appearances by Vince and Cena and Cena being in the main event. :jay


----------



## Chrome

Surprised it wasn't lower tbh, given the MNF game.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> Surprised it wasn't lower tbh, given the MNF game.


The Vince and Cena advertised appearances. That's why they were advertised (and why we get no surprise returns anymore, for the most part).

:cena5


----------



## Hav0c

Well they were probably all banking on Owen's killing Reigns at some point and when they realized it wasn't going to happen they started bailing. On a more serious note I am kinda surprised that third hour did so well I almost didn't finish that third hour and I am fairly consistent watching all of Raw each and every one of them.


----------



## RatedR10

Empress said:


> I'm surprised they managed to get over 3 million for each hour. At least the third hour is finally holding steady.
> 
> They could easily get 4 million if they put more effort into the shows.


They don't know the meaning of the word "effort". They'll throw Vince on there, bring Brock back, and hope it's enough.

Although, Brock isn't scheduled until the 11th.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> They almost always get over 3 million per hour. Only time they had trouble with that was November. Also, there was nearly a 300,000 viewer drop from Hour 1 to Hour 3 (270,000) to be exact. Could be worse, I suppose, but they probably want to improve on that. Much worse when you take into consideration the advertised appearances by Vince and Cena and Cena being in the main event. :jay





RatedR10 said:


> They don't know the meaning of the word "effort". They'll throw Vince on there, bring Brock back, and hope it's enough.
> 
> Although, Brock isn't scheduled until the 11th.


You're both right. I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. :lose


I thought TLC was a turning point and the following RAW was a sign that Vince had gotten the message. I excused the lackluster Slammy's but this week's RAW showed no effort as well (outside of Owens). Vince must think he's the answer to the ratings falling rather than just putting on a good show.


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> You're both right. I'm not too proud to say I was wrong. :lose
> 
> 
> I thought TLC was a turning point and the following RAW was a sign that Vince had gotten the message. I excused the lackluster Slammy's but this week's RAW showed no effort as well (outside of Owens). Vince must think he's the answer to the ratings falling rather than just putting on a good show.


Maybe this is just me hoping and reading to much into things. But I think/hope Vince did get the hint at the end of Raw this past Monday when he was out there to announce next week's title match with him as the special ref and got almost no reaction from the crowd at all.

Like I said this could just be looking for something that isn't there, but it almost looked like for a moment Vince had a look of defeat on his face after that.


----------



## The Tempest

Chart's here:


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

With Vince and Cena advertised, numbers seem a bit low. However next week they should shoot back up to close to 4 mil at least, especially with a WWE Title match and Vince McMahon himself being directly involved in said title match in consideration.


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> Maybe this is just me hoping and reading to much into things. But I think/hope Vince did get the hint at the end of Raw this past Monday when he was out there to announce next week's title match with him as the special ref and got almost no reaction from the crowd at all.
> 
> Like I said this could just be looking for something that isn't there, but it almost looked like for a moment Vince had a look of defeat on his face after that.


This may be an unpopular opinion, but I didn't see Vince McMahon on RAW. I just saw an old man. Vince works best as a special attraction now. Vince isn't AE Vince anymore. Reigns, bless his heart, just isn't Stone Cold Steve Austin either. 

Where is HHH?! How long does he plan on selling this beating? Reigns/HHH has more heat to it. 

I will say that I'm happy they're not overexposing Reigns, but he was just there on RAW. Whether it's 5 minutes, 15 minutes or taking up 40 minutes of screen time, the Champ should be more effectively used within the allowed time.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

#BadNewsSanta said:


> With Vince and Cena advertised, numbers seem a bit low. However next week they should shoot back up to close to 4 mil at least, especially with a WWE Title match and Vince McMahon himself being directly involved in said title match in consideration.


And no football game next week. That's the biggest factor of all. Lots of wrestling fans are football fans, myself included.


----------



## Hav0c

#BadNewsSanta said:


> With Vince and Cena advertised, numbers seem a bit low. However next week they should shoot back up to close to 4 mil at least, especially with a WWE Title match and Vince McMahon himself being directly involved in said title match in consideration.


I really hope you are right but if I honestly think about I would say they will get their 4 million or better first hour and it will start tailing off to 3.6 to 3.75 by the main event


----------



## Lone Star

Mediocre ratings yet again. They had their chance to strike fire while hot 3 weeks ago, now back to irrelevancy. Nobody cared about Vince's cheap ploy arresting scandal, and nobody cared about Cena coming back.

It's going to take a complete overhaul on the product, whether people want to admit it or not.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I believe that may have been the highest MNF game of he year. It increased in the demo 1.36 which is higher than any hour of RAW this week. Given the competition, Vince shouldn't feel so bad for that rating. Like @Chrome said, I expected the rating to be lower, but Vince created some interest with his meh storyline.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

THE SHIV said:


> I believe that may have been the highest MNF game of he year. It increased in the demo 1.36 which is higher than any hour of RAW this week. Given the competition, Vince shouldn't feel so bad for that rating. Like @Chrome said, I expected the rating to be lower, but Vince created some interest with his meh storyline.


It was Cena's comeback too for the first time in 2-3 months, and he was in the main event.


----------



## Empress

*RAW RATINGS ABOVE AVERAGE WITH VINCE MCMAHON ARREST ANGLE*

Even going against the highest rated Monday night game of the season, Raw did well above its fall season average with the Vince McMahon show-long arrest angle.

Raw did 3.53 million viewers, placing it third for the night on cable behind the Broncos-Bengals game that did 15.81 million viewers and an episode of SportsCenter.

The angle, as expected, helped maintain the audience as there was less of an audience drop as the show went on as is typical of Raw. The return of John Cena also played a part in that.

The three hours were:

8 p.m. 3.70 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.49 million viewers
10 p.m. 3.43 million viewers

Monday was the final episode of Monday Night Football. With the exception of the 1/11 show, which goes against the college football championship game, Raw will now be free of its top competition, and ratings should rise about 10 percent from the level they have been if history is an indication.

http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/raw-ratings-above-average-vince-mcmahon-arrest-angle-204641


----------



## CenaBoy4Life

Lone Star said:


> Mediocre ratings yet again. They had their chance to strike fire while hot 3 weeks ago, now back to irrelevancy. Nobody cared about Vince's cheap ploy arresting scandal, and nobody cared about Cena coming back.
> 
> It's going to take a complete overhaul on the product, whether people want to admit it or not.


They dont have time to do an overhaul when its live every week for 3 hours and they tour nonstop.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> *RAW RATINGS ABOVE AVERAGE WITH VINCE MCMAHON ARREST ANGLE*
> 
> Even going against the highest rated Monday night game of the season, Raw did well above its fall season average with the Vince McMahon show-long arrest angle.
> 
> Raw did 3.53 million viewers, placing it third for the night on cable behind the Broncos-Bengals game that did 15.81 million viewers and an episode of SportsCenter.
> 
> The angle, as expected, helped maintain the audience as there was less of an audience drop as the show went on as is typical of Raw. The return of John Cena also played a part in that.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.70 million viewers
> 9 p.m. 3.49 million viewers
> 10 p.m. 3.43 million viewers
> 
> Monday was the final episode of Monday Night Football. With the exception of the 1/11 show, which goes against the college football championship game, Raw will now be free of its top competition, *and ratings should rise about 10 percent from the level they have been if history is an indication.*
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/raw-ratings-above-average-vince-mcmahon-arrest-angle-204641


So, history shows ratings are 10% higher for Raw during the football off-season. Wow. Interesting. Meltzer bringing the facts.


----------



## Lone Star

When is this competition excuse going to go away? MNF, March Madness, NCAA Bowl games. Back in 07-09 when John Cena was carrying the company ratings were consistently ranging from 3.4's to 4's. In early 07 before Chris Beniot fucked off everything in professional wrestling, it was drawing 4's.

Time for change. Wrestling goes in cycles, and It's 1995/1996 all over again, folks.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lone Star said:


> When is this competition excuse going to go away? MNF, March Madness, NCAA Bowl games. Back in 07-09 when John Cena was carrying the company ratings were consistently ranging from 3.4's to 4's. In early 07 before Chris Beniot fucked off everything in professional wrestling, it was drawing 4's.
> 
> Time for change. Wrestling goes in cycles, and It's 1995/1996 all over again, folks.


Yeah, I actually think the number is a disappointment due to the advertised appearances/returns of Vince and Cena. Even with those two things, they're in the same exact range as they've been for awhile now. :shrug But whatevs, not my problem.


----------



## Lone Star

CenaBoy4Life said:


> They dont have time to do an overhaul when its live every week for 3 hours and they tour nonstop.


:ti :tysonlol :duck

they don't have time? For christ's sake, they have 6 days a week to write a show that's not incompetent. And most of the time, they do shit on the fly and it's still terrible. 

Creative overhaul is needed. Starting from the top with Vincent Kennedy McMahon.


----------



## Kuja

They need some damn balls. They have been playing it safe for too long. WWE is a machine now that runs like clockwork. They do not want to go out of that safe zone. Maybe they are afraid of deviating from what works. Smaller, safe money is better than betting and risking big money, basically. I want them to push the limits. I want them to run shows on the fly instead of a rigid schedule. Base your shows off of crowd reaction and roll with the momentum! Stop giving everyone scripts. They all sound the same. Let the audience gauge the characters. CHARACTER. We need actual personalities and not templates.

This could help the ratings. Fans would stop tuning in at only certain parts. Unpredictability is what they need right now. 

I watched Monday Night Football every single time this year. I would watch the Superbowl over Wrestlemania if they were on the same night. This is not acceptable for WWE. They need to stop making excuses and compete to get the fans back on board with the product.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Raw ratings (Dec. 28, 2015): Viewers up for Vince McMahon arrest angle*
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...015-viewers-up-for-vince-mcmahon-arrest-angle


The ratings technically went up but it doesn't feel like it. Not that RAW deserved to get another 4 million viewers when they barely tried on Monday.


----------



## Blade Runner

I'd be concerned about putting Vince on TV too often. If he's indeed the big drawing factor then that will only diminish over time if the product isn't improving along with his appearances. Him showing up is only a novelty until you do it too often -- eventually people just want to stick around for the good storytelling. I'm sure even The Rock himself wouldn't do monster ratings if he was on every week with this abysmal writing and booking of these 3 hour shows

Same with Cena -- the man has star power but he'll just end up blending in with everything else if they don't have any compelling creative plans going forward


----------



## Brodus Clay

I watched RAW for Vince but stayed for Owens, all the other stuff was skipeable.


----------



## The XL

I think McMahon is the only draw they have


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Reigns needs the belt to draw they said.
Vince will boost ratings they said.
The champ isn't responsible for ratings they said.
Change they said.

Fuck it. None of these fuckers is in any way relevant anymore.


----------



## FROSTY

*The show was garbage, and certainly didn't deserve the average numbers it received. Is this shit ever going to get any better? Vince has lost his edge and needs to be step down. Steph is god awful, she should never be allowed on TV again.

I fear from a entertainment standpoint this is as good as it's ever going to get, because everyone in the company that matters is content with the way things are. Dark days ahead for the foreseeable future, unless someone in the company with power decides it's time for a change.*


----------



## Dark_Raiden

I don't think Cena's return did much for ratings. He's been here for the 10 years that ratings have dropped a full 2 points and I don't think that's a coincidence.


----------



## Kuja

They seem desperate at this point. This is all to pop ratings. Spikes in the ratings are nice and all, but sustained quality will do much more for the product. Build the people who are always there and stop with the desperation calls.

I remember Russo did this all the time in TNA. This reminds me of those situations and within weeks the ratings were back to normal. The spikes led to nothing substantial for the company. 

However, Wrestlemania is upon us so WINTER IS COMING. Not the diva, but you know what I mean.


----------



## Empress

*Final WWE Raw TV Ratings Report 2015 – Decline, Comparisons, Future Outlook*


The final year Raw TV ratings do not look pretty compared to last year or a four-year stint looking back to 2010.

The cause of WWE’s pronounced Raw TV ratings decline in 2015 was dissected, poked at, examined, debated, discussed, and attempted to be excused throughout the year as the numbers slipped into historical low-points during the Fall TV season.

The bottom line is Raw fell to an 18-year low average going back to before the start of the Attitude Era.

The final average for first-run Raw TV viewing was a 2.65 rating and 3.705 million viewers. This was down 10.4 percent from an average 2.95 rating in 2014 and down 10.6 percent from an average of 4.143 million viewers last year.

For long-term comparison purposes later in the report, we’re stretching back to 2010, which could be looked at as the beginning of the current window. There is also an interesting tie-in to the time period.

In January 2010, TNA attempted to kick-start a Monday Night Wars 2.0. However, they found out that demand for their programming dropped off significantly both when running taped every-other-week and as the experiment went on. This was not the late 1990s pre-DVR technology when you had to flip back and forth to catch both Raw and WCW Nitro. TNA’s dramatic swings in live viewership during the early part of 2010 captured how much immediate demand there was to watch the programming.

Fast-forward to 2015 and WWE experienced what TNA discovered five years earlier. Demand for immediate viewing of Raw TV programming was down ten percent on a year-to-year basis.

In the two big seasons of WrestleMania and Fall TV, Raw was down 9-10 percent during WM31 season vs. WM30 season and Raw was down 13-15 percent in Fall 2015 vs. Fall 2014.

2015 WM31 Avg.: 2.92 rating / 4.049 million viewers
2014 WM30 Avg.: 3.20 rating / 4.495 million viewers
2015 Fall TV Avg.: 2.34 rating / 3.325 million viewers
2014 Fall TV Avg.: 2.75 rating / 3.823 million viewers

It’s interesting looking at the downturn just within 2015. Raw averaged a 2.92 rating during WrestleMania Season (January to April), then was clear down to a 2.34 rating during the fall season (September to December), a 19.8 percent decline within the year.

A contributor appears to be the preceding 14.0 percent decline from WM30 Season to Fall 2014 TV season.

Looking at why there was such a sharp Raw TV ratings decline in 2015, you could name any number of reasons. If breaking it down in a pie chart, a portion could go to this being three years into the three-hour Raw TV experiment where viewers have formed new viewing habits, Raw simply being too long at three hours, Creative issues and stubbornness, John Cena descending from the top spot, resistance to Roman Reigns rising to the top spot, the absence of likable top babyfaces like Daniel Bryan, the over-cooked “Authority” heel faction continuing to dominate the show, an overall downturn in the mix of talent, the available talent being over-exposed and under-valued, WWE routinely exposing the business and telling viewers what they’re doing is a put-on, the inverse rise of NXT as an alternative to WWE’s own main program, a portion of viewers cutting cable/satellite from their entertainment budget, and a general increase in DVR viewing affecting how people consume programming, especially LONG programming without that natural sports-like element of four quarters, nine innings, or two halves to follow along with.

What is most interesting is whether this downward trend continues in 2016. The low-points in 2015 were a 2.16 rating in mid-November and a 2.15 rating on December 7, which then led to WWE cashing in their big chips at TLC and the following week’s Raw.

Has WWE reached the bottom point in this era, or is there a possibility to dip below a 2.0 rating in 2016? Time will tell in a new year with even more challenges to face as the entertainment landscape continues to change on a seemingly-weekly basis.

2015 WWE Raw Break Down

– High: 3.68 rating post-WM31 (March 30). WWE did not reach a 3.0 the rest of the year.

– Lows: 2.15 rating (Dec. 7) and 2.16 rating (Nov. 23).

– Final Avg. Rating: 2.65 (down 10.4 percent vs. 2014)

– Final Avg. Viewership: 3.705 million viewers (down 10.6 percent vs. 2014)

2015 Raw vs. Five Year Break Down

– 2015: 2.65 rating / 3.705 million viewers

– 2014: 2.96 rating (-10.4%) / 4.143 million viewers (-10.6%)

– 2013: 3.01 rating (-12.2%) / 4.157 million viewers (-10.9%)

– 2012: 3.00 rating (-11.9%) / 4.311 million viewers (-14.1%)

– 2011: 3.21 rating (-17.5%) / 4.787 million viewers (-22.6%)

– 2010: 3.28 rating (-19.4%) / 4.785 million viewers (-22.6%)

Notice that 2011 was the last full year of two-hour Raws. WWE shifted to three-hour Raws mid-way through 2012, setting in motion the three-year bill that came due in 2015.

Overall, Raw was down an average of one million viewers in 2015 compared to the two-hour Raws of 2011 and 2010.

WWE’s objective going forward is ensuring that the financial value of the third hour still exceeds the financial value of a better, more-watched two-hour version of Raw. In other words, WWE has to find the point where getting paid for that extra hour is no longer more valuable than getting paid for two hours with a better show that draws more viewers.

WWE is of course locked into a contract with USA Network and they’re set to get paid a substantial amount on the back-end for three-hour Raws in the years to follow. But, if the downward trend continues in 2016, will it be financially prudent to continue watering down the flagship show just because USA Network is willing to pay for 52 extra hours of TV per year?

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2015/12...-2015-the-decline-comparisons-future-outlook/


----------



## 3ku1

Ratings are down for all tv, means nothing. I think ppl are too fixated on the ratings, why? Dont know. Wwe is still viable in other avenues. Making millions of dollars. Still selling out arenas, subs network, trading with alot of family corporations etc. Yeah numbers are low, and that is a concern. But not as dire as some make it out to be. All subjective. As long as Raw pulls out average numbers. Usa well keep Raw on its time slot. And thats all that matters. The quality well go back and fourth. Never really reaching any defined point. Do you think the Simpsons is still airing new episodes because of its amazing quality lol? No its more quantity over quality. Wwe is in a lull right now. But some have got to stop expecting this month, next year etc. Every week expecting wwe to be better in a week lol. Its not going to happen. Its going to take a fundamental change and reboot of the product. From top to bottom. Until things change. And that's not going to happen over night. Jmo.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Dec. 28, 2015): John Cena returns, Vince McMahon arrested*

This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Dec. 28 in Brooklyn, New York. It wasn't the best show but WWE brought both Vince McMahon and John Cena back for a major angle and match, respectively, and ratings were up from the week prior. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).

Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):

1. John Cena vs. Alberto Del Rio (2,582,905)
2. Vince McMahon arrested (2,393,789)
3. John Cena returns to WWE (1,696,495)
4. Big Show returns with Royal Rumble news (974,548)
5. Dean Ambrose & The Usos vs. League of Nations (817,668)
6. Mr. McMahon has big plans for the first Raw of 2016 (627,408)
7. Neville vs. Kevin Owens (543,945)
8. Renee Young updates on Vince McMahon's arrest (536,124)
9. Ryback vs. Big Show (518,466)
10. Kalisto vs. Kofi Kingston (492,242)
11. Sin Cara vs. Big E (491,063)
12. Becky Lynch vs. Sasha Banks (293,612)

Roman Reigns winning the WWE world heavyweight championship was a monster hit, but otherwise his main event numbers were never as big as what John Cena scored here with his match with Alberto Del Rio. Predictably, Vince McMahon getting arrested also scored big.

The Big Show video doing well could be due to the fact that it was a return and also related to the Royal Rumble.

Elsewhere, the women's matches/angles continue to struggle. If there was a Divas Revolution, you wouldn't know it from looking at these view counts.

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...2015-john-cena-returns-vince-mcmahon-arrested


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Empress said:


> *WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Dec. 28, 2015): John Cena returns, Vince McMahon arrested*
> 
> This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Dec. 28 in Brooklyn, New York. It wasn't the best show but WWE brought both Vince McMahon and John Cena back for a major angle and match, respectively, and ratings were up from the week prior. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).
> 
> Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):
> 
> 1. John Cena vs. Alberto Del Rio (2,582,905)
> 2. Vince McMahon arrested (2,393,789)
> 3. John Cena returns to WWE (1,696,495)
> 4. Big Show returns with Royal Rumble news (974,548)
> 5. Dean Ambrose & The Usos vs. League of Nations (817,668)
> 6. Mr. McMahon has big plans for the first Raw of 2016 (627,408)
> 7. Neville vs. Kevin Owens (543,945)
> 8. Renee Young updates on Vince McMahon's arrest (536,124)
> 9. Ryback vs. Big Show (518,466)
> 10. Kalisto vs. Kofi Kingston (492,242)
> 11. Sin Cara vs. Big E (491,063)
> 12. Becky Lynch vs. Sasha Banks (293,612)
> 
> Roman Reigns winning the WWE world heavyweight championship was a monster hit, but otherwise his main event numbers were never as big as what John Cena scored here with his match with Alberto Del Rio. Predictably, Vince McMahon getting arrested also scored big.
> 
> The Big Show video doing well could be due to the fact that it was a return and also related to the Royal Rumble.
> 
> Elsewhere, the women's matches/angles continue to struggle. If there was a Divas Revolution, you wouldn't know it from looking at these view counts.
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...2015-john-cena-returns-vince-mcmahon-arrested


How much more evidence is needed to prove that nobody cares about the divas? 

Also nobody cares about Sin Cara. Just because he looks a bit like Rey Mysterio doesn't mean the audience cares for just any vanilla midget with a mask on.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

SmackDown viewership
(12/31-New Year's Eve)
-1.658M(-27%)

SmackDown viewership
(12/24)
-2.264M


----------



## Randy Lahey

Gerweck has his average yearly ratings now updated on his site. Going back the last 10 years:

2005: 3.81
2006: 3.90
2007: 3.61
2008: 3.27
2009: 3.57
2010: 3.28
2011: 3.21
2012: 3.00
2013: 3.01
2014: 2.95
2015: 2.64

The bottom absolutely dropped out in 2015.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Roman Reigns super pushed 2015.

2015 has lowest ratings ever.

Hmm.

People gave Punk so much shit, and here we have 2.64s as the yearly average. 

L a w l


----------



## Naka Moora

When are ratings for this week RAW released? Wonder what happened for the last hour.


----------



## DoubtGin

no football this time so the ratings should improve quite a bit


----------



## 7arq

Nakamura&AJ Styles = ratings


----------



## Chrome

They might be delayed because of New Year's fwiw.


----------



## Empress

*1/4 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – slow start to 2016*

Monday’s Raw did not get off to a good start in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings to begin 2016 despite a WWE Title match, the return of Chris Jericho, and big show-closing angle for the Royal Rumble.

Raw Social Media Tracking

– January 4: Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.292 million, down about 500,000 from the 2015 finale on December 28.

Raw’s total impressions were 8.860 million, down about 150,000 from Dec. 28.

Raw’s numbers were remarkably similar to the first episode of 2015, which drew a unique audience of 1.234 million viewers.

– On Monday night, Raw ranked #2 among series & specials, trailing “The Bachelor” on ABC, which topped Raw by four times.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #4 behind the epic OU-KU triple overtime college basketball game on ESPN, one other college game, and one NBA game.

Next week features the return of Brock Lesnar, but will be against the college football National Title game.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/05/14-raw-twitter-tv-ratings-slow-start-to-2016/

EDIT:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/684481119627038720


----------



## Marrakesh

So, are these confirmed to be delayed this week?


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.707M
H2-3.516M
H3-3.503M

Avg-3.575M*


----------



## Dark_Raiden

SnapOrTap said:


> Roman Reigns super pushed 2015.
> 
> 2015 has lowest ratings ever.
> 
> Hmm.
> 
> People gave Punk so much shit, and here we have 2.64s as the yearly average.
> 
> L a w l


2015 was the year of Rollins. Reigns is just trying to up ratings from where Rollins plummeted them.


----------



## LilOlMe

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *H1-3.707M
> H2-3.516M
> H3-3.503M
> 
> Avg-3.575M*


The ratings from January 5, 2015, which was considered bad (wasn't last year the worst RTWM ratings in decades?):


> Well, the ratings are in, and John Cena Appreciation Night starring Triple H and Stephanie McMahon helped. But not a lot.
> 
> The show drew an average of just 3,763,000 viewers, up about 8% from last week's 3.45 million.
> 
> Hour one: 3.80 million
> Hour two: 3.88 million
> Hour three: 3.59 million


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...2014-did-the-authoritys-return-bring-back-the


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Third hour didn't have the most viewers, but was the highest in the demo, which should please WWE. Without any competition and the promise of Vince fuckery, I would have expected higher,but damage has been done to their base. Next week RAW airs against the ratings juggernaut that is the College Football National Championship, so expect these numbers to experience a marked decline. Good news for RAW is, after next week, they are free and clear of any major sporting events until the NCAA basketball championship game in early April.


----------



## SnapOrTap

No Monday Night Football.

Still couldn't hit 4 million.

Let's see how many people care about the ROMAN RUMBLE announcement fallout next week.


----------



## dougfisher_05

I kind of expected a bigger jump. Now I wonder what that raw after the rumble will do. The fans that tuned out don't seem to be coming back yet.


----------



## Empress

At least the third hour has stabilized in recent weeks. 

I don't know why they won't return to the formula that got them 4 million viewers just weeks ago. Solid story telling and angles that went somewhere. I didn't hate RAW, but it was lacking for the first episode of the year. I expected more. That was my first mistake. 

Wonder if the ratings for Smackdown will improve on USA. I'm only watching until my favorite TV shows come back from hiatus.


----------



## Brodus Clay

I can see Vince feuding Roman the majority of his career in order to make him work at all cost lol.


----------



## Lone Star

Dark_Raiden said:


> 2015 was the year of Rollins. Reigns is just trying to up ratings from where Rollins plummeted them.


You're an idiot or a troll. 

Rollins didn't plummet ratings, the loss of interest in a poor product did. Reigns vs The World is also doing nothing to bring those viewers back. Not surprised by these stats. It's going to take some time to transition away from the Cena Era. 

Going into another superman type Era isn't the way. Vince will learn this eventually.


----------



## RatedR10

Only a 39k bump from last week's show and this with no football competition. There's no excuse. They've alienated viewers with shitty shows for too long.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown Rating(New Year's Eve):

Source: http://www.pwmania.com/mason-ryans-...ng-wwe-network-raw-latest-the-rock-moana-clip*

– As PWMania.com reported, last Thursday’s New Year’s Eve edition of WWE SmackDown, the final show on Syfy, drew *1.658 million viewers*, down from last Tuesday’s Super SmackDown, which drew *2.264 million viewers*, and down from the *2.332 million viewers* that the previous Thursday episode drew.

The final rating for the last SmackDown of 2015 was a *1.15*. This is down from the *1.53 rating* for Super SmackDown and down from the *1.68* that the previous Thursday episode drew.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

That's gotta be disappointing for them. First Raw without a football game as competition; a World Title Main Event match, and Vince as the special guest referee for that match and they're still stuck in the mid 3's. Not good.


----------



## SnapOrTap

This Reigns vs the world storyline is what 90% of the show is built on, and that's what it's going to be going forward since the Royal Rumble essentially became the Roman Rumble.

If the ratings tank next week, I think it might be time to reevaluate some of those notions about how we can't "blame 1 person" for the ratings.

It's only fair after the shit that Seth got from some of the posters in this thread.


----------



## Empress

*1/4 Early Raw Ratings Info, plus interesting male/female data*

The TV ratings information for Monday’s Raw is arriving piecemeal as Nielsen gets back on track from the holidays. Here is the initial information we have received on the first Raw of 2016.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

– January 4: The first Raw of 2016 averaged 3.575 million viewers, nearly identical to the last Raw of 2015.

Despite no NFL competition and an advertised WWE Title match, viewership did not increase in the third hour. Hourly Break Down:

First Hour: 3.707 million viewers
Second Hour: 3.516 million viewers
Third Hour: 3.503 million viewers
The first hour drew the fewest males 18-49 viewers of the night, but drew the most females 18-49 viewers of the night.

Conversely, the third hour drew the most males 18-49 viewers of the night, but drew the fewest females 18-49 viewers of the night.

The data shows more female viewers watching Raw early, driving up the first hour of Raw, but more male viewers watching the end of the show to see what happens in the bigger segments.

– Raw’s average median age throughout the show was 43.8 years-old.

– One year ago, the first Raw of 2015 averaged 3.762 million viewers, about 200,000 more than this year’s kick-off.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/06/january4rawratings/


----------



## A-C-P

right in line with that 5-10% decrease in audience that Raw has seen over the past # of years.


----------



## Chrome

Not very good, and it's only gonna get worse next week with the National Championship game on.


----------



## Mr. I

Despite them having Vince advertised as well as a WWE title match, and no competition, no difference. They've already used up the initial bump from Vince by having him there three times in four weeks.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Even Vince and a title match can't save the numbers at this point. Hell, hour 3 is still the lowest of the three viewership wise and still 200k down from hour 1 to hour 3.

Social Outcasts getting a main event run may be the only solution at this point.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer:


> Monday's RAW ratings continue their disappointing trend. Details here. Some additional RAW ratings notes from our Paul Fontaine: "January 2015 was down 10% overall from January 2014. December 2015 was the 13th consecutive month that RAW ratings were down from the same month the previous year and they are well on their way to making it 14 months in a row. This is the longest streak like this since October 2006-June 2008, when they dropped 21 consecutive months. For the record, they were averaging between 3.15 and 3.95 ratings points at that time, about 35% higher than the current rating average."


----------



## RebelArch86

All I know is my family has been waiting to go to Royal Rumble forever. Been to mania, been to summer slam, rumble is everyone's favorite. It's in out city, we were set to go, then it became clear the direction WWES is going and they lost $2000. No interest in going anymore, not even the kids.

WWE has destroyed the rumble brand and need a serious show of good faith to make my family confident in spending the money, and putting the belt on Reigns is not it. Won't be spending thousands to boo.


----------



## boxing1836

RebelArch86 said:


> All I know is my family has been waiting to go to Royal Rumble forever. Been to mania, been to summer slam, rumble is everyone's favorite. It's in out city, we were set to go, then it became clear the direction WWES is going and they lost $2000. No interest in going anymore, not even the kids.
> 
> WWE has destroyed the rumble brand and need a serious show of good faith to make my family confident in spending the money, and putting the belt on Reigns is not it. Won't be spending thousands to boo.


um i think your missing out on one of the biggest storylines to come to wwe in years with njpw signings and lost of crazy debuts, but hey your call(and im not usually one to support going to wwe events recently)


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*No football, a Vince McMahon appearance, and a title match, and they only got a 1% increase? 

There is no excuse. They've alienated their fans with shit shows for far too long. *


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Source: http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/0...-4-without-monday-night-football-competition/

WWE Raw rating for the January 4 without Monday Night Football competition*

Monday’s WWE Raw scored a *2.49 rating*, up from the *2.47 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *3.575 million viewers*, up from the *3.536 million* average from last week.

Powell’s POV: These numbers have to be disappointing to WWE considering that this was the first time they didn’t face Monday Night Football since Labor Day. WWE will face strong college football competition next week in the form of the huge national championship game. The January 5, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *2.8 rating* with *3.762 million viewers*. It’s worth noting that the viewership did not substantially increase last year either.


----------



## Marrakesh

Deadman's Hand said:


> *No football, a Vince McMahon appearance, and a title match, and they only got a 1% increase?
> 
> There is no excuse. They've alienated their fans with shit shows for far too long. *


No football and a WWE title match that was hyped several times throughout the show as well as having been announced last week. 

Vince as special guest ref. How was Roman going to overcome them odds? 

Seemingly only their core fan base (who watch it despite the consistently shit quality) stayed tuned in. No one else cared. :ti 

Got tame reactions on social media too.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

Lone Star said:


> You're an idiot or a troll.
> 
> Rollins didn't plummet ratings, the loss of interest in a poor product did. Reigns vs The World is also doing nothing to bring those viewers back. Not surprised by these stats. It's going to take some time to transition away from the Cena Era.
> 
> Going into another superman type Era isn't the way. Vince will learn this eventually.


Ratings have gone up since Reigns has been champion. Rollins specifically got record lows as champion as did Sheamus. Reigns didn't. There's a clear difference. 

And yeah, loss of interest in a poor product. Part of the reason for a poor product? Rollins as champ. I know I stopped watching.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

[QUOTE

Powell’s POV: These numbers have to be disappointing to WWE considering that this was the first time they didn’t face Monday Night Football since Labor Day. WWE will face strong college football competition next week in the form of the huge national championship game. The January 5, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *2.8 rating* with *3.762 million viewers*. It’s worth noting that the viewership did not substantially increase last year either.[/QUOTE]

Even with Vince back, the ratings are barely up *and* WITHOUT Football *and* with a World Title match. Keep having Vince and World Title matches on every other week, because, you know, that won't get tiresome with the casuals.  WWE fucked themselves over the past few years.


----------



## Lone Star

Dark_Raiden said:


> Ratings have gone up since Reigns has been champion.


Right, let's ignore Vince McMahon's return, a world title change on RAW which seldom happen anymore, John Cena returning and the fact that since Reigns title win, the ratings have declined weekly, especially in the 3rd hour.



> And yeah, loss of interest in a poor product.


All that needs to be said is this..
@ShowStopper



> *"January 2015 was down 10% overall from January 2014. December 2015 was the 13th consecutive month that RAW ratings were down from the same month the previous year and they are well on their way to making it 14 months in a row. This is the longest streak like this since October 2006-June 2008, when they dropped 21 consecutive months. For the record, they were averaging between 3.15 and 3.95 ratings points at that time, about 35% higher than the current rating average."*


yes, loss of interest in a poor product. The above factual evidence is dreadful, and proves that not one man (Seth Rollins) is held responsible. 

Vince McMahon is rapidly losing viewers, yet forces us to eat the same stale product.


----------



## Catsaregreat

RebelArch86 said:


> All I know is my family has been waiting to go to Royal Rumble forever. Been to mania, been to summer slam, rumble is everyone's favorite. It's in out city, we were set to go, then it became clear the direction WWES is going and they lost $2000. No interest in going anymore, not even the kids.
> 
> WWE has destroyed the rumble brand and need a serious show of good faith to make my family confident in spending the money, and putting the belt on Reigns is not it. Won't be spending thousands to boo.


So fucking stupid. A RR for the WWE title happens once every 25 years and youre gonna blow your chance of seeing it because of some irrational hate for one guy and on an outcome that isnt even certain.


----------



## Londrick

Wonder how low the ratings need to go before WWE smartens up and "the third doctor" clears Daniel Bryan.


----------



## Marrakesh

Londrick said:


> Wonder how low the ratings need to go before WWE smartens up and "the third doctor" clears Daniel Bryan.


Would you take Bryan-Del Rio for the US title? Submission match maybe ? :lol 

I know I would. 

If we also had Ambrose- Heel Jericho for the IC title then that would be two really solid midcard support matches for Mania to go along with HHH/Reigns and whatever Brock and Taker end up doing. 

Would love to see Bryan appear and confront Del Rio on the post Rumble Raw after he retains vs Kalisto and mocks his size the next night. 

It would be the most high profile match for him that they would book on short notice. 

Getting carried away though, It's not gonna happen. :MAD


----------



## Dark_Raiden

Lone Star said:


> Right, let's ignore Vince McMahon's return, a world title change on RAW which seldom happen anymore, John Cena returning and the fact that since Reigns title win, the ratings have declined weekly, especially in the 3rd hour.
> 
> 
> 
> All that needs to be said is this..
> 
> @ShowStopper
> 
> 
> 
> yes, loss of interest in a poor product. The above factual evidence is dreadful, and proves that not one man (Seth Rollins) is held responsible.
> 
> Vince McMahon is rapidly losing viewers, yet forces us to eat the same stale product.


Factually wrong as ratings increased this week.


----------



## Empress

*SmackDown Doesn't Rank On Twitter
*

- It's worth noting that WWE SmackDown, which was the USA Network premiere, did not make Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings last night, which ranks the top 5 shows. "Guns in America: Obama Town Hall" led the night, followed by American Idol, the Lip Sync Battle premiere, Shades of Blue and Jimmy Fallon. SmackDown usually places in the top 3 or 4.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0108/606485/brock-lesnar-in-action-tonight/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

SmackDown viewership this week(1/7 -Move to USA)
*2.757M*(+66.3%)-Taped
*Rating awaited shortly...*

SmackDown viewership last week(12/31 -New Year's Eve/Final episode on SyFy)
*1.658M*-Taped
*1.15R*

3rd highest viewership since move to Thursdays on 1/15/15.

1/29/15(Live)
*2.952M
2.06R*

1/22/15
*2.814M
1.97R*

1/7/16
*2.757M
Rating awaited shortly...*


----------



## DoubtGin

#Smackdown 's debut on the USA Network did 2,757,000 viewers, the highest viewership in almost a year since 1/29/15. #WWE


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Mauro=RATINGS!!!!

This could be attributed to USA has better ratings than syfy, so it had a moree highly rated lead in.


----------



## DoubtGin

And there was some general interest because it was the "first" episode on USA so people thought they'd do something special I guess.


----------



## Empress

*Final rating for RAW on 1/4/16 released*

– As noted, Monday’s episode of WWE RAW, the first show of 2016 with Vince McMahon featured, drew 3.575 million viewers. This is up from last week’s 3.536 million viewers. The final rating for the show was a 2.49, up a bit from the 2.47 rating that the final RAW of 2015 drew.

http://wrestlechat.net/final-rating...saro-promotes-smackdowns-move-to-usa-network/


*How Did Last Night's WWE SmackDown Premiere On The USA Network Do?*

Last night's WWE SmackDown, which was the USA Network premiere, drew 2.757 million viewers.

This is up from the last SyFy airing on New Year's Eve, which drew 1.658 million viewers. This is also up from the Super SmackDown episode, which drew 2.264 million viewers. This is also up from the last regular Thursday SyFy airing, which drew 2.332 million viewers.

SmackDown was #2 for the night in viewership, behind The O'Reilly Factor on FOX News, and #2 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, right behind the season premiere of Lip Sync Battle on Spike.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...wwe-smackdown-premiere-on-the-usa-network-do/


----------



## validreasoning

A taped smackdown beat the two live NBA games on tnt combined...thats insane


----------



## The True Believer

Catsaregreat said:


> So fucking stupid. A RR for the WWE title happens once every 25 years and youre gonna blow your chance of seeing it because of some irrational hate for one guy and on an outcome that isnt even certain.


What's stupid about not spending thousands of dollars on something that you know you're not gonna be happy with? That seems like the opposite of stupid if anything. I mean, isn't the notion of putting your money where your mouth is, when it comes to quitting a product you don't appreciate cold turkey, something that pro-WWE fans keep calling out smarks to do? Now that someone's actually doing it, there's reason to complain?


----------



## Erik.

Ambrose/Owens main event is a draw :mark:

Whilst, I'm not serious about the above comment and feel there is a lot more to the reason why the ratings went up. When you have a feud like that which is clearly the best booked thing on the show and have such a personal feel to it where you feel the two hate eachother, you can get people invested.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Smackdown didn't do too much worse than Raw this week in terms of average of millions of viewers. :lol 2.7 million to 3.5 million, only an 800,000 difference. Looks like Vince is burning out his appearances and awful title matches every other week.


----------



## KC Armstrong

> NBA on TNT:
> 
> Celtics/Bulls: 1.393 million viewers
> Lakers/Kings: 1.238M
> 
> WWE Smackdown on USA, 2.757M
> Obama Town Hall on CNN: 1.881M



The taped B-show still beats the shit out of POTUS.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> SmackDown viewership this week(1/7 -Move to USA)
> *2.757M*(+66.3%)-Taped
> *1.93R*(+67.8%)-Taped
> 
> SmackDown viewership last week(12/31 -New Year's Eve/Final episode on SyFy)
> *1.658M*-Taped
> *1.15R*-Taped
> 
> 3rd highest viewership and 6th highest rating since move to Thursdays on 1/15/15.
> 
> 1/29/15(Live)
> *2.952M
> 2.06R*
> 
> 1/22/15
> *2.814M
> 1.97R*
> 
> 3/5/15
> *2.694M
> 1.94R*
> 
> 2/12/15
> *2.596M
> 1.94R*
> 
> 4/2/15(Post Mania)
> *2.743M
> 1.94R*
> 
> 1/7/16
> *2.757M
> 1.93R*


*WWE SmackDown Rating Way Up*

- As noted, this week's WWE SmackDown premiere on the USA Network drew *2.757 million* viewers, which is up from all recent airings - the *1.658 million* for the final Syfy episode of New Year's Eve, the *2.264 million* for Super SmackDown and the *2.332 million* viewers that the last regular Thursday Syfy airing drew.

The final rating for the show was a *1.93*. This is also up from all recent airings - *1.15* for the New Year's Eve Syfy episode, *1.53* for Super SmackDown and *1.68* for the last regular Syfy Thursday episode. This is also the highest SmackDown rating going back to the post-WrestleMania 31 episode, which drew a *1.94*.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0109/606507/wwe-smackdown-rating-way-up/


----------



## FITZ

RebelArch86 said:


> All I know is my family has been waiting to go to Royal Rumble forever. Been to mania, been to summer slam, rumble is everyone's favorite. It's in out city, we were set to go, then it became clear the direction WWES is going and they lost $2000. No interest in going anymore, not even the kids.
> 
> WWE has destroyed the rumble brand and need a serious show of good faith to make my family confident in spending the money, and putting the belt on Reigns is not it. Won't be spending thousands to boo.


The Royal Rumble sold out in under 30 minutes. WWE lost no money by you not going.


----------



## LilOlMe

KC Armstrong said:


> The taped B-show still beats the shit out of POTUS.


Trolling, but I'm pretty sure that POTUS town hall aired on multiple channels.

Someone on another site showed that the Smackdown rise was directly proportionate to the advantage USA has over SYFY average viewership.

So yeah, looks like we should expect Smackdown to maintain this type of viewership going forward. It's all down to the channel.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Jan. 4, 2016): Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus hits big*

This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Jan. 4 in San Antonio, Texas. It was a decidedly average show but with no competition from football and a major main event WWE title match, with Vince McMahon as special guest referee, viewers were up. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).

Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):

1. Reigns vs. Sheamus with Vince McMahon as special referee (3,620,917)
2. Chris Jericho returns (1,066,257)
3. Roman Reigns doesn't back down to the McMahon family (979,209)
4. The Wyatt Family levels Big Show and Ryback (923,028)
5. Kevin Owens vs. Neville (608,584)
6. Becky Lynch vs. Charlotte (549,076)
7. Kalisto & The Dudley Boyz vs. The New Day (534,872)
8. The Usos vs. League of Nations (531,467)
9. Dolph Ziggler vs. Heath Slater (459,863)
10. Mr. McMahon gives pre-match instructions to Roman Reigns, Sheamus (390,753)
11. Titus O'Neil vs. Stardust (375,036)

Putting the WWE world heavyweight championship on the line has proven to be a big hit in two separate Reigns vs. Sheamus matches in recent weeks. Jericho's return did well, predictably enough, as most returns play well on YouTube. But the big change to watch for here is the Divas match jumping up to the six spot with nearly double the views Divas videos typically do in these rankings.

The follow up title match on SmackDown is the lowest ranked of any of the SmackDown videos this week but we'll see if they can keep it up on Raw next week.

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...s-jan-4-2016-roman-reigns-vs-sheamus-hits-big


----------



## 3ku1

Empress said:


> *WWE Raw YouTube rankings (Jan. 4, 2016): Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus hits big*
> 
> This past Monday night's episode of Raw took place on Jan. 4 in San Antonio, Texas. It was a decidedly average show but with no competition from football and a major main event WWE title match, with Vince McMahon as special guest referee, viewers were up. We're back to check in on this week's YouTube rankings (look at last week's here).
> 
> Here they are (with view counts as of this writing):
> 
> 1. Reigns vs. Sheamus with Vince McMahon as special referee (3,620,917)
> 2. Chris Jericho returns (1,066,257)
> 3. Roman Reigns doesn't back down to the McMahon family (979,209)
> 4. The Wyatt Family levels Big Show and Ryback (923,028)
> 5. Kevin Owens vs. Neville (608,584)
> 6. Becky Lynch vs. Charlotte (549,076)
> 7. Kalisto & The Dudley Boyz vs. The New Day (534,872)
> 8. The Usos vs. League of Nations (531,467)
> 9. Dolph Ziggler vs. Heath Slater (459,863)
> 10. Mr. McMahon gives pre-match instructions to Roman Reigns, Sheamus (390,753)
> 11. Titus O'Neil vs. Stardust (375,036)
> 
> Putting the WWE world heavyweight championship on the line has proven to be a big hit in two separate Reigns vs. Sheamus matches in recent weeks. Jericho's return did well, predictably enough, as most returns play well on YouTube. But the big change to watch for here is the Divas match jumping up to the six spot with nearly double the views Divas videos typically do in these rankings.
> 
> The follow up title match on SmackDown is the lowest ranked of any of the SmackDown videos this week but we'll see if they can keep it up on Raw next week.
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...s-jan-4-2016-roman-reigns-vs-sheamus-hits-big


Wyatts racking up those numbers :mark:


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.536M
H2-3.206M
H3-3.228M

Avg-3.323M*


----------



## JBLoser

Not too surprising since the CFB Playoff kind of dominated cable TV last night. 5 of the top-ranked shows were all related, including SportsCenter with the huge lead-in from that game.


----------



## SnapOrTap

3.2 million for the Roman Rumble.

Down another 300,000 from last week.

Show is about Reigns and everyone else is an after thought.

Can't wait for them to sell out Wrestlemania with BIG DOG leading the way.

WAT A DRAW. 

WAT A DRAW.

SPEAR

SPEAR

SPEAR


----------



## Empress

Why is Roman Reigns being shit on again for the ratings? They held up alright against football. Not great, but not to the depths of hell. Unless I was watching a different show, Roman appeared at the start of the show, had one line and then didn't show up again until the 10:45 mark. A lot of other talents were featured, including Ambrose (promo and match), New Day (30 minutes) and a US title change (Kalisto). 

All things considered, the ratings aren't in a free fall. They're not the 4 million they reached weeks ago, but not free falling. I'm most impressed that the third hour has been stable and seems to have grown this week. 

This week's ratings were basically the norm. And if we're going to throw shots, Roman's numbers as Champ are higher than the last two featured champs (Seth and Sheamus).


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Rollins fans just don't know when to stop. These numbers are better than anything he's ever done. It feels good to have a REAL champion, and not one who gets bent over every week.*


----------



## RatedR10

I'm not blaming anyone for the decline considering the competition, because I'm a huge advocate for *a better program = better ratings* rather than pitting shitty ratings on one guy. 

That said, considering the boost in the 3rd hour, albeit, a small one, I'm inclined to the boost being because viewers knew Lesnar was going to be there. Not a big boost, because in today's WWE, no single person is a huge draw who will draw huge numbers, but a decent one after the show was building towards whether Lesnar would be in the Rumble or not.

The show itself was dreadful and just dragged on and on and on... I'm surprised the 2nd hour lost _only_ 300k viewers.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Next week begins a 3 month run with no sports competition, so I would hope the ratings increase as they can start framing the Road to Mania a bit.


----------



## Empress

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Rollins fans just don't know when to stop. These numbers are better than anything he's ever done. It feels good to have a REAL champion, and not one who gets bent over every week.*


I consider myself a Rollins fan, but I see folks taking cheap shots when Seth's numbers were worse and he had more exposure. 

A part of me wishes Roman could bring in more viewers. He hasn't. He probably won't bring back the AE or RA audience. No one has that kind of drawing power in today's WWE. But it's not as if the numbers under Roman are reaching historic lows.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Rollins fans just don't know when to stop. These numbers are better than anything he's ever done. It feels good to have a REAL champion, and not one who gets bent over every week.*


Rollins and Reigns are both geeks in terms of drawing at the top of the card. If you shit on Rollins, you have to give Reigns the same type of shit and vice versa. Rollins was not a draw, Reigns is not a draw either. That much is FACT.

The only full time needle movers in the company are Daniel Bryan and John Cena, and both are injured. Regardless, Next week the ratings should be back up to near 4 million and it should be smooth sailing until Mania.


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Ratings 1/11: Viewership Drops Versus Strong Competition*


WWE RAW Ratings Experience Drop This Week

This week’s edition of RAW on the USA Network drew an average of 3.323 million viewers. This is down 250,000 viewers compared to last week’s broadcast (3.575 million).

While the loss in viewership is big, RAW was also up against some incredibly tough competition. The NCAA college football national championship game on ESPN drew a staggering 25.667 million viewers (over twice as many viewers as some NFL Monday Night Football games this season).

The hourly breakdown for the show was as follows:

First Hour: 3.536 million viewers (3.707 million last week)
Second Hour: 3.206 million viewers (3.516 million last week)
Third Hour: 3.228 million viewers (3.503 million last week)

Despite the drop, there are some positives. The third hour actually slightly gained viewers rather than losing viewers, which bucked the trend of the third hour being the least viewed hour of the show as of late. Hours two and three actually held pretty steady, which can probably be attributed to some interest in both the television return of Brock Lesnar, as well as the “Mr. McMahon’s One Versus All” challenge for Roman Reigns. The U.S. title change during hour two also created some social media buzz.

RAW was number three on cable for the night, losing out to the NCAA national championship game on ESPN, as well as Sportscenter on ESPN following the game.

http://www.topropepress.com/news/21711/wwe-raw-ratings-111-viewership-drops-big#


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

But seriously, who expected this show to get a good rating? The second I saw that Stardust and Titus O'niel were having another match, I was just like "This show is fucking doomed".


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Uhh


The Inbred Goatman said:


> The only full time needle movers in the company are Daniel Bryan and John Cena, and both are injured. Regardless, Next week the ratings should be back up to near 4 million and it should be smooth sailing until Mania.


*Bullshit. I've proven on multiple occasions that the post Shield breakup numbers with Reigns in the main event were better than Bryans for MONTHS. He's not a needle mover at all.*


----------



## Born of Osiris

Empress said:


> I consider myself a Rollins fan, but I see folks taking cheap shots when Seth's numbers were worse and he had more exposure.
> 
> A part of me wishes Roman could bring in more viewers. He hasn't. He probably won't bring back the AE or RA audience. No one has that kind of drawing power in today's WWE. But it's not as if the numbers under Roman are reaching historic lows.


Reigns bringing in shit ratings but not as low as Rollins shit ratings means nothing when in the end it's shit ratings :kobe3


----------



## Chrome

Surprised it wasn't lower tbh. I feel like I say that a lot, but yeah. One last ass whoopin' from America's favorite sport for the road.


----------



## Louaja89

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Rollins fans just don't know when to stop. These numbers are better than anything he's ever done. It feels good to have a REAL champion, and not one who gets bent over every week.*


I'm not blaming Reigns for the ratings because it has been proved that the quality of the show is the draw but to say that these numbers are better than any numbers Rollins ever did is laughable. Even at the worst of Rollins' reign, the numbers were around 3,4 and 3,5 M viewers which is better than what RAW did last night with an advertised appareance of Brock Lesnar.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> Uhh
> 
> *Bullshit. I've proven on multiple occasions that the post Shield breakup numbers with Reigns in the main event were better than Bryans for MONTHS. He's not a needle mover at all.*


The Night after Summerslam, the main event segment revolving around Bryan and The Authority gained over 1 million viewers. The only real bad thing about Bryan's run was the Summerslam buyrate(which at that point Bryan wasn't really a maineventer) and the Battleground buyrate which was a PPV that was doomed from the start.

The Shield break up obviously did good numbers, it was a huge angle, but Bryan was a needle mover during his main event run from September 2013-April 2014 when he was presented as a top guy. Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose singularly, never pushed the ratings that Bryan did in a sustained amount of time.


----------



## Empress

☆Shala☆;55998465 said:


> Reigns bringing in shit ratings but not as low as Rollins shit ratings means nothing when in the end it's shit ratings :kobe3


Reigns helped bring in 4 million viewers a few weeks ago. But he only gets full "credit" when the ratings dip.

I never said Reigns was Austin or Rock in terms of being a draw. But it's ridiculous to see some Seth fans act as though the numbers were higher under him. They weren't.

:kobe3


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Empress said:


> Reigns helped bring in 4 million viewers a few weeks ago. But he only gets full "credit" when the ratings dip.
> 
> I never said Reigns was Austin or Rock in terms of being a draw. But it's ridiculous to see some Seth fans act as though the numbers were higher under him. They weren't.
> 
> :kobe3


Wasn't that the show that Vince came back? If so, it's pretty silly to give Reigns the credit for that IMO.

I'm not saying Reigns can't draw, he can. But he really needs a dance partner, a top heel that contrasts with Reigns. I'm still baffled that they chose Sheamus to be the top heel over Ambrose and Owens, it's just shocking, really. How can he draw when his primary feud was against someone no one gives a shit about? When Cena won the title, they had challengers ready for him, JBL, Christian, Jericho, Angle etc. With Reigns they have FUCKING SHEAMUS!

Also, I find it incredibly childish for us to refer to each other as "Reigns Fans" or "Rollins Fans", can we just not have an educated discussion without just labeling someone being biased to one guy over the other?


----------



## A-C-P

I am interested to see what effect this may have on the #s for hour 1 next week, b/c in theory they should be much higher b/c no CFP Play-off game, but my God was most of the show awful last night. And when there is a bad show it tends to have a bigger effect on the following week's #

Or maybe Lesnar at the end as a hook will retain some viewers who were disappointed in this week's show.


----------



## Empress

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Wasn't that the show that Vince came back? If so, it's pretty silly to give Reigns the credit for that IMO.
> 
> I'm not saying Reigns can't draw, he can. But he really needs a dance partner, a top heel that contrasts with Reigns. I'm still baffled that they chose Sheamus to be the top heel over Ambrose and Owens, it's just shocking, really. How can he draw when his primary feud was against someone no one gives a shit about? When Cena won the title, they had challengers ready for him, JBL, Christian, Jericho, Angle etc. With Reigns they have FUCKING SHEAMUS!


I never gave Reigns full credit for that show drawing 4 million viewers. I've always said that he deserves some credit. Folks wanted to act as if he played no factor at all despite the buzz coming out of TLC. But yet they turn around and blame Roman for "bad" ratings because the show is "all about him". Well, so was the one where he won the belt. 

I agree with you about Sheamus. By the time he cashed in, he lost his heat. Sheamus is great in the ring. I really wish he'd been booked better. He could've been a top heel. At least they're booking Owens like a force. 

Roman does need strong heels. I'm hoping HHH returns soon. Reigns needs him as a contrast, especially if HHH goes full heel.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Empress said:


> Roman does need strong heels. I'm hoping HHH returns soon. Reigns needs him as a contrast, especially if HHH goes full heel.


Well, that just puts them back to where they started after Mania. They really need to start building some guys up, and they just don't. At this rate the feud for Reigns after Mania is going to be Braun Strowman, and that just screams TV DEATH.


----------



## ShadowSucks92

And here was me thinking we were past all that Rollins/Reigns doesn't draw crap, a good product draws plain and simple, remember when Rollins was Champion, there was a RAW with over 5m viewers and when Reigns was fighting for the Championship in November got less than 3m viewers, a good product with buzz will get viewers


----------



## JTB33b

Empress said:


> Why is Roman Reigns being shit on again for the ratings? They held up alright against football. Not great, but not to the depths of hell. Unless I was watching a different show, Roman appeared at the start of the show, had one line and then didn't show up again until the 10:45 mark. A lot of other talents were featured, including Ambrose (promo and match), New Day (30 minutes) and a US title change (Kalisto).
> 
> All things considered, the ratings aren't in a free fall. They're not the 4 million they reached weeks ago, but not free falling. I'm most impressed that the third hour has been stable and seems to have grown this week.
> 
> This week's ratings were basically the norm. And if we're going to throw shots, Roman's numbers as Champ are higher than the last two featured champs (Seth and Sheamus).


Because they are building everything around Roman Reigns. They may as well change Monday Night Raw to Monday night Reigns. It doesn't matter that he only appeared in two segments, the whole show was about his 1 vs all story and the entire buildup to the rumble is about him.


----------



## A-C-P

JTB33b said:


> Because they are building everything around Roman Reigns. They may as well change Monday Night Raw to Monday night Reigns. It doesn't matter that he only appeared in two segments, the whole show was about his 1 vs all story and the entire buildup to the rumble is about him.


In all fairness after this week's Raw the Rumble is now being built on:

A Reigns vs Lesnar Title match with 28 other guys in the way :lmao


----------



## Empress

JTB33b said:


> Because they are building everything around Roman Reigns. They may as well change Monday Night Raw to Monday night Reigns. It doesn't matter that he only appeared in two segments, the whole show was about his 1 vs all story and the entire buildup to the rumble is about him.


It does matter if he appeared in only two segments. That negates any argument that the show is only and just about Roman Reigns. Unless New Day/Jericho, Owens/Ambrose, Charlotte/Becky and Kalisto/Del Rio are angles you believe didn't take place last night.


----------



## DoublePass

LOL 3.3 million. Reigns continues to fail as champ. He's as atrocious of a draw as that other geek, Rollins, was.


----------



## Erik.

Numbers aren't good. Neither is the product though so not surprised.


----------



## THANOS

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> Uhh
> 
> *Bullshit. I've proven on multiple occasions that the post Shield breakup numbers with Reigns in the main event were better than Bryans for MONTHS. He's not a needle mover at all.*


Come on dude, there's more than enough evidence out there of Bryan's ratings/viewers performance, most of it back when we had access to the quarter/minute breakdowns, and could see how much of a force Bryan was in the ratings department. His terrible Kane feud post Mania 30 was actually outdrawing Shield/Evolution most of the weeks. There's also the massive impact he has on the Smackdown viewership anytime he's wrestled/appeared on the show.

Reigns is not an anti-draw or anything like that, from what I can read, but Bryan is certainly a "needle mover" and has been since mid-2013, even farther back if you want to dig up his Smackdown numbers as World Champion (Comparing him and Henry as Champs to the figures when Orton/Sheamus became champ paints a strong picture of Bryan's drawing ability back then).


----------



## MarkovKane

DoublePass said:


> LOL 3.3 million. Reigns continues to fail as champ. He's as atrocious of a draw as that other geek, Rollins, was.


Of those 3.3 million, I wonder how many thought what I though last night...

What the hell is this crap, this is most stupidest episode I have seen in my life. I am sure at least 1 million people who watched, wish they didn't. 

I don't know why I keep watching, but after this RAW, its like "how can they possibly get worst", or "were at rock bottom, the only way is up".


----------



## Badbadrobot

Empress said:


> I never gave Reigns full credit for that show drawing 4 million viewers. I've always said that he deserves some credit. Folks wanted to act as if he played no factor at all despite the buzz coming out of TLC. But yet they turn around and blame Roman for "bad" ratings because the show is "all about him". Well, so was the one where he won the belt.
> 
> I agree with you about Sheamus. By the time he cashed in, he lost his heat. Sheamus is great in the ring. I really wish he'd been booked better. He could've been a top heel. At least they're booking Owens like a force.
> 
> Roman does need strong heels. I'm hoping HHH returns soon. Reigns needs him as a contrast, especially if HHH goes full heel.


Yeah using a part timer solves everything and improves the product in the long term.........................

Uh no


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*WWE Raw rating for the January 11 episode opposite college football championship game*

Monday’s WWE Raw scored a *2.36 rating*, down from the *2.49 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *3.323 million* viewers, down from the *3.575 million* average from last week.

Powell’s POV: The college football championship game delivered 25.667 million viewers for ESPN. It’s a huge number, though it was down from the record breaking 33 million viewers who watched last year’s title game. The January 12, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *2.71 rating* with *3.905 million* viewers.

*http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/0...-opposite-college-football-championship-game/*


----------



## Empress

Badbadrobot said:


> Yeah using a part timer solves everything and improves the product in the long term.........................
> 
> Uh no


HHH isn't an active wrestler anymore but he was a regular character on RAW before TLC. HHH/Reigns would be better than McMahon/Reigns IMO. My comment was in relation to angles, not ratings.


----------



## Trivette

Still in the low 2's despite all the high profile NFL games already out of the way this past weekend. Something's gotta change. WWE please don't give us another lackluster RTWM. My heart just can't take it...

That said, chompin' at the bit for Jan. 27th and Lucha Underground Season 2 :mark:


----------



## Wildcat410

Adding (1)an injury riddled depleted roster to (2)the NCAA Title game and (3)longterm decline in the ratings and this is no surprise.

The numbers seen in 2015 could very well be establishing a new norm, sadly. That is, if they can hold them.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It's silly to blame on person for shit ratings, but all some people are doing is it giving it back for when some claimed ratings would be much better once someone else took the title. They're still in the same range they were starting back in the Summer, mid to low 3's. I'd be interested to see how these numbers are doing in comparison to last January, which was also an all time low for the RTWM ratings.

Color me unsurprised that people would rather watch football (even non NFL football) over seeing the same BORING Authority/Reigns opening segment every week while two people put on the worst acted segments of all time and seeing someone beat the fuck out of everybody week in and week out. Shocker.


----------



## antdvda

They are hoping a bunch of casual adults watch their product, but over the last 10 years they have stripped all the adult content from their programming.

Basically what you are seeing is the ratings going through a sieve where the only thing remaining is the hardcore fans that will watch two siloettes wrestle each other for no reason.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Who cares who brings in what ratings.

The show is shit. It's built around a shit Authority and a goofy ass champion. Steph vs Roman. Oh My! :cole 

Hope they have a match for the Divas belt at WM.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Wait wait wait wait.

Wasn't last year's RAW that was at the same time as the National Championship game close to 4 million viewers?


----------



## SnapOrTap

ShowStopper said:


> It's silly to blame on person for shit ratings, but all some people are doing is it giving it back for when some claimed ratings would be much better once someone else took the title. They're still in the same range they were starting back in the Summer, mid to low 3's. I'd be interested to see how these numbers are doing in comparison to last January, which was also an all time low for the RTWM ratings.
> 
> Color me unsurprised that people would rather watch football (even non NFL football) over seeing the same BORING Authority/Reigns opening segment every week while two people put on the worst acted segments of all time and seeing someone beat the fuck out of everybody week in and week out. Shocker.


I would rather watch Gilmore Girls Season 3 over anything that has Roman Reigns in it. 

I'm a hater. 

:Cocky


----------



## SnapOrTap

And just to add more flavor, I'd argue Roman is an anti draw recently. 

ROMAN 2:16 BITCHES.

NEVER FORGET.

:Rollins:Seth:Cocky:bryanlol:honoraryblack


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> And just to add more flavor, I'd argue Roman is an anti draw recently.
> 
> ROMAN 2:16 BITCHES.
> 
> NEVER FORGET.
> 
> :Rollins:Seth:Cocky:bryanlol:honoraryblack


If you want to turn this thread into a pissing contest and back & forth, I can do that. I can put up stats and articles about the ratings hitting record lows while Seth was champion. I never piled on him, but it's ridiculous that his hardcore stans are now taking cheap shots. Seth was never The Rock, Stone Cold or a lesser extent Daniel Bryan. Reigns may not be setting Nielsen on fire but he cleared the low bar that was set for him in recent months.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

From the night after WM to October, the first time Raw fell to a 2.3 rating(last night's rating) in 2015 was the last week of September. Lets not act like the ratings fell as soon as Seth won the title. Didn't hit 2.3 until the last week of September, 6 months after he won the title.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Sufferin Succotash you guys! Supposedly we got a 'real' champion finally. Thank goodness for that. Seth Rollins was a horrible heel for not bringing in the millions of viewers Cena and Vince lost throughout the last decade.

The entertainment level of the Big Dog is through the roof. Move over on the mic CM Punk, he got this. Hey Undertaker, it's the Big Dog's yard now!

Ratings Ratings Ratings!


----------



## SnapOrTap

Empress said:


> If you want to turn this thread into a pissing contest and back & forth, I can do that. I can put up stats and articles about the ratings hitting record lows while Seth was champion. I never piled on him, but it's ridiculous that his hardcore stans are now taking cheap shots. Seth was never The Rock, Stone Cold or a lesser extent Daniel Bryan. Reigns may not be setting Nielsen on fire *but he cleared the low bar that was set for him in recent months.*


I mean he set it himself at 2.16. It's not like it'll get any lower...

Yet. 

:ambrose4


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lets also not forget that Vince has been on these shows and we've had multiple World Title matches over the past few weeks, as well, which is a help to the ratings. And these are two things (Vince and World Title matches on Raw) that some of the previous Champions *DIDN'T* have to help them. And they're still in the same range. So, yeah..


----------



## SnapOrTap

I mean you have the guy THAT HASN'T LOST CLEAN in 4 years as your champion.

So credible. Yet ratings are in a dumpster. 

I don't know who else you can blame at this point (aside from creative). 

When you have a mediocre talent as the face of the company + a dog doodoo creative booking team, you can't really expect ratings to be on the rise. 

I still stand by the fact that they had a 66% chance to succeed from the Shield when they were deciding who would've been the guy. Needless to say, they fucked up and I think to some extent they know by the fact that they might take the belt from at RR. They need a champion that can actually put eyes on the product, and that guy isn't Reigns.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

ShowStopper said:


> Lets also not forget that Vince has been on these shows and we've had multiple World Title matches over the past few weeks, as well, which is a help to the ratings. And these are two things (Vince and World Title matches on Raw) that some of the previous Champions *DIDN'T* have to help them. And they're still in the same range. So, yeah..


And the fact that we were supposed to hate Seth and like this goof.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*An advertised Brock Lesnar return, Vince McMahon on TV (again), and the rating still went down.

It feels pretty good to not watch WWE's shit, and still see their ratings fall. :lenny5*


----------



## dougfisher_05

Not even Lesnar could save them from losing fans to the game. 

Glorious. Let the great ratings decline of 2015 carry on!


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> I mean he set it himself at 2.16. It's not like it'll get any lower...
> 
> Yet.
> 
> :ambrose4



The 2:16 you bring up was when Sheamus had the belt, not Roman Reigns. I don't instigate fights/drama just because. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. In this instance, I'm not. 

*
This Week’s Final WWE RAW Rating Considered A “Disaster”; Rating Lowest Since Attitude Era*
Read more at http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/645...lowest-since-attitude-era#WyVPd5IsjEYlThia.99



ShowStopper said:


> Lets also not forget that Vince has been on these shows and we've had multiple World Title matches over the past few weeks, as well, which is a help to the ratings. And these are two things (Vince and World Title matches on Raw) that some of the previous Champions *DIDN'T* have to help them. And they're still in the same range. So, yeah..


Seth had 45 minutes of a three hour show consistently centered on him. Sheamus was slightly aided by the McMahon angle. 

Speaking of Vince, does he get any blame for the bad ratings? After all, he was credited for the spike of 4 million viewers a few weeks ago. 

The ratings aren't great but they're better than they have been. They've at least stabilized.


----------



## dougfisher_05

I love this thread so much. 

The product has mostly sucked since 2002-2003, yet here everyone seems to be arguing about which guy is to blame. 

The ratings need to plummet more. I envision a day where I tune into raw and I go "woah, what is this?! This looks different?!"


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> The 2:26 you bring up was when Sheamus had the belt, not Roman Reigns. He won the belt and the ratings went further into shit. I don't instigate fights just because. If I'm wrong, I'll say so. In this instance, I'm not.
> 
> This Week’s Final WWE RAW Rating Considered A “Disaster”; Rating Lowest Since Attitude Era
> Read more at http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/645...lowest-since-attitude-era#WyVPd5IsjEYlThia.99
> 
> 
> 
> Seth had 45 minutes of a three hour show consistently centered on him. Sheamus was slightly aided by the McMahon angle.
> 
> Speaking of Vince, does he get any blame for the bad ratings? After all, he was credited for the spike of 4 million viewers a few weeks ago.
> 
> The ratings aren't great but they're better than they have been.


45 minutes of a new world champion being on a show isn't the same as being in a feud with Vince McMahon and having multiple world title defenses on Raw. Vince and World Title defenses are ratings draws; or at least they should be. I'm not pining it all on Reigns at all, but if you don't think the past few weeks hasn't been built around him; I don't know what else to say. He was in the first and closing segments last night. The guy in those segments is the top guy. The main event was him vs. the entire roster (at least was announced that way) and that was announced early in the show. It's the product. Also, ratings didn't get to their lowest until November, which Rollins was on 0 Raws for that month.

And yes, you can blame Vince, as well. He's had a hand in it, too.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Roman Empire falling even further.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> 45 minutes of a new world champion being on a show isn't the same as being in a feud with Vince McMahon and having multiple world title defenses on Raw. Vince and World Title defenses are ratings draws; or at least they should be. I'm not pining it all on Reigns at all, but if you don't think the past few weeks has been built around him; I don't know what else to say. He was in the first and closing segments last night. The guy in those segments is the top guy. The main event was him vs. the entire roster (at least was announced that way) and that was announced early in the show. It's the product.
> 
> And yes, you can blame Vince, as well. He's had a hand in it, too.


I'm not denying that Reigns has been a featured part of the show. The main storyline is about him. I don't deny that and I apologize if I've given that impression. But there are other angles taking places such as Owens/Ambrose, Lesnar's return, Becky/Charlotte and New Day. 

As for exposure vs. being in an angle with Vince McMahon, I could argue that the Authority was a Vince stand in for Seth. 

Anyway, I do like Seth. I wish he had been booked better and I'm sorry he's injured. I just took exception to Roman being shit on for bad ratings when there has been a slight increase while he's been champ. It's not huge but it's something. The product is lacking overall, but at least viewership is quasi stable.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THANOS said:


> Come on dude, there's more than enough evidence out there of Bryan's ratings/viewers performance, most of it back when we had access to the quarter/minute breakdowns, and could see how much of a force Bryan was in the ratings department. His terrible Kane feud post Mania 30 was actually outdrawing Shield/Evolution most of the weeks. There's also the massive impact he has on the Smackdown viewership anytime he's wrestled/appeared on the show.
> 
> Reigns is not an anti-draw or anything like that, from what I can read, but Bryan is certainly a "needle mover" and has been since mid-2013, even farther back if you want to dig up his Smackdown numbers as World Champion (Comparing him and Henry as Champs to the figures when Orton/Sheamus became champ paints a strong picture of Bryan's drawing ability back then).


*Not saying you, since you haven't blamed Reigns for ratings since WM season, but there are plenty of people quick to jump on his nuts for drops and give him no credit for increases, yet ignore the fact that Bryan had the most compelling storyline on the show to draw that interest. The show was also much better from top to bottom with The Shield at their peak. Put Bryan in pointless 20 minute matches with Ziggler every week and see if he brings in 1 million viewers. It's all in the booking.*


The Inbred Goatman said:


> The Night after Summerslam, the main event segment revolving around Bryan and The Authority gained over 1 million viewers. The only real bad thing about Bryan's run was the Summerslam buyrate(which at that point Bryan wasn't really a maineventer) and the Battleground buyrate which was a PPV that was doomed from the start.
> 
> The Shield break up obviously did good numbers, it was a huge angle, but Bryan was a needle mover during his main event run from September 2013-April 2014 when he was presented as a top guy. Reigns, Rollins, Ambrose singularly, never pushed the ratings that Bryan did in a sustained amount of time.


*And here's one of the many examples of the double standards and hypocrisy prevalent in this thread. Bryan gets full credit for a compelling angle, yet everyone is quick to attribute positivity and ratings increases to Vince and the storyline while ignoring Roman's involvement, but soon as ratings drop WITH VINCE ON EVERY SHOW AND THE SAME STORYLINE CONTINUING, it's ALL Roman's fault. ut with that shit. I could easily skew facts and point at the TLC aftermath centered around Reigns that created the largest viewership spike since The Rock in 2011 as proof that he himself is a draw. I could also point out that no PPV outside of Wrestlemania has drawn that much post show interest. I could also point out that Reigns alone did better numbers than advertised appearances by Lesnar, Undertaker, and Steve Austin in 2015, but I have enough common sense to know it was great booking.*




Louaja89 said:


> Even at the worst of Rollins' reign, the numbers were around 3,4 and 3,5 M viewers


*This is false, because Reigns does NOT have several sets of record low ratings attached to his title reign. *


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I'm not denying that Reigns has been a featured part of the show. The main storyline is about him. I don't deny that and I apologize if I've given that impression. But there are other angles taking places such as Owens/Ambrose, Lesnar's return, Becky/Charlotte and New Day.
> 
> As for exposure vs. being in an angle with Vince McMahon, I could argue that the Authority was a Vince stand in for Seth.
> 
> Anyway, I do like Seth. I wish he had been booked better and I'm sorry he's injured. I just took exception to Roman being shit on for bad ratings when there has been a slight increase. It's not huge but it's something.


There's always other angles on shows. Listen, Rollins isn't a draw. We all know that. No one is changing their mind on that. So, why Rollins is even a factor here, I really don't know. I think all other people are saying is that neither is anyone else right now. They've been in the mid to low 3's for awhile now, except for November, which was when Sheamus was the Champion and feuding with Reigns, and they were even lower than that dipping into the 2's. They stepped up the intensity of Raws recently by having Vince on most of the shows over the past month, a Cena comeback, and a couple of World Title defenses; and ratings have stayed the same. I bet there are other previous Champions that would love to have those things on Raw back when they were Champion. It's the product more than anything else; I stand by that.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

To paraphrase Draymond Green (who would make one heck of a wrestler, BTW)...

Did the show that go against the National Championship last year draw 3.89 million viewers? Yep.

Did that show have Vince McMahon? Nope.

Did I watch that show (or at least, parts of it)? Yep.

Have I seen a second of Raw outside of Botchamania episodes in the past two months? Nope.

Am I happy with that decision? Yep.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Also, ratings for Rollin's run didn't fall under a 2.5 until the first week of September, which is when the NFL season starts. But every other Raw from the night after WM to the last week of August was over a 2.5. I have the chart. And Rollins didn't have Vince on his shows trying to get him over every week, nor did he have World Title defenses outside of the one vs. Neville. :lol


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> And Rollins didn't have Vince on his shows trying to get him over every week, nor did he have World Title defenses.


*Too bad Reigns was already super over after beating Triple H's ass at TLC and never stopped being the most over guy since. If you want to deny that, I can refer you to the entire month of getting his name chanted in various cities, most of which including the east coast.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Too bad Reigns was already super over after beating Triple H's ass at TLC and never stopped being the most over guy since. *


Which is why some people (not me) put the blame on him for the recent ratings not increasing.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> There's always other angles on shows. Listen, Rollins isn't a draw. * We all know that. No one is changing their mind on that. So, why Rollins is even a factor here, I really don't know. I think all other people are saying is that neither is anyone else right now.* They've been in the mid to low 3's for awhile now, except for November, which was when Sheamus was the Champion and feuding with Reigns, and they were even lower than that dipping into the 2's. They stepped up the intensity of Raws recently by having Vince on most of the shows over the past month, a Cena comeback, and a couple of World Title defenses; and ratings have stayed the same. I bet there are other previous Champions that would love to have those things on Raw back when they were Champion. It's the product more than anything else; I stand by that.


I only mentioned Seth because some in this thread wanted to play tit for tat. I decided to play too today. It's petty, but I own that. 

And I agree that is the product. There's only so much you can do with weak material. Reigns, as much as I like him, can't rise above it and Vince has lost some of his luster.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I only mentioned Seth because some in this thread wanted to play tit for tat. I decided to play too today. It's petty, but I own that.
> 
> And I agree that is the product. There's only so much you can do with weak material. Reigns, as much as I like him, can't rise above it and Vince has lost some of his luster.


Only because they took shit for months on end, too, but I hear you.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Only because they took shit for months on end, too, but I hear you.


To switch into Seth Rollins mark real quick, if they had just booked him right, he'd be so legit right now. He was fucking amazing on UpUpDownDown. It'll never make sense to me why the WWE didn't utilize his exposure more. Although, maybe all that screen time made him a better talker/personality. I was trying to figure out where Seth began and Colby ended during the Madden Tournament.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> To switch into Seth Rollins mark real quick, if they had just booked him right, he'd be so legit right now. *He was fucking amazing on UpUpDownDown*. It'll never make sense to me why the WWE didn't utilize his exposure more. Although, maybe all that screen time made him a better talker/personality. I was trying to figure out where Seth began and Colby ended during the Madden Tournament.


Yeah, I agree. He's been on a bunch of those, and he's pretty hilarious on all of them. That's why I laugh when I see someone say Rollins doesn't have personality. He has plenty. But people get fooled by what they see on TV and think the guy they see on TV is the same guy in real life. Don't get me wrong; are there some similarities in characters of today with who they are in real life? Sure, there are. But nowhere near being the exact same person, or anything close to it.

I was encouraged by the chants he got the night HHH announced Seth was hurt, the chants he got during the TLC main event, and the reaction he got accepting the Slammy. He's still not going to be back for a LONG ass time, probably around SummerSlam. By that time, another 7 months from now, the fans will want him back much more than they did at any of those other events I just listed. I have no idea what's going to happen when he comes back. It seems many here assume he will be a face as soon as he makes his first appearance, and I don't think that will be the case. I do think he will turn by the end of this year, which by then will be a few months after he returns. But I think they're going to build to it. And you know what? That's the way it should be. We constantly beg for shit to make sense and it wouldn't make any sense if he was all of a sudden a face on his first appearance. Heel, face, tweener, I don't care. I'm looking forward to it.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

I have a few things to add to this discussion...

1. Based on what i've been reading, Reigns is over, but still not over at a top guy level. He's _certainly_ not over to the level of his push.

2. Rollins was booked as a geek when he was champion. He wasn't booked to draw. He lost constantly. He was made to look weak all the time. We don't know if he can draw. He was never even given the chance to succeed/fail.

3. Rollins didn't have Vince. When Cena wasn't burying him, he had Stephanie and HHH cutting him off at the knees every week. Also, there is a significant audience who watches every week just because of Vince.

4. If you want to make a case that there are a number of people who watch the show who care about Reigns, that's fine. *But understand that's a relatively small piece of a smaller audience than there was even a year ago*.

5. People who wanted Reigns on top instead of Ambrose or Bryan or whomever claimed that Reigns is really what people wanted. Yet, there is no evidence in any of the metrics that lends credence to this claim.


----------



## KO Bossy

Oh this thread...

Who gives a fuck if Reigns hasn't achieved a record low like Sheamus did after holding the title for a month? He faced off against like...8 guys on Raw, and the show drew a 2.36. That rating is fucking terrible. Why are people trying to put a positive spin on it? He was in the main event, he was in the opening segment to have the odds stacked against him, he's the champion, he's the main focus of the overrun, which is typically where they get a ton of people tuning in to see the stuff that matters...except they didn't, seeing as hour 3 is again the lowest rated. Its like people tune in for the beginning, see what the slated main event is, and tune out because they don't care. Roman is supposedly their biggest star right now, considering he has the title, is scheduled at the most important time slots (the main event and open of the show) and is getting the biggest push. Except people aren't watching him. 

But some will claim "oh its not all his fault." You're right. But he deserves a big part of the blame. By the way, where'd all the people who acted exactly like this when Seth was champion run off to? "Oh it was all Seth's fault, blah blah blah." Now they're all quiet...

I mean, what more can you give Reigns? He's battling maybe the GOAT heels in Vince and Hunter, and sadly Stephanie is tagging along. He's getting the choice segments, the best booking, he overcomes all the odds, and its a 2.36. The time to be figuring shit out is NOT when he has the title. You make him into a draw beforehand and THEN give him the title to increase that.


----------



## Lone Star

When John Cena won the title, Smackdown ratings were getting 3.3's. Fucking Smackdown, the B show on UPN, a dead network.

When Batista won the title, RAW ratings were hitting 4 and over.

Ratings went up, or stayed the same for Orton, Punk and Bryan all at different points. 

It's a poor product, downright abysmal to be honest, but it was at times during all of those guys' runs too. When the show is centered around you, you're going to catch some blame, or should anyway. The ratings in April/May of this year will be very interesting in seeing if this guy is FOTC material.


----------



## Blade Runner

dougfisher_05 said:


> The product has mostly sucked since 2002-2003, yet here everyone seems to be arguing about which guy is to blame.


This

Ratings more or less always fluctuate around the same average every week, and very seldom do they come remotely close to a 5 -- even a 4 is rare (at their peak they were doing close to 8s and once did a 9.5 quarter). The product as a whole is seriously flawed and the mainstream audience has moved on. Wrestling isn't hot in pop culture right now, and whatever makeshift champion they have representing the product won't change a damn thing until there's a consistant shift in overall quality, and when they figure out how to remodel their shows and storytelling in a fresh and contemporary way. Right now we only get occational spurs of good stuff with no follow up and then they wonder why fans can't get emotionally invested. Most people in their target market in 2016 have criminally short attention spans and RAW is like an extremely effective 3 hour pitch to convince the viewer to change the channel

RAW just before the move to 3 hours was a toast with a very thin piece of butter spreaded on top, and now it's an even bigger toast with even less butter --


----------



## Brodus Clay

Just like I did with Seth and Sheamus I blame Reigns for this, theres no way to make those midcarders being legit draws they are not interesting enough to be on the main event spot, they just don't have it, out of WWE they were nobodies Vince and HHH are obsessed to make their own star but it never gonna work.


----------



## Hennessey

I love how when the ratings went up it wasn't because of Reigns, but because of Vince, or the title change or John Cena or title match. As soon as the rating went down though, well it wasn't because of the advertised appearance of Lesnar. It was all Reigns fault.


----------



## Desmark

SnapOrTap said:


> Can't wait for them to sell out Wrestlemania with BIG DOG leading the way.
> 
> *WAT A DRAW.
> 
> WAT A DRAW.
> 
> SPEAR
> 
> SPEAR
> 
> SPEAR*


----------



## Dark_Raiden

You can't blame Reigns without blaming Vince and Lesnar. Plus it's still better than Seth and Sheamus and has gone up every other week but this. Reigns got huge ratings when he was the center of the show.


----------



## Marrakesh

This was inevitable. The 'character change' they teased with Reigns never occurred and outside of Owens/Ambrose there is NOTHING going on. 

People can praise Charlotte/Becky if they want but this is a ratings thread and what they do is irrelevant to the ratings. 

It's business as usual. Kalisto won the title on Raw but anyone who is pleased about that, go check the Smackdown spoilers. 

WWE is fucked long term. I see they have now taken to advertising the next week's Raw on TV because they are not selling out in advance (maybe they have been doing this before, but it's the first time I've noticed) 

HHH, Taker, Brock and Reigns are the four guys WWE are relying on this year to sell out Mania. In a wrestling capacity anyway. 

Three part timers and a top guy who can't talk or outsell/ draw an aging John Cena. 

I think this RTWM could be a disaster and IF the reports are true and Daniel Bryan is getting released before the Royal Rumble, then I would be surprised if there wasn't a backlash from the live audience against WWE at some stage and Reigns may again have to take it on the chin.


----------



## Arcaninex

Brock Lesnar cant draw.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Dark_Raiden said:


> You can't blame Reigns without blaming Vince and Lesnar. Plus it's still better than Seth and Sheamus and has gone up every other week but this. Reigns got huge ratings when he was the center of the show.[/QUOTE
> 
> He's still the center of the show and the ratings are in the same range they'e been since September 2015. I'm still blaming the product, but just saying.


----------



## Empress

KO Bossy said:


> Oh this thread...
> 
> Who gives a fuck if Reigns hasn't achieved a record low like Sheamus did after holding the title for a month? He faced off against like...8 guys on Raw, and the show drew a 2.36. That rating is fucking terrible. Why are people trying to put a positive spin on it? He was in the main event, he was in the opening segment to have the odds stacked against him, he's the champion, he's the main focus of the overrun, which is typically where they get a ton of people tuning in to see the stuff that matters...*except they didn't, seeing as hour 3 is again the lowest rated. * Its like people tune in for the beginning, see what the slated main event is, and tune out because they don't care. Roman is supposedly their biggest star right now, considering he has the title, is scheduled at the most important time slots (the main event and open of the show) and is getting the biggest push. Except people aren't watching him.
> 
> But some will claim "oh its not all his fault." You're right. But he deserves a big part of the blame. By the way, where'd all the people who acted exactly like this when Seth was champion run off to? "Oh it was all Seth's fault, blah blah blah." Now they're all quiet...
> 
> I mean, what more can you give Reigns? He's battling maybe the GOAT heels in Vince and Hunter, and sadly Stephanie is tagging along. He's getting the choice segments, the best booking, he overcomes all the odds, and its a 2.36. The time to be figuring shit out is NOT when he has the title. You make him into a draw beforehand and THEN give him the title to increase that.


Actually, there was an increase in the third hour rating. It went up which would suggest that there is traction in the Reigns vs. the world storyline. 

*WWE RAW'S RATING HOLDS ITS OWN AGAINST COLLEGE FOOTBALL TITLE GAME*
http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/w...-205431?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter

Reigns may not be moving the needle in any significant way, but there has been some movement. I'm not the type to throw any stones and hide my hands. I responded to the Reigns bashing because it's interesting that he was being blamed for "bad" ratings as though they were in a free fall or hitting new lows. Neither is true. 

As for those who blamed Seth, I wasn't one of those folks who piled on. There was only one time out of his months long reign that I cast blame on him and that was when he appeared non stop on RAW and the ratings tanked. Other than that, I didn't go in.

But I do stand behind my criticisms of his booking and overexposure. 

You may not have been specifically calling me out, but I wanted to respond since I did my part in helping this latest go round jump off in this thread.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I think what KO Bossy was getting at is that the jump from Hour 2 to Hour 3 was a poultry 22,000 increase. That's like the size of an NBA arena. Not exactly anything to write home about, especially when the total for hour 3 was 3.228 million viewers. Those are horrible numbers. They were horrible in 2015 and they are horrible now, except this is WITH the help of Vince on Raw; makes these numbers even worse.


----------



## Empress

I respect that the numbers aren't 4 million each week and are normal. Well, what passes for normal in today's WWE climate. I'm not trying to no sell that but an increase and holding steady is still better than a continuous free fall IMO. Stagnancy isn't something to usually be happy about but the numbers have been stable. Nothing gained (at least not much), but nothing lost in this particular context.


----------



## DoublePass

Reigns drawing 3.3 million as champ is now considered "good" by his fans. Good to see that even they realize how much of a failure he is, and that they have lowered their standards accordingly.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Arguing over ratings in 2016 is like arguing over who owns better floppy disks, it's that irrelevant. The company is raking in millions with the network which is certainly off and running. If it had bombed, even ratings of 5 and 6 wouldn't have been able to do anything to save it from the risk of major losses.

It's also amusing to see some of the highly intellectual posters here who can be seen to be gushing over a 3.7 million average RAW as if it's some sort of an oasis in the desert in the first few pages of this very thread which was actually achieved with virtually 0 competition and in the build up to the second biggest PPV tearing their lungs out over a RAW with 3.3 million average achieved facing a competitor which drew 25 million viewers.

This thread seems to be more about two groups of fans slinging mud than about any semblance of objective analysis, regardless of the fact that it's on a near obsolete criteria. The Reigns-Authority-Lesnar storyline is turning to be very decent and with the imminent return of HHH it can only get better. It has all the ingredients to be a very interesting 3 power centre feud heading towards the RTWM.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Roman is not a draw but nobody is. I still think Rollins is the worst of all time. He killed the fans spirit.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Arguing over ratings in 2016 is like arguing over who owns better floppy disks, it's that irrelevant. The company is raking in millions with the network which is certainly off and running. If it had bombed, even ratings of 5 and 6 wouldn't have been able to do anything to save it from the risk of major losses.
> 
> It's also amusing to see some of the highly intellectual posters here who can be seen to be gushing over a 3.7 million average RAW as if it's some sort of an oasis in the desert in the first few pages of this very thread which was actually achieved with virtually 0 competition and in the build up to the second biggest PPV tearing their lungs out over a RAW with 3.3 million average achieved facing a competitor which drew 25 million viewers.
> 
> This thread seems to be more about two groups of fans slinging mud than about any semblance of objective analysis, regardless of the fact that it's on a near obsolete criteria. The Reigns-Authority-Lesnar storyline is turning to be very decent and with the imminent return of HHH it can only get better. It has all the ingredients to be a very interesting 3 power centre feud heading towards the RTWM.


If this product is 'very decent', the standards have fallen further than they ever have before.


----------



## skarvika

Deadman's Hand said:


> *An advertised Brock Lesnar return, Vince McMahon on TV (again), and the rating still went down.
> 
> It feels pretty good to not watch WWE's shit, and still see their ratings fall. :lenny5*


Yes indeedy.:lenny5
The great thing is that the ratings are still as low as they are and WWE's not even competing with NFL right now.


----------



## Robbyfude

Makes me all fuzzy inside when I stopped watching this awful product and the ratings keep slowly going down.


----------



## squarebox

Soul Man Danny B said:


> I have a few things to add to this discussion...
> 
> 1. Based on what i've been reading, Reigns is over, but still not over at a top guy level. He's _certainly_ not over to the level of his push.
> 
> 2. Rollins was booked as a geek when he was champion. He wasn't booked to draw. He lost constantly. He was made to look weak all the time. We don't know if he can draw. He was never even given the chance to succeed/fail.
> 
> 3. Rollins didn't have Vince. When Cena wasn't burying him, he had Stephanie and HHH cutting him off at the knees every week. Also, there is a significant audience who watches every week just because of Vince.
> 
> 4. If you want to make a case that there are a number of people who watch the show who care about Reigns, that's fine. *But understand that's a relatively small piece of a smaller audience than there was even a year ago*.
> 
> 5. People who wanted Reigns on top instead of Ambrose or Bryan or whomever claimed that Reigns is really what people wanted. Yet, there is no evidence in any of the metrics that lends credence to this claim.


you said pretty much everything I would have said, especially points #2 & #3 . Can't give rep on VS app so expect some later.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> If this product is 'very decent', the standards have fallen further than they ever have before.


The main event storyline doesn't equal to the entire product, which indeed is "very decent", especially foreshadowing the return of HHH to the mix.


----------



## Cena's Nation

*Gonna have to do better if they want to compete with Toonami Dragon Ball Z:*

TIME PROGRAM Viewers(000) A1849 rtg A1849 (000)
12:00a Dragon Ball Z Kai 1275 0.60 767
12:30a Akame Ga Kill 1017 0.48 607
1:00a Parasyte 902 0.43 548
1:30a Samurai Champloo 769 0.38 478
2:00a Naruto: Shippuden 687 0.33 420
2:30a One Piece 664 0.30 386
3:00a Kill La Kill (r) 679 0.31 398

:cena6


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> The main event storyline doesn't equal to the entire product, which indeed is "very decent", especially foreshadowing the return of HHH to the mix.


Which storylines exactly are "very decent"? I need to hear this.

And yeah, adding a 50 year to the title scene; just another example of how great the current roster is and is being booked...


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Which storylines exactly are "very decent"? I need to hear this.


Alright, I'll break it down for you. 

With the return of Lesnar, it's now no longer a one dimensional Reigns-Authority program which in itself was "very decent" considering the increased interest in the product surrounding Reigns' win and his subsequent altercations. Even one of the smarkiest of crowds in Philly appreciated the program being put in front of them.

Now, with the return of Lesnar and eventually HHH, it's actually 4 feuds in one, Lesnar-Reigns have unfinished business from last year, there seems to be visible friction between Lesnar and the Authority which when HHH returns would definitely have a throwback over their own feud in 2012-13, and foremost HHH even has a score to settle with Reigns for the beatdown which put him out in the first place.. add in the existing Vince/Stephanie-Reigns program and the possibility of tensions arising between HHH, Stephanie and Vince and the resulting power struggle between themselves, it's actually shaping up to be an incredible storyline.

For the first time in a long long time, there are actually layers to the main event scene and genuine interest over how each and every week would transpire in this program.




ShowStopper said:


> And yeah, adding a 50 year to the title scene; just another example of how great the current roster is and is being booked...


That's a problem not just of today, it has been a problem for the past 5 years or so. That's also a problem completely irrelevant to the quality of the storyline transpiring on the screen. After WM, I'd definitely like to see Owens being a full time main eventer and Owens-Reigns headlining the summer.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Alright, I'll break it down for you.
> 
> With the return of Lesnar, it's now no longer a one dimensional Reigns-Authority program which in itself was "very decent" considering the increased interest in the product surrounding Reigns' win and his subsequent altercations. Even one of the smarkiest of crowds in Philly appreciated the program being put in front of them.
> 
> Now, with the return of Lesnar and eventually HHH, it's actually 4 feuds in one, Lesnar-Reigns have unfinished business from last year, there seems to be visible friction between Lesnar and the Authority which when HHH returns would definitely have a throwback over their own feud in 2012-13, and foremost HHH even has a score to settle with Reigns for the beatdown which put him out in the first place.. add in the existing Vince/Stephanie-Reigns program and the possibility of tensions arising between HHH, Stephanie and Vince and the resulting power struggle between themselves, it's actually shaping up to be an incredible storyline.
> 
> For the first time in a long long time, there are actually layers to the main even scene and genuine interest over how every week would transpire in this program.


It's a storyline that was done between the same two guys from last year, as well, which is most likely going to result in a rematch between the two at the same show(WM). It's not some new thing that we've never seen before. Adding Triple H to the mix isn't going to mean much. And what increased interest? Ratings are the same as they have been since September 2015 in the low to mid 3 millions, without the NFL and WITH Vince AND World Title defenses on Raw. That's absolutely terrible that that is all they can muster with all of those factors. It's actually downright scary, if you think about it. As far as HHH, people were just happy to see him get his ass kicked for the first time in a couple years. That will happen when the Authority figure of the past few years hasn't gotten his ass kicked in nearly 2 full years (WM 30 vs Bryan). Part of it also is Smarks and casuals alike, one of the things they both have in common with one another, is that we ALL want the Authority off TV at this point. So, everyone was happy to see H get his ass handed to him for the first time since WM 30. It was nice.






> That's a problem not of just today, it has been a problem for the past 5 years or so. That's also a problem completely irrelevant to the quality of the storyline transpiring on the screen. After WM, I'd definitely like to see Owens being a full time mid carder and Owens-Reigns headlining the summer.


It is, but it's even worse and more funny now because it's 5-6 years later and they STILL have the same problems. It's not completely irrelevant to today's product if these guys are still involved, especially in title matches.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> It's a storyline that was done between the same two guys from last year, as well, which is most likely going to result in a rematch between the two at the same show(WM). It's not some new thing that we've never seen before.



You talk of Reigns-Lesnar as if it's Cena-Orton levels of stale. These guys stole the show last year and there was no closure to the feud in the first place owing to the cash-in, there'd definitely be genuine interest over the rematch if it happens. Going by your line of reasoning, Bret-Austin was probably stale after SvS 1996.. then they just went on to have one of the greatest WM matches in their rematch a few months later.



ShowStopper said:


> Adding Triple H to the mix isn't going to mean much. And what increased interest? Ratings are the same as they have been since September 2015 in the low to mid 3 millions, without the NFL and WITH Vince AND World Title defenses on Raw. That's absolutely terrible that that is all they can muster with all of those factors. It's actually downright scary, if you think about it.


Again, as I said in my first post, I don't believe in ratings in 2016.. it's just a near useless parameter in today's world, I can go on to say that Reigns winning the title has almost 10 million views on YT and Reigns' segments have drawn huge interest on other tangible social media parameters, it would be as relevant if not more than fighting over a +/- 200,000 viewership on an outdated criteria.




ShowStopper said:


> As far as HHH, people were just happy to see him get his ass kicked for the first time in a couple years. That will happen when the Authority figure of the past few years hasn't gotten his ass kicked in nearly 2 full years (WM 30 vs Bryan). Part of it also is Smarks and casuals alike, one of the things they both have in common with one another, is that we ALL want the Authority off TV at this point. So, everyone was happy to see H get his ass handed to him for the first time since WM 30. It was nice.


So you don't have interest in seeing how HHH plans his retribution on Reigns? About how would Lesnar-HHH be on the same page or not? The prospective friction between HHH and Vince? C'mon.




ShowStopper said:


> It is, but it's even worse and more funny now because it's 5-6 years later and they STILL have the same problems. It's not completely irrelevant to today's product if these guys are still involved, especially in title matches.


I ain't disputing that. My only point is that it has nothing to do with the prospective storyline on the horizon for WM. I would definitely want the WWE to get their act together on the younger talent after WM like anybody else.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> You talk of Reigns-Lesnar as if it's Cena-Orton levels of stale. These guys stole the show last year and there was no closure to the feud in the first place owing to the cash-in, there'd definitely be genuine interest over the rematch if it happens. Going by your line of reasoning, Bret-Austin was probably stale after SvS 1996.. then they just went on to have one of the greatest WM matches in their rematch a few months later.


Love the way your first sentence is a huge strawman. Never said it was that stale. But you painting this year's version of the storyline as some amazing, new, fresh idea that is bringing in these monster numbers is way worse than anything I stated in my posts.

And please, I would never shit on the Bret/Austin feud by comparing it to Reigns/Lesnar. Blasphemy.







> Again, as I said in my first post, I don't believe in ratings in 2016.. it's just a near useless parameter in today's world, I can go on to say that Reigns winning the title has almost 10 million views on YT and Reigns' segments have drawn huge interest on other tangible social media parameters, it would be as relevant if not more than fighting over a +/- 200,000 viewership on an outdated criteria.


Nice. So, ratings don't matter, but Youtube views do. Alrighty then..

You don't have to "believe in ratings in 2016." That's your choice. But that's what literally everyone else uses as a gauge, so..yeah..






> So you don't have interest in seeing how HHH plans his retribution on Reigns? About how would Lesnar-HHH be on the same page or not? The prospective friction between HHH and Vince? C'mon.


It's pretty predictable, dude. Reigns will most likely lose at RR and then overcome the "odds" at WM and win the title back. I, and many others, for that matter, don't care to see HHH in the title scene in 2016. I also think people are sour on it because we were all happy that Reigns won the title on a random Raw in December and we all assumed that the Rumble match itself would be Reigns free. People were somewhat excited with it after TLC, but they've dropped the ball since then, especially with the Rumble. But now WWE of course found a way to fuck that up and it's somewhat deflating to alot of people since the Rumble match itself is a huge favorite of most fans. It also kinda gets ruined when the end result at WM is so damn predictable.

But nevermind all of that, that is just one storyline, as you said earlier, implying that the other storylines are the ones that are quality right now. So, which one of the other storylines are actually good? You never expanded on that and stuck on the main event angle, which is depressingly bad.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Love the way your first sentence is a huge strawman. Never said it was that stale. But you painting this year's version of the storyline as some amazing, new, fresh idea that is bringing in these monster numbers is way worse than anything I stated in my posts.
> 
> And please, I would never shit on the Bret/Austin feud by comparing it to Reigns/Lesnar. Blasphemy.


Except the fact that this time it's not a Reigns-Lesnar feud nor was your last point about the feud, it was about the "match" which I replied to.

This time it's a prospective Reigns-HHH-Lesnar-Authority 4 cornerned program which definitely seems to be very compelling at the outset.





ShowStopper said:


> Nice. So, ratings don't matter, but Youtube views do. Alrighty then..
> 
> You don't have to "believe in ratings in 2016." That's your choice. But that's what literally everyone else uses as a gauge, so..yeah..


You tell me one correlation about how the ratings are causing a - impact on the company's balance sheets and I'll accept that it's the primary parameter. The company has made record profits last year and it's eventually trying to shift the entire product no ifs and buts to the network, it's not that hard to see.




ShowStopper said:


> It's pretty predictable, dude. Reigns will most likely lose at RR and then overcome the "odds" at WM and win the title back. I, and many others, for that matter, don't care to see HHH in the title scene in 2016. I also think people are sour on it because we were all happy that Reigns won the title on a random Raw in December and we all assumed that the Rumble match itself would be Reigns free. But now WWE of course found a way to fuck that up and it's somewhat deflating to alot of people since the Rumble match itself is a huge favorite of most fans. It also kinda gets ruined when the end result at WM is so damn predictable.


You see this is the EXACT reason why there is a term called "Smark" which very justifiably so is very frequently frowned upon. You have already judged the storyline before it has even properly started. You never know how 3 months of programming would go, the ebbs and flows of when HHH-Reigns, Reigns-Lesnar, HHH-Lesnar, HHH-Vince or even HHH-Reigns-Lesnar would transpire and be the centre of the show and how it would come across on the screen. You have discarded the storyline as if you're too "smart" to even "watch" and judge it.



ShowStopper said:


> But nevermind all of that, that is just one storyline, as you said earlier, implying that the other storylines are the ones that are quality right now. So, which one of the other storylines are actually good? You never expanded on that and stuck on the main event angle, which is depressingly bad.


I never talked beyond the main event in the first place. You might need to read my first post again. Regardless, I don't think there are many other compelling storylines really, Owens-Ambrose is good and Charlotte-Becky is watchable. The main event is pretty much carrying the show.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Except the fact that this time it's not a Reigns-Lesnar feud nor was your last point about the feud, it was about the "match" which I replied to.
> 
> This time it's a prospective Reigns-HHH-Lesnar-Authority 4 cornerned program which definitely seems to be very compelling on the outset.


You seem to find it very compelling, but the numbers aren't baring that out yet outside from one night. I don't know why you put HHH as seperate from the Authority. He is in the Authority. It's Reigns/Lesnar with HHH most likely thrown in at some point. Or, HHH will be a roadblock that Reigns disposes of at the February PPV. Great.







> You tell me one correlation about how the ratings are causing a - impact on the company's balance sheets and I'll accept that it's the primary parameter. The company has made record profits last year and it's eventually trying to shift the entire product no ifs and buts to the network, it's not that hard to see.


Yet you still click on the "RATINGS" thread and post on it for some strange reason. I am not getting into why ratings matter to some degree and why every channel on television and sponsors monitor them, not just WWE. You can't get that, I can't help you.






> You see this is the EXACT reason why there is a term called "Smark" which very justifiably so is very frequently frowned upon. You have already judged the storyline before it has even properly started. You never know how 3 months of programming would go, the ebbs and flows of when HHH-Reigns, Reigns-Lesnar, HHH-Lesnar, HHH-Vince or even HHH-Reigns-Lesnar would transpire and be the centre of the show and how it would come across on the screen. You have discarded the storyline as if you're too "smart" to even "watch" and judge it.


Is this real life? I'm not judging the storyline. I'm merely saying the end result is very predictable and 2/3 of it (Reigns/Lesnar) is something we literally just saw less than a year ago. I also said throwing a near 50 year old man into the title scene is "meh" as well and isn't some amazing new twist that you make it out to be. You also seem to judge WWE as if they've hit so many homeruns these past number of years and are seemingly very confident that they are going to nail the specific, detailed, intricacies of this storyline; because you know, they do that so often. 





> I never talked beyond the main event in the first place. You might need to read my first post again. Regardless, I don't think there are many other compelling storylines really, Owens-Ambrose is good and Charlotte-Becky is watchable. The main event is pretty much carrying the show.


I started to talk about the main event storyline and you said that is just one storyline, so I asked what other storylines you find to be so intriguing; that's all.

Anyway, if you are enjoying it; more power to you. Different strokes and all that. But just don't wonder why most people aren't.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> You seem to find it very compelling, but the numbers aren't baring that out yet outside from one night. I don't know why you put HHH as seperate from the Authority. He is in the Authority. It's Reigns/Lesnar with HHH most likely thrown in at some point. Or, HHH will be a roadblock that Reigns disposes of at the February PPV. Great.


What numbers? Are TV ratings the only "numbers"? How are they causing a downward spiral of the company's profits please care to tell because considering the last two quarters reports, they're making record profits regardless. TV as a medium is increasingly becoming obsolete and it's something which surely would never show contrarian behaviour in the future.

And considering HHH, I consider him different from the Authority because I suspect some disagreements and eventual animosity between him and Vince in the storyline, maybe on the issue of Lesnar or otherwise. It's not something completely impossible.




ShowStopper said:


> Yet you still click on the "RATINGS" thread and post on it for some strange reason. I am not getting into why ratings matter to some degree and why every channel on television and sponsors monitor them, not just WWE. You can't get that, I can't help you.


You might want to read the entire thread title again.

And yes.. even floppy disks mattered a great deal to the computer professionals at one point in time, now they don't. Sponsors aren't laymen that they don't recognize this change in environment and must have started to prepare a road-map to counter this change. It's not the WWE that's the weak party here, it's the sponsors.






ShowStopper said:


> Is this real life? I'm not judging the storyline. I'm merely saying the end result is very predictable and 2/3 of it (Reigns/Lesnar) is something we literally just saw less than a year ago. I also said throwing a near 50 year old man into the title scene is "meh" as well and isn't some amazing new twist that you make it out to be. You also seem to judge WWE as if they've hit so many homeruns these past number of years and are seemingly very confident that they are going to nail the specific, detailed, intricacies of this storyline; because you know, they do that so often.


So it warrants you to go to the other extreme and trash the storyline before it has even properly set in? I've never said that it's bound to be successful or not. I only judge on the basis of what I've seen, and seeing the foundation of this RTWM's main event storyline, it definitely carries a lot of unpredictability and scope for a great program.




ShowStopper said:


> I started to talk about the main event storyline and you said that is just one storyline, so I asked what other storylines you find to be so intriguing; that's all.
> 
> Anyway, if you are enjoying it; more power to you. Different strokes and all that. But just don't wonder why most people aren't.


k. Same from my side.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> What numbers? Are TV ratings the only "numbers"? How are they causing a downward spiral of the company's profits please care to tell because considering the last two quarters reports, they're making record profits regardless. TV as a medium is increasingly becoming obsolete and it's something which surely would never show contrarian behaviour in the future.[/QUOTE
> 
> Believe me, bro. I know WWE is doing well from a financial standpoint. I know that. I get that. They've been doing well financially for awhile now. It's not because of this storyline. Vince became a billionaire again in about mid 2015. I get it. But ratings have be taken at least somewhat seriously because it is still what the Networks and Sponsors monitor and use to judge on what shows they have on their Networks and how much they offer companies like WWE to be on their Network.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And considering HHH, I consider him different from the Authority because I suspect some disagreements and eventual animosity between him and Vince in the storyline, maybe on the issue of Lesnar or otherwise. It's not something completely impossible.
> 
> 
> 
> Ok. You can if you want, it's your viewpoint, you're entitled to it. But at the same time you have to understand why most won't consider him seperate because he's been the face of the Authority for a few years now.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to read the entire thread title again.
> 
> And yes.. even floppy disks mattered a great deal to the computer professionals at one point in time, now they don't. Sponsors aren't laymen that they don't recognize this change in environment and must have started to prepare a road-map to counter this change. It's not the WWE that's the weak party here, it's the sponsors.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Read any random page in this thread and all of them are talking about Ratings for Raw over any other aspect of WWE. It's known around the board and has been for a few years now as the "Ratings thread." We all get that ratings aren't 100%, but they are a good enough represenative on how many people are watching. Forget WWE, even Hollywood uses them. WWE's ratings are poor and have been for awhile now. There is no way around it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it warrants you to go to the other extreme and trash the storyline before it has even properly set in? I've never said that it's bound to be successful or not. I only judge on the basis of what I've seen, and seeing the foundation of this RTWM's main event storyline, it definitely carries a lot of unpredictability and scope for a great program.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That's the thing, though. Not many people see it as unpredictable. I wish it was. And tbh, I think they deflated the and lost the fans with the Rumble announcement. This is why no one is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Every time they take 1 step forward; they eventually wind up taking 2 steps back. If WWE even had a half-decent record these past few years, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; and I think alot of others feel the same. But simply too much fucking up.
Click to expand...


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> You tell me one correlation about how the ratings are causing a - impact on the company's balance sheets and I'll accept that it's the primary parameter. The company has made record profits last year and it's eventually trying to shift the entire product no ifs and buts to the network, it's not that hard to see.


Are you being serious? 

Their record profits were a direct result of their TV deals which hinge on maintaining certain ratings. You are trying to claim the ratings are meaningless when WWE are earning around $160-200m a year from these deals. 

What planet are you on?

Not only that, but these 'record profits' that were announced were achieved over the first quarter of 2015 when the TV payments were 'elevated' in the new deals and the network had expanded to it's second largest market (the UK) 

Since then, there has been virtually no growth in network subscriptions.... I haven't seen the fourth quarter report yet (If it's even been released) but the second and third quarters of 2015 showed no movement in subscription numbers. 

Less people watching Raw every Monday night means less potential customers to promote the network to. Common sense. 

Live show attendances are now declining also. (See the LA forum show which advertised Brock Lesnar as an example of how bad things are getting) 

Less people watching on TV and attending their shows means they sell less merch. 

So Yes, falling ratings have an impact on their whole business. It's a sign of falling interest in their product. 

It's really not as rosy as you are making it out to be. Are they in immediate trouble? No, far from it. 

But they aren't exactly flourishing either. If the quality of their shows remains as it is then further decline is inevitable whether it occurs this year, next year or 5 years down the line.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Believe me, bro. I know WWE is doing well from a financial standpoint. I know that. I get that. They've been doing well financially for awhile now. It's not because of this storyline. Vince became a billionaire again in about mid 2015. I get it. But ratings have be taken at least somewhat seriously because it is still what the Networks and Sponsors monitor and use to judge on what shows they have on their Networks and how much they offer companies like WWE to be on their Network.


Let me ask you one question, if the ratings were double they are now and network subscriptions were half of there are now, assuming they are mutually exclusive which they seem to be to an extent anyway... How do you think the company would have been doing financially - better, worse or similar? 





ShowStopper said:


> Ok. You can if you want, it's your viewpoint, you're entitled to it. But at the same time you have to understand why most won't consider him seperate because he's been the face of the Authority for a few years now.


Perceptional point, alright if they think otherwise.





ShowStopper said:


> Read any random page in this thread and all of them are talking about Ratings for Raw over any other aspect of WWE. It's known around the board and has been for a few years now as the "Ratings thread." We all get that ratings aren't 100%, but they are a good enough represenative on how many people are watching. Forget WWE, even Hollywood uses them. WWE's ratings are poor and have been for awhile now. There is no way around it.


Yes, and that's why I was surprised when I saw the volume of discussion on this topic in this day and age seeing how irrelevant this paramater is. The main topic of discussion now should be about the global expansion of the network and it's financial implications along with the regular house show and merchandise numbers.




ShowStopper said:


> That's the thing, though. Not many people see it as unpredictable. I wish it was. And tbh, I think they deflated the and lost the fans with the Rumble announcement. This is why no one is willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. Every time they take 1 step forward; they eventually wind up taking 2 steps back. If WWE even had a half-decent record these past few years, I'd be willing to give them the benefit of the doubt; and I think alot of others feel the same. But simply too much fucking up.


Well I think it's always better to have a cause for an outrage, not an outrage for a "speculative" cause.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Let me ask you one question, if the ratings were double they are now and network subscriptions were half of there are now, assuming they are mutually exclusive which they seem to be to an extent anyway... How do you think the company would have been doing financially - better, worse or similar?


I have no idea. If their Network subs were half, they'd be bringing in less money from that standpoint. But if the ratings were double, USA Network and WWE sponsors would be paying them more. Hard to know without the exact numbers.







> Perceptional point, alright if they think otherwise.


Not really. H has been in the Authority for YEARS now. He is a big part of it. Not seperate in the least. Him and Vince *possibly* (not even a definite) having issues doesn't change that.







> Yes, and that's why I was surprised when I saw the volume of discussion on this topic in this day and age seeing how irrelevant this paramater is. The main topic of discussion now should be about the global expansion of the network and it's financial implications along with the regular house show and merchandise numbers.


Ratings will always at least be somewhat of a topic on here, at least as long as Raw is on TV and not on the Network. Just the way it is.






> Well I think it's always better to have a cause for an outrage, not an outrage for a "speculative" cause.


You can think that. I'm also basing it on what we've seen on Raw for the past month. And since TLC, they've shit on the angle. Boring, predictable opening 20 minute promo segments that accomplish nothing and awhole lot of nothing else to show for it so far.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> Are you being serious?
> 
> Their record profits were a direct result of their TV deals which hinge on maintaining certain ratings. You are trying to claim the ratings are meaningless when WWE are earning around $160-200m a year from these deals.


Your argument fails right here. Ratings are relative and a factor of the times. The TV deal numbers are much higher than in the AE even though the viewership is 1/3rd. It's all about the dynamic environment and the changing times.



Marrakesh said:


> What planet are you on?


Same as the one in which TV Ratings are becoming obsolete.



ShowStopper said:


> Not only that, but these 'record profits' that were announced were achieved over the first quarter of 2015 when the TV payments were 'elevated' in the new deals and the network had expanded to it's second largest market (the UK)


You are just proving my point. This only shows how there's no linear correlation between the ratings and the profits from it because the ratings have been falling for 10 years.




Marrakesh said:


> Since then, there has been virtually no growth in network subscriptions.... I haven't seen the fourth quarter report yet (If it's even been released) but the second and third quarters of 2015 showed no movement in subscription numbers.


They're way past the stage of being on thin ice. With the network now going global, it's only going to get better.



Marrakesh said:


> Less people watching Raw every Monday night means less potential customers to promote the network to. Common sense.
> 
> Live show attendances are now declining also. (See the LA forum show which advertised Brock Lesnar as an example of how bad things are getting)
> 
> Less people watching on TV and attending their shows means they sell less merch.
> 
> So Yes, falling ratings have an impact on their whole business. It's a sign of falling interest in their product.
> 
> It's really not as rosy as you are making it out to be. Are they in immediate trouble? No, far from it.
> 
> But they aren't exactly flourishing either. If the quality of their shows remains as it is then further decline is inevitable whether it occurs this year, next year or 5 years down the line.


There are more people watching the show worldwide than ever in history, and now that WWE has laid a framework to mint money from outside it's traditional centres in the form of the netwrok it's only going to go up. You domain of attention is grossly misrepresentative.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Your argument fails right here. Ratings are relative and a factor of the times. The TV deal numbers are much higher than in the AE even though the viewership is 1/3rd. It's all about the dynamic environment and the changing times.
> 
> 
> 
> Same as the one in which TV Ratings are becoming obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> You are just proving my point. This only shows how there's no linear correlation between the ratings and the profits from it because the ratings have been falling for 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're way past the stage of being on thin ice. With the network now going global, it's only going to get better.
> 
> 
> 
> There are more people watching the show worldwide than ever in history, and now that WWE has laid a framework to mint money from outside it's traditional centres in the form of the netwrok it's only going to go up. You domain of attention is grossly misrepresentative.


I don't know why that post has my name connected to it, but I didn't post that.


----------



## Badbadrobot

TV ratings are important, keep saying night is day though vince until the meds wear off


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> I have no idea. If their Network subs were half, they'd be bringing in less money from that standpoint. But if the ratings were double, USA Network and WWE sponsors would be paying them more. Hard to know without the exact numbers.


Not even close. Firstly, they would be struggling to recover the capital investment on the network which is entirely in their control. The TV deal doesn't increase as linearly as network profits do, as a matter of fact, on many counts it shows inverse behaviour like it has been showing in the past few years.





ShowStopper said:


> Not really. H has been in the Authority for YEARS now. He is a big part of it. Not seperate in the least. Him and Vince *possibly* (not even a definite) having issues doesn't change that.


It wouldn't even remain the Authority if HHH breaks out and gives rise to the possibility of a whole new HHH faction.






ShowStopper said:


> Ratings will always at least be somewhat of a topic on here, at least as long as Raw is on TV and not on the Network. Just the way it is.


The posters' prerogative.





ShowStopper said:


> You can think that. I'm also basing it on what we've seen on Raw for the past month. And since TLC, they've shit on the angle. Boring, predictable opening 20 minute promo segments that accomplish nothing and awhole lot of nothing else to show for it so far.


The one-dimensional Reigns-Authority storyline was definitely running it's course quick. The HHH-Lesnar-Reigns-Authority storyline sets a whole new framework to the feud.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> I don't know why that post has my name connected to it, but I didn't post that.


Sry, must be a botch at multi-quoting.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Not even close. Firstly, they would be struggling to recover the capital investment on the network which is entirely in their control. The TV deal doesn't increase as linearly as network profits do, as a matter of fact, on many counts it shows inverse behaviour like it has been showing in the past few years.


And what any of this has to do with Ratings, who the fuck knows. Don't know, don't care. Great, I guess.







> It wouldn't even remain the Authority if HHH breaks out and gives rise to the possibility of a whole new HHH faction.



So, first Vince and H are going to have issues to cause a fracture in the Authority and now H is going to be starting his own faction. Alrighty then.







> The one-dimensional Reigns-Authority storyline was definitely running it's course quick. The HHH-Lesnar-Reigns-Authority storyline sets a whole new framework to the feud.


You can think so, if you want. But most don't see it that way and understandably so. And again, HHH *IS* the Authority up to this point.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> And what any of this has to do with Ratings, who the fuck knows. Don't know, don't care. Great, I guess.


Indeed.




ShowStopper said:


> So, first Vince and H are going to have issues to cause a fracture in the Authority and now H is going to be starting his own faction. Alrighty then.


It's obviously not etched in stone but is a distinct possibility. Certainly adds a layer of unpredictability to the storyline.




ShowStopper said:


> You can think so, if you want. But most don't see it that way and understandably so. And again, HHH *IS* the Authority up to this point.


Not arguing with that but remember, Vince put The Authority's run on the line at SvS in 2014.. so there's a bit of history there as well. What I can surely say is that amazingly, by chance or by conviction..they have set up an incredible framework for this RTWM. Let's see how it pans out.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Your argument fails right here. Ratings are relative and a factor of the times. The TV deal numbers are much higher than in the AE even though the viewership is 1/3rd. It's all about the dynamic environment and the changing times.
> 
> 
> 
> Same as the one in which TV Ratings are becoming obsolete.
> 
> 
> 
> You are just proving my point. This only shows how there's no linear correlation between the ratings and the profits from it because the ratings have been falling for 10 years.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They're way past the stage of being on thin ice. With the network now going global, it's only going to get better.
> 
> 
> 
> There are more people watching the show worldwide than ever in history, and now that WWE has laid a framework to mint money from outside it's traditional centres in the form of the netwrok it's only going to go up. You domain of attention is grossly misrepresentative.


You're deluded imo. For starters, How on earth can you say that lower ratings does not equate to less money? There is a standard they will have to maintain. These standards are set by today's viewing habits, not 15 years ago. Why you brought the AE into it I have no idea?

Also, I wasn't arguing that the network wasn't a potential goldmine. I'm arguing that the people in charge aren't capable of even coming close to maximizing it's potential. 

They are already operating in their largest markets yet can barely break 1.2m subscribers as their ratings and house show attendances continue to decline and their Television output is panned by large sections of their audience on a weekly basis.

Also, you have no evidence that 'more people than ever' are watching WWE. What are you basing this on? Youtube clips? Social Media coverage? :cole 

I mean, you are right in the sense that WWE's launch of the network SHOULD secure them financially in the long term, but you are completely glossing over the fact that they need a good product and the ability to gain NEW customers on a monthly basis. You seem to think because there is the potential for huge profits that it will happen no matter how bad the shows get or how many viewers they lose over the course of the next few years. 

How do they manage to grow the network if the rest of their business is in a constant state of decline? 

It all starts with the Ratings. Far from being obsolete, it is the primary way in which the more 'casual' fan follows WWE and in order to entice these fans to order the network or go to Live shows they need to be watching Raw on a weekly basis.

If WWE were ever to face cancellation and Raw were to become a network exclusive (Smackdown would almost certainly be discontinued) like you suggested will happen, and it could well do. Then of course the company can survive but it will be on a much smaller scale. 

TV is the key to their business.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> You're deluded imo. For starters, How on earth can you say that lower ratings does not equate to less money? There is a standard they will have to maintain. These standards are set by today's viewing habits, not 15 years ago. Why you brought the AE into it I have no idea?


It's because ratings as a parameter doesn't mean quarter as much as it did 15 years ago. There are no set standards, standards change with the times every passing day. Ratings have been falling for 10 years still they get more and more lucrative TV deals, go figure.



Marrakesh said:


> Also, I wasn't arguing that the network wasn't a potential goldmine. I'm arguing that the people in charge aren't capable of even coming close to maximizing it's potential.
> 
> They are already operating in their largest markets yet can barely break 1.2m subscribers as their ratings and house show attendances continue to decline and their Television output is panned by large sections of their audience on a weekly basis.


Foremost, you're grossly under-estimating WWE's reach. It's not a regional enterprise by any means and attracts a very respectable number of paid audience wherever it goes throughout the world, there is huge potential to be tapped into on the network front which the company has started to do. Even with today's numbers, they're way past the break even point and are steadily moving towards huge sustainable profits.



Marrakesh said:


> Also, you have no evidence that 'more people than ever' are watching WWE. What are you basing this on? Youtube clips? Social Media coverage? :cole


Evidence? The evidence is the fact that WWE's global out-reach is increasing by the minute. In the AE, there were many countries who didn't get the programming at all or got it with a large delay, now these same centres are getting up to date consistent WWE programming on multiple platforms. Now obviously as more people are exposed to the programming, more is the scope of making money with a medium such as the Internet and the Network. It's simple economics really.



Marrakesh said:


> I mean, you are right in the sense that WWE's launch of the network SHOULD secure them financially in the long term, but you are completely glossing over the fact that they need a good product and the ability to gain NEW customers on a monthly basis. You seem to think because there is the potential for huge profits that it will happen no matter how bad the shows get or how many viewers they lose over the course of the next few years.


But they're NOT losing viewers. Don't go by the narrow minded domain this thread presents before you. More people are being exposed to and watching the programming than ever before. Quality will always be subjective. For every person throwing a hissy fit over Reigns' push there are 20 people with fat wallets worldwide marking out over Reigns overcoming the Authority's obstacles and looking forward to subscribe to the Network.



Marrakesh said:


> How do they manage to grow the network if the rest of their business is in a constant state of decline?
> 
> It all starts with the Ratings. Far from being obsolete, it is the primary way in which the more 'casual' fan follows WWE and in order to entice these fans to order the network or go to Live shows they need to be watching Raw on a weekly basis.


Business isn't declining, not in the least.. it has made record profits in the last two quarters and will break many further records with a completely new populace of wrestling fans throughout the world getting the opportunity to come on the same page as the U.S viewers with the Network. And no, it doesn't start with ratings.. that's like saying Nokia 3310 is still a relevant standard of judging the quality of mobile phones, same with the ratings.



Marrakesh said:


> If WWE were ever to face cancellation and Raw were to become a network exclusive (Smackdown would almost certainly be discontinued) like you suggested will happen, and it could well do. Then of course the company can survive but it will be on a much smaller scale.
> 
> TV is the key to their business.


It WILL eventually happen, there's no two ways about it. There will never be a resurgence of TV with the growing reach of the internet like there never has been a resurgence of Radio. WWE is not the party to be concerned, it's the sponsors putting their money on TV that need to grind their brains.


----------



## thegockster

Reigns is never going to be a draw, He can't even sell out arenas don't mind getting good ratings, he is even worse than when Diesel was champion, He's making Bob Backlund's last reign look like The Rock in his prime


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> It's because ratings as a parameter doesn't mean quarter as much as it did 15 years ago. There are no set standards, standards change with the times every passing day. Ratings have been falling for 10 years still they get more and more lucrative TV deals, go figure.
> 
> 
> 
> Foremost, you're grossly under-estimating WWE's reach. It's not a regional enterprise by any means and attracts a very respectable number of paid audience wherever it goes throughout the world, there is huge potential to be tapped into on the network front which the company has started to do. Even with today's numbers, they're way past the break even point and are steadily moving towards huge sustainable profits.
> 
> 
> 
> Evidence? The evidence is the fact that WWE's global out-reach is increasing by the minute. In the AE, there were many countries who didn't get the programming at all or got it with a large delay, now these same centres are getting up to date consistent WWE programming on multiple platforms. Now obviously as more people are exposed to the programming, more is the scope of making money with a medium such as the Internet and the Network. It's simple economics really.
> 
> 
> 
> But they're NOT losing viewers. Don't go by the narrow minded domain this thread presents before you. More people are being exposed to and watching the programming than ever before. Quality will always be subjective. For every person throwing a hissy fit over Reigns' push there are 20 people with fat wallets worldwide marking out over Reigns overcoming the Authority's obstacles and looking forward to subscribe to the Network.
> 
> 
> 
> Business isn't declining, not in the least.. it has made record profits in the last two quarters and will break many further records with a completely new populace of wrestling fans throughout the world getting the opportunity to come on the same page as the U.S viewers with the Network. And no, it doesn't start with ratings.. that's like saying Nokia 3310 is still a relevant standard of judging the quality of mobile phones, same with the ratings.
> 
> 
> 
> It WILL eventually happen, there's no two ways about it. There will never be a resurgence of TV with the growing reach of the internet like there never has been a resurgence of Radio. WWE is not the party to be concerned, it's the sponsors putting their money on TV that need to grind their brains.


I have no doubts that the network will grow (to a degree) in the short term. India, Germany and Japan all have yet to be included in subscription counts. 

It's the long term I am talking about and the falling interest domestically combined with their atrocious TV show is a huge concern. We don't even have any idea what the numbers from these new additions to the network are like yet. 

Maybe you are right and WWE are set to make boat loads of cash on their shitty product and the International markets that are left are going to be a goldmine for them. 

I'll have trouble believing it until I see it though and I am convinced they are going decline even further i their two largest markets over these next few years without massive creative changes.


----------



## murder

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> But they're NOT losing viewers.


That statement is unequivocally 100% false. In 2015 they lost 15% of their audience compared to 2014. They have been losing 25% of their audience the last two years.


----------



## DoublePass

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> You tell me one correlation about how the ratings are causing a - impact on the company's balance sheets and I'll accept that it's the primary parameter. The company has made record profits last year and it's eventually trying to shift the entire product no ifs and buts to the network, it's not that hard to see.


They've been raking in record profits in large part due to their TV deal. Whoever negotiated it was brilliant, because their fees are so high that they are making money despite the awful ratings. However, if you think that when it comes time to renegotiate that they will be able to strike the same kind of deal, you're fucking insane. They will have no leverage, due to the atrocious ratings.

The decrease we've seen this year is unlike anything we've seen in a long while. There's no sign of it getting any better any time soon.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

murder said:


> That statement is unequivocally 100% false. In 2015 they lost 15% of their audience compared to 2014. They have been losing 25% of their audience the last two years.


You obviously don't realize what's being talked about here. I suggest you to go read the exchange again for better clarity.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

DoublePass said:


> They've been raking in record profits in large part due to their TV deal. Whoever negotiated it was brilliant, because their fees are so high that they are making money despite the awful ratings. However, if you think that when it comes time to renegotiate that they will be able to strike the same kind of deal, you're fucking insane. They will have no leverage, due to the atrocious ratings.
> 
> The decrease we've seen this year is unlike anything we've seen in a long while. There's no sign of it getting any better any time soon.


They don't need to negotiate, the fact that they have been getting better deals despite the ratings falling for 10 years is a testament to the fact that the "standard of viewership" expected by the network is dynamic and changes along with the times. 

The ratings won't get better because the TV, as a medium is increasingly becoming more and more obsolete with the advent of internet just like Radio did with the advent of T.V. It's not a reversible change. The network IS the future of ALL WWE programming no questions asked. The onus is on the sponsors to do their marketing analysis on how to counter this change..not on the WWE, they have already moved on with the times and self-sufficed towards for the distant future with the network.


----------



## murder

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> The ratings won't get better because the TV, as a medium is increasingly becoming more and more obsolete with the advent of internet


Strange how the NFL still reaches up to 30 Million Viewers, juist saying.


----------



## LilOlMe

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> The ratings won't get better because the TV, as a medium is increasingly becoming more and more obsolete with the advent of internet just like Radio did with the advent of T.V.





murder said:


> Strange how the NFL still reaches up to 30 Million Viewers, juist saying.


Also strange how last year's RAW ratings were so much worse than 2014's. Or was the internet/DVR/etc. not as prevalent in 2014 too? lol.

Fans of shows always like to whip out the "internet age" excuse when times are bad, but are silent when ratings are good.

Wasn't Vince's whole sales pitch based on the fact that RAW is akin to live sports programming, and thus is inoculated from all of that?

Didn't work, btw, which is why he got less money than Major League Soccer did, but still too much. Most importantly, it's why he only had USA to run to, and couldn't pit networks against each other. They were the only ones that wanted it.

Think that says more about USA than it does about the so-called power of the WWE.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

murder said:


> Strange how the NFL still reaches up to 30 Million Viewers, juist saying.


Some very fundamental differences though.

NFL isn't a 365 day multi shows/week product like the WWE. Make RAW twice a month or monthly and the ratings would rise. There's a greater incentive to watch a product live on T.V that is less frequent. That's the nature of programming. You'd be much more likely to watch a World Cup final live than a normal league game even if the same teams were playing both ain't it? 

For a weekly show that is on throughout the year, the customer can afford to watch at his own leisure using various platforms that weren't in the picture like 10 years ago. What do you think the PPVs rating would be if they were on TV? Would it be the same as RAW or Smackdown?


----------



## murder

LilOlMe said:


> Wasn't Vince's whole sales pitch based on the fact that RAW is akin to live sports programming, and thus is inoculated from all of that?


Yeah that dumbass literally has tried to distance WWE from the term Wrestling, (even though it's in the name) for over 30 years and from WWE being an actual Sport and instead claiming it to be "Sports Entertainment", but then when TV deals are being negotiated, he has the nerve to claim they are actual sports first and foremost.

If that was my father, I'd deny any kind of relation with that person. It's that embarrassingly stupid and pathetic.


----------



## murder

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> NFL isn't a 365 day multi shows/week product like the WWE. Make RAW twice a month or monthly and the ratings would rise.


I remember when TNA went from 12 PPVs to only 4 PPVs a year with that same exact way of thinking and I also remember how that one turned out.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

LilOlMe said:


> Also strange how last year's RAW ratings were so much worse than 2014's. Or was the internet/DVR/etc. not as prevalent in 2014 too? lol.


What do you mean by "so much worse"? The WWE's rating is 1/3rd of what it was in 2000 and still it's getting very lucrative deals every year despite the fact that ratings have been falling continuously for the same time period. Of-course the importance of TV is falling by the day because we of the ever increasing clout of the internet over the entertainment industry which is uni-directional. The internet is to TV what the TV is to radio.



LilOlMe said:


> Fans of shows always like to whip out the "internet age" excuse when times are bad, but are silent when ratings are good.


When have ratings risen substantially in the last 10 years on year by year data please care to tell me? It's a standard downward curve anybody having any idea of Production Planning & Control would be familiar with.



LilOlMe said:


> Wasn't Vince's whole sales pitch based on the fact that RAW is akin to live sports programming, and thus is inoculated from all of that?
> 
> Didn't work, btw, which is why he got less money than Major League Soccer did, but still too much. Most importantly, it's why he only had USA to run to, and couldn't pit networks against each other. They were the only ones that wanted it.
> 
> Think that says more about USA than it does about the so-called power of the WWE.


You answered your own question. The WWE can still command astronomical amounts of money despite the fact that ratings have been ever falling because TV in itself is in it's dusk and the networks haven't really figured out or atleast come up with a concrete plan as of yet on how to deal with this change. WWE have more than self-sufficed themselves with the network which is sure to bring them tons from money from throughout the world, wherein many places didn't even get up-to-date programming or programming at all like 10 years ago. Now with the internet they can increase the domain of their audience multi-fold and mint money off of it which they could never do in their history.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

murder said:


> I remember when TNA went from 12 PPVs to only 4 PPVs a year with that same exact way of thinking and I also remember how that one turned out.


TNA is a failed organization on managerial fronts, there is not a semblance of comparison that can be made with the WWE. TNA never bothered to expand their reach for many years which eventually came back to bite them when the product got thin. TNA's move was more out of sheer desperation than out of some sort of a carefully devised strategy. You can distribute water in 4 big jugs or 12 small jugs that's your prerogative, you can't do shit when you don't have any water in the first place.


----------



## LilOlMe

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> It's a standard downward curve anybody having any idea of Production Planning & Control would be familiar with.


Not reading chapters right now, especially by someone hellbent on being obtuse, but this is what I mean:



LilOlMe said:


> People talk about RAW declining for years, but it has not been anywhere near as steep as this year. I feel like I'm reading "one of the lowest rated RAWs" headlines every other week now.
> 
> Throw in Smackdown's descent, and it's pretty clear that something especially negative is going on this year with the ratings.
> 
> 
> Here are the final RAW ratings for the past few years, thru the Sept 15-17 week:
> 
> 
> 2.79 - 2015
> 3.04 - 2014
> 3.09 - 2013
> 3.13 - 2012
> 
> 
> Source: Gerweck.net
> 
> 
> 2013 - 1.2% decline over yr before
> 2014 - 1.6% decline over yr before
> 2015 - 8.4% decline over yr before
> 
> 
> So it's not just some "ratings have been sliding for years!" thing. Especially since it seems like in the summer it was especially free-falling, and it hasn't stopped since. It's a pretty consistent thing now.


Probably would be even worse if you included Sept-Dec, because they were still hitting huge lows then.

Or did you not realize all of the "lowest in the last 17 years" shows that RAW was hitting last year? Did the internet just come along all of a sudden? lolz. Again, where are these excuses when RAW is hitting 4 million, 5 million, etc.?


----------



## skarvika

I find it funny how people say the ratings don't matter. They're an indication as to how many people are invested in WWE's current product.
"Yeah but it's because they're buying the network instead!"
I've seen that one plenty of times and I don't understand the logic behind it. People tuning out from Raw doesn't mean that they're buying the network, because you can't watch Raw live on the network. They're just leaving, period. Ratings matter. They're a definite sign of how WWE is doing in terms of maintaining their customer base, and frankly they're not doing so hot in that regard.


----------



## LilOlMe

skarvika said:


> I find it funny how people say the ratings don't matter. They're an indication as to how many people are invested in WWE's current product.


Yep. Especially when they lost a pretty consistent amount of viewers. You're telling me that the quality of the show didn't matter? People pretty clearly expressed their disinterest. 

The fact that there was still the audience there at certain times, shows you that people do still follow along, and are there to attain, but the quality of the shows have driven them away.

Vince better be thankful for the fact that the WWE is benefiting from being the only major league deliverer of a very niche, specific, market that has a generational fanbase. That's the only reason why an audience is still lurking around at all.


This addresses some things that I'm sure are gonna be brought up by the previous poster, so I'm just posting it pre-emptively. It explains why the last thee years are relevant (because all things were equal then in terms of outside influences):


LilOlMe said:


> I don't know, because to my knowledge, the only way to get numbers from Jan to Sept is to add up each individual week, and I certainly wasn't going to do that for more than what's necessary. It just shows that the "RAW sliding for years" excuse is too easy and inaccurate, because in comparative years (years in which 3 hour shows, the internet, DVRs, etc. all existed just as readily as they do today), RAW didn't slide as much as it has this year.
> 
> Throw in the fact that there are so many record low shows going on this year, and record low months going on since 1997, I think it's pretty safe to say that there's really no comparison. Especially with Smackdown tanking as well.
> 
> Plus, I remember someone writing that you just know that things are tanking by a general feel. You don't even have to look at the ratings. My increased complete disinterest in Smackdown, to the point of not even looking for clips of heralded segments, says something about how much they're losing their audience. So I looked up the ratings because I had a feeling it was a general, shared, malaise. I was right.
> 
> I didn't follow ratings, but I stopped watching Jersey Shore (don't judge me) at around the same time as everyone else did. When I started reading articles about their ratings, it was like "of course!" It's like en mass, people decided collectively that we were just over it.
> 
> This is what happens. There's a downward trajectory that happens with virtually every show, and then there's also the point where it really starts sliding down a cliff. That's what's happening with RAW this year.
> 
> Having said that, I am sure that they'll bounce back, because so many people watch RAW because it's something that's been ingrained in them for so long, and Vince could easily change things around.
> 
> I agree with you that there are a ton of things structurally wrong with RAW that have nothing to do with the champion, but it's mind-numbing to me to have read pages, and pages, and thread after thread, of people pouncing on "Ratings Killer" Orton shit, and Reigns "Worst RTWM ratings" shit, while many of the very same screennames rush in to Rollins' ratings threads to defend and "like" posts saying Rollins has nothing to do with it.
> 
> There are so many rationalizations made for why the ratings are "worst in decades" terrible -- some rationalizations which I agree with, btw -- yet none of those same courtesies were extended when it was someone who the board decided that they didn't like.
> 
> The collectiveness of it is what I find astonishing. Reading that first page of that most recent Rollins/ratings thread was like some alternate universe, after witnessing what Reigns, Orton, and even Brock ratings threads looked like. Especially considering that these ratings are a whole lot worse!
> 
> I get it, threads like this one were basically designed for mark wars, and it's just human nature for people to defend their faves. I don't really have a problem with that, but you can do that without denying reality. If it's just "I don't think it's Rollins' fault because a), b), and c)" that's fine, and there will probably be a lot of good points made in that. But it bothers me when people act like what's happening isn't really happening, and it's the same as always, and "the ratings have always been falling" blah, blah, blah. It's like creating some fake reality.
> 
> I guess the reason I find it most bothersome is because I feel it's a way to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, so there's an inherent dishonesty in that. Especially when people were pouncing all over other wrestlers when there's not even a comparison to how bad things are sliding now.
> 
> I specifically have a problem with all of this because I feel it's what Vince's sycophants are probably deluding him into thinking, which is why we won't get change. That's the real problem! "Eh, ratings have always been sliding..." But not like this! The shit _sucks_, and there's only so long they should keep ignoring it. The mass amount of people collectively turning off RAW & Smackdown at once should be speaking volumes. It's disturbing if it's not.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

LilOlMe said:


> Not reading chapters right now, especially by someone hellbent on being obtuse, but this is what I mean:


That's called statistical reasoning btw. There is no point in being obtuse or acute. Anyone who even has decent knowledge of statistics would be able to spot a trend on a graph. Nothing genius about it.




LilOlMe said:


> Probably would be even worse if you included Sept-Dec, because they were still hitting huge lows then.
> 
> Or did you not realize all of the "lowest in the last 17 years" shows that RAW was hitting last year? Did the internet just come along all of a sudden? lolz. Again, where are these excuses when RAW is hitting 4 million, 5 million, etc.?


Wait, so you basic line of argument is that the "rate of fall" is more hence it's more indicative of interest in the product than of the changing trends in the way the product is seen?

I got a little something for you:










http://www.stateofthemedia.org/2013.../2-digital-news-surpasses-newspapers-radio-2/


Concentrate on the data of 06-07 onwards here, is it a coincidence that the increased rate of " Got news online" led to a drastic change in the nature of the other three graphs? Before 2005, all the other three showed typical cyclic behaviour but after it's advent have only gone down. The point being that you never know when a particular medium is going to blow up and in what proportion like "Got news online" did in 06/07.

I'll try to find and post a similar T.V Vs Radio graph as well which will be much more indicative of what I'm trying to explain.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RAW could be getting low 1's and we would still have people bringing up how its different times. All the guys people cared about have retired and the show is crap. Its that simple. 

People bring up internet but ratings are a % of the audience that tunes into your show not how many viewers tune in. 

"there are more channels now"

So what? There were loads of channels back in the AE and most channels just have repeats of old shows. If people would rather watch a re run of Friends and not a new episode of RAW then your product fucking sucks. 

"what about youtube?"

WWE Youtube videos are like 4 minutes long and dont have like 12 commercial breaks. Besides people use ad block. If people are watching YT videos over the full show then it means that your show is too fucking long and boring. 

"what about Hulu and the Network?" 

Can you even get the latest RAW on the Network? I cant in the UK. If Hulu was so valuable why aren't they getting paid that much for it?


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

LilOlMe said:


> I don't know, because to my knowledge, the only way to get numbers from Jan to Sept is to add up each individual week, and I certainly wasn't going to do that for more than what's necessary. It just shows that the "RAW sliding for years" excuse is too easy and inaccurate, because in comparative years (years in which 3 hour shows, the internet, DVRs, etc. all existed just as readily as they do today), RAW didn't slide as much as it has this year.
> 
> Throw in the fact that there are so many record low shows going on this year, and record low months going on since 1997, I think it's pretty safe to say that there's really no comparison. Especially with Smackdown tanking as well.
> 
> Plus, I remember someone writing that you just know that things are tanking by a general feel. You don't even have to look at the ratings. My increased complete disinterest in Smackdown, to the point of not even looking for clips of heralded segments, says something about how much they're losing their audience. So I looked up the ratings because I had a feeling it was a general, shared, malaise. I was right.
> 
> I didn't follow ratings, but I stopped watching Jersey Shore (don't judge me) at around the same time as everyone else did. When I started reading articles about their ratings, it was like "of course!" It's like en mass, people decided collectively that we were just over it.
> 
> This is what happens. There's a downward trajectory that happens with virtually every show, and then there's also the point where it really starts sliding down a cliff. That's what's happening with RAW this year.
> 
> Having said that, I am sure that they'll bounce back, because so many people watch RAW because it's something that's been ingrained in them for so long, and Vince could easily change things around.
> 
> I agree with you that there are a ton of things structurally wrong with RAW that have nothing to do with the champion, but it's mind-numbing to me to have read pages, and pages, and thread after thread, of people pouncing on "Ratings Killer" Orton shit, and Reigns "Worst RTWM ratings" shit, while many of the very same screennames rush in to Rollins' ratings threads to defend and "like" posts saying Rollins has nothing to do with it.
> 
> There are so many rationalizations made for why the ratings are "worst in decades" terrible -- some rationalizations which I agree with, btw -- yet none of those same courtesies were extended when it was someone who the board decided that they didn't like.
> 
> The collectiveness of it is what I find astonishing. Reading that first page of that most recent Rollins/ratings thread was like some alternate universe, after witnessing what Reigns, Orton, and even Brock ratings threads looked like. Especially considering that these ratings are a whole lot worse!
> 
> I get it, threads like this one were basically designed for mark wars, and it's just human nature for people to defend their faves. I don't really have a problem with that, but you can do that without denying reality. If it's just "I don't think it's Rollins' fault because a), b), and c)" that's fine, and there will probably be a lot of good points made in that. But it bothers me when people act like what's happening isn't really happening, and it's the same as always, and "the ratings have always been falling" blah, blah, blah. It's like creating some fake reality.
> 
> I guess the reason I find it most bothersome is because I feel it's a way to pull the wool over peoples' eyes, so there's an inherent dishonesty in that. Especially when people were pouncing all over other wrestlers when there's not even a comparison to how bad things are sliding now.
> 
> I specifically have a problem with all of this because I feel it's what Vince's sycophants are probably deluding him into thinking, which is why we won't get change. That's the real problem! "Eh, ratings have always been sliding..." But not like this! The shit sucks, and there's only so long they should keep ignoring it. The mass amount of people collectively turning off RAW & Smackdown at once should be speaking volumes. It's disturbing if it's not.



I've already covered this argument in my previous post. But I'll add a few more points.

It's amusing how you completely neglect the unilateral loss of viewers taking place in the last 10 years and start talking in the first derivative despite the fact that no change in the corporate world ever takes with a linear nature. There is always some point where a considerable change of guard starts which serves as the purveyor of change. 

You also haven't presented a single argument as to why the WWEs revenue is showing absolutely contrarian behaviour to what you allege is a "loss of quality" in the product which is an absolutely subjective criteria in the first place.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> What do you mean by "so much worse"? The WWE's rating is 1/3rd of what it was in 2000 and still it's getting very lucrative deals every year despite the fact that ratings have been falling continuously for the same time period. Of-course the importance of TV is falling by the day because we of the ever increasing clout of the internet over the entertainment industry which is uni-directional. The internet is to TV what the TV is to radio.
> 
> 
> 
> When have ratings risen substantially in the last 10 years on year by year data please care to tell me? It's a standard downward curve anybody having any idea of Production Planning & Control would be familiar with.
> 
> 
> 
> You answered your own question. The WWE can still command astronomical amounts of money despite the fact that ratings have been ever falling because TV in itself is in it's dawn and the networks haven't really figured out or atleast come up with a concrete plan as of yet on how to deal with this change. WWE have more than self-sufficed themselves with the network which is sure to bring them tons from money from throughout the world, wherein many places didn't even get up-to-date programming or programming at all like 10 years ago. Now with the internet they can increase the domain of their audience multi-fold and mint money off of it which they could never do in their history.


You're one of the biggest WWE apologists I've ever seen on here. :lol

When WWE shows itself to have the capacity to increase ratings significantly (much more so than other forms of programming) when they hit upon the right storyline or shake things up in direction that peaks the interest of the fans, then how can their failure to keep these viewers over the proceeding weeks be classed as a 'standard downward curve'?

That is total nonsense. They consistently fail to maintain the high end of their potential viewership because of poor creative direction and storytelling. 

I also fail to see how you can claim that places that were not getting up to date WWE programming are suddenly going to swarm towards them now it's online and for a MONTHLY FEE. :ha 

The network is available in 140-150 countries but what % of their subscribers do you think come from the US, UK, Canada or Australia? I'd imagine somewhere near 95%. Economically strong English speaking countries. 

For obvious reasons this will always be their target market and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that interest in the US (which account for about 75-80% of all current subscribers on the last report) is dwindling. WWE has virtually disappeared from mainstream media in the UK and the last time I checked their UK ratings, they were down near 30% in comparison to last year. 

How long can WWE continue producing a garbage product centered around either an aging John Cena or his inferior replacement Roman Reigns and expect the network to flourish? 

Where are all the potential stars that are going to maintain the bulk of their US subscribers on a yearly basis in 5 or 10 years time? Roman Reigns is a busted flush. He's not up to the task. Anyone who at this point thinks this guy has the potential for a LONG TERM run as their top guy is scarily deluded. 

'They are past the breakeven point, they are already making money with the network' 

Yea, and at what point does it become a reality that they are in a battle to maintain subscribers over that threshold rather than growing their business? 

I'd guess sometime in the next five years if they persist on their current intended direction.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> You're one of the biggest WWE apologists I've ever seen on here. :lol


Not really, my support is actually issue based. Might be that the concept is a bit alien to this site but that's how it is.



Marrakesh said:


> When WWE shows itself to have the capacity to increase ratings significantly (much more so than other forms of programming) when they hit upon the right storyline or shake things up in direction that peaks the interest of the fans, then how can their failure to keep these viewers over the proceeding weeks be classed as a 'standard downward curve'?


it's because the ratings UNQUESTIONABLY have been decreasing year by year for the past 10 years. The 12/14/15 RAW had a monster * 27%* increase from the previous weak yet it amounted to be barely up from the same week's show last year which was considered a disaster. They can put a much better product every week and the rating would still steadily decrease or at best stay put where it is.



Marrakesh said:


> That is total nonsense. They consistently fail to maintain the high end of their potential viewership because of poor creative direction and storytelling.


Again, quality is subjective. RAW late 2009 was much worse than what we get now and still it cracked 4 million on a consistent basis. There is no data of a considerable domain that shows that ratings have risen substantially with a better product.



Marrakesh said:


> I also fail to see how you can claim that places that were not getting up to date WWE programming are suddenly going to swarm towards them now it's online and for a MONTHLY FEE. :ha


Eh? I fail to see why they won't? They get improved services and a chance to come on the same level as the U.S customers.. something which they never had the opportunity to have.. why wouldn't they swarm to the network?



Marrakesh said:


> The network is available in 140-150 countries but what % of their subscribers do you think come from the US, UK, Canada or Australia? I'd imagine somewhere near 95%. Economically strong English speaking countries.


Economically strong English speaking countries is hardly a criteria. Just wait for the India live show numbers which happened today. There is enormous demand for WWE programming and there are certainly many many people with fat wallets ready to shell a nominal sum like $9.99 to obtain the network.




Marrakesh said:


> For obvious reasons this will always be their target market and there is plenty of evidence to suggest that interest in the US (which account for about 75-80% of all current subscribers on the last report) is dwindling. WWE has virtually disappeared from mainstream media in the UK and the last time I checked their UK ratings, they were down near 30% in comparison to last year.


I won't talk more about the ratings, I believe I haven't written anything less than a compendium worth of my views on this issue and you probably realize by now how much I give importance to it in this day and age. 

As for the network numbers, yes, if there is ANY fluctuation in that parameter than it definitely warrants a lengthy discussion because it more than anything else is now the pulse of the organization. Ratings, not so much.



Marrakesh said:


> How long can WWE continue producing a garbage product centered around either an aging John Cena or his inferior replacement Roman Reigns and expect the network to flourish?


Again, "quality"..already addressed.



Marrakesh said:


> Where are all the potential stars that are going to maintain the bulk of their US subscribers on a yearly basis in 5 or 10 years time? Roman Reigns is a busted flush. He's not up to the task. Anyone who at this point thinks this guy has the potential for a LONG TERM run as their top guy is scarily deluded.


I don't think that Reigns is a "busted flush" by any means, but let's leave it for a separate thread and leave this for the ratings and the network.



Marrakesh said:


> 'They are past the breakeven point, they are already making money with the network'
> 
> Yea, and at what point does it become a reality that they are in a battle to maintain subscribers over that threshold rather than growing their business?
> 
> I'd guess sometime in the next five years if they persist on their current intended direction.


Cross the bridge when you reach it. As of today, the WWE is doing pretty good for themselves and have certainly made the correct business decisions.


----------



## Empress

*Thursday cable ratings: Republican debate numbers fall, plus ‘Lip Sync Battle,’ ‘WWE Smackdown’*

A Republican presidential primary debate delivered numbers that are both big and relatively small, depending on how you look at them.

The debate on Fox Business drew 11.09 million viewers and a 1.9 rating in adults 18-49 — FBN’s second-highest ratings ever, behind only the first Republican debate it hosted in November. It easily led the daily cable rankings, but it was also the smallest audience to tune in for a GOP debate in this election cycle.

Also Thursday, “Lip Sync Battle” posted a 1.0 for Spike, down from the 1.4 for its premiere but still ahead of its Season 1 average. “WWE Smackdown” drew a 0.7, down two tenths from its debut on USA last wek.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2016/01/15/thursday-cable-ratings-jan-14-2016/

WWE SMACKDOWN	USA	8:00 PM	2332	0.7


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2016/01/15/thursday-cable-ratings-jan-14-2016/
> 
> WWE SMACKDOWN	USA	8:00 PM	2332	0.7


So the exact same viewership as the 12/17 SD 4 weeks ago on SyFy which also had 2.332M viewers.

That one did a .63 though in the same demo, and a 1.68 overall rating. So wonder how this one does with a different network, different competition and a very mild change in presentation as far as overall ratings are concerned.


----------



## Empress

*1/14 WWE Smackdown Viewership Info: Show Suffers Big Drop From Premiere USA Network Episode*


According to ShowBuzzDaily.com, this week’s edition of WWE Smackdown, which was the sophomore USA Network show, averaged 2.331 million viewers. This is down from last week’s USA premiere episode, which averaged 2.757 million viewers and finished with a 1.93 rating.

This week’s number is still generally up from what Smackdown was averaging in December on Syfy, as last month’s highest Smackdown audience was 2.332 million viewers, and the low was 1.658 on New Year’s Eve.

This week’s final rating should be available shortly.


Read more at http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/662...nd-week-on-usa-network-do#KFX6AA4LvmDs6A1D.99


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> *it's because the ratings UNQUESTIONABLY have been decreasing year by year for the past 10 years. The 12/14/15 RAW had a monster  27% increase from the previous weak yet it amounted to be barely up from the same week's show last year which was considered a disaster. They can put a much better product every week and the rating would still steadily decrease or at best stay put where it is.*


How on earth would you know that?

WWE haven't come remotely close to maintaining quality on a weekly basis, let alone on a yearly basis for a long time now. 

That is a warped logic as it implies that the quality of a show has no effect on it's ratings. When in reality, higher quality shows attract more media attention, generate more buzz and yea, they do achieve higher ratings, and would do especially in the case of WWE, were they have a much larger potential audience to tap into as evidenced by those who tune in irregularly when something of note actually happens. 

They may have made a smart business decision in launching the network, but they haven't made one of those creatively in a very long time. 

I'm also highly skeptical that their international markets are going to be all that lucrative. I've already said that I believe the UK, Canada and Australia will account for a huge amount of their international subscribers number and I have a hard time believing that they are going to be doing large numbers on a subscription service in a dirt poor country like India.

We'll see I guess. 

They announced over 1.2m paying subscriptions in the third quarter of 2015. 

You would have to assume that with the recent launches in India, Germany, Austria, Japan and Switzerland that by the end of the second quarter of this year, (which will include Wrestlemania 32 and will be approximately 6 months into Reigns super push) that if they aren't looking at a substantial increase from the same period the year before then there may be some serious cause for concern.

Time will tell.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

@Empress

This is the actual chart, if anyone is interested:


----------



## The Tempest

EDIT: Nevermind :mj4


----------



## Empress

Thank you @THE SHIV and @The Tempest

I watched parts of Smackdown but nothing popped for me. It was alright, but come February, I won't even bother. The ABC line up is returning from hiatus. I wish the WWE were serious about treating Smackdown like a can't miss show. I don't think the change in channels is going to significantly impact the ratings one way or the other. They'll stay in their normal range.


----------



## Empress

*1/14 WWE Smackdown Ratings fall from debut*

Week 2 of WWE Smackdown on USA Network did not maintain the good start to a new era, as the show declined double-digit percentages.

WWE Smackdown Ratings Tracking

– January 14 (Week 2): Smackdown scored a 1.68 rating, down 13 percent from last week’s introductory 1.93 rating on USA Network.

Smackdown drew 2.332 million viewers, down 425,000 viewers (15.4 percent) from last week’s first-run audience.

Smackdown declined across the board in the key demographics.

Adults 18-49 was down to a 0.70 rating from a 0.85 last week
Males 18-34 was down to a 0.80 rating from a 0.96 last week
Males 18-49 was down to a 1.01 rating from a 0.87 last week

Caldwell’s Analysis: This is right back where Smackdown was on Syfy. Last week was a good start, but WWE is going to have to work extra hard to make Smackdown stand out when they already have three hours of programming they’re struggling to get through on Monday nights.
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/15/january14sdratings/


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> How on earth would you know that?
> 
> WWE haven't come remotely close to maintaining quality on a weekly basis, let alone on a yearly basis for a long time now.


Because the ratings have been falling for the last 10 years irrespective of the quality of the show. You might get a 27% spike and go "OH WOW GREAT" and then realize that still it's barely above last year's numbers which were considered to be a disaster at that time.



Marrakesh said:


> That is a warped logic as it implies that the quality of a show has no effect on it's ratings. When in reality, higher quality shows attract more media attention, generate more buzz and yea, they do achieve higher ratings, and would do especially in the case of WWE, were they have a much larger potential audience to tap into as evidenced by those who tune in irregularly when something of note actually happens.


Quality can obviously have a bearing on the show's numbers true but it isn't as if the show is any worse than late 2009 or quite a few other instances. You and many here might not like Reigns Vs The Authority but for all money there are many many more fans marking out over Reigns overcoming the odds. Never in the past 10 years have ratings been a concrete outcome of the quality of the show.





Marrakesh said:


> I'm also highly skeptical that their international markets are going to be all that lucrative. I've already said that I believe the UK, Canada and Australia will account for a huge amount of their international subscribers number and I have a hard time believing that they are going to be doing large numbers on a subscription service in a dirt poor country like India.
> 
> We'll see I guess.


You might want to read this piece on the India Live show just yesterday:

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/662...reigns-gets-great-reaction-kane-vs-wyatt-more

Add to it the fact that these 10,000+ people paid between $25 and $250 for a house show.. and this is just the tip of the iceberg. If Town 1 has 100 people with 50 rich ones and Town 2 has 1000 people with 100 rich ones, from where do you think more money will be made?




Marrakesh said:


> They announced over 1.2m paying subscriptions in the third quarter of 2015.
> 
> You would have to assume that with the recent launches in India, Germany, Austria, Japan and Switzerland that by the end of the second quarter of this year, (which will include Wrestlemania 32 and will be approximately 6 months into Reigns super push) that if they aren't looking at a substantial increase from the same period the year before then there may be some serious cause for concern.
> 
> Time will tell.


Subscription numbers are indeed the lifeline of the company now. Every small fluctuation has to and will be scrutinized by the company. They haven't been concerned about the ratings for quite some time now and rightly so.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> *1/14 WWE Smackdown Ratings fall from debut*
> 
> January 14 : Smackdown scored a *1.68 rating*
> Smackdown drew *2.332 million* viewers


*12/17 Smackdown Ratings*

December 17: Thursday’s show scored a *1.68 rating*
Smackdown drew *2.332 million* viewers

The exact same viewership and exact same rating from 4 weeks ago, during the fallout of Reigns as champ, and the last time on SyFy SD had a taped episode not fall on a major holiday.

Despite a different network, competition and slightly different presentation, did the audience just carry over to USA from SyFy or was there a tangible increase than if they stayed.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> They don't need to negotiate, the fact that they have been getting better deals despite the ratings falling for 10 years is a testament to the fact that the "standard of viewership" expected by the network is dynamic and changes along with the times.
> 
> The ratings won't get better because the TV, as a medium is increasingly becoming more and more obsolete with the advent of internet just like Radio did with the advent of T.V. It's not a reversible change. The network IS the future of ALL WWE programming no questions asked. The onus is on the sponsors to do their marketing analysis on how to counter this change..not on the WWE, they have already moved on with the times and self-sufficed towards for the distant future with the network.


That is just nonsense. People don't change their habits this quickly, especially not their largest audience group, which is 30+, namely long time fans. The teenage audience isn't worth mentioning, and the kids 7+ are either not allowed to watch anyway, or have parents that fall into the 30+ category. 

The notion that TV is "dying" is ridiculous. And if it is, certainly not at the rate WWE ratings are dropping.
Teens and casuals may watch Raw still, but guess what would happen if they were to suddenly pay for it? The Network captures the hardcore fans, nothing more.
If Raw were to disappear from TV tomorrow, half the audience, at most, would give a damn.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> That is just nonsense. People don't change their habits this quickly, especially not their largest audience group, which is 30+, namely long time fans. The teenage audience isn't worth mentioning, and the kids 7+ are either not allowed to watch anyway, or have parents that fall into the 30+ category.


So you're telling me that people didn't actually change from Radio to TV, from Floppy Disk to CD to DVD to External HDD because of OLD HABITS? That's a pretty strange argument. People change pretty quickly as soon as they realize a better alternative is in town. Some may realize sooner or later but eventually it's a unilateral and irreversible change.



Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> The notion that TV is "dying" is ridiculous. And if it is, certainly not at the rate WWE ratings are dropping.
> Teens and casuals may watch Raw still, but guess what would happen if they were to suddenly pay for it? The Network captures the hardcore fans, nothing more.
> If Raw were to disappear from TV tomorrow, half the audience, at most, would give a damn.


No change ever takes linearly. There can always be a point where drastic change takes place. See the graph I posted a page or two back. And saying that Network captures only the hardcore fans is again a pretty big falsehood. Any normal fan can afford to pay the nominal sum of $9.99 to obtain most of WWEs programming along with the PPVs, many countries have never had the opportunity to come up to date with the U.S as far as all the programming goes and they would definitely want to do so when finally given the opportunity.


----------



## RatedR10

I'm guessing Raw ratings are delayed until Wednesday this week?


----------



## Empress

RatedR10 said:


> I'm guessing Raw ratings are delayed until Wednesday this week?


Yes, they will be delayed.



> Due to the MLK holiday, ratings for last night's WWE RAW will be delayed until Wednesday.


http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0119/606817/paul-heyman-brock-lesnar-royal-rumble-promo/


----------



## The_Jiz

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Because the ratings have been falling for the last 10 years irrespective of the quality of the show. You might get a 27% spike and go "OH WOW GREAT" and then realize that still it's barely above last year's numbers which were considered to be a disaster at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> Quality can obviously have a bearing on the show's numbers true but it isn't as if the show is any worse than late 2009 or quite a few other instances. You and many here might not like Reigns Vs The Authority but for all money there are many many more fans marking out over Reigns overcoming the odds. Never in the past 10 years have ratings been a concrete outcome of the quality of the show.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You might want to read this piece on the India Live show just yesterday:
> 
> http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/662...reigns-gets-great-reaction-kane-vs-wyatt-more
> 
> Add to it the fact that these 10,000+ people paid between $25 and $250 for a house show.. and this is just the tip of the iceberg. If Town 1 has 100 people with 50 rich ones and Town 2 has 1000 people with 100 rich ones, from where do you think more money will be made?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Subscription numbers are indeed the lifeline of the company now. Every small fluctuation has to and will be scrutinized by the company. They haven't been concerned about the ratings for quite some time now and rightly so.


You're over rating the network. The Network is built on an extremely weak foundation. Its a nostalgia instrument to rout the longtime fans that they continue to alienate and ridicule. 

You have to remember it took them a year into the network before they even broke even so they were losing money before than. And looking into the fact that the sheer amount of content they are offering is good for fans but most likely spoiling future dvd projects for wwe. Lets not forget wwe were churning out dvd's from best managers to best of table matches pretty much the only thing they haven't done was best of referees spots. They knew they were sucking that well bone dry. 

They broke even but how many months were they handing out free subscriptions? It was damn near every month before they finally announced their projected goal number to their investors. You are right the ratings and buy rates bottoming out could be accounted for the sake of the subscriber count but who knows how many have actually stayed. 

The subscriber count is a fallacy to secure a false sense of success to their stock investors.


----------



## Empress

*The Rock Named Top International Movie Star, WWE PC Video Airing At The Royal Rumble, RAW Twitter*

- Monday's RAW ranked #2 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Bachelor. RAW had a unique audience of 1.270 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.252 million. RAW had total impressions of 8.537 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from last week's 8.392 million impressions.

- The Rock has been named the #1 international box office star of 2015 by Deadline with $1.48 billion brought in. He posted the following from Deadline:

Only way to start this post is with THANK YOU. WORLD'S #1 INTERNATIONAL BOX OFFICE STAR. I was blessed with this title in 2013 and now again in 2015. $1.48billion is a lot of revenue to generate in our business in only one year, BUT it's also the important reminder that regardless of what we achieve in life, we always gotta keep striving for more, staying hungrier than the rest and being grateful around every corner. This cool global achievement doesn't happen without my amazing family, management, agents, attorneys, publicists, financial management, studio partners, fellow actors, Team Rock and the final two deserving personal shout outs - my dog #HobbsTheBeast and you... THE greatest f*cking fans in the world. Stay hungry and keep working your ass off because one day I want to see the news write a cool report about you and YOUR accomplishments. #LetsGetToWork #ChaseYourGreatness #SevenBucksProductions #1 WorldWide #TimeForACheatMeal 


http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...ance-center-video-airing-at-the-royal-rumble/


https://www.instagram.com/p/BAtNvYxohzU/?taken-by=therock


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/689594478806495232


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The_Jiz said:


> You're over rating the network. The Network is built on an extremely weak foundation. Its a nostalgia instrument to rout the longtime fans that they continue to alienate and ridicule.


It can never be an on extremely weak platform, because it's on a platform that will surely be the primary stakeholder of all programming in the near future when T.V becomes obsolete. In that sense you can more like say that WWE has actually done the smart thing perceiving this change before many others.



The_Jiz said:


> You have to remember it took them a year into the network before they even broke even so they were losing money before than. And looking into the fact that the sheer amount of content they are offering is good for fans but most likely spoiling future dvd projects for wwe. Lets not forget wwe were churning out dvd's from best managers to best of table matches pretty much the only thing they haven't done was best of referees spots. They knew they were sucking that well bone dry.


You would have a point if your domain of concern was only the original centres, what the network has done is for the first time in history is to bring the fans throughout the world on the same pedestal as far most of it's as programming goes..for a nominal sum of $9.99 no less, this in itself has changed the game considerably. As of the data available to us at this moment, WWE has breezed past the break even point at the centres it was the most critical and difficult to do. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be sprinting through the profits now. The moment there is a fluctuation on any of the Network numbers, there would surely be series of thorough discussions on it.. for the ratings not so much.



The_Jiz said:


> They broke even but how many months were they handing out free subscriptions? It was damn near every month before they finally announced their projected goal number to their investors. You are right the ratings and buy rates bottoming out could be accounted for the sake of the subscriber count but who knows how many have actually stayed.
> 
> The subscriber count is a fallacy to secure a false sense of success to their stock investors.


That's irrelevant. It very well may be that the free months was all it needed for all the fence sitting apprehensive customers to be sold on the product which very well seems to be the case with the drastic increase in paid customers afterwards, in the context of marketing it was a genius decision.


----------



## LilOlMe

Here are the ratings for the 1/19/2015 show (the go home RAW before last years Rumble):


> WWE Raw ratings (Jan. 19, 2015): Royal Rumble go home show averages 4 million viewers
> 
> This past Monday night's episode averaged 4.09 million viewers for all three hours.
> 
> The hourly breakdown:
> 
> Hour one: 4.29 million
> Hour two: 4.14 million
> Hour three: 3.87 million


If recent trends continue, this week's show should get about 3.65 million viewers according to this:


> Last Monday’s average viewership of 3.23 million viewers was the lowest for RAW in the month of January since the Monday Night Wars era.
> 
> The rating for the 2016 show was a 2.36, down 12.92% from the same week in 2015, and also the lowest January rating since before the Monday Night Wars.
> 
> It’s important to note that 2015 was the first year that of the current format of the NCAA college football playoffs, meaning that the championship game was later than it had been in previous years and had never gone up against RAW prior to that.
> 
> If this trend continues, it would be the 14th straight month that RAW viewership has dropped year-over-year with most of those months seeing a decline of more than 10%. Similarily, the combined rating so far in January is 2.43, down 17.8% from last year’s 2.95 rating in January.
> 
> One year ago today, RAW did an average of 4.09 million viewers. The last 10 weeks, RAW has been averaging about 11% less than the previous year’s number, so the estimated numbers are 3.65 million viewers and a 2.65 rating.


http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/inside-raw-numbers-monday-january-11-205851


----------



## Blade Runner

If quality is any indication then the rating this week should be atrocious -- but don't underestimate the amount of people falling asleep infront of their TVs before having the chance to close it, thus inadvertently keeping the nelson rating above water

:drake1


----------



## Marrakesh

LilOlMe said:


> Here are the ratings for the 1/19/2015 show (the go home RAW before last years Rumble):
> 
> 
> If recent trends continue, this week's show should get about 3.65 million viewers according to this:
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/inside-raw-numbers-monday-january-11-205851


January 19th Rumble go home show last year was Sting's Raw debut. 

It also included a promo exchange between Cena, Rollins and Heyman/Lesnar. 

Daniel Bryan vs Bray Wyatt.

A legends panel that included Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair and a promo from the NWO. 

They also teased throughout the show that Cena would face a mystery opponent in the main event. 

Compare that show to what we got this year. 

There is going to be a much larger drop than the 10 or 11% that has been predicted. Imo anyway. Not a chance this week gains 350-400k viewers on last week.


----------



## Goldusto

Marrakesh said:


> January 19th Rumble go home show last year was Sting's Raw debut.
> 
> It also included a promo exchange between Cena, Rollins and Heyman/Lesnar.
> 
> Daniel Bryan vs Bray Wyatt.
> 
> A legends panel that included Hulk Hogan, Shawn Michaels and Ric Flair and a promo from the NWO.
> 
> They also teased throughout the show that Cena would face a mystery opponent in the main event.
> 
> .


jesus you forget how stacked the rtwm was last year before reigns won the rumble and how eveerything has disintergrated since Fast Lane, we were getting a good program with daniel bryan and reigns


----------



## Empress

*Nielsen to Use Facebook and Twitter in New Ratings System*

Nielsen is getting more social.

The media research firm plans to announce on Wednesday that it is working with Facebook to include conversations about TV programs on the social network in its measurement system. Now called “Social Content Ratings,” the metric will also include TV-related chatter on Twitter.

The deal is part of a broader effort at Nielsen to improve its methods for measuring how people watch television today.

The company has faced harsh criticism in recent years from TV and advertising executives, who complain that Nielsen has failed to keep pace with the digital transformation that has reshaped the industry. As a result, they say, it is not accurately capturing the real audience for shows. Last week, for instance, television network executives expressed frustration over the lack of measurement of programs on the streaming service Netflix.

Nielsen has tried to fight back, introducing a series of services that track digital viewing. About three years ago, Nielsen struck a deal with Twitter to measure television-related conversations on Twitter. For example, the companies released data for the Republican presidential debate on Fox Business Network last week. The program elicited 1.2 million Twitter messages, written by 247,000 unique authors, that were seen by a total of 6.4 million people.

The new ratings will measure programs on both traditional television and streaming services during the time period when the show is televised. It will also monitor conversations about television programs round the clock.

With the new offering, Nielsen is building a stronger force in the so-called social listening market. That includes companies like ListenFirst Media that monitors activity on more than a dozen digital media outlets for more than 40 television networks.

To date, media companies have tapped Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings as a tool to develop and market shows. Advertisers have used them to help decide where to spend their budgets. Executives said that the goal is for the expanded social ratings to become even more integral to the industry.

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...-ratings-system.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0


*This could potentially benefit the WWE. *


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> *Nielsen to Use Facebook and Twitter in New Ratings System*
> 
> Nielsen is getting more social.
> 
> The media research firm plans to announce on Wednesday that it is working with Facebook to include conversations about TV programs on the social network in its measurement system. Now called “Social Content Ratings,” the metric will also include TV-related chatter on Twitter.
> 
> The deal is part of a broader effort at Nielsen to improve its methods for measuring how people watch television today.
> 
> The company has faced harsh criticism in recent years from TV and advertising executives, who complain that Nielsen has failed to keep pace with the digital transformation that has reshaped the industry. As a result, they say, it is not accurately capturing the real audience for shows. Last week, for instance, television network executives expressed frustration over the lack of measurement of programs on the streaming service Netflix.
> 
> Nielsen has tried to fight back, introducing a series of services that track digital viewing. About three years ago, Nielsen struck a deal with Twitter to measure television-related conversations on Twitter. For example, the companies released data for the Republican presidential debate on Fox Business Network last week. The program elicited 1.2 million Twitter messages, written by 247,000 unique authors, that were seen by a total of 6.4 million people.
> 
> The new ratings will measure programs on both traditional television and streaming services during the time period when the show is televised. It will also monitor conversations about television programs round the clock.
> 
> With the new offering, Nielsen is building a stronger force in the so-called social listening market. That includes companies like ListenFirst Media that monitors activity on more than a dozen digital media outlets for more than 40 television networks.
> 
> To date, media companies have tapped Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings as a tool to develop and market shows. Advertisers have used them to help decide where to spend their budgets. Executives said that the goal is for the expanded social ratings to become even more integral to the industry.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...-ratings-system.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
> 
> 
> *This could potentially benefit the WWE. *


Not the worst idea -- but it should be kept as a subsidary metric and not somehow incorporated in an all encompassing measurement. Television viewership is still the most important gauger for shareholders and sponsors, not discussion on social media

It's a nice addition to broaden their brand tho. They can go a step further and provide statistical analysis, regression calculus, market projection -- comparing trends in terms of marketshare in all regions where the WWE product is being sold. They can get direct feedback from retailers where merch is being sold -- ect. If they use various different sample methods then they could give us an idea of how well the WWE is performing even beyond quarter-breakdown press releases -- so much of the information is undisclosed anyway, so our best alternative is analysing trends based on the information available

but again, should be kept as a side thing


----------



## birthday_massacre

Empress said:


> *Nielsen to Use Facebook and Twitter in New Ratings System*
> 
> Nielsen is getting more social.
> 
> The media research firm plans to announce on Wednesday that it is working with Facebook to include conversations about TV programs on the social network in its measurement system. Now called “Social Content Ratings,” the metric will also include TV-related chatter on Twitter.
> 
> The deal is part of a broader effort at Nielsen to improve its methods for measuring how people watch television today.
> 
> The company has faced harsh criticism in recent years from TV and advertising executives, who complain that Nielsen has failed to keep pace with the digital transformation that has reshaped the industry. As a result, they say, it is not accurately capturing the real audience for shows. Last week, for instance, television network executives expressed frustration over the lack of measurement of programs on the streaming service Netflix.
> 
> Nielsen has tried to fight back, introducing a series of services that track digital viewing. About three years ago, Nielsen struck a deal with Twitter to measure television-related conversations on Twitter. For example, the companies released data for the Republican presidential debate on Fox Business Network last week. The program elicited 1.2 million Twitter messages, written by 247,000 unique authors, that were seen by a total of 6.4 million people.
> 
> The new ratings will measure programs on both traditional television and streaming services during the time period when the show is televised. It will also monitor conversations about television programs round the clock.
> 
> With the new offering, Nielsen is building a stronger force in the so-called social listening market. That includes companies like ListenFirst Media that monitors activity on more than a dozen digital media outlets for more than 40 television networks.
> 
> To date, media companies have tapped Nielsen’s Twitter TV ratings as a tool to develop and market shows. Advertisers have used them to help decide where to spend their budgets. Executives said that the goal is for the expanded social ratings to become even more integral to the industry.
> 
> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...-ratings-system.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
> 
> 
> *This could potentially benefit the WWE. *


Why not use just like you know what people are really watching on their cable boxes and DVRS. Its not that difficult. You don't need to use twitter or FB. just use the cable boxes


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> Why not use just like you know what people are really watching on their cable boxes and DVRS. Its not that difficult. You don't need to use twitter or FB. just use the cable boxes


That's true. I've never owned a Neilson box but cable boxes and DVR's have been used to gauge viewership. But Neilson is in a tricky spot. A lot happens on social media and they've been bullied to this point IMO.

Like @DAMN SKIPPY posted, Twitter should be its own separate thing and not necessarily bundled into actual ratings. Anyone can tweet about a television show without actually watching. Not to mention how lazy it is to just retweet. This is the same thing as Billboard now counting streaming as a part of sales. Just no. I hate that new rule so much. It should be separate. 

As for WWE, I've noticed that they have an increase in ratings when their Twitter rating is high.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.775M
H2-3.591M
H3-3.123M

Avg-3.496M*










_H3 fell from H2 by 13.03% (-0.468M) and from H1 by 17.27% (-0.652M)
H2 fell from H1 by 4.88% (-0.184M) _


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

No NFL or College Football competition AND the go-home show to the Rumble and still can't get out of the mid 3's. 

:jay

And huge fall from hour 1 to 3.


----------



## A-C-P

That hour 3 # 

:ha:HAbryanlol:reneelel:tysonlolhillip2:maury:hestonointandlaugh


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> No NFL or College Football competition AND the go-home show to the Rumble and still can't get out of the mid 3's.
> 
> :jay
> 
> And huge fall from hour 1 to 3.


:damn

That's a drastic drop from hour 1 to 3. They'd at least been stable in recent weeks. 

What was going on between hour 2 and 3? I wasn't paying much attention but the TV was on. 

They started out strong at least and loss those viewers as the night went on.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> :damn
> 
> That's a drastic drop from hour 1 to 3. They'd at least been stable in recent weeks.
> 
> What was going on between hour 2 and 3? I wasn't paying much attention but the TV was on.
> 
> They started out strong at least and loss those viewers as the night went on.


I predict they do alittle better next week, the fallout from the Rumble with H likely involved and possibly him or Brock winning the title.

That being said, there really isn't a big difference between these numbers and when Monday Night Football was on. Thought they'd be better than this, especially with it being the go-home to one of the biggest PPVs of the year and Vince on again.


----------



## Blade Runner

Wow, big drop for hour 3 -- and to think that they were hyping up the final segment throughout the entire show


----------



## Kabraxal

What happened in that last hour?! And that is damning for WWE... The go home show for one of the favourite events and they lost 600000 viewers in mere hours. Talk about killing interest in the product.


----------



## kendoo

TV-14 for the last 2 hours is the only way forward.


----------



## RatedR10

Holy crap at hour 3 with a Highlight Reel segment they hyped all show. Wow.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Last year's numbers at this time:

January 19 2015: 

Hour one: 4.29 million
Hour two: 4.14 million
Hour three: 3.87 million

This year: 

H1-3.775M
H2-3.591M
H3-3.123M

Yikes.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> I predict they do alittle better next week, the fallout from the Rumble with H likely involved and possibly him or Brock winning the title.
> 
> That being said, there really isn't a big difference between these numbers and when Monday Night Football was on. Thought they'd be better than this, especially with it being the go-home to one of the biggest PPVs of the year and Vince on again.


Did they technically do better in ratings (viewers) or remain even this week? Either way, the ratings should be going up since there is no football to oppose them. Although, the CAVS/Warriors game was fun to watch if you're into a team getting blown out.

But yeah, they hyped up the main event and it bombed. The show was horrible to begin with but all the eggs were placed in the Highlight reel segment. And whatever else took place in Hour 3. 

It's too bad. The first hour was strong and the second held steady. But it just went to shit after that.


----------



## Peerless

I'm surprised that the Reigns-Lesnar segment didn't draw. You'd think the casuals might be interested in that part of the show most, guess not.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> Did they technically do better in ratings (viewers) or remain even this week? Either way, the ratings should be going up since there is no football to oppose them. Although, the CAVS/Warriors game was fun to watch if you're into a team getting blown out.
> 
> But yeah, they hyped up the main event and it bombed. The show was horrible to begin with but all the eggs were placed in the Highlight reel segment. And whatever else took place in Hour 3.
> 
> It's too bad. The first hour was strong and the second held steady. But it just went to shit after that.


Hours 1 and 2 should be much higher too considering there is no more football and this is their hot time of year. Meltzer said a couple weeks ago that historically, when football ends the ratings get around a 10% increase. Not this year.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> But yeah, they hyped up the main event and it bombed. The show was horrible to begin with but all the eggs were placed in the Highlight reel segment. And whatever else took place in Hour 3.


What surprises me most is the lack of interest in Lesnar since he was saved specifically for that segment -- it looks like the fans aren't really interested in a retread from last year. The teased rematch from Wrestlemania 31 doesn't seem to have any steam behind it based on the numbers and the crowd reaction for the segment

Ether way, not good news for the WWE going into their "biggest WM ever"


----------



## Empress

*
How Was WWE RAW Viewership For The Royal Rumble Go-Home Show With No Football Competition?*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, with Brock Lesnar and the final WWE Royal Rumble push, drew 3.496 million viewers. This is up 5% from last week's 3.323 million viewers.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.775 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.591 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.123 million viewers.

RAW was #2 for the night in viewership, behind the NBA, and #3 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind Love & Hip-Hop and the NBA.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...-for-wwe-royal-rumble-pay-per-view-help-this/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> What surprises me most is the lack of interest in Lesnar since he was saved specifically for that segment -- ether way, it looks like the fans aren't really interested in a retread from last year. The teased rematch from Wrestlemania 31 doesn't seem to have any steam behind it based on the numbers and the crowd reaction for the segment
> 
> Ether way, not good news for the WWE going into their "biggest WM ever"


The fact that they can't get out of the mid 3's with no football competition and on the go home show to the Rumble is scary, and with Brock and Vince on the show, too. :jay


----------



## Kabraxal

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Empress said:
> 
> 
> 
> But yeah, they hyped up the main event and it bombed. The show was horrible to begin with but all the eggs were placed in the Highlight reel segment. And whatever else took place in Hour 3.
> 
> 
> 
> What surprises me most is the lack of interest in Lesnar since he was saved specifically for that segment -- ether way, it looks like the fans aren't really interesting in a retread from last year. The teased rematch from Wrestlemania 31 doesn't seem to have any steam behind it based on the numbers and the crowd reaction for the segment
> 
> Ether way, not good news for the WWE going into their "biggest WM ever"
Click to expand...

And how predictable this show made things probably chased viewers away. There is no interest in Reigns as champ and not much more for Lesnar, Jericho, or Vince/Authority. The WWE has nothing going on to keep fans tuning in.


----------



## SnapOrTap

WAIT.

WAIT.

ROMAN REIGNS DIDN'T BRING DA VIEWERS AGAIN. 

BUT BUT THE SHOW'S PRACTICALLY BUILT AROUND OUR SOMOAN PRINCE. COME ON GUYS. WHY ISN'T HE DRAWING.

ONE FOR ALL GUYS. ONE FOR ALL. 

Why isn't it working!!! Why isn't the Big Dog BRINGING THE viewers in!!!

Dam.

3.1 million for something they advertised so hard for. 

Even Bork can't carry this Samoan Charisma Vacuum. 

And before we start the "BUT WE CAN'T BLAME THE RATINGS ON ONE GUY BS" - PLEASE. The entire show, the entire road to the Rumble has been made to be ABOUT HIM. He is the GUY. And look at these dogshit ratings. 

All I can say is, they need ROLLINS/BRYAN/OWENS/AMBROSE higher up on the card. The Reigns Experiment has failed. LMFAO @ the people saying the ratings would rise when Football isn't on Monday nights. This dude couldn't draw against HIP HOP ATLANTA.


----------



## Lone Star

ShowStopper said:


> Last year's numbers at this time:
> 
> January 19 2015:
> 
> Hour one: 4.29 million
> Hour two: 4.14 million
> Hour three: 3.87 million
> 
> This year:
> 
> H1-3.775M
> H2-3.591M
> H3-3.123M
> 
> Yikes.


2 years ago, Batista's return.

Hour one: 5.25 million
Hour two: 5.00 million
Hour three: 4.36 million

Link: http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-a-big-hit-for-wwe-raw-ratings-on-jan-20-2014

Reigns thus far is a pissbucket draw. Just dreadful numbers he pulls, and loses throughout the shows in which he's the main factor and focal points. 

Hilarious. Can't wait for the verbal thrashing from fans this Sunday. Vince McMahon needs get the fuck out.


----------



## The True Believer

Muwhahahahahaha!

Buuuuuuurn, baby, burn! :dance :dance :dance


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lone Star said:


> 2 years ago, Batista's return.
> 
> Hour one: 5.25 million
> Hour two: 5.00 million
> Hour three: 4.36 million
> 
> Link: http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...-a-big-hit-for-wwe-raw-ratings-on-jan-20-2014
> 
> Reigns thus far is a pissbucket draw. Just dreadful numbers he pulls, and loses throughout the shows in which he's the main factor and focal points.
> 
> Hilarious. Can't wait for the verbal thrashing from fans this Sunday. Vince McMahon needs get the fuck out.


Holy FUCK at those numbers from two years ago. Numbers 2 years ago in the *5 millions*. Last year in the *4 millions.* This year in the *3 millions*. Anyone see a pattern yet??? They've been losing a million viewers PER YEAR, no matter who has been champion the previous year. It's a problem, and they are FAILING this year, too.


----------



## Chrome

Garbage rating for a garbage show. Justice was served I must say.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Peerless said:


> I'm surprised that the Reigns-Lesnar segment didn't draw. You'd think the casuals might be interested in that part of the show most, guess not.


Yeah for real, they are by far the two top guys on the roster, don't interact much with each other and a segment between them completely bombs. That's scary.


----------



## Mr. I

ShowStopper said:


> Holy FUCK at those numbers from two years ago. Numbers 2 years ago in the *5 millions*. Last year in the *4 millions.* This year in the *3 millions*. Anyone see a pattern yet??? They've been losing a million viewers PER YEAR, no matter who has been champion the previous year. It's a problem, and they are FAILING this year, too.


The rating drop is appalling, but it should be noted the 5 million for 2014 was an anomaly due to the six weeks or so of hype for Batista's return after nearly five years. The other RAWs around that time did not break 5 million, they were in the mid 4s.


----------



## THANOS

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Yeah for real, they are by far the two top guys on the roster, don't interact much with each other and a segment between them completely bombs. That's scary.


It's great news! Hopefully this trend continues.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

THANOS said:


> It's great news! Hopefully this trend continues.


I think next week should do very well. 4 million+ easily, post Rumble always gains attention, but after that, who knows.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ithil said:


> The rating drop is appalling, but it should be noted the 5 million for 2014 was an anomaly due to the six weeks or so of hype for Batista's return after nearly five years. The other RAWs around that time did not break 5 million, they were in the mid 4s.


Thanks! I did not know that. Still, the point is clear. They're in a hole and have been for awhile now and it's not getting better, as you alluded to.


----------



## Blade Runner

THANOS said:


> It's great news! Hopefully this trend continues.


Yeah I agree that longterm it's the best thing for the product -- It sucks for Lesnar and Reigns, but at least it's a sign that WWE's lazy creative is coming back to bite them in the ^ss. Remember that the AE was born out of record low ratings -- If the interest in the product wasn't at an all time low then Vince wouldn't have felt the urgency to completely reinvent his product for a contemporary market. The only way we'll truly get change is if more people stop giving a f^ck about what they're force-feeding us every week


----------



## Kabraxal

The Inbred Goatman said:


> THANOS said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's great news! Hopefully this trend continues.
> 
> 
> 
> I think next week should do very well. 4 million+ easily, post Rumble always gains attention, but after that, who knows.
Click to expand...

Don't see the three most likely title holders and the obvious feuds going forward will help matters...


----------



## DoubtGin

Time for a certain someone to come back :bryan


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Not only did the third hour have 650,000 fewer viewers than hour one, but they also shed 2 tenths from the demo as well. Not a ringing endorsement for the main event of the go home RAW for The Rumble. They deserve the rating they got.


----------



## THANOS

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Yeah I agree that longterm it's the best thing for the product -- It sucks for Lesnar and Reigns, but at least it's a sign that WWE's lazy creative is coming back to bite them in the ^ss. Remember that the AE was born out of record low ratings -- If the interest in the product wasn't at an all time low then Vince wouldn't have felt the urgency to completely reinvent his product for a contemporary market. The only way we'll truly get change is if more people stop giving a f^ck about what they're force-feeding us every week


That's what I'm hoping for. It's obvious that Vince has been in complete control of everything happening the past few months and it would be one helluva reality check if the viewers/ratings drop steadily heading into Mania.



Kabraxal said:


> Don't see the _three most likely title holders_ and the obvious feuds going forward will help matters...


I do hope that if one of them leaves with the title the rating barely climbs or even dips, so a message can be sent.


----------



## Kabraxal

THANOS said:


> DAMN SKIPPY said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah I agree that longterm it's the best thing for the product -- It sucks for Lesnar and Reigns, but at least it's a sign that WWE's lazy creative is coming back to bite them in the ^ss. Remember that the AE was born out of record low ratings -- If the interest in the product wasn't at an all time low then Vince wouldn't have felt the urgency to completely reinvent his product for a contemporary market. The only way we'll truly get change is if more people stop giving a f^ck about what they're force-feeding us every week
> 
> 
> 
> That's what I'm hoping for. It's obvious that Vince has been in complete control of everything happening the past few months and it would be one helluva reality check if the viewers/ratings drop steadily heading into Mania.
> 
> 
> 
> Kabraxal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't see the _three most likely title holders_ and the obvious feuds going forward will help matters...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I do hope that if one of them leaves with the title the rating barely climbs or even dips, so a message can be sent.
Click to expand...

Me too... I might watch the RR match in the vein hope for a swerve, but if it goes like I suspect then there is no reason yo watch. Reigns doesn't feel like a champion. Brock bores me as the champ. And HHH should be nowhere the title now. 

I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it. At least I didn't suffer the past few Raws. I can survive the umpteenth terrible Rumble.


----------



## Wildcat410

I honestly can't see them reversing this tailspin unless they alter basic fundamentals. And even then who knows.

The numbers they are pulling now will probably look good in the near future. In another couple of NFL seasons they are going to be fighting to stay in the 2's if trends continue unaltered.


----------



## Lone Star

ShowStopper said:


> Thanks! I did not know that. Still, the point is clear. They're in a hole and have been for awhile now and it's not getting better, as you alluded to.


To follow up on your point.

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2013-ratings/

*2013 Average:* 3.01

Link: http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2014-ratings/

*2014 Average:* 2.95

*2015 Average:* 2.64. Also in the link below, notice the dramatic drop in ratings from August 2015-Now.

Link: http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2015-tv-ratings/



> August 3-9	2.65
> August 10-16	2.71
> August 17-23	2.73
> August 24-30	2.72
> 8/31 – 9/6	2.73
> September 7-13	2.42
> September 14-20	2.42
> September 21-27	2.46
> 9/28 – 10/4 2.32
> October 5-11	2.34
> October 12-18	2.32
> October 19-25	2.21
> 10/26 – 11/1	2.46
> November 2-8	2.32
> November 9-15	2.23
> November 16-22	2.28
> November 23-29	2.16
> 11/30 – 12/6	2.21
> December 7-13	2.15
> December 14-20	2.66
> December 21-27	2.33
> December 28-31	2.47


Scary.


----------



## The_Jiz

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> It can never be an on extremely weak platform, because it's on a platform that will surely be the primary stakeholder of all programming in the near future when T.V becomes obsolete. In that sense you can more like say that WWE has actually done the smart thing perceiving this change before many others.
> 
> 
> 
> You would have a point if your domain of concern was only the original centres, what the network has done is for the first time in history is to bring the fans throughout the world on the same pedestal as far most of it's as programming goes..for a nominal sum of $9.99 no less, this in itself has changed the game considerably. As of the data available to us at this moment, WWE has breezed past the break even point at the centres it was the most critical and difficult to do. There's no reason to think they wouldn't be sprinting through the profits now. The moment there is a fluctuation on any of the Network numbers, there would surely be series of thorough discussions on it.. for the ratings not so much.
> 
> 
> 
> That's irrelevant. It very well may be that the free months was all it needed for all the fence sitting apprehensive customers to be sold on the product which very well seems to be the case with the drastic increase in paid customers afterwards, in the context of marketing it was a genius decision.


You've definitely done your research. 

So you should know the significance of opportunity costs. For the longest time WWE's main source of income has been attendances figures. Their shows on tv could very well be adverts selling us tickets every week. And PPVs are a little extra on the side. But I don't see how its a good trade when you throw ratings and ppvs(a very huge chunk btw where it caused concern from their own talents) for the subscribers. Their attendance are not doing hot either. So their network revenue could be up but at the cost of their expenses and missed opportunity costs they could be doing on par for the course or even worse. 

Thats why when companys report successful revenue without highlighting net profit its pointless.

WWE knew well that they have done all they can from their amazing library so instead they just release it for all day every day access instead

I do agree the tv as this big medium is dying and it is smart of wwe to lock up their fans before that day ever comes but if things aren't looking up in other departments it wouldn't surprise me if they mark up their network prices. 

Sorry for not providing sources.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lone Star said:


> To follow up on your point.
> 
> http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2013-ratings/
> 
> *2013 Average:* 3.01
> 
> Link: http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2014-ratings/
> 
> *2014 Average:* 2.95
> 
> *2015 Average:* 2.64. Also in the link below, notice the dramatic drop in ratings from August 2015-Now.
> 
> Link: http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2015-tv-ratings/
> 
> 
> 
> Scary.


Yep. I made this point last week, but instead of August, started with September, because that's when it fell much more, from 2.7 to 2.4 from last week of August to 1st week of September. They haven't recovered since September. The NFL rapes them, bro.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I'm sure we'll start hearing more Daniel Bryan getting cleared rumors in the upcoming weeks. 

The fact that they weren't competing against football and they almost hit below 3 million viewers is an abomination. 

COME ON DB.

SAVE US THIS GUTTER PRODUCT. 

AND BRING AJ/NAKAMURA/OWENS/AMBORSE/ZAYN WITH YOU TO THE TOP CARD.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Ratings down? Lets kill roh and tna for good signing all their stars.

Roh gets 600k a week

Tna gets 300k a week.

Those viewers will have to watch us since were the only game in town

Raws back over 4.5 million!

-vince logic


----------



## Chrome

amhlilhaus said:


> Ratings down? Lets kill roh and tna for good signing all their stars.
> 
> Roh gets 600k a week
> 
> Tna gets 300k a week.
> 
> Those viewers will have to watch us since were the only game in town
> 
> Raws back over 4.5 million!
> 
> -vince logic


I mean, they can sign all the people they want, but shitty booking is shitty booking. Until they fix that, the show's ratings will continue to drop regardless of who they sign.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

WWE is in terminal decline. It cannot be saved. It has been dying for 20 years with only the AE as a bump in popularity. As soon as they won the war they went back to being garbage. Only this time there is 3hrs a week of it. 

The people needed are not in WWE. Everyone from the writers to the wrestlers themselves dont have the talent nor the will to survive.


----------



## TNAComics14

amhlilhaus said:


> Ratings down? Lets kill roh and tna for good signing all their stars.
> 
> Roh gets 600k a week
> 
> Tna gets 300k a week.
> 
> Those viewers will have to watch us since were the only game in town
> 
> Raws back over 4.5 million!
> 
> -vince logic


Speaking of Vince logic, you must be suspended for 30 days for failing the wellness policy if you think ROH is getting 600k a week. TNA's number is accurate but ROH was getting half TNA's ratings on DA and with Comet the drop must have been drastic


----------



## Kabraxal

TNAComics14 said:


> amhlilhaus said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ratings down? Lets kill roh and tna for good signing all their stars.
> 
> Roh gets 600k a week
> 
> Tna gets 300k a week.
> 
> Those viewers will have to watch us since were the only game in town
> 
> Raws back over 4.5 million!
> 
> -vince logic
> 
> 
> 
> Speaking of Vince logic, you must be suspended for 30 days for failing the wellness policy if you think ROH is getting 600k a week. TNA's number is accurate but ROH was getting half TNA's ratings on DA and with Comet the drop must have been drastic
Click to expand...

Except RoH, even in DA days, had a second channel where they first aired.


----------



## Goldusto

Ithil said:


> The rating drop is appalling, but it should be noted the 5 million for 2014 was an anomaly due to the six weeks or so of hype for Batista's return after nearly five years. *The other RAWs around that time did not break 5 million, they were in the mid 4s.*


*dude its 2 years later and they can't even hit the mid-**3's* *a staggering 1.5 million people Have tuned out for good.*


2 years ago - batista return, Bryan hijacking, shield kicking ass and taking names, Cesaro/real americans gaining massive momentum,

last year - sting debut,rusev domination,brock lesnar as champion,rollins,bryan,cena,lana,

this year - A funeral for a trombone and vince mcmahon failing to open a lottery ball.


----------



## Marrakesh

Vince and Stephanie show up to announce that Reigns will be the number one entrant in the rumble. Fans turn their TV sets off. 

:ha


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Marrakesh said:


> Vince and Stephanie show up to announce that Reigns will be the number one entrant in the rumble. Fans turn their TV sets off.
> 
> :ha


Didn't that happen in the middle or towards the end of hour 2? That realistically could've been what cause people to tune out.


----------



## Empress

*1/18 WWE Raw Ratings – Raw rebounds, but third hour falls hard*

Monday’s WWE Raw rebounded from last week’s show against the college football National Title game, but there was a concerning third hour drop-off during the show…

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

– January 18: Raw scored a 2.45 rating, up from a 2.36 rating last week against the football game. This was slightly down from a 2.49 rating to kick off 2016 on Jan. 4.

Raw averaged 3.496 million viewers, up five percent from last week. This was mainly due to the first hour, which drew a relatively solid audience. But, the third hour fell sharply.

First Hour: 3.775 million viewers, the most first hour viewers since the night after TLC in December
Second Hour: 3.591 million viewers
Third Hour: 3.123 million viewers, a 13 percent decline despite the advertised appearance of Brock Lesnar in the final segment.
Raw’s demographic ratings were similar to last week’s show. Males 18-34 declined from last week, but males 18-49 increased to a one-month high.

Caldwell’s Analysis: It appears a good chunk of viewers were unwilling to sit through a very long, drawn-out three-hour Raw to see Brock Lesnar in the final segment of the show in the Highlight Reel. It will be interesting to see if the third hour turns out to be a heavy DVR hour with viewers fast-forwarding to the end of the show to see if anything interesting happened before the Rumble.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/20/jan18rawratings/


----------



## birthday_massacre

The Roman empire keeps falling.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Marrakesh said:


> Vince and Stephanie show up to announce that Reigns will be the number one entrant in the rumble. Fans turn their TV sets off.
> 
> :ha


People aren't dying to see the main event scene that they've been parroting out there every week. It's stale and boring. Part of me still can't believe they didn't experience the big bump due to Football being over. Concerning.


----------



## The Bloodline

ShowStopper said:


> People aren't dying to see the main event scene that they've been parroting out there every week. It's stale and boring. Part of me still can't believe they didn't experience the big bump due to Football being over. Concerning.


I honestly don't think football has even been effecting them much. Last week against the college game which had massive ratings didn't effect what seems to be the normal number for Raw these days.

I just think the 3.5 million viewers range is their normal number. Everyone else left, with or without football to watch on mondays.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

ZeroFear0 said:


> I honestly don't think football has even been effecting them much. Last week against the college game which had massive ratings didn't effect what seems to be the normal number for Raw these days.
> 
> I just think the 3.5 million viewers range is their normal number. Everyone else left, with or without football to watch on mondays.


I don't know about right now, but last September ratings fell off in the first week of September and stayed down. Last week of August they did a 2.73 and the first week of September they went down to a 2.42. They haven't been back to a 2.7 since. The viewers haven't come back since the first week of September, which, as we all know, is when the NFL season starts.

Maybe 3.5 million is their new average. It could just be a coincidence that it went down to that when the NFL season started.


----------



## Bret Hart

ShowStopper said:


> Last year's numbers at this time:
> 
> January 19 2015:
> 
> Hour one: 4.29 million
> Hour two: 4.14 million
> Hour three: 3.87 million
> 
> This year:
> 
> H1-3.775M
> H2-3.591M
> H3-3.123M
> 
> Yikes.



:ha "I'm not out of touch"


----------



## Bret Hart

Brock Lesnar is going to be with the company for four years in April, he's done the same shit over and over again on Raw. It's fucking about time he does something else, like y'know wrestle? Treating Lesnar higher than others in every aspect is what's fucking up the quality of the shows. 

It's 

Brock Lesnar

John Cena
Roman Reigns


And then the rest. It shouldn't be like that. 


Having the Wyatts fuck Lesnar up was the best thing creative has done ever since the Taker/Brock brawl. 


Don't bring up that stupid fucking analogy of Christmas every week when talking about Brock Lesnar.

We had Rock and Austin from 1998-2002 every fucking week sometimes twice and thrice a week and it was fucking amazing.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The_Jiz said:


> You've definitely done your research.
> 
> So you should know the significance of opportunity costs. For the longest time WWE's main source of income has been attendances figures. Their shows on tv could very well be adverts selling us tickets every week. And PPVs are a little extra on the side. But I don't see how its a good trade when you throw ratings and ppvs(a very huge chunk btw where it caused concern from their own talents) for the subscribers. Their attendance are not doing hot either. So their network revenue could be up but at the cost of their expenses and missed opportunity costs they could be doing on par for the course or even worse.


Yes, and the tickets and merchandise sales are still parameters make no mistake about it. I never disputed that. Any fluctuations in any of these warrant a discussion with much more vigour than it does for the ratings. Someone just posted the ratings of last year's show which was absolutely STACKED from top to bottom with several big advertised names and was overall the best show of the year, still it did ratings which were considered at best par the course or even disappointing. Ratings and the sustained quality of the shows haven't shown a strong correlation in like years.. you might get a spike here and there.. but mostly it has been following a trend.



The_Jiz said:


> Thats why when companys report successful revenue without highlighting net profit its pointless.
> 
> WWE knew well that they have done all they can from their amazing library so instead they just release it for all day every day access instead
> 
> I do agree the tv as this big medium is dying and it is smart of wwe to lock up their fans before that day ever comes but if things aren't looking up in other departments it wouldn't surprise me if they mark up their network prices.
> 
> Sorry for not providing sources.


They've already breezed past the break even point and taken care of the capital investment. The network now IS the WWE, it's just a matter of time before RAW and Smackdown get shifted there as well. On both sides of this post, you'd see people arguing over a +/-300,000 swing of viewers on a near outdated platform in 1 country.. the fact being that even a network subscriber loss of 30,000 throughout the world means much more and warrants a much bigger discussion.


----------



## Headliner

What is there to discuss here? Why are there mark wars? Why are people getting into pointless arguments? Questions, questions, questions. 

The ratings will stay the same until the product as a whole changes. It has nothing to do with who is the WWE Champion. Wrestling has been in a steady decline for years now, and WWE in particular has lost its luster every year since the attitude era with no sign of picking back up. We've all talked about their writing. Yes, they need much better storylines, much better character development, much more focus on getting guys over, no more political/ego driven booking etc. There's a deeper problem here. 

Their product simply sucks. Most of the segments on TV are so "fake looking" which can make it very hard to suspend your belief and enjoy the product without shouting out "this is bullshit". Then you have executives like Vince, Steph, Triple H doing these interviews in DVD segments, charities, fundraisers or special events where they basically tell you that wrestling is fake/scripted, and to put a cap on things, they have heels participating in these charity events acting like super nice guys. It kills the whole gimmick especially when the heel comes out to wrestle right after they show these things on the titantron. They don't need to show these events on WWE TV. All they are trying to do is brag about their contributions to mainstream society. 

The death of kayfabe has definitely caused WWE to take a hit because it no longer feels like a genuine wrestling show. It hasn't felt that way in probably 8 years. If anything it feels like a parody of wrestling and that's the kiss of death. You can also argue that social media is not good for WWE regardless of the marketing opportunities it provides because it exposes wrestlers more when they decide to not use social media in character.


----------



## Starbuck

Raw is Jericho driving away 600k people. Maybe watching a man nearing 50 play out his mid life crisis on live TV isn't what people want to see? Don't worry though, King Hunter will be champion next week and ratings will go up. You heard it here first.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

It should be concerning that a hyped segment involving essentially the main event of Mania last year failing so hard. 600,000 down from the first hour? Shit... well next week should receive a big bump from the Rumble fallout, but even if hour 1 is high, it will probably just drop back down to the mid/low 3 millions by the end and then week 2 after the Rumble will be back to business as usual. I wonder if the night after WM will get the huge bump it's gotten the past couple of years?


----------



## Trivette

They've been regularly hitting low 3's for months now, it's the same thing every week. Nothing will change until there is an overall reboot of the show. As it stands they have been running the same Authority angle for almost three years now. Furthermore, they have made it clear that within the current creative paradigm, only the monthly PPV's matter. You can skip RAW every week and not miss a beat.


----------



## Empress

#BadNewsSanta said:


> It should be concerning that a hyped segment involving essentially the main event of Mania last year failing so hard. 600,000 down from the first hour? Shit... well next week should receive a big bump from the Rumble fallout, but even if hour 1 is high, it will probably just drop back down to the mid/low 3 millions by the end and then week 2 after the Rumble will be back to business as usual. *I wonder if the night after WM will get the huge bump it's gotten the past couple of years?*


I suppose if they have implemented the new ratings system by then. A Mania bump and social media could get WWE over the line.


----------



## Starbuck

This is all Jericho's fault. They basically built the show around this idiot. They're even trying to use him to sell the Rumble. 

:lmao 

Jericho as a serious contender for anything = no buys.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Lone Star said:


> 2 years ago, Batista's return.
> 
> Hour one: 5.25 million
> Hour two: 5.00 million
> Hour three: 4.36 million


Big Dave fucking draws!










This goofy looking idiot they got as champ now on the mic like Frankenstein's monster saying his first words doesn't draw? No way!!!!!!

Hold that :lose you WWE fucktards!


----------



## Lone Star

Bray Wyatt's new phrase: :vince5

"It's everybody's fault but yours Roman".


----------



## TheLooseCanon

They made it a point the top 3 guys right now are Roman/Lesnar/Y2J on RAW. So we need to blame Ambrose and Owens.


----------



## Lone Star

Vince could draw more money selling his brass rings than he could putting on WWE event's. The price of brass is pretty high.

I mean look at all the brass rings he's given and taken back since John Cena and Batista in 05. Alberto's and Sheamus' got stolen by a waffle house cook and a farm animal. Roman's brass is being held hostage by a LUNATIC.

:eyeroll


----------



## phenom64

And people thought the Columbus crowd was bad......well over half a million people didn't care Lesnar was in the final segment. That says a lot.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Lesnar breaking the streak in retrospect was literally the most stupid thing ever.


----------



## TNA is Here

It's still too high. It needs to hit the 2s and below 2. The only reason it has not gone below this it's cause since TLC, Vince has been all over the TV and somehow, some way, some people still want to see his old out of touch disgusting ass. I blame the popularity of granny porn.


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer:


> No bounce back for WWE RAW ratings without NFL
> 
> By Dave Meltzer | @davemeltzerWON | Jan 20, 2016 2:23 pm
> 
> 
> Due to a disastrous third hour, Raw did not have much of a bounce back after the end of football competition.
> 
> Monday night's show did 3.48 million viewers, only up 160,000 viewers from last week's show that went up against the national championship college football game.
> 
> On this night was clear what did the show in was the show itself, with major pattern of declines from start to finish, including a third hour that did 3.12 million viewers, a number that would have been considered poor even going against a huge NFL game.
> 
> The show was promoted around building to a Highlight Reel segment where Brock Lesnar and Roman Reigns would meet face-to face. No major matches were plugged for hour three.
> 
> The three hours were:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.78 million viewers
> 9 p.m. 3.59 million viewers
> 10 p.m. 3.12 million viewers


But ratings are obsolete! And they became progressively more obsolete mid-show. :lol I guess 600,000 people cut their cable cord last night?

Silliness.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*But I thought people were going to watch no matter what? unk2

So much for that see you next Monday shit, huh? :lol*


----------



## udarsha45

TheLooseCanon said:


> Big Dave fucking draws!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goofy looking idiot they got as champ now on the mic like Frankenstein's monster saying his first words doesn't draw? No way!!!!!!
> 
> Hold that WWE fucktards!


Batista will always be a huge draw.

Fuck the toy-******* in WWE for handling him like shit, and droving him away from the company for good.

Now look at them suffer. Lol


----------



## Randy Lahey

I'm wondering if Raw is hitting a level of unpopularity that it will very soon be seen as beneath the Rock. I mean there's a reason why big stars like Robert Deniro don't show up on celebrity Family Feud and stuff like that. I know Rock has said in the past that he loves the business and will always work for the WWE, but the genre is so dead right now that I don't think even he will touch it.

Also, think about the WWE Attitude Era - and how popular that was. You would have expected 8-16 yr old kids to be influenced and inspired during that time to become the next huge WWE star. But it never happened. The greatest era in pro wrestling did not spawn any new stars or even get more people involved in the business. It's as if Pro Wrestling was simply a one hit wonder. That hit was Attitude Era, and it's done. Never to come back.


----------



## Pinball Wizard Graves

There is nothing wrong with WWE getting rid of Kayfabe. In fact, WWE needs to get rid of it entirely. There is no place for kayfabe in 2016. None. WWE needs to move in the direction of all other mainstream visual art. No one in movies or TV lives the gimmick in real life. Once WWE is able to make this separation, it should help the TV product as it would be a bit more focused. There are tons of other things that need to be adjusted, but pretending that kayfabe needs to make a come back is very short sighted.


----------



## Erik.

That last hour had that god awful main event including the likes of Titus O'Neil and Tyler Breeze - that's a cause for anyone to turn the TV off.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Erik. said:


> That last hour had that god awful main event including the likes of Titus O'Neil and Tyler Breeze - that's a cause for anyone to turn the TV off.


Exactly. People can blame Brock or Roman all they want, but boring shit like this killed the crowd and most likely the TV audience all night long. 

... but if you want to believe that the same fucking show would have drawn 5 million viewers if Batista had been advertised for the final segment, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night...


----------



## Lone Star

KC Armstrong said:


> Exactly. People can blame Brock or Roman all they want, but boring shit like this killed the crowd and most likely the TV audience all night long.


*yawn*

the highlight reel got more promotion that McMahon's arrest angle. Anyone with a clue knows what the main event was, and it was the "showdown" with Reigns facing off against Lesnar.

It failed. Austin and Rock use to have to come out after Blue Meanie vs Goldust or some random shit like Bossman vs Midieon, Cena and Batista had to follow shit divas like Maria and Candice Michelle.

Never stopped the real players from drawing. It's an excuse and a poor one at that.

Reigns and Lesnar don't draw. Fans don't care, or they would have tuned back in for the overrun which was very common for fans to do many years after WCW.



> ... but if you want to believe that the same fucking show would have drawn 5 million viewers if Batista had been advertised for the final segment, go ahead. Whatever helps you sleep at night...


It was an example of how many viewers WWE has lost in two years, nothing more, smart guy.


----------



## KC Armstrong

They lose viewers in the 3rd hour regardless of who or what closes the show, it has been that way for quite some time. Doesn't matter if it's Cena, Brock, Reigns, Rollins, it has happened to every single one of them. It would happen to Batista as well. Believe that.


----------



## Krispenwah

TheLooseCanon said:


> Big Dave fucking draws!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This goofy looking idiot they got as champ now on the mic like Frankenstein's monster saying his first words doesn't draw? No way!!!!!!
> 
> Hold that :lose you WWE fucktards!


Ironic, when you said goofy looking idiot like Frankenstein's monster on the mic i instantly thought of Batista in 2013,

Whoever if Brock can't pop the ratings i doubt Botchtista can do anything.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> That last hour had that god awful main event including the likes of Titus O'Neil and Tyler Breeze - that's a cause for anyone to turn the TV off.


For the life of me, the third hour was such a blur because nothing stood out. But this match did take place. No reason I forgot. Although, the Titus botch was funny. I'm glad Breeze wasn't hurt.

The third hour had been stable in recent weeks. WWE should've been able to at least do the bare minimum there and not tank the way they did.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

It just seems like people on this thread are rather inconsistent. There were some saying that when Reigns wins the belt ratings were going to turn around and now they've pretty much disappeared from the thread lmao.

Reigns isn't a draw, Rollins isn't a draw, Brock Lesnar isn't even a draw really. The show is utterly stale, they rely on the same guys time after time leading to guys like Reigns and Rollins being so over exposed. I like the NXT model where it's like a revolving door on who is the focus of each weekly episode. Obviously Reigns is going to be on Raw, but does he need 3 segments every week? How about once or twice a month he only works one segment and you give more time to another feud. How about we give time to Kalisto and Alberto Del Rio to develop their characters so they can be an asset to the ratings? No, let's just do the same stale shit week after week.


----------



## Marrakesh

Erik. said:


> That last hour had that god awful main event including the likes of Titus O'Neil and Tyler Breeze - that's a cause for anyone to turn the TV off.


I'm just wondering... the last hour ratings includes the overrun? 

If not, I can see why the ratings are THAT low, however if it does include the overrun and the avg for that period was 3.12 then Holy fuck.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

Doesn't Brock pretty much always lose viewers nowadays? Add in Jericho and the fact that it's the highlight Reel and...Tyler Breeze was on right before it, and it makes sense


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Inbred Goatman said:


> It just seems like people on this thread are rather inconsistent. There were some saying that when Reigns wins the belt ratings were going to turn around and now they've pretty much disappeared from the thread lmao.
> 
> Reigns isn't a draw, Rollins isn't a draw, Brock Lesnar isn't even a draw really. The show is utterly stale, they rely on the same guys time after time leading to guys like Reigns and Rollins being so over exposed. I like the NXT model where it's like a revolving door on who is the focus of each weekly episode. Obviously Reigns is going to be on Raw, but does he need 3 segments every week? How about once or twice a month he only works one segment and you give more time to another feud. How about we give time to Kalisto and Alberto Del Rio to develop their characters so they can be an asset to the ratings? No, let's just do the same stale shit week after week.


Yep. The huge elephant in the room.

:ti


----------



## Empress

@The Inbred Goatman

I had replied to you but edited it and then deleted it. I'll send you a PM with what I wrote. 

I just found the Total Diva ratings and didn't want to double post too many times in this thread. 

*RATINGS: “TOTAL DIVAS” RISES FROM LAST PREMIERE, “JUST JILLIAN” DRAWS 530K*

Season five of "Total Divas" started stronger than season four; "Just Jillian" opened with 530,000 viewers.

Down slightly from the season four finale, Tuesday’s fifth season “Total Divas” premiere outperformed the July 2015 season 4 premiere in both adults 18-49 and total viewership.

Per Nielsen cable data, “Divas” drew a 0.52 adults 18-49 rating and 1.115 million total viewers for “Love Triangle,” which kicked off season five.

“Diva Divide,” the fourth season opener, posted a 0.47 adults 18-49 rating and 975,000 total viewers on July 7, 2015.

The aforementioned fourth season finale, however, drew a 0.53 in adults 18-49 and 1.158 million in total viewership.

— Tuesday’s “Total Divas” led into the series premiere of “Just Jillian,” which managed a 0.23 adults 18-49 rating and reached 530,000 total viewers.


http://headlineplanet.com/home/2016...s-from-last-premiere-just-jillian-draws-530k/


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Lowest Rated Non-Holiday / Not against Football RAW since 1997.

Meltzer reported the biggest drop off throughout RAW was women (age 12-49).

:lose


----------



## Starbuck

TheLooseCanon said:


> Lowest Rated Non-Holiday / Not against Football RAW since 1997.
> 
> Meltzer reported the biggest drop off throughout RAW was women (age 12-49).
> 
> :lose


Women? Told you it was Jericho. He needs to wear a shirt next time so his bitch tits don't drive viewers away.


----------



## Chrome

Starbuck said:


> Women? Told you it was Jericho. He needs to wear a shirt next time so his bitch tits don't drive viewers away.


:damn :buried

Now HHH marks are burying Jericho too.


----------



## Empress

If Monday was the lowest rated since 1997 non holiday, particularly due to the third hour, that would make it a strike against Roman while he held the belt. Whether he deserves all the blame or not, he is the champ. 

I won't pick and choose which ratings I go by. Fair is fair.

I do think next week's ratings should have a bump. I would expect so. 

But Jericho does need to put on a shirt. His look isn't sexy.


----------



## Starbuck

Chrome said:


> :damn :buried
> 
> Now HHH marks are burying Jericho too.


He buries himself tbh.


----------



## Randy Lahey

The show did a 2.45.

In 2015, it was a 3.02
In 2014, it was a 3.46


If Raw is going to be in the 2.5 - 2.7 range for RTWM (which is when they expect their highest ratings), what will the product look like by next Fall? If Raw starrs pulling sub 2.0's next fall, USA will cancel them.


----------



## phenom64

Randy Lahey said:


> The show did a 2.45.
> 
> In 2015, it was a 3.02
> In 2014, it was a 3.46
> 
> 
> If Raw is going to be in the 2.5 - 2.7 range for RTWM (which is when they expect their highest ratings), what will the product look like by next Fall? If Raw starrs pulling sub 2.0's next fall, USA will cancel them.


USA won't cancel them with getting sub 2.0s. That would still outperform pretty much anything else on the network. (USA has been having a tough time getting people to watch their new shows over the last couple of years, hence Smackdown being on the network now) So I can see them letting WWE get by with the lower than normal ratings.

But what would likely happen, is network officials would start getting pissed that they are spending the amount of money that they are to get both Raw and Smackdown, and they'll probably demand that Vince do something to stop the ratings from falling.


----------



## murder

Forget about Football season, they are screwed come NBA Playoffs.


----------



## KC Armstrong

murder said:


> Forget about Football season, they are screwed come NBA Playoffs.



... and why exactly would they be screwed? They drew a solid (at least by today's standards) rating going up against the college football national championship game (25 million viewers). No NBA playoff game draws 25 million people, not even in the finals.


----------



## murder

KC Armstrong said:


> ... and why exactly would they be screwed? They drew a solid (at least by today's standards) rating going up against the college football national championship game (25 million viewers). No NBA playoff game draws 25 million people, not even in the finals.


Because this is the Road to Wrestlemania and Lesnar's comeback was advertised. After Mania is over and the big stars disappear again is when they are really scrrewed.


----------



## Algernon

BTW, Spurs vs Warriors Monday Night. It wont be NFL ratings levels by any means but that's the biggest regular season game in the NBA in years with two teams that have a shot at breaking the wins record set by the 96 Bulls.

Losing nearly 20% of the audience from hour 1 to 3 is downright sad. Last years RAW viewership from hour 3 outrated this years viewership from hour 1.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

TheLooseCanon said:


> Lowest Rated Non-Holiday / Not against Football RAW since 1997.
> 
> Meltzer reported the biggest drop off throughout RAW was women (age 12-49).
> 
> :lose


I didnt watch RAW. Was Roman Reigns not in the third hr or something? I know there was a RAW late last year where he took on Big Show then when he left the kids and women stopped watching.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

TheShieldSuck said:


> I didnt watch RAW. Was Roman Reigns not in the third hr or something? I know there was a RAW late last year where he took on Big Show then when he left the kids and women stopped watching.


Roman/Lesnar/Y2J was the last segment.


----------



## Bret Hart

Does this mean Brock Lesnar doesn't draw?

Of course not, it just fucking means you can't do the same shit over and over again and expect the fans to be happy.

Like I said before in this thread, Brock has been with the 'E for four years in April and he's done the same shit or rather creative has made him do the same shit over and over again.

It's not right brother, if you look at my career I revolutionized professional wrestling brother - HH


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership/rating this week(1/21)
Royal Rumble go home show
2.757M(+18.22%)
1.87R(+11.31%)
Same viewership on USA debut(1/7)

SmackDown viewership last week(1/14)
Vs GOP debate
2.332M
1.68R
Same viewership and rating on the last non holiday taped SmackDown on SyFy(12/17)

78.86% of RAW viewership from the same week*


----------



## Empress

*1/21 Smackdown Ratings rebound from Week 2 drop*

Week 3 of WWE Smackdown on USA Network yo-yo’ed back to a rounded 1.9 rating to nearly match the first week performance. This followed a poor Week 2 rating.

WWE Smackdown Ratings Tracking

– January 21 (Week 3): Smackdown scored a 1.87 rating, up 11 percent from a 1.68 rating last week.

Last week’s show was down 13 percent from a 1.93 rating to kick off the USA run.

Smackdown drew 2.757 million viewers, which was exactly identical to Week 1…

Jan. 7 – 2.757 million viewers
Jan. 14 – 2.332 million viewers
Jan. 21 – 2.757 million viewers

The demographic ratings were interesting on Thursday night with a big rebound among general adult viewers, but a decline in younger male viewers. The following is a three-week pattern

Adults 18-49: 0.85 rating, sharp decline to 0.70, and rebound to 0.82.
Males 18-34: 0.96 rating, sharp decline to 0.80, and another decline to 0.74
Males 18-49: 1.01 rating, sharp decline to 0.87, and slight rebound to 0.92.

Caldwell’s Analysis: Solid rebound for Smackdown. It adds to the argument that Smackdown ratings follow the lead of Raw. Last Monday’s Raw was down significantly against the college football title game, then Smackdown fell hard three nights later. This week, Raw rebounded from last week and Smackdown followed suit. It will be interesting to see if the pattern continues now that both shows are on the same network for the first time.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/22/jan21smackdownratings/


----------



## THANOS

Algernon said:


> BTW, Spurs vs Warriors Monday Night. It wont be NFL ratings levels by any means but that's the biggest regular season game in the NBA in years with two teams that have a shot at breaking the wins record set by the 96 Bulls.
> 
> Losing nearly 20% of the audience from hour 1 to 3 is downright sad. Last years RAW viewership from hour 3 outrated this years viewership from hour 1.


Excellent news my friend! The tumble shall be spectacular! :banderas


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TheLooseCanon said:


> *Lowest Rated Non-Holiday / Not against Football RAW since 1997.
> *
> Meltzer reported the biggest drop off throughout RAW was women (age 12-49).
> 
> :lose


And for the go home show to the Rumble with no football competition.

:ha


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> And for the go home show to the Rumble with no football competition.
> 
> :ha


Wow :shocked:!! An ultra hyped segment between two muscular good looking beasts Reigns and Lesnar, on the "sexy beast" Jericho's highlight reel, and the women tune out in droves..

Look marks be like


----------



## Chrome

THANOS said:


> Wow :shocked:!! An ultra hyped segment between two muscular good looking beasts Reigns and Lesnar, on the "sexy beast" Jericho's highlight reel, and the women tune out in droves..
> 
> Look marks be like


Guess you can say most of them decided to start "looking" at other channels. :costanza3


----------



## THANOS

Chrome said:


> Guess you can say most of them decided to start "looking" at other channels. :costanza3


Women be like: fuck looks we want substance


----------



## Dark_Raiden

THANOS said:


> Wow :shocked:!! An ultra hyped segment between two muscular good looking beasts Reigns and Lesnar, on the "sexy beast" Jericho's highlight reel, and the women tune out in droves..
> 
> Look marks be like


???

Reigns is the only one there that women might like. I don't think any women are clamoring for an 8 year old boy and a huge frothing beast.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> *1/21 Smackdown Ratings rebound from Week 2 drop*
> 
> Week 3 of WWE Smackdown on USA Network yo-yo’ed back to a rounded 1.9 rating to nearly match the first week performance. This followed a poor Week 2 rating.
> 
> WWE Smackdown Ratings Tracking
> 
> – January 21 (Week 3): Smackdown scored a 1.87 rating, up 11 percent from a 1.68 rating last week.
> 
> Last week’s show was down 13 percent from a 1.93 rating to kick off the USA run.
> 
> Smackdown drew 2.757 million viewers, which was exactly identical to Week 1…
> 
> Jan. 7 – 2.757 million viewers
> Jan. 14 – 2.332 million viewers
> Jan. 21 – 2.757 million viewers
> 
> *The demographic ratings were interesting on Thursday night with a big rebound among general adult viewers, but a decline in younger male viewers.* The following is a three-week pattern
> 
> Adults 18-49: 0.85 rating, sharp decline to 0.70, and rebound to 0.82.
> Males 18-34: 0.96 rating, sharp decline to 0.80, and another decline to 0.74
> Males 18-49: 1.01 rating, sharp decline to 0.87, and slight rebound to 0.92.
> 
> Caldwell’s Analysis: Solid rebound for Smackdown. It adds to the argument that Smackdown ratings follow the lead of Raw. Last Monday’s Raw was down significantly against the college football title game, then Smackdown fell hard three nights later. This week, Raw rebounded from last week and Smackdown followed suit. It will be interesting to see if the pattern continues now that both shows are on the same network for the first time.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/22/jan21smackdownratings/


*
Great increase for Smackdown. Roman Reigns is doing a fantastic job by single handedly carrying that show. Ambrose and Owens just couldn't draw as much interest as The Big Dog, and management made the proper adjustments. What stands out to me the most is that the adult demographic increased while the younger demographic decreased, because I am told regularly that all of Roman's fans are only women and children. Maybe they will actually start putting effort into Smackdown now that it's on USA. *


----------



## Born of Osiris

Take the title off Reigns ASAP imo. He's gonna run WWE out of business like Rollins almost did 8*D


----------



## D.M.N.

Noticed the number of hits that key segments are getting on YouTube have accelerated massively over the past few weeks:

Raw - January 11th
5.4m - Roman Reigns competes in a "One vs. All" Match
1.6m - Kalisto vs. Alberto del Rio - United States Championship Match
1.1m - Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus
1.1m - Mr. McMahon & Stephanie McMahon address the WWE Roster

Raw - January 18th
2.7m - Tensions rise as Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar appear on "The Highlight Reel"
1.6m - Roman Reigns vs. Rusev - Special Guest Referee Chris Jericho
1.4m - The McMahon family reveal the No. 1 entrant in the 2016 Royal Rumble
1.2m - Roman Reigns wants payback against Brock Lesnar

Impressive numbers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Dark_Raiden said:


> ???
> 
> Reigns is the only one there that women might like. I don't think any women are clamoring for an 8 year old boy and a huge frothing beast.


And they still tuned out in record numbers.


----------



## Empress

D.M.N. said:


> Noticed the number of hits that key segments are getting on YouTube have accelerated massively over the past few weeks:
> 
> Raw - January 11th
> 5.4m - Roman Reigns competes in a "One vs. All" Match
> 1.6m - Kalisto vs. Alberto del Rio - United States Championship Match
> 1.1m - Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus
> 1.1m - Mr. McMahon & Stephanie McMahon address the WWE Roster
> 
> Raw - January 18th
> 2.7m - Tensions rise as Roman Reigns and Brock Lesnar appear on "The Highlight Reel"
> 1.6m - Roman Reigns vs. Rusev - Special Guest Referee Chris Jericho
> 1.4m - The McMahon family reveal the No. 1 entrant in the 2016 Royal Rumble
> 1.2m - Roman Reigns wants payback against Brock Lesnar
> 
> Impressive numbers.


Thanks for putting up the Youtube numbers. Usually, Cageside does an article but they didn't last week. I hope they just forgot and that they haven't ditched it. The TV ratings may be stagnant, more or less, but they've been making gains on Youtube and social media.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> Thanks for putting up the Youtube numbers. Usually, Cageside does an article but they didn't last week. I hope they just forgot and that they haven't ditched it. The TV ratings may be stagnant, more or less, but they've been making gains on Youtube and social media.


*Is this like the 5th consecutive week that Reigns has topped the ever increasing youtube views? I know you've been keeping track of that.*


----------



## Empress

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Is this like the 5th consecutive week that Reigns has topped the ever increasing youtube views? I know you've been keeping track of that.*


Yeah, I've been keeping track and most Roman Reigns segments are guaranteed to hit a million views. 

His main events average 2 million on the first week of viewing for a conservative figure. 

Others have reached as high as 4 million or 5. The highest of the past few weeks was his win against Sheamus. It's accumulated 10 million views since December! 






Folks can take all the petty cheap shots they want, but he's consistently moving numbers in other areas outside of TV ratings and this isn't me talking as a fan. Professionally speaking, you want someone with a sizeable social media following. It's not a guarantee of success but it is a benefit and can be utilized. He's proven he can bring eyeballs to Youtube and social media playback. 

John Cena puts up good numbers too. 

Cena, Roman, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, Paige and Seth Rollins are the superstars with 1 million + followers on Twitter. Excuse me if I'm forgetting others.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Empress said:


> Yeah, I've been keeping track and most Roman Reigns segments are guaranteed to hit a million views.
> 
> His main events average 2 million on the first week of viewing for a conservative figure. Others have reached as high as 4 million or 6. The highest of the past few weeks was his win against Sheamus. 10 million views!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks can take all the petty cheap shots they want, but he's consistently moving numbers in other areas outside of TV ratings and this isn't me talking as a fan. Professionally speaking, you want someone with a sizeable social media following. It's not a guarantee of success but it is a benefit and can be utilized. He's proven he can bring eyeballs to Youtube and social media playback.
> 
> John Cena, Roman, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, Paige and Seth Rollins are the superstars with 1 million + followers on Twitter. Excuse me if I'm forgetting others.


*But we keep being told by bitter WFers that all of Roman's segments suck, so obviously SOMEONE is wrong here, and the numbers aren't lying.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> Yeah, I've been keeping track and most Roman Reigns segments are guaranteed to hit a million views.
> 
> His main events average 2 million on the first week of viewing for a conservative figure.
> 
> Others have reached as high as 4 million or 5. The highest of the past few weeks was his win against Sheamus. It's accumulated 10 million views since December!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Folks can take all the petty cheap shots they want, but he's consistently moving numbers in other areas outside of TV ratings and this isn't me talking as a fan. Professionally speaking, you want someone with a sizeable social media following. It's not a guarantee of success but it is a benefit and can be utilized. He's proven he can bring eyeballs to Youtube and social media playback.
> 
> John Cena puts up good numbers too.
> 
> Cena, Roman, Daniel Bryan, Randy Orton, Paige and Seth Rollins are the superstars with 1 million + followers on Twitter. Excuse me if I'm forgetting others.


Youtube views are good and everything, but the only problem with that is when WWE is in their next negotiation with USA Network for their next TV contract and USA execs ask Vince why ratings are down with no Football competition AND with the guy Vince wants/think is a face of the company type; he can't reply back to them, "BUT YOUTUBE VIEWZ!11!!" Kind of a problem. Youtube also doesn't indicate the quality of the show or segment, either. If anything it shows that people skipped Raw live and would rather watch it in a faster fashion, such as Youtube. Can't say I bother them these days. Much quicker and efficient.


----------



## SnapOrTap

So we're using Youtube views to hide how much of a failure that Reigns' run has been lol. 

If I seem to recall, Rollins also had the highest Youtube hits during his run, but I guess some fans have selective memory.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Youtube views are good and everything, but the only problem with that is when WWE is in their next negotiation with USA Network for their next TV contract and USA execs ask Vince why ratings are down with no Football competition AND with the guy Vince wants/think is a face of the company type; he can't reply back to them, "BUT YOUTUBE VIEWZ!11!!" Kind of a problem. And :lol at claiming the quality of a segment is based on how many views on Youtube a segment gets. Come on, now.


Youtube views/Twitter/Facebook are now being included in the determination of ratings. I'm not sure when it will be implemented though. I may not agree with lumping everything together, but that's how it's going to be in the near future. The WWE and other outlets can now capitalize. 

As for the importance of Youtube views, the ability to go viral is a groundswell of buzz and publicity to the product. Case in point, RKOOuttaNowhere, #GiveDivasAChance and the campaign to dump the Network after the backlash. 

The ratings aren't groundbreaking under Reigns, but USA chose to renew WWE programming with the ratings at 3-3.5 million. 

I know it's fun for a lot of people in this thread to mock Reigns, call him a hack and act like he has no attributes that can draw an audience. But there are many metrics that he does give the WWE a boost. As for the product itself, Reigns shouldn't be singled out. Is he everything The Rock or Austin were in their primes? No. But if the ratings remain stagnant under Reigns, Rollins, Sheamus and so forth, the issue just may creative and not the title holder. If the belt switches to Brock on Sunday and the ratings fall even lower, I highly doubt there would be hive mentality for his head. The blame would shift to creative. 

The WWE getting 4 million viewers for the Dec. 14, 15 episode is proof that a solid show, from top to bottom, can bring in eyes. USA should demand creative do their jobs rather than to simply ask why Reigns isn't the silver bullet for a lackluster show. 

However, if they can live with 3-3.5 million each Monday night, that's their choice. All Reigns and the WWE would need to do is maintain. For the most part, he's done that. 

Again, I'm not posting this particular comment as a fan. Professionally speaking, it does not hurt to have a performer that has a viral ability in this new digital age. Social media is not the end all, but it's an integral piece of the puzzle.


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> So we're using Youtube views to hide how much of a failure that Reigns' run has been lol.
> 
> If I seem to recall, Rollins also had the highest Youtube hits during his run, but I guess some fans have selective memory.


I have been posting the Youtube views for weeks now. There has been nothing selective about what I post if it is officially sourced. I provide the article, link and rarely do I make a comment at the end. I leave it to others to make a determination. I'm not on some anti Seth Rollins agenda. Unlike a lot of posters in this thread, I'm straight to the point. I don't duck, ignore or solely come in to take cheap shots. 

The Youtube views are a very important component of today's social media landscape. Neilson just announced that they will now be implementing social media into the final analysis of viewers. 
*
Nielsen to Use Facebook and Twitter in New Ratings System*
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...k-and-twitter-in-new-ratings-system.html?_r=0

Outside of this week's past RAW rating, the numbers under Reigns have been steady. The product hasn't t brought in 10 million viewers, but the numbers have remained stable. Therefore, there is no need for me to deflect or "hide how much of a failure" Reigns is. On average, shows under him are still in the 3-3.5 million range.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> Youtube views/Twitter/Facebook are now being included in the determination of ratings. I'm not sure when it will be implemented though. I may not agree with lumping everything together, but that's how it's going to be in the near future. The WWE and other outlets can now capitalize.
> 
> As for the importance of Youtube views, the ability to go viral is a groundswell of buzz and publicity to the product. Case in point, RKOOuttaNowhere, #GiveDivasAChance and the campaign to dump the Network after the backlash.
> 
> The ratings aren't groundbreaking under Reigns, but USA chose to renew WWE programming with the ratings at 3-3.5 million.
> 
> I know it's fun for a lot of people in this thread to mock Reigns, call him a hack and act like he has no attributes that can draw an audience. But there are many metrics that he does give the WWE a boost. As for the product itself, Reigns shouldn't be singled out. Is he everything The Rock or Austin were in their primes? No. But if the ratings remain stagnant under Reigns, Rollins, Sheamus and so forth, the issue just may creative and not the title holder. If the belt switches to Brock on Sunday and the ratings fall even lower, I highly doubt there would be hive mentality for his head. The blame would shift to creative.
> 
> The WWE getting 4 million viewers for the Dec. 14, 15 episode is proof that a solid show, from top to bottom, can bring in eyes. USA should demand creative do their jobs rather than to simply ask why Reigns isn't the silver bullet for a lackluster show.
> 
> However, if they can live with 3-3.5 million each Monday night, that's their choice. All Reigns and the WWE would need to do is maintain. For the most part, he's done that.
> 
> Again, I'm not posting this particular comment as a fan. Professionally speaking, it does not hurt to have a performer that has a viral ability in this new digital age. Social media is not the end all, but it's an integral piece of the puzzle.


The blame definitely goes on Creative for poor ratings. I completely agree. I don't blaming any one talent for the ratings and won't in the future, either.

Youtube views definitely have a place of importance. It'd be silly to say they mean nothing. They're a factor. Nielsen adding them in as a factor to their ratings is fine with me. That would just mean that the ratings from that day forward can't be compared to the ratings before that, no matter who is Champion. When that happens, the ratings with Youtube views are a completely different thing than the ratings from the beginning of Raw in 1993 all the way up until the last week that they don't use social media as a factor. After that, it's completely new ratings era that is different from how they're doing the ratings now. That's all.

If WWE is fine with the range they're in now and have been for awhile (3-3.5ish million), that's fine with me. It's their business, not mine or any of ours. Some are just surprised because they thought they would be higher from January to March, their hot period, and with no football competition and some predicted they would be much higher, especially once a FOTC type became Champ (but it's still mostly on Creative). I do predict they will do better next week as a direct result of the fallout of the Rumble, FWIW.



> If I seem to recall, Rollins also had the highest Youtube hits during his run, but I guess some fans have selective memory.


 @SnapOrTap

Yep. Even as a Rollins' fan though, I still didn't care about Youtube views back then and still don't. At least I'm consistent. :lol


----------



## Empress

@ShowStopper

We're in agreement with your last post. As I told you last week, I only took my cheap shot at Seth Rollins because I was petty. I owned up to that but I didn't spend months bashing him for the ratings. I was critical of his overexposure but I didn't come in here to dump all over him. At the end of the day, it's up to creative to fix their shows. One superstar can't do it alone. I've been binging on the Network all weekend and it's sad how today's talents are so creatively handcuffed.

As for the Youtube ratings, my posting history can be checked. I've been doing them for weeks. There were no sold and that's fine. But I didn't rush in to post the Youtube ratings to get a cheap shot in at Rollins' expense. Another poster did and I replied. It's a good thing that a superstar can guarantee 1 million plus views in today's viral climate. I would believe that's true for Roman, Seth or whoever.

I care about the social media/YouTube aspect of things. It may have to do with my profession but I like to see how the superstars are progressing in the age of social media.


----------



## Robbyfude

As much as I hate Reigns, its not really his fault. The product itself is garbage. At this point the only people watching WWE are fans similar to abused girlfriends who cling to their abusive boyfriends because "bu... but he's going to change!" hoping that next week Raw will magically get better.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> @ShowStopper
> 
> We're in agreement with your last post. As I told you last week, I only took my cheap shot at Seth Rollins because I was petty. I owned up to that but I didn't spend months bashing him for the ratings. I was critical of his overexposure but I didn't come in here to dump all over him. At the end of the day, it's up to creative to fix their shows. One superstar can't do it alone. I've been binging on the Network all weekend and it's sad how today's talents are so creatively handcuffed.
> 
> As for the Youtube ratings, my posting history can be checked. I've been doing them for weeks. There were no sold and that's fine. But I didn't rush in to post the Youtube ratings to get a cheap shot in at Rollins' expense. Another poster did and I replied. It's a good thing that a superstar can guarantee 1 million plus views in today's viral climate. I would believe that's true for Roman, Seth or whoever.
> 
> I care about the social media/YouTube aspect of things. It may have to do with my profession but I like to see how the superstars are progressing in the age of social media.


I agree completely. And I've been saying it for awhile now, but I don't think anyone on their own is a draw these days. I mean, forget the full time roster for a second; look at the big name part timers. They're not drawing when they make advertised appearances, either. The proof is in the pudding. And if they're not drawing, I don't know how anyone can expect any of the full-timers to draw.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*People want to act like Rollins pulled the same numbers as Reigns with TV title matches? :mase





Rollins vs. Neville got 937,000 views over the course of 5 months. Reigns got 10 million with Sheamus, the guy no one cares about. 










Searched his name by view count and the only time he's ever gotten 10 mil during his title reign is for a match that never happened on the RAW after Mania. What's next, you're gonna say Vince is the draw, despite ratings decreasing with Vince on the show and desperately pointing to Reigns for the drop? Please stop.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

We don't need Youtube views to tell us neither guy is a draw. The TV ratings do a damn good job of that themselves, especially now with no football competition and during their hot period of the year, they're pulling in the same ratings that Rollins was DURING football season.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> We don't need Youtube views to tell us neither guy is a draw. The TV ratings do a damn good job of that themselves, especially now with no football competition and during their hot period of the year, they're pulling in the same ratings that Rollins was DURING football season.


*And what you're failing to acknowledge is that Rollins had a full healthy roster with part timers while drawing mediocre ratings. Reigns had record highs with a depleted roster of jobbers in addition to these average ratings, which you also ignore or attribute to Vince, while celebrating a drop WITH Vince on the show. Pick a side and stick to it.*


----------



## Wynter

Everyone ignoring Roman having to be champion on a show where majority of the popular top/midcard guys are injured. Meanwhile, Seth could hardly pull shit with a a full and healthy roster and it crawling with part timers. Creative is at fault, yes, but he at least had a lot of help to fill out the show.

Hell, it's crazy they can even pull 3.5 million with a shitty product and virtually no top stars outside of Roman and Dean. Owens can be added too I guess.

Vince really isn't what he used to be. Even on Youtube, his views really aren't all that great. Even for the Raw with the first championship match with Sheamus and Roman. Roman's viewership far outnumbered the ones Vince appeared in.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> Everyone ignoring Roman having to be champion on a show where majority of the popular top/midcard guys are injured. Meanwhile, Seth could hardly pull shit with a a full and healthy roster and it crawling with part timers. Creative is at fault, yes, but he at least had a lot of help to fill out the show.
> 
> Hell, it's crazy they can even pull 3.5 million with a shitty product and virtually no top stars outside of Roman and Dean. Owens can be added to I guess.
> 
> Vince really isn't what he used to be. Even on Youtube, his views really aren't all that great. Even for the Raw with the first championship match with Sheamus and Roman.


Raw ratings during Rollins run didn't fall to the 2.4's (which is what Raw got this week for the go home show to the Rumble with no NFL) until the first week of September, the first week of NFL football. And before the NFL season ever started, they never went below a 2.51. I could EASILY make an argument that just by default Raw should've done MUCH better this week even with the injuries due to lack of competition and being the go home to the Rumble.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *And what you're failing to acknowledge is that Rollins had a full healthy roster with part timers while drawing mediocre ratings. Reigns had record highs with a depleted roster of jobbers in addition to these average ratings, which you also ignore or attribute to Vince, while celebrating a drop WITH Vince on the show. Pick a side and stick to it.*


When did Reigns draw record highs?! The night after TLC? What about all of the other weeks with no NFL competition and the build to the Rumble, including the go-home show, and this month being the beginning of the hot period in WWE every year?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> When did Reigns draw record highs?! The night after TLC? What about all of the other weeks with no NFL competition and the build to the Rumble, including the go-home show, and this month being the beginning of the hot period in WWE every year?


*
That one show broke multiple records-the show with Attitude Era booking. The show you spent all night shitting on. What about the 400,000 viewer increase on Smackdown this week that you keep conveniently ignoring? You know, the Smackdown after the one that featured Owens and Ambrose, the IWC indy gawds who can do no wrong. Reigns was absent for that week and ratings drastically increased for the REAL go home show, but you continually skip over that as you desperately cling to the RAW decrease.*


----------



## Marrakesh

Are people really going to come into this thread and argue that Youtube views are now evidence of 'drawing ability' ?

Youtube is open to the entirety of WWE's fanbase. The world has access to condensed heavily promoted clips from the show that often appear on the front page of Youtube itself. 

It means virtually nothing until those views are turned into Network subscriptions. It's another platform for WWE to advertise themselves but it is not a strong indicator of someone's ability to turn those views into real dollars. 

The real proof of Reigns drawing ability is yet to come. Think 6 months from now. 

The next announcement on the network subscriptions are almost sure to show growth simply because they have entered new markets (They have launched in India, Austria, Switzerland, Germany and Japan between November and January) 

However it will be the numbers following this years Wrestlemania season that will be of real interest. 

If you want to have an argument on whether or not Reigns is drawing for them as their champion, lets wait until the second Quarter results of 2016 are published. 

What we know right now is that he's not moving insane amounts of merch (still couldn't outsell Cena at the backend of last year) his story is not maintaining interest in the TV ratings (Yes, it is booked like shit but he is the focus point) and it would seem that his presence is not improving house show attendances either. 

No ones is. Therefore the argument that 'no one is a draw' right now is close to being completely accurate. 

However, Reigns is the only guy who is going to get the opportunity to draw, so in six months time, lets see where the numbers are.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *
> That one show broke multiple records-the show with Attitude Era booking. The show you spent all night shitting on. What about the 400,000 viewer increase on Smackdown this week that you keep conveniently ignoring? You know, the Smackdown after the one that featured Owens and Ambrose, the IWC indy gawds who can do no wrong. Reigns was absent for that week and ratings drastically increased for the REAL go home show, but you continually skip over that as you desperately cling to the RAW decrease.*


I'm not ignoring SD because Reigns was on it. We're ignoring SD because we always do no matter who's on it. The credit/blame either goes to the product, or one guy. You have to choose, too. You want to give Reigns sole credit for that? Be our guest. But we can just easily say there was a HUGE over 650,000 DECREASE from Hour 1 to Hour 3 for the go-home show to the Rumble; the only Rumble in history in which the World Title will be defended by one guy, and the viewers took a dump on it and tuned out in absolute droves, with NO football on ESPN for people to tune into. They basically chose to watch re-runs of random sitcoms over the final hour of Raw before the Rumble, even with something brand new and unprecedented taking place in the Rumble match. There's certainly something to be said for that, too.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I'm not ignoring SD because Reigns was on it. We're ignoring SD because we always do no matter who's on it. The credit/blame either goes to the product, or one guy. You have to choose, too. You want to give Reigns sole credit for that? Be our guest. But we can just easily say there was a HUGE over 650,000 DECREASE from Hour 1 to Hour 3 for the go-home show to the Rumble; the only Rumble in history in which the World Title will be defended by one guy, and the viewers took a dump on it and tuned out in absolute droves, with NO football on ESPN for people to tune into. They basically chose to watch re-runs of random sitcoms over the final hour of Raw before the Rumble, even with something brand new and unprecedented taking place in the Rumble match. There's certainly something to be said for that, too.


*
And here's yet another double standard that gets glossed over. Who was advertised ALL WEEK and ALL NIGHT? Brock Lesnar. Roman Reigns was added to the highlight reel on the day of. Where is the blame for Lesnar who was the INTENDED draw? Are you going to admit that even the great Brock Lesnar can't draw shit in this day and age with the mediocre booking? Or are you going to continue to imply that the blame should solely be placed on Roman's title reign? You can continue to swear up and down in this thread that you aren't blaming Reigns, but it means nothing when you continually try to shit on his segments.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *
> And here's yet another double standard that gets glossed over. Who was advertised ALL WEEK and ALL NIGHT? Brock Lesnar. Roman Reigns was added to the highlight reel on the day of. Where is the blame for Lesnar who was the INTENDED draw? Are you going to admit that even the great Brock Lesnar can't draw shit in this day and age with the mediocre booking? Or are you going to continue to imply that the blame should solely be placed on Roman's title reign?*


I've only said that PART TIMERS don't draw these days about a million times. Yeah, Brock AND Taker aren't drawing these days, either. That's been very apparent for awhile now, too. Throw Jericho in, too.

The reason people blame Reigns is because he is the World Champion and the entire Rumble match is built around him. I'm not saying I agree with it, but this is what it's like when the guy is Champion. I even told you this when Rollins was Champ. They blame everything on the Champion, even stuff that has nothing to do with the Champion. Like I said, I don't agree with it entirely, but that's what people do and have been doing for awhile.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I wonder if one of the mods can make a Youtube Views thread so we can finally praise the Big Dog :booklel


----------



## Erik.

IC title feud is getting more time on Smackdown than on Raw - that's all I'd tune in to watch Smackdown for. Maybe others felt the same? Anyway, Smackdown is literally irrelevant.


----------



## Chrome

SnapOrTap said:


> I wonder if one of the mods can make a Youtube Views thread so we can finally praise the Big Dog :booklel


Meh, Youtube views are fine to discuss in this thread. I don't put much weight in them myself tbh, because are those views being translated to Network subscriptions or ratings for Raw? So far that doesn't seem to be the case.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I wonder what will happen when the Youtube views start declining. 

Are we going to use Tout views or # trends to justify how bad of a champion/draw Roman is? 

Can't wait. 

:mark:


----------



## Chrome

SnapOrTap said:


> I wonder what will happen when the Youtube views start declining.
> 
> Are we going to use Tout views or # trends to justify how bad of a champion/draw Roman is?
> 
> Can't wait.
> 
> :mark:


Tout. :haha

Man, what a failure that was. I remember WWE hyping the shit out of that back in the Summer of '12. By the Fall I didn't hear a peep about it anymore.


----------



## Brodus Clay

Just like Rollins, Reigns it's not bad but not a interesting enough person to be a main eventer in a 3 hours show, even if he had the bless of extremely good booking (something we shouldn't count because in the last decade that's not something regular) he wouldn't get good enough for that spot, Reigns belongs to the upper-midcard class and maybe he can do a good transitional heel champ, but he never gonna draw, I'm sure he doesn't even believe at this point he can.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Oh yes, YOUTUBE.

Another one of those platforms completely neglected on this forum for it's money making capacity. Millionaires have been made on this site from scratch and we're neglecting what a global establishment like the WWE can achieve with regards to $$$, insanity. Have a look at the following article: 

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/youtubes-m...evealed-pewdiepie-taking-top-spot-12m-1524384

WWE has got 2 Billion+ views than the second one on this list who is making $ 8.5 million, now if we take some conservative educated guesses: WWE would atleast be making $9-10 million and even if we take out 20% due to miscellaneous costs and logistics- they're still raking in at least 7.2-8 million $ every year * solely from Youtube *.

To put that into perspective:- WWE is funding the entire lower half of the hierarchy of the active roster with Youtube alone, or if we were to go by this article:

http://myfirstclasslife.com/top-10-wrestling-salaries/?singlepage=1

They're almost funding Taker+Kane+Show+Sheamus+Orton+Ziggler+Henry from Youtube alone!

So in conclusion, YES, Youtube is a factor, and in due course would also be a bigger factor than TV ratings.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Man we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if we're bringing up YT :mj5


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

☆Shala☆;56340913 said:


> Man we're really scraping the bottom of the barrel if we're bringing up YT :mj5


No, actually, most of the discussion in this thread is making us look like this:


----------



## Empress

I've posted the Youtube views for weeks now. Why is it today that everyone got in their feelings? They've been no sold for weeks. I took it to mean that any metric showing Reigns moving the needle wasn't to be acknowledged. That's cool. But I sincerely doubt that the importance of social media would be mocked if the numbers were attributed to some others found more palatable. If it were Owens, Ambrose, Daniel Bryan or another favorite I doubt the reaction would be the same. 

Corporations, entities , superstars from Adele and Rihanna utilize Youtube for their impressions. Streaming, which now factors in sales for albums/songs, were derived from the platform. But yet wrestling fans look down their noses at the medium.


----------



## The True Believer

Who needs a Reigns discussion thread when we already have one right here? ;D


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Can't we all just get along?

:hbk1


----------



## SnapOrTap

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Oh yes, YOUTUBE.
> 
> Another one of those platforms completely neglected on this forum for it's money making capacity. Millionaires have been made on this site from scratch and we're neglecting what a global establishment like the WWE can achieve with regards to $$$, insanity. Have a look at the following article:
> 
> http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/youtubes-m...evealed-pewdiepie-taking-top-spot-12m-1524384
> 
> WWE has got 2 Billion+ views than the second one on this list who is making $ 8.5 million, now if we take some conservative educated guesses: WWE would atleast be making $9-10 million and even if we take out 20% due to miscellaneous costs and logistics- they're still raking in at least 7.2-8 million $ every year * solely from Youtube *.
> 
> To put that into perspective:- WWE is funding the entire lower half of the hierarchy of the active roster with Youtube alone, or if we were to go by this article:
> 
> http://myfirstclasslife.com/top-10-wrestling-salaries/?singlepage=1
> 
> They're almost funding Taker+Kane+Show+Sheamus+Orton+Ziggler+Henry from Youtube alone!
> 
> *So in conclusion, YES, Youtube is a factor, and in due course would also be a bigger factor than TV ratings*.


Let me know when youtube views help out in negotiations for a new TV deal. With the way ratings are, I could see USA kicking out WWE in 5-10 years.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

SnapOrTap said:


> Let me know when youtube views help out in negotiations for a new TV deal. With the way ratings are, I could see USA kicking out WWE in 5-10 years.


Yes, I'd surely let you know about the TV deal in 10 years when you would be watching RAW/Smackdown on the network.


----------



## Brodus Clay

So YouTube views it's the new barometer? if that's the case I hope Russo never returns or he would put the belt on PewDiepie.


----------



## Empress

Brodus Clay said:


> So YouTube views it's the new barometer? if that's the case I hope Russo never returns or he would put the belt on PewDiepie.


It's one of them. Last year, the WWE beat out the NBA to become the top sports rated channel. 

*YouTube had a new top channel in August: WWE wrestling*
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/sep/28/wwe-top-youtube-charts-little-baby-bum
*
WWE surpasses NBA as YouTube's No. 1 sports channel*
http://www.wwe.com/inside/wwe-surpasses-nba-as-youtubes-no-1-sports-channel-27142780

Their programming leaves a lot to be desired but they seem more engaged with social media. It's one more way to brand.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

ShowStopper said:


> Can't we all just get along?
> 
> :hbk1


You ask this on page 360?


----------



## Chrome

Brodus Clay said:


> So YouTube views it's the new barometer? if that's the case I hope Russo never returns or he would put the belt on PewDiepie.


And then he immediately turns heel and begins a feud with JonTron. :russo


----------



## SnapOrTap

I wish I had used Youtube as a barometer when Punk/Rollins were champs. 

Dam. Missed by chance.

:trips7


----------



## SnapOrTap

There is one area where Roman does appear to have a lot of fans. It's India.

http://www.sportsschedule.in/2015/12/royal-rumble-2016-fights/

Check out the comments lmao.

According to my boy Ismail Dunge, "Roman reigns is a real fighter. …believe that"

:reigns2


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

YouTube is a poor meter to use. I don't think anyone denies that Reigns is the biggest star on the show, I mean who else would it be? Ambrose? He's a fucking geek.

Plus, if you understand how YouTube works, whatever the main event segment to the show is will almost always get the most amount of views because that is the final video WWE uploads to their YouTube channel, thus when subscribers look at their feed, that video will be at the top while everything else is under it. Regardless, I digress that Reigns is the biggest star on the show, I don't think anyone is denying that. 

Also, just for comparisons sake, when Daniel Bryan had his brief main event push feuding with Orton in 2013, Raw was doing consistent 2.7-2.9 ratings, much higher than it is now. And at that time, Cena was also injured. Not saying Bryan is a bigger draw than Reigns, but some think that Reigns is a much bigger star than he is. Reigns gets big reactions, but he's not a needle mover in the slightest, similar to Daniel Bryan(although Bryan did have a brief stint where he was moving ratings).

The Smackdown rating last week was down because of a presidential debate, which is kind of big in the states lmao. But yeah, I'm sure Reigns being on the show helped, but let's not act silly and say those 400,000 people came because of him.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Can't Vince just buy YouTube?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Empress said:


> I've posted the Youtube views for weeks now. Why is it today that everyone got in their feelings? They've been no sold for weeks. I took it to mean that any metric showing Reigns moving the needle wasn't to be acknowledged. That's cool. But I sincerely doubt that the importance of social media would be mocked if the numbers were attributed to some others found more palatable. If it were Owens, Ambrose, Daniel Bryan or another favorite I doubt the reaction would be the same.
> 
> Corporations, entities , superstars from Adele and Rihanna utilize Youtube for their impressions. Streaming, which now factors in sales for albums/songs, were derived from the platform. But yet wrestling fans look down their noses at the medium.


Eh, the problem is that Reigns doesn't 'move the needle' in any relevant area. YouTube doesn't bring revenue.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Some more information on the WWE Youtube channel and it's estimated earnings:

http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/wwefannation

8th in the world by views is pretty impressive and seeing the growth rates for the past year or so, it's blowing everything else out of the water.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Not saying Bryan is a bigger draw than Reigns


Come on now, teasing that pay off. Just say it already, damn it!


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Some more information on the WWE Youtube channel and it's estimated earnings:
> 
> http://socialblade.com/youtube/user/wwefannation
> 
> 8th in the world by views is pretty impressive and seeing the growth rates for the past year or so, it's blowing everything else out of the water.


They don't make a TON of money off YouTube because YouTube Ad rates are determined by viewer retention, when you upload these shorter videos, you don't make that much. They probably make 50-100X more with TV ad rights than with YouTube.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The Inbred Goatman said:


> They don't make a TON of money off YouTube because YouTube Ad rates are determined by viewer retention, when you upload these shorter videos, you don't make that much. They probably make 50-100X more with TV ad rights than with YouTube.


There are other factors as well, it's a multi-faceted function of various parameters like video length, ad length, advertiser, target audience (which again changes from country to country), retention (as you say) etc etc. I just made a comparative analysis with the other top channels employing reasonable tolerances.

As for the TV rights, it's a parameter which surely has to pass the litmus test in the coming years with the ever increasing clout of the Internet throughout the world, if I had to make a guess, I'd say by 2021-22 WWE would be 100% network exclusive.


----------



## Fighter Daron

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Eh, the problem is that Reigns doesn't 'move the needle' in any relevant area. YouTube doesn't bring revenue.


Youtube does actually bring revenue, my man.


----------



## Empress

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Eh, the problem is that Reigns doesn't 'move the needle' in any relevant area. YouTube doesn't bring revenue.


YouTube does generate revenue. Ads, streaming, sponsors and impressions help bring in a profit share. My degree isn't in fiance but I have to work closely with those who do get to the bottom line of converting buzz/traffic into currency. It's more than just bragging rights. 

The success of all those clicks and streaming turns into money. It helps to grow the brand. 

If people don't like Roman Reigns, that's fine by me. Different strokes for different folks. But I'd have more respect if folks just said that instead of hiding behind "Oh, it's just Youtube". The dismissal flies in the face of simple economics, marketing and branding power. As Mark Henry says, "This is what I do". I can back up what I post in regards to this.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Fighter Daron said:


> Youtube does actually bring revenue, my man.


And you honestly think it hast to do with the fact that it is Reigns? What they did with Reigns, they honestly could have with ANYONE and have AT LEAST the Same success. If you want to call it that.


----------



## LilOlMe

I think the Smackdown ratings might mean that a lot of people tuned into the GOP debate two weeks ago. I said the premiere numbers were about what they should be getting when you factor in USA's average viewership over Syfy's. So this past week was right in line with that.

The 2nd week may have been an anomaly due to the debate, especially since the demographic that went up this week was older people...exactly the type who would most be watching the debate the week before.

We'll see if Smackdown can sustain things. Haven't watched, so have idea what the cards were or what the differences were in terms of quality and advertising.

Women going down that dramatically for RAW is really weird. I wonder if there was some other programming for women on that we don't know about?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Women are just smarter.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Inbred Goatman said:


> They don't make a TON of money off YouTube because YouTube Ad rates are determined by viewer retention, when you upload these shorter videos, you don't make that much. *They probably make 50-100X more with TV ad rights than with YouTube.*


They make a ton more that way, yes.



SnapOrTap said:


> I wish I had used Youtube as a barometer when Punk/Rollins were champs.
> 
> Dam. Missed by chance.
> 
> :trips7



Next time, bro. Next time.


----------



## Brodus Clay

LilOlMe said:


> *Women going down that dramatically for RAW is really weird.* I wonder if there was some other programming for women on that we don't know about?


So Roman Reigns look isn't doing the trick?, lol at least I thought he would boost some female audience.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

ShowStopper said:


> And they still tuned out in record numbers.


Yeah, 1 out of 3 isn't good.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

AJ STYLES DRAWING ON THE NEW METRICS LOL


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The Inbred Goatman said:


> AJ STYLES DRAWING ON THE NEW METRICS LOL


Hey man, you might want to compare the Reigns and Styles aftermath video views now which you just edited out of your post. :evil


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Hey man, you might want to compare the Reigns and Styles aftermath video views now which you just edited out of your post. :evil


Reigns got more views on that lmao.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Reigns got more views on that lmao.


The situation was a bit different when you posted those videos side by side.. eh? 

Just playing around. BTW, Youtube isn't actually a metric as much of the performers' popularity as it is of the growing reach of the WWE over far corners of the world, atleast as of this moment.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Royal Rumble Twitter TV Ratings
*

- Last night's WWE Royal Rumble pay-per-view ranked #2 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The X-Files on FOX. The Rumble had a unique audience of 2.886 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from the 1.839 million that Survivor Series drew in November. Nielsen did not list TLC's unique audience in December. The Rumble had total impressions of 37.848 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from the 17.059 million that TLC drew.

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/wwe-r...s-draw-talk-here-ratings-war-part-iv-363.html


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> There are other factors as well, it's a multi-faceted function of various parameters like video length, ad length, advertiser, target audience (which again changes from country to country), retention (as you say) etc etc. I just made a comparative analysis with the other top channels employing reasonable tolerances.
> 
> As for the TV rights, it's a parameter which surely has to pass the litmus test in the coming years with the ever increasing clout of the Internet throughout the world, if I had to make a guess, I'd say by 2021-22 WWE would be 100% network exclusive.


So, in 5-6 years time you expect WWE to be taking a hit on about $200m a year from TV deals? It would be interesting if this happened. 

That's equivalent to about 1.7m network subscribers paying every month. So, larger than their entire current number. 

Obviously the pricing plan would have to be adjusted but the network has been built on it's low price and value. Therefore, it's an uphill struggle when you attempt to increase the price. 

They have already valued almost their entire archive at $10 a month. I'm sure they would like to charge more but this makes the product available to the masses. 

Obviously advertising is a means in which they could and almost certainly would earn money if a Live Raw became a network exclusive. 

I have no idea about how much they could earn directly from advertising but again, this would be another slap in the face to the fans who don't want to bombarded with advertisements while paying a subscription fee (possibly an increased one) to watch the shows on the network. 

I think it would be a huge uphill task to replace that income and there is no reason to believe that WWE could not maintain or even increase it's TV viewership under a different direction.

Five years seems far too small a timescale unless they fuck up the product so bad that the ratings completely tank. If this were to happen then I could only imagine that network subs would follow suit and 'network exclusive' Raws become a necessity rather than a choice.


----------



## Starbuck

> Shares of World Wrestling Entertainment, Inc. (NYSE: WWE) hulked up on Monday, hitting a day-high of $17.66 after opening at the $16.70 level.
> 
> The stock closed at $17.29, up 3.3 percent.
> 
> The company's annual Royal Rumble event took place on Sunday night. In a unique twist, the WWE Championship was defended in the event's eponymous match for the first time in its 28-year history. WWE's rising star, Roman Reigns, defended the title but was eliminated by the surprise entrant Triple H.
> 
> Triple H is the ring name of Paul Levesque, who was one of the hottest stars during the company's late 1990s-early 2000s heyday. He has been a part-time wrestler over the past decade, and hadn't participated in a match since April 2015.
> 
> Levesque is WWE's Executive Vice President (Talent/Live Events/Creative).
> 
> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/inves...153.html?soc_src=mediacontentstory&soc_trk=tw


Look at this. Not even a full day and the GOAT is already moving the share price. Never mind the ratings, THE KING is burying the stockmarket. Shareholders are obvs HHH marks. He's never losing the title now. 

:bosstrips


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> So, in 5-6 years time you expect WWE to be taking a hit on about $200m a year from TV deals? It would be interesting if this happened.
> 
> That's equivalent to about 1.7m network subscribers paying every month. So, larger than their entire current number.
> 
> Obviously the pricing plan would have to be adjusted but the network has been built on it's low price and value. Therefore, it's an uphill struggle when you attempt to increase the price.
> 
> They have already valued almost their entire archive at $10 a month. I'm sure they would like to charge more but this makes the product available to the masses.
> 
> Obviously advertising is a means in which they could and almost certainly would earn money if a Live Raw became a network exclusive.
> 
> I have no idea about how much they could earn directly from advertising but again, this would be another slap in the face to the fans who don't want to bombarded with advertisements while paying a subscription fee (possibly an increased one) to watch the shows on the network.
> 
> I think it would be a huge uphill task to replace that income and there is no reason to believe that WWE could not maintain or even increase it's TV viewership under a different direction.
> 
> Five years seems far too small a timescale unless they fuck up the product so bad that the ratings completely tank. If this were to happen then I could only imagine that network subs would follow suit and 'network exclusive' Raws become a necessity rather than a choice.


Well they successfully shifted PPVs and still reached break even pretty soon, another factor you've completely neglected is that 5-6 odd years later no TV network would be shelling out astronomical amounts like $ 200 million anyway, the normal distribution has pretty much hit it's peak and it has to start going downhill at some point. It's not about whether WWE manages to hold on the TV revenue or not, it's about whether TV manages to hold on it's own revenue or not, WWE has shrewdly made the transition quicker and are now playing the waiting game.


----------



## Randy Lahey

WWE put Rock on in the 3rd hour tonight. They must be thinking if he can't draw in that hour, nothing can or will.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Well they successfully shifted PPVs and still reached break even pretty soon, another factor you've completely neglected is that 5-6 odd years later no TV network would be shelling out astronomical amounts like $ 200 million anyway, the normal distribution has pretty much hit it's peak and it has to start going downhill at some point. It's not about whether WWE manages to hold on the TV revenue or not, it's about whether TV manages to hold on it's own revenue or not, WWE has shrewdly made the transition quicker and are now playing the waiting game.


Neither of us have any idea how much TV networks will be paying out in 5 or 6 years time. I haven't neglected the point, it just stands to reason that it will still be a huge sum that WWE would struggle to do without.


----------



## Empress

Randy Lahey said:


> WWE put Rock on in the 3rd hour tonight. They must be thinking if he can't draw in that hour, nothing can or will.


The power of The Rock. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bump in the ratings, more than the usual post PPV increase.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Conventional wisdom would tell you there'd be a big increase with HHH in the first hour and Rock in the third hour, plus the overall fallout in general from the Rumble. Will definitely be better than the usual, one would think.


----------



## Marrakesh

Empress said:


> The power of The Rock. I'd be surprised if there wasn't a bump in the ratings, more than the usual post PPV increase.


Tonight's rating should be huge in comparison to last weeks provided that the interest was there for the title change. 

HHH returned and won the belt which should pop hour 1 and WWE were teasing The Rock throughout the show. 

If they don't break 4 million for all three hours last night then they do have problems.


----------



## Empress

Marrakesh said:


> Tonight's rating should be huge in comparison to last weeks provided that the interest was there for the title change.
> 
> HHH returned and won the belt which should pop hour 1 and WWE were teasing The Rock throughout the show.
> 
> If they don't break 4 million for all three hours last night then they do have problems.


I completely agree. There was the title change interest in Hour 1 and by 8:30, we saw the limo.

If my memory is right, Rock showed up at around 9:30/9:45. He got to the ring by 10 pm. He was also trending on Twitter. 

Other than ratings, I hope they let the talents have more creative freedom. The Rock, aside from being naturally charismatic, wasn't handcuffed to awful scripts in his prime or last night. If Vince were smart, he'd let the full time performers try to be entertaining and less rehearsed. Rocky is a quick fix and bandaid. I loved seeing him, but the WWE needs to do right by the talents who will still be there next week. Then they can become draws.


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter TV Ratings Up*

- Monday's RAW ranked #3 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Bachelor and CNN's Iowa Democratic Town Hall. RAW had a unique audience of 1.824 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.270 million. RAW had total impressions of 14.343 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from last week's 8.537 million impressions.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0126/607064/the-rock-responds-to-dolph-ziggler/


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

If the ratings bump due to post ppv interest and The Rock, then next week is set up for a decent sized fall. Curious to see how much Rock elevated viewer interest.


----------



## Empress

THE SHIV said:


> If the ratings bump due to post ppv interest and The Rock, then next week is set up for a decent sized fall. Curious to see how much Rock elevated viewer interest.


I've noticed that when the Twitter rating goes up, so does the actual WWE rating.

I think Rock may have gotten them to 4 million viewers. The WWE was able to do that number for the post TLC show. Surely, The Rock can get them that too. But next week, it'll probably fall back down to earth.


----------



## SnapOrTap

The belt off Reigns.

Twitter ratings up.

Coincidence. 

HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.

wens2:aj3:trips9:trips3:hunter:trips5


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-4.140M
H2-4.183M
H3-3.972M

Avg-4.098M*


----------



## D.M.N.




----------



## RatedR10

Good stuff.

It still wasn't a good show, but Rumble fallout and DA ROCK talk.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

It's up, especially in the demo, but if this is their ceiling, then they really have eroded their fanbase.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Triple H walking around like...

:suckit :suckit :suckit :suckit

:lmao

Still though, that 200,000 + drop from hour 2 to hour 3 is something they still have to look into.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Rating could finally crack a 3.0 which hasn't happened since last year's RWTM.


----------



## Empress

The Rock did it!!!!!

:clap :rock4


----------



## ElTerrible

ShowStopper said:


> Triple H walking around the locker room seeking out all the full timers like...
> 
> :suckit :suckit :suckit :suckit


So the usual.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

ElTerrible said:


> So the usual.


:lol

This time he has a right to do it, though.

:trips2


----------



## A-C-P

Rock and HHH saving Vince's ass again :lmao

But like @THE SHIV said if this is their ceiling (which I would guess it may be given what the WWE all had going for it with last night's Raw) then man they have killed their TV fanbase over the past few years.


----------



## Erik.




----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Hour 3 was up .4 in the demo and 800,00 viewers, largely attributable to the lengthy Rock segment. Too bad he cant appear every week.


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> Rock and HHH saving Vince's ass again :lmao


These two are going to save WM 32 too.











Most weeks, I'd judge the product as a whole but this huge pop in the rating is due to only one man, The Great One. Look at that third hour!


----------



## DoublePass

So a guy who can actually cut a promo draws more than the previous 4 champions who couldn't.

Interesting.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Could be one of the highest ratings in a while excluding the RAWs after RR and WM last year.


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> These two are going to save WM 32 too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Most weeks, I'd judge the product as a whole but this huge pop in the rating is due to only one man, The Great One. Look at that third hour!


BO Rida gonna save WM?

:YES


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

THE SHIV said:


> Hour 3 was up .4 in the demo and 800,00 viewers, largely attributable to the lengthy Rock segment. Too bad he cant appear every week.


Even with the announcement of the Fastlane Main Event to announce the WM main event, they still had a sizable drop from hour 2 to 3. They have to look into how to fix that. Although, it just may be due to 3 hours being way too damn long for viewers today.

It's too bad Rock isn't going to have a WM match, or a big one. Maybe they should have H win the title more often, too.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Rock was in the last 10 minutes of hour 2 and hour 3... and actually nearly pulled off a miracle in getting everything above 4 million. Kind of scary though it took Rock-teasing him on Twitter and the Rumble fallout with HHH as champion to just barely get everything above 4 million. Will be interesting to see if it holds up.


----------



## Empress

*Raw Twitter TV Ratings jump post-Rumble, comparison to past years*

Monday’s Raw following the Royal Rumble easily scored the highest Twitter TV Ratings of 2016 and compared favorably to last year’s post-Rumble Raw.

Raw Social Media Tracking

– January 25: Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.824 million, according to Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings, up 44 percent from the Rumble lead-in last week.

Raw’s total impressions were 14.343 million, the most since 18 million the night after Summerslam in August 2015.

The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw jumped 64 percent from last week to 54,000. The number of tweets jumped by the same percentage to 243,000 tweets.

The downside for Monday’s Raw is the show ranked #3 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing a Democratic Party debate and “The Bachelor” on ABC.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #5 behind two NBA games, on college basketball game, and the Australian Open tennis tournament.

Comparison of 2016 to 2015 Post-Rumble Raw

2016 Uniques: 1.824 million (2)
2015 Uniques: 1.919 million (1)
2014 Uniques: 1.817 million (3)
***

2016 Impressions: 14.343 million (1)
2015 Impressions: 11.622 million (3)
2014 Impressions: 11.719 million (2)

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/26/jan25rawtwitterratings/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

H2 gained 1.04% from H1 (+0.043M)
H3 lost 5.05% from H2 (-0.111M) and 4.06% from H1 (-0.068M)

H1 gained 9.67% from last week (+0.365M)
H2 gained 16.49% from last week (+0.592M)
H3 gained 27.19% from last week (+0.849M)

Overall, every hour of RAW was the most viewed on cable.


----------



## Wynter

It did increase by a good amount from last week, yes, but considering Rock's star power, I expected higher honestly. We've seen numbers similar during Seth's reign and most recently, the night after TLC(overall viewership is higher this time though. Post TLC was like 3.88 average with this being 3.92). Not all the time of course, but 4.0+ popped up after PPVs, a week after a hot segment or when a big star was rumored. 

1st hour was promising since that was key in what interest there was after Rumble/Triple H winning the belt. Second hour rode the wave of what everyone knew was an inevitable Rock appearance . Third hour drop as usual(me being one of them because I just knew no one was topping Rock :lol)

Expecting a drop next week, because while Rock did provide a nice bump in his spot, they really didn't do anything to bring hype for next week other than the Fast Lane main event.

I do agree with @THE SHIV. I think we are seeing the ceiling of the fanbase right now. Not even THE ROCK could get out of the 4.1 zone :lol Makes me think back when Batista returned to over 5 million. WWE wishes they could now days :lol The erosion of the fanbase is noticeable.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

The RR fallout RAW of 2016 gained 0.602M viewers from the go home RAW the week prior.

Comparing the above with the last time a title changed on RR, with someone who hasn't reclaimed it in almost the same length of time. (HHH in 2016 and The Rock in 2013)

1/21/13-4.32M
1/28/13-5.02M (*+16.44% / +0.700M*)

1/18/13-3.496M
1/25/13-4.098M (*+17.22% / +0.602M*)


----------



## Empress

*
WWE RAW Ratings 1/25/16: TV Numbers Up In A Big Way*

WWE RAW Television Ratings Receive Massive Bump On January 25

The WWE RAW television ratings are in for the January 25 edition of the show, and WWE received some much needed good news when the viewership numbers came in on Tuesday afternoon.

The show averaged 4.098 million viewers this week, which was an increase of over 600,000 viewers compared to last week’s RAW broadcast. The January 18 edition of RAW averaged 3.48 million viewers.

The hourly breakdown this week was as follows:

First Hour: 4.140 million viewers (3.78 million last week)

Second Hour: 4.183 million viewers (3.59 million last week)

Third Hour: 3.972 million viewers (3.12 million last week)

The trend of viewers tuning out continued this week. After the second hour becoming the most watched hour of the show, just over 200,000 viewers tuned out during the third hour. Even so, this week’s third hour of RAW was viewed by over 850,000 more people than last week’s final hour.

Clearly the show received a bump due to the fall-out from the Royal Rumble. Fans will also debate whether the debut of AJ Styles on RAW or Triple H’s world championship victory played a role in the bump in viewership. Additionally, WWE advertised the return of a former champion on the show this week, which ended up being The Rock.

With no football competition, RAW was easily the most watched show in the cable television ratings on Monday night. The CNN Democratic Candidate Town Hall came in second place with 3.202 million viewers, nearly 900,000 less than RAW.

http://www.topropepress.com/news/22801/wwe-raw-ratings-12516#


----------



## The Tempest

RAW chart (JohnnyAce is not gonna steal my job :cudi )










:wow That is impressive


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

The Last Marauder said:


> It did increase by a good amount from last week, yes, but considering Rock's star power, I expected higher honestly. We've seen numbers similar during Seth's reign and most recently, the night after TLC(overall viewership is higher this time though. Post TLC was like 3.88 average with this being 3.92). Not all the time of course, but 4.0+ popped up after PPVs, a week after a hot segment or when a big star was rumored.
> 
> 1st hour was promising since that was key in what interest there was after Rumble/Triple H winning the belt. Second hour rode the wave of what everyone knew was an inevitable Rock appearance . Third hour drop as usual(me being one of them because I just knew no one was topping Rock :lol)
> 
> Expecting a drop next week, because while Rock did provide a nice bump in his spot, they really didn't do anything to bring hype for next week other than the Fast Lane main event.
> 
> I do agree with @THE SHIV. I think we are seeing the ceiling of the fanbase right now. Not even THE ROCK could get out of the 4.1 zone :lol Makes me think back when Batista returned to over 5 million. WWE wishes they could now days :lol The erosion of the fanbase is noticeable.


Hi Winter, Didn't realize that was you. I bet Vince wishes they had the Batista return audience and that was just two short years ago, which feels like a lifetime now.


----------



## thegockster

Title of Reigns = Ratings

I even expect fans to turn up to smackdown now


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It is a good point. So, basically their absolute top ceiling is like 500,000 more than their usual 3.5 million. It's higher, but it's not like CRAZY higher.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

The Tempest said:


> RAW chart (JohnnyAce is not gonna steal my job :cudi )


----------



## Cliffy

Props to AJ on drawing that number


----------



## THANOS

I wish we still had quarter hour/minute breakdowns. It would be nice to see how AJ and Rock did in comparison to the rest of the show.


----------



## KC Armstrong

Rock was fucking awesome as usual and he deserves credit for the 2nd & 3rd hour numbers, but I wouldn't give him credit for the 1st hour. He was not announced prior to the show and rumors/speculation on internet wrestling sites don't give you 500.000 additional viewers. 

The slight drop in hour 3 is not surprising. Right after Rock left they gave us a divas tag match and a lame tag match in the main event that nobody cared about. To think people want to sit through 2 boring matches just to hear a match being announced for Fastlane is ridiculous. You can just look that up after the show.


----------



## KC Armstrong

THANOS said:


> I wish we still had quarter hour/minute breakdowns. It would be nice to see how AJ and Rock did in comparison to the rest of the show.



I would love to see how many people changed the channel during the transition from Rock into the divas tag match. I actually expected them to lose a lot more viewers than they did in hour 3.


----------



## Wynter

WWE needs star power badly. There was a time 3.9 and 4.6+ on a regular Raw against a big game would happen.

Guess what time was that?: Shield, Bryan, Cena, Orton, Punk, Real Americans, Wyatts, Usos, Rhodes Bros, The Big Guy, AJ Lee etc. were all very popular.

It gave everyone a talent they could get into who were more than just a jobber. A lot of popular acts back then.

Of course we can go back to having that, but right now, roster is largely lacking because of booking decisions.


----------



## KC Armstrong

ShowStopper said:


> It is a good point. So, basically their absolute top ceiling is like 500,000 more than their usual 3.5 million. It's higher, but it's not like CRAZY higher.



Who says this is their ceiling? Again, Rock was not even advertised, the casual fan doesn't read all the rumors on the internet. If they average 3-3.5 million on the entire Road to WrestleMania, you can bury them, but why don't we wait and see what happens?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KC Armstrong said:


> Who says this is their ceiling? Again, Rock was not even advertised, the casual fan doesn't read all the rumors on the internet. If they average 3-3.5 million on the entire Road to WrestleMania, you can bury them, but why don't we wait and see what happens?


Who says? The poster that made the post in this very thread. And it is a fair point. You'd be surprised at how many read the rumors on the internet; it's more now than ever. And it was very easy to tell it was The Rock. In Miami, legend, etc. The fans knew. How about you quote the poster who made the post?


----------



## KC Armstrong

ShowStopper said:


> Who says? The poster that made the post in this very thread. And it is a fair point. You'd be surprised at how many read the rumors on the internet; it's more now than ever. And it was very easy to tell it was The Rock. In Miami, legend, etc. The fans knew. How about you quote the poster who made the post?



It's very easy to tell if you're a WRESTLING FAN. As everyone always points out, Rock brings in the casual viewers and they certainly do not read that shit. 

I think they could hit 4.5 million as the RtWM heats up, but we'll see. Is the fanbase as big as it was a few years ago? No, we all know it's not.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KC Armstrong said:


> It's very easy to tell if you're a WRESTLING FAN. As everyone always points out, Rock brings in the casual viewers and they certainly do not read that shit.
> 
> I think they could hit 4.5 million as the RtWM heats up, but we'll see. Is the fanbase as big as it was a few years ago? No, we all know it's not.


Of course Rock brings in more fans, just look at last night. It's not really a mystery when they hype it is as a WWE Legend, Former World Champion, and Raw happens to be in Miami, Rock's hometown. I also believe HHH winning the title brought in alot of the viewers in the first hour, though. If they're going to 4.5 million, they better keep bringing past legends back out of retirement; because they didn't hit that last night with a huge title change, the Rumble fallout, and Rock being there.


----------



## DoubtGin

:trips2

:suckit

THE GAME AS CHAMP = RATINGS


----------



## CJohn3:16

Big events involving Triple H draw. The TLC fallout involved Triple H and RR's fallout also involved him. He draws more than we think when involved in big moments.


----------



## The_It_Factor

I still find it sad that Raw can't break a 3.0 with Triple H as champ/Rumble fallout/The Rock/AJ Styles/Beginning of RTWM


----------



## KC Armstrong

ShowStopper said:


> Of course Rock brings in more fans, just look at last night. It's not really a mystery when they hype it is as a WWE Legend, Former World Champion, and Raw happens to be in Miami, Rock's hometown. I also believe HHH winning the title brought in alot of the viewers in the first hour, though. If they're going to 4.5 million, they better keep bringing past legends back out of retirement; because they didn't hit that last night with a huge title change, the Rumble fallout, and Rock being there.



With the exception of Rocky, I don't even think it's necessarily about bringing in legends. Just don't bore us for 3 fucking hours, give us some excitement and people will watch. After all, the show in which Reigns won the title only averaged 200.000 viewers less than they did last night. A couple of months ago they had advertised Stone Cold, HBK, Undertaker & Flair and they only did 3.3 million.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*WWE Raw rating for the January 25 edition*

Monday's WWE Raw scored a *2.93 rating*, up from the *2.45 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *4.098 million* viewers, up from the *3.496 million* average from last week.

Powell's POV: A great night for Raw numbers compared to recent numbers thanks to a combination of the Royal Rumble, the new champion, A.J. Styles, and some guy named Dwayne Johnson. The January 26, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *3.28 rating* with *4.468 million* viewers for the night after the 2015 Royal Rumble.

*http://prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-January-25-edition-45646*

_Highest rating and viewership since last year's RTWM.
Rating- *+19.6% *from last week
Viewership- *+17.22% *from last week_


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KC Armstrong said:


> With the exception of Rocky, I don't even think it's necessarily about bringing in legends. Just don't bore us for 3 fucking hours, give us some excitement and people will watch. After all, the show in which Reigns won the title only averaged 200.000 viewers less than they did last night. A couple of months ago they had advertised Stone Cold, HBK, Undertaker & Flair and they only did 3.3 million.


Yes, good booking goes along way. Always has. Brock and Taker haven't been in an hour that drew a good amount like last night in a very long time. Last nights show wasn't great, but it had better than usual pacing, they didn't beat us down with the Authority/Reigns segments like usual. Doing that, having a big title change with H, Rumble fallout, and Rock. But that goes to the original point that the other poster made, all of that good stuff and while it was a better than usual viewership, it wasn't through the roof. I didn't even think of it like that until I read that post. It's a fair point. That's all. *shrugs*


----------



## Chrome

The_It_Factor said:


> I still find it sad that Raw can't break a 3.0 with Triple H as champ/Rumble fallout/The Rock/AJ Styles/Beginning of RTWM


Yeah, this and the Raw after Mania will probably be their highest rated shows of the year, and it's really not that high tbh.


----------



## BuzzKillington

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/692109923501621248
In the context of post Rumble rating, I don't think this is anything but a bad rating.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Context. It's a good rating for a normal Raw. *The problem with this rating is that it's utterly unsustainable.*


----------



## Lone Star

> 200,000 viewers tuned out during the third hour


Those dumb tag team main events need to go. Nobody cares. Still a terrible rating, and and bad draw for hour 3. People didn't even wait around for the Fastlane #1 contender announcement, because this shit is predictable and not fun anymore.

The main event storyline (Roman Reigns vs Authority) is the worst part of the show, and it's not even a contest, ratings have proved this week after week.


----------



## KO Bossy

Hour 2 the highest hour. Who was featured in it? My main man, AJ Styles.

The Phenomenal One debuts and the ratings go up. Coincidence? I think not.


----------



## KO Bossy

THE SHIV said:


> Hour 3 was up .4 in the demo and 800,00 viewers, largely attributable to the lengthy Rock segment. Too bad he cant appear every week.


Don't forget...











The Phenomenal One and the Great One bringing in dem ratings.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

BuzzKillington said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/692109923501621248
> In the context of post Rumble rating, I don't think this is anything but a bad rating.


If that yearly downward trend continues, next year will be below 4 million. Would have been this year save for a special segment from The Rock.


----------



## Brodus Clay

So there were people that thought HHH was going to elevate the ratings? the guy as been in the majority of RAW main event segments with his Authority gimmick and that was when the decline got worse, his gimmick already stale if anything him having the belt gonna help at the decrease of ratings.

90's WCW would murder HHH and his pets.


----------



## Raskatpery

BuzzKillington said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/692109923501621248
> In the context of post Rumble rating, I don't think this is anything but a bad rating.


Context is wrong. RAW wasn't even a regular 3 hr show in 2010 and 2011. Different level of competition on TV, and most importantly you didn't have a roster full of injured guys. 

I mean almost all main eventers with credibility are out. Ratings hit rock bottom drawing in the 2.0s and fans utterly revolting against anything that resembles a WWE pushed talent. All this considered a 18 percentage bump in the ratings is quite an achievement.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Context. It's a good rating for a normal Raw. *The problem with this rating is that it's utterly unsustainable.*


Errr it's a post ppv raw? That's the context, it's clearly not a 'normal' raw?


----------



## Raskatpery

> - As noted, Monday's post-Royal Rumble WWE RAW episode drew 4.098 million viewers, up from last week's 3.496 million viewers. The final rating for the show was a 2.93, up from last week's 2.45 rating. This is the highest RAW rating going back to the post-WrestleMania 31 RAW in 2015.


WIC


----------



## Badbadrobot

Raskatpery said:


> Context is wrong. RAW wasn't even a regular 3 hr show in 2010 and 2011. Different level of competition on TV, and most importantly you didn't have a roster full of injured guys.
> 
> I mean almost all main eventers with credibility are out. Ratings hit rock bottom drawing in the 2.0s and fans utterly revolting against anything that resembles a WWE pushed talent. All this considered a 18 percentage bump in the ratings is quite an achievement.


Road Dogg is that you?


----------



## Lone Star

This idiot has got to be Road Dogg or Prince Albert. 

You were saying in the other thread that was closed, Triple H and The Rock are drawing. Wrong. The plummeting in viewers for this show over the past 5 years prove that. 

It's a 2.9 after a prestigious PPV event, and a well known Rock appearance. Awful number.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

*Comparing week to week is utterly pointless.* This is not how you use ratings.

This is what post-Rumble Raw got this week:

First Hour: 4.14 million
Second Hour: 4.18 million
Third Hour: 3.97 million

This is what the same show got in 2015:

First Hour: 4.46 million
Second Hour: 4.65 million
Third Hour: 4.13 million

Bear in mind the 2015 post Rumble Raw came off the back of the worst Rumble ever, and it wasn't a proper Raw (it was Storm Raw with no matches) - and they still maintained 4.13 million viewers by the end of it, and out drew this weeks Raw.

Everything here screams downward trend.

Look, the ratings are going to go up from now until April, compared to the last month. It's WM season. But when you compare the previous years, they are steadily losing viewers, this can't be argued.

Royal Rumble fallout in 2014?

First Hour: 4.85 million
Second Hour: 4.84 million
Third Hour: 4.47 million

This is the evidence of how far they are falling.

Royal Rumble fallout in 2013?

First Hour: 4.86 million
Second Hour: 5.27 million
Third Hour: 4.93 million

Need I go on?

You guys keep comparing week to week if this is what you enjoy, and for the fun of thread, please do continue. But comparing week to week is just for jovial puposes only. 

Nothing can be gained from doing this. Please compare year to year if you want to judge the overall trend of WWE's ratings.


----------



## Redzero

AJ the draw.


----------



## Starbuck

Rocky and HHH doing work as usual. :lol the delusion in here over Hunter. He's a bigger draw than Taker you fools. 

Are these blow away numbers? No. But they're the best WWE is going to get these days. 

HHH & Rock > Taker, HBK, Lesnar, Austin & Flair. Fact.

Who the fuck is AJ Styles?


----------



## LilOlMe

KO Bossy said:


> Hour 2 the highest hour. Who was featured in it? My main man, AJ Styles.
> 
> The Phenomenal One debuts and the ratings go up. Coincidence? I think not.


This really does surprise me. I would have bet money that hour 2 was gonna go down, and I was gonna come here yesterday to say that. I remember feeling like hour 2 started to lose luster & they didn't have anything special for it until Rock's appearance in hour 3.

I forgot that AJ was in hour two. That's interesting, because I don't think that anything else notable was going on in that hour.

Also, yeah, the numbers aren't great. I thought that they'd top last years show because this year felt more eventful. 

In fairness, they did air the Rumble on RAW last year & there was a ton of controversy.


----------



## Naka Moora

KO Bossy said:


> Hour 2 the highest hour. Who was featured in it? My main man, AJ Styles.
> 
> The Phenomenal One debuts and the ratings go up. Coincidence? I think not.


LMAOOOOOOOO.


----------



## BuzzKillington

THE SHIV said:


> If that yearly downward trend continues, next year will be below 4 million. Would have been this year save for a special segment from The Rock.


Yup, whats more important when forecasting the WWE? The fact that the Rock decides to show up once in a while to pop the ratings, or the fact that there is clearly a yearly downward trend?

Anyways, Daemon_Rising laid it out in his post.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Even the Raw After WM won't be above 3.x.

Mark my words.


----------



## LaMelo

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Even the Raw After WM won't be above 3.x.
> 
> Mark my words.


The Rock can't even save the WWE any longer.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*No one would care about Triple H being champion they said :mj4
Ratings would tank they said :mj4

Foot in mouth yet again. As I said a month ago, all ratings increases will be attributed solely to Reigns, since those people are so desperate to blame him, regardless of what role he's in.*



Daemon_Rising said:


> You guys keep comparing week to week if this is what you enjoy, and for the fun of thread, please do continue. But comparing week to week is just for jovial puposes only.
> 
> Nothing can be gained from doing this. Please compare year to year if you want to judge the overall trend of WWE's ratings.


*That would be a great argument if we weren't told that Daniel Bryan is a needle mover and the sole reason for ratings increases from 2013-2014. If that were the case, then there would be no downward trend. He was a stabilizer at best due to the Authority storyline. Roman's Youtube views skyrocketed while being in a similar storyline, drawing 4x the viewers of the #2 video on a weekly basis, proving that it's the booking doing most of the work. Put Bryan in a meaningless feud with Ziggler with a rematch every week for 2 months and no one would care. Anyone saying Youtube doesn't matter has no idea what they're talking about and it's good that they aren't involved in business and marketing. It's not only a clear indicator of which segments are drawing the most interest, but significant revenue is gained through ads and views. There's a reason random people filming from their homes make 6 figures a year off of putting up 3 videos a week. Now imagine what kind of numbers a billion dollar corporation is pulling off while putting up approximately 20 videos a day with 100,000 views minimum.*


----------



## Daemon_Rising

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *No one would care about Triple H being champion they said :mj4
> Ratings would tank they said :mj4
> 
> Foot in mouth yet again. As I said a month ago, all ratings increases will be attributed solely to Reigns, since those people are so desperate to blame him, regardless of what role he's in.*
> 
> 
> 
> *That would be a great argument if we weren't told that Daniel Bryan is a needle mover and the sole reason for ratings increases from 2013-2014. If that were the case, then there would be no downward trend. He was a stabilizer at best due to the Authority storyline. Roman's Youtube views skyrocketed while being in a similar storyline, drawing 4x the viewers of the #2 video on a weekly basis, proving that it's the booking doing most of the work. Put Bryan in a meaningless feud with Ziggler with a rematch every week for 2 months and no one would care. Anyone saying Youtube doesn't matter has no idea what they're talking about and it's good that they aren't involved in business and marketing. It's not only a clear indicator of which segments are drawing the most interest, but significant revenue is gained through ads and views. There's a reason random people filming from their homes make 6 figures a year off of putting up 3 videos a week. Now imagine what kind of numbers a billion dollar corporation is pulling off while putting up approximately 20 videos a day with 100,000 views minimum.*


I was talking about an effective way to judge whether or not WWE are doing the "right" thing come Rumble-Mania season.

And I'm talking purely about TV ratings, so nothing to do with Youtube, or buys, or anything else.

I'm also not talking about talent, so no Bryan or Reigns or anything talk here.

I'm talking purely TV number. And the TV numbers ain't good.

If WWE can maintain a business in the way that you describe, and Youtube numbers are good, marketing and merch are good, etc etc, then good for them.

My sole and only point is that the TV numbers are on the way down, and this Rumble did nothing to stop a downward trend in TV numbers.

*You're hi-jacking my post in order to talk about Bryan and Reigns again!!*


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Daemon_Rising said:


> I was talking about an effective way to judge whether or not WWE are doing the "right" thing come Rumble-Mania season.
> 
> And I'm talking purely about TV ratings, so nothing to do with Youtube, or buys, or anything else.
> 
> I'm also not talking about talent, so no Bryan or Reigns or anything talk here.
> 
> I'm talking purely TV number. And the TV numbers ain't good.
> 
> If WWE can maintain a business in the way that you describe, and Youtube numbers are good, marketing and merch are good, etc etc, then good for them.
> 
> My sole and only point is that the TV numbers are on the way down, and this Rumble did nothing to stop a downward trend in TV numbers.
> 
> *You're hi-jacking my post in order to talk about Bryan and Reigns again!!*


*
90% of this thread is dedicated to horse shit about Bryan being a draw and Reigns being an anti draw. There's direct proof in the numbers that suggests otherwise. If Bryan were a draw, there would be no downward trend, period. If Bryan was the sole draw of that time period, ratings wouldn't have increased for months after his injury in 2014. The Shield had a lot to do with the success of the show during a period which is accredited entirely to Bryan. These are facts that people blatantly ignore to paint a false narrative. You can't just post numbers and blatantly disregard what was happening.*


----------



## Daemon_Rising

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> 90% of this thread is dedicated to horse shit about Bryan being a draw and Reigns being an anti draw. There's direct proof in the numbers that suggests otherwise. If Bryan were a draw, there would be no downward trend, period. If Bryan was the sole draw of that time period, ratings wouldn't have increased for months after his injury in 2014. The Shield had a lot to do with the success of the show during a period which is accredited entirely to Bryan. These are facts that people blatantly ignore to paint a false narrative. *You can't just post numbers and blatantly disregard what was happening.*


Well maybe what I posted doesn't lie within this 90%

I can tell your for sure that it doesn't, because I'm talking purely numbers. No talent.

What I bolded? That's exactly what I did. I'm ignoring all of that, because to me it doesn't matter. There are other places to war over Bryan/Reigns, which is an old tired war for me.

AS far as I'm concerned I wanted to bring home a point about numbers... you;re telling me I can;t do that.

Therefore, I have just reported my own post. Hope that this appeases you a little bit. I'll leave to mods to decide whether or not it should be deleted. (I'm not a regular in this thread)


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Daemon_Rising said:


> Well maybe what I posted doesn't lie within this 90%
> 
> I can tell your for sure that it doesn't, because I'm talking purely numbers. No talent.
> 
> What I bolded? That's exactly what I did. I'm ignoring all of that, because to me it doesn't matter. There are other places to war over Bryan/Reigns, which is an old tired war for me.
> 
> AS far as I'm concerned I wanted to bring home a point about numbers... you;re telling me I can;t do that.
> 
> Therefore, I have just reported my own post. Hope that this appeases you a little bit. I'll leave to mods to decide whether or not it should be deleted. (I'm not a regular in this thread)


*Your post doesn't break any rule and it's not offensive. You just can't post numbers without context and expect no arguments. You have to take into consideration what was happening during those time periods, and during late 2013-2014, we were being told that Bryan was THE draw because of his segments with the Authority generating the most interest. Reigns does the same thing and every excuse in the world is made, combined with the same people excusing Rollins' mediocre numbers by pointing at the consistent downward trend. If Bryan was a draw, then a downward trend should not exist. If the downward trend is a valid excuse, then it should apply to Reigns as well. *


----------



## Daemon_Rising

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *Your post doesn't break any rule and it's not offensive. You just can't post numbers without context and expect no arguments. You have to take into consideration what was happening during those time periods.*


I think you should be a moderator.


----------



## LPPrince

I don't watch Raw but upon seeing AJ in the Rumble I considered for a few seconds that I might have to tune into Raw for AJ at least. Didn't.

But still, he was what almost drew me in. Nothing else would.


----------



## Saved_masses

what surprises me the most is that the rating went up during raw, when was the last time the ratings rose in the second hour? I know that it was probably due to The Rock or possibly AJ Styles? but it's still a good thing that people actually tuned in to see what was going on for once.


----------



## Redzero

Reigns stops being champion and the ratings go up.

Surprise!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Fresh Prince of Boyle Heights said:


> The Rock can't even save the WWE any longer.


Just more proof that the full timers aren't draws yet like most of us predicted. Right again.

This was the best WWE could do with a big title change given to the onscreen Top Authority figure, Rock, and the night after the Rumble?!

:mj4

Way better than December and the first couple weeks of January which all of us predicted, but still :mj4

Just keep H in the spotlight, plz.

:suckit


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Wait, why do people think this rating is good? It's not, it's not at all actually. It's pretty terrible.

Yeah, it's a gain, but it's pretty low of a gain considering they did a pretty big angle last night AND it's the post Rumble Raw which has traditionally been the second biggest Raw of the year.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Wait, why do people think this rating is good? It's not, it's not at all actually. It's pretty terrible.
> 
> Yeah, it's a gain, but it's pretty low of a gain considering they did a pretty big angle last night AND it's the post Rumble Raw which has traditionally been the second biggest Raw of the year.


This is why I said you can't compare week to week in instances like this, you have to compare to the relative show the year before.

Post Rumble Raw, and Post Mania Raw are *always* the two "biggest" Raws of the year, and the numbers do back this up. If anyone wants me to post the previous 5 years to prove this I can, but the numbers are easy to find.

These two Raws are always the highest drawing Raws of the year. Basically these numbers are WWE's ceiling they have created for themselves.

From a product perspective, Raw got decent feedback and was given solid 6s and 7s out of 10 accross various reviews. 7/10 isn't amazing but it beats the 2/10 Raws they have been giving us in recent times.

The problem is, what is the draw to keep watching for the casual viewer? Nothing really. Triple H announced he is not a fighting champion and that until fans learn respect, he's just gonna hold onto the title until the fans behave themselves. The wrong messages were sent out during Raw.

I can see them effectively coasting and daydreaming their way into a complete mess come WrestleMania. I also think they will stay stubborn with zero swerves, and this could also have a detrimental effect on those numbers.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

They got beat by the canned Raw from last year.

:ha :ha

:heston


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Interesting posts about the year on year comparison. It just emphasizes that no one is a draw because no one, not even with a big title change w/ the direct fallout of that, and The Rock himself, could break that downward trend year on year. Numbers were obviously going to be higher than the past few weeks but let's see how the year on year comparisons go week by week and if we start seeing the trend change.


----------



## Raskatpery

It seems lot of folks in this thread don't even understand what they are arguing about. Look at the numbers - 5 mil or 4 mil or 6 mil - in a vacuum and judging viewer's interest is just stupid. You need to note the percentage gain relative to each year. Otherwise, you might as well compare all numbers to Attitude era or Hulkmania era and declare it all bad anyway. What's the point of this thread then, right? 

So, in any case, let me post the numbers in terms of Percentage increase/decrease from its prior week(Rumble lead-in show), respective to each year since 07...

Credits: Pwtorch

*2007* Post Rumble RAW (1/29/07): Rating *+3.2%* / Viewership *-3.1%* 

*2008* Post Rumble RAW (1/28/08): Rating *+9.4%* / Viewership *+16.7%*

*2009* Post Rumble RAW (1/26/09): Rating *-6.9%* / Viewership *-9.9%*

*2010* Post Rumble RAW (2/01/10): Rating *+1.1%* / Viewership *+2.9%*

*2011 *Post Rumble RAW (1/31/11): Rating *+5.8%* / Viewership *+7.8%*

*2012 *Post Rumble RAW (1/30/12): Rating *+11.6%* / Viewership *+13.1%*

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*2013 *Post Rumble RAW (1/28/13): Rating *+21.5%* / Viewership *+16.3%*

*2014 *Post Rumble RAW (1/27/14): Rating *-6.4%* / Viewership *-3.1%*

*2015 *Post Rumble RAW (1/26/15): Rating *+8.2%*/ Viewership *+15%*

*2016 *Post Rumble RAW (1/25/16): Rating *+20.1%* / Viewership *+18%*



Note: 

- Years prior to 2013 were not 3 hour shows. 

- The Decrease in 2009 and 2014 is attributed to Exceptionally Strong lead-in show rating and viewership involving Vince Mcmahon's big return to television following the angle of Stephanie firing Jericho, and Batista's highly advertised huge return after 4 years to WWE. 

- 2015 show was originally cancelled due to a blizzard and WWE ended up airing a bunch of pre-taped promos and interviews from Stamford, Connecticut. 


Now, with this you may have a better comparison. And as you may notice 2016 has drawn really well overall outdrawn barely, only by the 2013 show featuring The Rock as WWE heavyweight Champion.

Its not bad number by any means. Unless ofcourse you were expecting some ridiculously high and impossible level of increase.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

^Another interesting post. There's definitely a lot more to look at than meets the eye. Year on year it's still decreasing and neither Rock not HHH as champ could do anything about that, but the change from week to week and comparing that yearly certainly paints a different picture.


Of course regardless of all of this, for all we know Rock's time in hour 2 and hour 3 kept those numbers up and may have massive quarter numbers, and same goes for the opening direct fallout from the Runble with HHH as champ. But we have no way of telling definitely because we don't get those quarter numbers.

It's also the reason we cant really compare Reigns to Bryan. Bryan got a ton of praise because even though the overall viewership numbers were in line with the prior year, Bryan's segments we could see were consistently doing extremely well and that's why it's said he moves the needle. Reigns might be the exact same and his segments may look even more impressive if we had the quarter breakdowns, but we don't so its all speculative with him.


----------



## EireUnited

Those few extra thousands viewers that came in:

-What did they do to convince them that the new product is worth watching?

The biggest emphasis of the show by a country mile was "The Rock is so entertaining! I am so electrified!"

They won't be watching next week, and they won't be watching next year.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Percentages don't mean shit.
At one point, a WCW PPV did a 0.1 buyrate. The next one did a 0.17 or something. That's a 70% increase. Still a shit number.

A 2.9 would have led to heads rolling just a few years ago.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Raskatpery said:


> It seems lot of folks in this thread don't even understand what they are arguing about. Look at the numbers - 5 mil or 4 mil or 6 mil - in a vacuum and judging viewer's interest is just stupid. You need to note the percentage gain relative to each year. Otherwise, you might as well compare all numbers to Attitude era or Hulkmania era and declare it all bad anyway. What's the point of this thread then, right?
> 
> So, in any case, let me post the numbers in terms of Percentage increase/decrease from its prior week(Rumble lead-in show), respective to each year since 07...
> 
> Credits: Pwtorch
> 
> *2007* Post Rumble RAW (1/29/07): Rating *+3.2%* / Viewership *-3.1%*
> 
> *2008* Post Rumble RAW (1/28/08): Rating *+9.4%* / Viewership *+16.7%*
> 
> *2009* Post Rumble RAW (1/26/09): Rating *-6.9%* / Viewership *-9.9%*
> 
> *2010* Post Rumble RAW (2/01/10): Rating *+1.1%* / Viewership *+2.9%*
> 
> *2011 *Post Rumble RAW (1/31/11): Rating *+5.8%* / Viewership *+7.8%*
> 
> *2012 *Post Rumble RAW (1/30/12): Rating *+11.6%* / Viewership *+13.1%*
> 
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> *2013 *Post Rumble RAW (1/28/13): Rating *+21.5%* / Viewership *+16.3%*
> 
> *2014 *Post Rumble RAW (1/27/14): Rating *-6.4%* / Viewership *-3.1%*
> 
> *2015 *Post Rumble RAW (1/26/15): Rating *+8.2%*/ Viewership *+15%*
> 
> *2016 *Post Rumble RAW (1/25/16): Rating *+20.1%* / Viewership *+18%*
> 
> 
> 
> Note:
> 
> - Years prior to 2013 were not 3 hour shows.
> 
> - The Decrease in 2009 and 2014 is attributed to Exceptionally Strong lead-in show rating and viewership involving Vince Mcmahon's big return to television following the angle of Stephanie firing Jericho, and Batista's highly advertised huge return after 4 years to WWE.
> 
> - 2015 show was originally cancelled due to a blizzard and WWE ended up airing a bunch of pre-taped promos and interviews from Stamford, Connecticut.
> 
> 
> Now, with this you may have a better comparison. And as you may notice 2016 has drawn really well overall outdrawn barely, only by the 2013 show featuring The Rock as WWE heavyweight Champion.
> 
> Its not bad number by any means. Unless ofcourse you were expecting some ridiculously high and impossible level of increase.


Are you being deliberately misleading?

You seem to have a grasp on numbers, but the assessment of those numbers is completely out.

Post-Rumble Raw is the is the second biggest Raw of the year, and has been for the last decade.

It would come as a surprise to nobody that there are percentage increases from the previous week. That's what happens.

These numbers mean:

NOTHING

The year by year comparisons are what matters.


You have posted a hella lot of numbers there, proving a point that we already know:

Post-Rumble Raw gets gains. So, what, exactly? What is your point?

Please explain to me why we need to compare the go-home to Rumble, to the Rumble fallout?


----------



## Naka Moora

By the way, This might be off topic, but did anyone else see the pick up truck pull in, and automatically think of Stone Cold? And got disappointed when it was The Rock?
I was actually so let down for that 5 second window, then he started to talk


Just me?


Okay


----------



## LilOlMe

All raskatbery's post shows is that Raw's ratings have absolutely sucked lately. It's easy to make a big leap from the previous week, when the previous weeks's ratings weren't good.

That shows nothing. As has been stated, the RAW after the Rumble should be one of the biggest Raws of the year. Especially one that came out of a Rumble that had a lot of noteworthy stuff going on.


----------



## Raskatpery

LilOlMe said:


> All raskatbery's post shows is that Raw's ratings have absolutely sucked lately.


More like WWE viewership is saturated in this 3 hours of RAW era. This is amount of viewers you're efficiently going to draw with 3 hrs and WWE is making significantly more money for the third hour getting paid by USA, which compensates for it. 



> It's easy to make a big leap from the previous week, when the previous weeks's ratings weren't good.


Is it? If the ratings were lower previous week, it means drawing a bigger number, a near 3.0 the following week, is going to be even more difficult. It means there is no guarantee ratings would even increase. And yet RAW drew a near 3.0 rating with a healthy 20 percent bump. 





> That shows nothing. As has been stated, the RAW after the Rumble should be one of the biggest Raws of the year. Especially one that came out of a Rumble that had a lot of noteworthy stuff going on.


Except it is. This week's RAW has drawn the biggest since post-mania 31 show in March of last year. 

A poster mentioned this twice previously, how could you people miss it?



JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *WWE Raw rating for the January 25 edition*
> 
> Monday's WWE Raw scored a *2.93 rating*, up from the *2.45 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *4.098 million* viewers, up from the *3.496 million* average from last week.
> 
> Powell's POV: A great night for Raw numbers compared to recent numbers thanks to a combination of the Royal Rumble, the new champion, A.J. Styles, and some guy named Dwayne Johnson. The January 26, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *3.28 rating* with *4.468 million* viewers for the night after the 2015 Royal Rumble.
> 
> *http://prowrestling.net/article.php?WWE-Raw-rating-for-the-January-25-edition-45646*
> 
> Highest rating and viewership since last year's RTWM.


Seriously, The Rock, WWE's biggest and most popular name ever, winning the WWE title after 10 long years saw almost exact increase. How is this even considered bad by you lot? If you think RAW rating is a bust if it isn't hitting 5 mil every single week, then I'm sorry to say you're just delusional. RAW is still the no.1 show, considerably above anything USA ever put on their network. 

Do you know what the viewership of the much acclaimed and talked about USA show, *Mr. Robot*, is? 

Mr. Robot Season 1 - 

1. "eps1.0_hellofriend.mov" - *1.75 million viewers*
2. "eps1.1_ones-and-zer0es.mpeg" - *1.73 million viewers*
3. "eps1.2_d3bug.mkv" - *1.60 million viewers*
4. "eps1.3_da3m0ns.mp4"	- *1.27 million viewers*
5. "eps1.4_3xpl0its.wmv"	- *1.38 million viewers*
6. "eps1.5_br4ve-trave1er.asf" - *1.25 million viewers*
7. ""eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv" - *1.15 million viewers* 
8. "eps1.7_wh1ter0se.m4v" - *1.24 million viewers*
9. "eps1.8_m1rr0r1ng.qt" - *1.32 million viewers*
10. "eps1.9_zer0-day.avi" -* 1.21 million viewers* 

RAW is basically drawing twice that of USA's best show. 



#BadNewsSanta said:


> It's also the reason we cant really compare Reigns to Bryan. Bryan got a ton of praise because even though the overall viewership numbers were in line with the prior year, Bryan's segments we could see were consistently doing extremely well and that's why it's said he moves the needle. Reigns might be the exact same and his segments may look even more impressive if we had the quarter breakdowns, but we don't so its all speculative with him.


One thing that needs to be noted while comparing Bryan and Reings is the lack of starpower on the roster currently, which is a major disadvantage for Reigns as the show's top babyface. Bryan basically had ton of help, Reigns doesn't. 





Daemon_Rising said:


> Are you being deliberately misleading?
> 
> You seem to have a grasp on numbers, but the assessment of those numbers is completely out.
> 
> Post-Rumble Raw is the is the second biggest Raw of the year, and has been for the last decade.
> 
> It would come as a surprise to nobody that there are percentage increases from the previous week. That's what happens.
> 
> These numbers mean:
> 
> NOTHING
> 
> The year by year comparisons are what matters.
> 
> 
> You have posted a hella lot of numbers there, proving a point that we already know:
> 
> Post-Rumble Raw gets gains. So, what, exactly? What is your point?
> 
> Please explain to me why we need to compare the go-home to Rumble, to the Rumble fallout?


- Declare everything that makes sense as NOTHING
- Ignore facts and reality
- Set your own expectation level to an incredibly stupid and ridiculously high impossible-to-reach level
- Deem it all a failure because the said level wasn't reached. 
- fpalm fpalm 

The fact you're even asking why we need to compare the numbers I posted from torch shows that you're utterly clueless.


----------



## DemonKane_Legend

Anyone who say AJ Styles, a guy who barely drew a .5 in TNA and is barely known outside of hardcore/IWC fans, is the reason for the rating increase is dreaming. IWC Kool-Aid.

Ratings increased because 3 huge stars from the attitude era returned, HHH, The Rock and Kane, they are the only reason why ratings increased


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/692350267434606592


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Raskatpery said:


> More like WWE viewership is saturated in this 3 hours of RAW era. This is amount of viewers you're efficiently going to draw with 3 hrs and WWE is making significantly more money for the third hour getting paid by USA, which compensates for it.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it? If the ratings were lower previous week, it means drawing a bigger number, a near 3.0 the following week, is going to be even more difficult. It means there is no guarantee ratings would even increase. And yet RAW drew a near 3.0 rating with a healthy 20 percent bump.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except it is. This week's RAW has drawn the biggest since post-mania 31 show in March of last year.
> 
> A poster mentioned this twice previously, how could you people miss it?
> 
> 
> 
> Seriously, The Rock, WWE's biggest and most popular name ever, winning the WWE title after 10 long years saw almost exact increase. How is this even considered bad by you lot? If you think RAW rating is a bust if it isn't hitting 5 mil every single week, then I'm sorry to say you're just delusional. RAW is still the no.1 show, considerably above anything USA ever put on their network.
> 
> Do you know what the viewership of the much acclaimed and talked about USA show, *Mr. Robot*, is?
> 
> Mr. Robot Season 1 -
> 
> 1. "eps1.0_hellofriend.mov" - *1.75 million viewers*
> 2. "eps1.1_ones-and-zer0es.mpeg" - *1.73 million viewers*
> 3. "eps1.2_d3bug.mkv" - *1.60 million viewers*
> 4. "eps1.3_da3m0ns.mp4"	- *1.27 million viewers*
> 5. "eps1.4_3xpl0its.wmv"	- *1.38 million viewers*
> 6. "eps1.5_br4ve-trave1er.asf" - *1.25 million viewers*
> 7. ""eps1.6_v1ew-s0urce.flv" - *1.15 million viewers*
> 8. "eps1.7_wh1ter0se.m4v" - *1.24 million viewers*
> 9. "eps1.8_m1rr0r1ng.qt" - *1.32 million viewers*
> 10. "eps1.9_zer0-day.avi" -* 1.21 million viewers*
> 
> RAW is basically drawing twice that of USA's best show.
> 
> 
> 
> One thing that needs to be noted while comparing Bryan and Reings is the lack of starpower on the roster currently, which is a major disadvantage for Reigns as the show's top babyface. Bryan basically had ton of help, Reigns doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> - Declare everything that makes sense as NOTHING
> - Ignore facts and reality
> - Set your own expectation level to an incredibly stupid and ridiculously high impossible-to-reach level
> - Deem it all a failure because the said level wasn't reached.
> - fpalm fpalm
> 
> The fact you're even asking why we need to compare the numbers I posted from torch shows that you're utterly clueless.


Of course its the highest viewership since last years RTWM
*
IT ALWAYS FUCKING IS*


----------



## Daemon_Rising

The fact that anybody things these ratings are any good?

smh

The guaranteed 2nd Biggest Raw of the year, draws the biggest number since Post-Mania Raw, A trend that *always fucking happens*

AND

Ratings go up from previous week, which *always fucking happens*

And people think this is significant, how?

Answer the questions homie, don;t just call people utterly clueless then don't answer them


----------



## Empress

*WWE Total Divas Viewership Down For The Second Week Of Season Five*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 939,000 and ranked #18 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's season 5 premiere, which drew 1.115 million viewers and ranked #9 for the night on cable.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...iewership-down-for-the-second-week-of-season/


----------



## THANOS

Raskatpery said:


> One thing that needs to be noted while comparing Bryan and Reings is the lack of starpower on the roster currently, which is a major disadvantage for Reigns as the show's top babyface. Bryan basically had ton of help, Reigns doesn't.


I agreed with most of what you said, other than this. BadNewsSanta wasn't talking about the overall rating/viewership when discussing Bryan and Reigns, he was discussing the quarter hour/minute breakdowns that we had access to at the times. He's saying that, regardless of how the show is doing overall, those breakdowns were able to show us which individual talents were carrying the load and which ones were tanking the show.

With Bryan, we were able to see that not only was he drawing in many viewers, in comparison to the rest of the roster, but he was, more often than not, outdrawing the likes of Cena, Taker, Brock, HHH, Orton, and everyone else. There's one specific instance, which I remember well, where a Bryan/Orton rematch (probably like their 6th match on free tv together at that point) drew more than the everything else on the show. Not only was it impressive because it was a repetitive match with no stakes, but it was also in the middle of one of the hours in a traditionally poor drawing spot.

Ultimately, it would be excellent to have those type of breakdowns today, so we could track, overtime, how each wrestler is performing when it comes to drawing ability.


----------



## Marrakesh

THANOS said:


> I agreed with most of what you said, other than this. BadNewsSanta wasn't talking about the overall rating/viewership when discussing Bryan and Reigns, he was discussing the quarter hour/minute breakdowns that we had access to at the times. He's saying that, regardless of how the show is doing overall, those breakdowns were able to show us which individual talents were carrying the load and which ones were tanking the show.
> 
> With Bryan, we were able to see that not only was he drawing in many viewers, in comparison to the rest of the roster, but he was, more often than not, outdrawing the likes of Cena, Taker, Brock, HHH, Orton, and everyone else. There's one specific instance, which I remember well, where a Bryan/Orton rematch (probably like their 6th match on free tv together at that point) drew more than the everything else on the show. Not only was it impressive because it was a repetitive match with no stakes, but it was also in the middle of one of the hours in a traditionally poor drawing spot.
> 
> Ultimately, it would be excellent to have those type of breakdowns today, so we could track, overtime, how each wrestler is performing when it comes to drawing ability.


Was that the No DQ match were Bryan finally went over clean during the weak link storyline? 

The one after the match was called off the week before due to a legit injury? 

Bryan was red hot at this time, not surprised there was real interest there. It's hard to believe these idiots were always planning on having Lesnar squash him and putting him back in the midcard post WM30 despite all the positive reviews and genuine fan elation after his win. 

I don't think they gave a shit if he drew or not.


----------



## THANOS

Marrakesh said:


> Was that the No DQ match were Bryan finally went over clean during the weak link storyline?
> 
> The one after the match was called off the week before due to a legit injury?
> 
> Bryan was red hot at this time, not surprised there was real interest there. It's hard to believe these idiots were always planning on having Lesnar squash him and putting him back in the midcard post WM30 despite all the positive reviews and genuine fan elation after his win.
> 
> I don't think they gave a shit if he drew or not.


No it was actually on the RTW in a random match where all the competitors in the Chamber match were getting singles matches with Orton leading up to the Chamber.

Yeah, it is hard to believe, I suppose they only look at figures that support the people they want to push and either ignore or tamper with the figures that don't/support people they don't want to push to the top. There's also that report about WWE fudging with the live event merchandise items available back in 2011 on CM Punk's rise to prevent him from selling more than Cena, and forcing WWE to explain to shareholders that their cash cow is being outsold by a guy that they don't want as the face of the company.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

THANOS said:


> No it was actually on the RTW in a random match where all the competitors in the Chamber match were getting singles matches with Orton leading up to the Chamber.


Yep. The pre-Chamber match was just a normal match. The no-DQ match with Orton was Bryan's final wrestling match before WM. That match was from the March 17, 2014 episode of Raw.

It was placed in a really weird time slot. I vaguely recall asking, "Why the hell is this match coming on at 9?" or something to that effect.


----------



## THANOS

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Yep. The pre-Chamber match was just a normal match. The no-DQ match with Orton was Bryan's final wrestling match before WM. That match was from the March 17, 2014 episode of Raw.
> 
> It was placed in a really weird time slot. I vaguely recall asking, "Why the hell is this match coming on at 9?" or something to that effect.


It started in like the 6th quarter or something weird, in the middle of the 2nd hour, and drew more than anything else on the show :lol.


----------



## AliyaClark

hi


----------



## AliyaClark

sdyhyhfgyhsfgyhszfz
tayztyhzdfaz
drydfy
cfgyzcgyh
gcfyu
ftu
xgfu

fgu
r
tu
fy
gujxfgjhg
ujhjuxh


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Meltzer said The Rock Segment, Styles/Jericho and the Main Event were the biggest drawing segments on RAW.


----------



## udarsha45

DemonKane_Legend said:


> Anyone who say AJ Styles, a guy who barely drew a .5 in TNA and is barely known outside of hardcore/IWC fans, is the reason for the rating increase is dreaming. IWC Kool-Aid.
> 
> Ratings increased because 3 huge stars from the attitude era returned, HHH, The Rock and *Kane*, they are the only reason why ratings increased












Lol you are delusional.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Meltzer said The Rock Segment, Styles/Jericho and the Main Event were the biggest drawing segments on RAW.


Seriously? If this is true, so much for the new champ and Rumble fallout drawing as well as we thought. :lmao

Also Styles actually a draw? But he's a midget next to Jericho, who's a vanilla midget. That can't be... super vanilla midgets can't draw.


----------



## BuzzKillington

Maybe it's not so shocking that the AJ/Jericho match drew, you know, because they actually went out of their way to make him seem like a big deal. The audience is thirsty for someone they can take serious.


----------



## KO Bossy

But wait, I thought nobody knew who AJ was...

unkout


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

#BadNewsSanta said:


> Seriously? If this is true, so much for the new champ and Rumble fallout drawing as well as we thought. :lmao
> 
> Also Styles actually a draw? But he's a midget next to Jericho, who's a vanilla midget. That can't be... super vanilla midgets can't draw.


Meltzer said it on the latest edition of Wrestling Observer Radio. I should also mention, he said that the rating in a whole isn't very good. It looks good week over week, but if you look at Past post-rumble Raw's and it's pretty bad. He also expects the rating to be much lower next week.

Meltzer also said that a lot of people stopped watching the show after Styles/Jericho and a lot came back for the Rock Segment, and then a lot left after that segment(I think a lame womens tag followed).


----------



## Blade Runner

I didn't watch the show this week but I went back and checked out the Rock segment when I heard about his appearance --It doesn't seem like he has any plans to wrestle at Wrestlemania which is alarming

It seems like big returns always get initial boosts in ratings (like McMahon's return) but if they do a poor job of following it up then people just lose interest again. McMahon is on every week and the ratings started declining back to where they were a month ago. It's crystal clear that the WWE are at a point now where they're walking on very thin ice. They've already used up most of their Aces up their sleeves and soon enough the only thing that will save them is GOOD creative. Fans are tuning out in droves and any sane company in their position would try to turn things around instead of relying on the same redundant formula


----------



## RelivingTheShadow




----------



## birthday_massacre

50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laid said:


> *
> 90% of this thread is dedicated to horse shit about Bryan being a draw and Reigns being an anti draw. There's direct proof in the numbers that suggests otherwise. If Bryan were a draw, there would be no downward trend, period. If Bryan was the sole draw of that time period, ratings wouldn't have increased for months after his injury in 2014. The Shield had a lot to do with the success of the show during a period which is accredited entirely to Bryan. These are facts that people blatantly ignore to paint a false narrative. You can't just post numbers and blatantly disregard what was happening.*


these are at the ratings right?
First Hour: 4.14 million
Second Hour: 4.18 million
Third Hour: 3.97 million

3rd hour with the Reigns main even DROPPED.

IT was over 4 million people watching until the end when fans left because they didn't care about the main event.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Reigns isn't a draw. Fact.

Bryan consistently drew viewers during his segments. Fact.

Not sure why there's debates about this. 

But I guess, anything to protect Roman 2:16.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The fact alone that bitter people post about Bryan here, even though he hasn't been active forever, shows what impact he had.


----------



## The Dazzler

The Inbred Goatman said:


>


Damn I'm pleased for AJ. It was a good time for his Raw debut with Rock bring in more viewers. :smile2:


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

AJ drawing ratings with a bullet!!!! :yes


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> these are at the ratings right?
> First Hour: 4.14 million
> Second Hour: 4.18 million
> Third Hour: 3.97 million
> 
> 3rd hour with the Reigns main even DROPPED.
> 
> IT was over 4 million people watching until the end when fans left because they didn't care about the main event.


We are getting along so well lately. :smile2: But I have to nitpick. 

Is the third hour dropped solely being pinned on Reigns or is that blame going to spread around to Ambrose, Sheamus and Rusev? Reigns wasn't in that ring alone. I've read over and over that if it's anyone but Reigns, the ratings go up. If you follow that train of thought, the presence of the others should've kept the Rock's audience. 

In any event, outside of one episode of RAW, the ratings under Reigns were slightly above status quo. I don't get where these taunts of "failure" are coming from and overplaying one bad episode or no selling when he does move the needle. @50 Shades of Ain't Gettin Laidcan speak (post) for himself, but I think he was making a point of cherry picking which ratings/metrics are used. If he's a "failure", so is every champ except Bryan and Cena in the past few years. 

Although, I do believe Bryan was a draw. He's pretty solid across the board, ratings and social media wise.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Empress said:


> We are getting along so well lately. :smile2: But I have to nitpick.
> 
> Is the third hour dropped solely being pinned on Reigns or is that blame going to spread around to Ambrose, Sheamus and Rusev? *Reigns wasn't in that ring alone.* I've read over and over that if it's anyone but Reigns, the ratings go up. If you follow that train of thought, the presence of the others should've kept the Rock's audience.


Reigns is the only one of the 4 that is presented as a main eventer tho. Ambrose has had decent booking for a month, but he's still a mid carder. Sheamus and especially Rusev are complete geeks. Obviously Reigns would receive the lionshare of the blame, or at least he should. 

But there are instances where Reigns has done well in the ratings, but the majority of the times something like that happened, he was involved with a guy that was a much bigger star and draw than him(Triple H, Vince). Cena could draw with anybody, Bryan has drawn in the past with geeks as well. Reigns might get there, but he clearly isn't there yet(nor do I think he will, but that's an entirely different discussion). It's not like he can work with Vince and HHH forever, that is a cure that is working, but has an expiration date.

You take a guy like AJ Styles, and immediately you can tell HE was the draw because his opponent was Chris Jericho, a guy that is notorious for never moving the needle. I do think they will fuck up Styles(like they did with Reigns), and he won't be a needle mover in 2 months.


----------



## Empress

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Reigns is the only one of the 4 that is presented as a main eventer tho. Ambrose has had decent booking for a month, but he's still a mid carder. Sheamus and especially Rusev are complete geeks. Obviously Reigns would receive the lionshare of the blame, or at least he should.
> 
> But there are instances where Reigns has done well in the ratings, but the majority of the times something like that happened, he was involved with a guy that was a much bigger star and draw than him(Triple H, Vince). Cena could draw with anybody, Bryan has drawn in the past with geeks as well. Reigns might get there, but he clearly isn't there yet(nor do I think he will, but that's an entirely different discussion). It's not like he can work with Vince and HHH forever, that is a cure that is working, but has an expiration date.
> 
> You take a guy like AJ Styles, and immediately you can tell HE was the draw because his opponent was Chris Jericho, a guy that is notorious for never moving the needle.


I get what you're saying but a lot of folks make the case that as soon viewers see Reigns on the TV screen, they turn the dial. But if an alternative is presented, viewers stay tuned in. Ambrose, who is a favorite, was in the main event. If the ratings took a nosedive, logic dictates that none of them were enough to retain the viewers. The match wasn't that appealing but it still included an alternative to Reigns. The crux of my argument is that whenever the ratings go bad, all blame goes to Reigns and the others get a cover. But if the ratings go up and Reigns is involved, there's a qualifier. 

As for Styles, I hope his segments continue to do good. But I wouldn't be surprised if all numbers fall across the board next week. I expect them to. I wouldn't argue that Styles is a draw just yet. It's almost to similar to those believing he would be greeted like a God everywhere he went due to the Rumble reaction.


----------



## Marrakesh

The Inbred Goatman said:


> Reigns is the only one of the 4 that is presented as a main eventer tho. Ambrose has had decent booking for a month, but he's still a mid carder. Sheamus and especially Rusev are complete geeks. Obviously Reigns would receive the lionshare of the blame, or at least he should.
> 
> But there are instances where Reigns has done well in the ratings, but the majority of the times something like that happened, he was involved with a guy that was a much bigger star and draw than him(Triple H, Vince). Cena could draw with anybody, Bryan has drawn in the past with geeks as well. Reigns might get there, but he clearly isn't there yet(nor do I think he will, but that's an entirely different discussion).
> 
> You take a guy like AJ Styles, and immediately you can tell HE was the draw because his opponent was Chris Jericho, a guy that is notorious for never moving the needle.


I think we need to calm down when referring to AJ as any sort of draw. 

He got billed as an 'internationally renowned wrestler', he has a small (in terms of WWE) fanbase of his own to bring to the table and it was his first ever match on Raw. 

All of these things considered mean there was interest there for this match. 

It does not mean he is drawing. If the trend continues that AJ Styles is regularly in the highest rated segments on Raw then we can say he's doing good numbers off his own work in WWE rather than simply retaining viewer interest on the back of the hype surrounding his debut. 

I have no doubt that AJ Styles drew for ROH and NJPW working on top of the cards. 

It's going to be very difficult for this to crossover into WWE were he will likely play a very reduced role in the midcard (for the foreseeable future anyway) and were the onus is on Roman Reigns/HHH/Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker to draw for the company. 

In 6 weeks time is an AJ Styles match in hour 2 going to be the second highest or highest rated segment of the show? Probably not, but time will tell.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

Marrakesh said:


> I think we need to calm down when referring to AJ as any sort of draw.
> 
> He got billed as an 'internationally renowned wrestler', he has a small (in terms of WWE) fanbase of his own to bring to the table and it was his first ever match on Raw.
> 
> All of these things considered mean there was interest there for this match.
> 
> It does not mean he is drawing. If the trend continues that AJ Styles is regularly in the highest rated segments on Raw then we can say he's doing good numbers off his own work in WWE rather than simply retaining viewer interest on the back of the hype surrounding his debut.
> 
> I have no doubt that AJ Styles drew for ROH and NJPW working on top of the cards.
> 
> It's going to be very difficult for this to crossover into WWE were he will likely play a very reduced role in the midcard (for the foreseeable future anyway) and were the onus is on Roman Reigns/HHH/Brock Lesnar and The Undertaker to draw for the company.
> 
> In 6 weeks time is an AJ Styles match in hour 2 going to be the second highest or highest rated segment of the show? Probably not, but time will tell.


Oh yeah for sure, I was just saying that AJ did draw in that segment. It may be a freak thing, but I think there is something there with AJ Styles that if he's booked correctly, he can be a drawing card for the company. But it's a wait and see thing.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership/rating this week(1/28)
Royal Rumble fallout show
2.720M(-1.34%)
1.87R(+/-0.00%)

SmackDown viewership/rating last week(1/21)
Royal Rumble go home show
2.757M
1.87R*










*WWE Smackdown rating: Final numbers for the January 28 episode*

Thursday’s WWE Smackdown scored a *1.87 rating*, equal to the *1.87 rating* the show drew last week. As previously noted, the show averaged *2.720 million* viewers, down from last week’s *2.757 million* viewers.

Powell’s POV: The number held steady despite a Republican presidential debate that produced 12.467 million viewers on FOX News. The January 29, 2015 Smackdown delivered a *2.06 rating* with *2.952 million* viewers for a live broadcast.

http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/0...ing-final-numbers-for-the-january-28-episode/


----------



## RatedR10

Did anyone post the 18-49 segment breakdown from PWTorch? Just in case it hasn't been posted:



> – Raw averaged 1.02 million m18-49 viewers over the length of the show.
> 
> First Hour: 925k m18-49 viewers
> Second Hour: 1.04 million m18-49 viewers
> Third Hour: 1.11 million m18-49 viewers
> Over-Run: 1.12 million m18-49 viewers (avg. over 11 minutes)
> 
> *– The Rock’s 26-minute segment without a commercial interruption averaged 1.23 million viewers crossing over from the second to third hour.*
> 
> The peak audience was 1.33 million viewers at 10:16 p.m. as the segment wrapped up.
> The segment started with 1.09 million viewers, built to 1.23 million viewers at the top of the hour, reached 1.30 million at 10:13 p.m., peaked with 1.33 million, and finished with 1.32 million as Raw cut to break.
> 
> *– A.J. Styles’s 20-minute intro match vs. Chris Jericho with one commercial interruption averaged 1.04 million viewers crossing over from the first to second hour.*
> 
> The peak audience was 1.15 million viewers at 9:15 p.m. as the match went to the finish
> The strength of the segment is the match built an audience over time. Ring introductions opened with 970,000 viewers, the match built to 1.08 million viewers at 9:04 p.m. before the commercial, they returned with 1.02 million viewers, the match built to 1.13 million at 9:12 p.m., and the segment peaked with 1.15 million viewers at 9:15 p.m.
> 
> *– The over-run segment for the end of Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. League of Nations averaged 1.12 million viewers over a period of 11 minutes, which was the same as the Q10 viewership.*
> 
> The segment traditionally gets a bump at the end of the show…
> 
> The over-run started with 1.11 million viewers, the main event ended with 1.13 million viewers, and Raw went off the air with 1.16 million viewers for Stephanie McMahon’s Fast Lane announcement.
> 
> ***
> 
> – First Hour: 924,950 average
> 
> Q1: 926,000 viewers (m18-49 viewers slow to check into Raw, even for post-Rumble Raw)
> Q2: 917,000 viewers
> Q3: 981,000 viewers
> Q4: 938,8000 viewers
> – Second Hour: 1.038 million viewers average
> 
> Q5: 1.049 million viewers (big jump from Q4 to Q5 for Styles-Jericho)
> Q6: 1.047 million viewers (held the audience for the second-half of Styles-Jericho)
> Q7: 978,000 viewers
> Q8: 1.081 million viewers
> – Third Hour: 1.109 million viewers average
> 
> Q9: 1.258 million viewers (big jump from Q8 to Q9 for the meat of Rock’s segment)
> Q10: 1.124 million viewers (steady decline begins)
> Q11: 1.036 million viewers (decline)
> Q12: 1.021 million viewers (decline)
> – Over-Run: 1.124 million viewers (slight bump from Q12 to the over-run, even with the Q10 segment)


----------



## D.M.N.

*Raw - January 25th, 2016 (YouTube)*
2.41 million - The Rock and The Usos lay the smackdown on The New Day
1.83 million - Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus & Rusev
1.30 million - The McMahon family celebrates Triple H's Royal Rumble Match victory
1.28 million - The Rock returns to Raw!
1.27 million - AJ Styles vs. Chris Jericho
589k - Flo Rida battle raps "Bo Rida"
567k - Kalisto vs. The Miz
489k - Demon Kane vs. Bray Wyatt
465k - Dolph Ziggler vs. Kevin Owens
425k - AJ Styles introduces himself to the WWE Universe
407k - The Dudley Boyz vs. Bo Dallas & Curtis Axel
340k - Becky Lynch vs. Sasha Banks
310k - Natalya & Paige vs. Brie Bella & Alicia Fox
267k - Goldust and R-Truth have a misunderstanding


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Did someone just say Styles has a small fanbase for WWE Standards? Compared to the universally loved Reigns?


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

For a guy that apparently no one knew about, Styles is pulling in solid numbers no matter what metric you decide to use. Good for him.


----------



## Empress

*1/28 Smackdown TV Ratings – was there a post-Rumble bump?*

The post-Royal Rumble edition of WWE Smackdown was virtually identical to the pre-Rumble episode last Thursday.

WWE Smackdown TV Ratings Tracking

– January 28: Smackdown scored a 1.87 rating on USA Network, the same as last week.

Smackdown drew 2.720 million viewers, down slightly from 2.757 million viewers last week.

In the key demographics, Smackdown was up slightly in adults & males 18-49 and males 18-34.

– Through the first four weeks of 2016, Smackdown averaged a 1.84 rating and 2.641 million viewers.

Last year, Smackdown averaged a 1.93 rating and 2.720 million viewers on Syfy through the first four episodes on Thursday nights after shifting from Fridays.

– Perhaps most interesting is that Smackdown surged in social media activity on Thursday night, which did not translate to an increase in TV viewership. According to Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings:

Smackdown’s unique audience was up 53 percent from pre-Rumble Smackdown
Total impressions were up 25 percent from last week
Unique authors increased by 4,000 (30 percent)
Total tweets were up 21 percent

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/01/29/9402/


----------



## Marrakesh

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Did someone just say Styles has a small fanbase for WWE Standards? Compared to the universally loved Reigns?


I didn't compare him to Reigns. It's obvious that Reigns has a small fanbase also. 

By 'small' I mean their presence has next to no impact on ratings, house show attendances or network subscriptions overall. This may change in the future we will see.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I really wish they would actually try with Smackdown like they used to when SD first debuted in 1999 and into the early 2000s when Raw was their #1 show but SD was actually 1A and got effort put into it every week. If they did, I (and I'm sure many other fans) might actually do something crazy, like, you know...tune in? Instead it'll stay where it is. Have it your way, WWE.

PS. Good for AJ with his Raw number. Let the record show that before Vince ruins him, that he actually had a large amount of interest especially when you compare him to the rest of the show; he stacked up very well.


----------



## Lothario

Two guys that helped carry the company during the Monday night wars nearly* 20 years ago *are having to shoulder the load in 2016 in order to move the needle in what is objectively the time of year interest in the product is at its' peak. This company is screwed. :lol


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

The quarterly reports of the next 2-3 quarters or so would be the most significant in WWE history I believe, and would definitely clear the fog as to what extent the ratings are still relevant as a parameter.


----------



## LilOlMe

From F4Wonline:


> For the month of January, the average viewership total was 3,624,000 with a 2.56 rating. Those numbers were down 10.51% and 13.31% respectively from the January 2015 averages. This was the 14th straight month that both numbers dropped from the previous year’s total.
> 
> What should that mean for this week?
> 
> The February 2, 2015 edition of RAW averaged 4.28 million viewers and a 3.01 rating. Given the pattern of how recent RAWs have been performing as compared to the same week the previous year, tonight’s show should do a rating somewhere between 2.5 and 2.7 with a viewership total between 3.7 million and 3.9 million.


http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/inside-raw-numbers-january-25-2016-206746


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter Ratings*

- Monday's RAW ranked #3 among series & specials for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Bachelor and the Super Bowl Opening Night special. RAW had a unique audience of 1.772 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week's 1.824 million. RAW had total impressions of 9.113 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is down from last week's 14.343 million impressions.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0202/607260/kevin-nash-on-making-appearances-for-fans/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.592M
H2-3.464M
H3-3.094M

Avg-3.383M*










*H2 Vs H1 (-3.56%)
H3 Vs H2 (-10.68%)
H3 Vs H1 (-13.86%)

2/1 Vs 1/25
(-17.45%)
(-0.715M)

Note: Competition-Iowa Caucuses*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

A 3.0 million for Hour 3 in THE ROAD TO WRESTLEMANIA.

:heyman6

HOLY FUCK.


----------



## RatedR10

Holy crap :ha


----------



## Louaja89

LOL :vince7:vince7


----------



## Kabraxal

Was Raw THAT terrible? I mean, WM season... Shit shouldn't be this awful.


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> Was Raw THAT terrible? I mean, WM season... Shit shouldn't be this awful.


It was very lackluster IMO. You wouldn't be able to tell this is the RTW. RAW felt very generic. Check out The Miz's promo though. That was my RAW highlight.


----------



## Kabraxal

Empress said:


> Kabraxal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Raw THAT terrible? I mean, WM season... Shit shouldn't be this awful.
> 
> 
> 
> It was very lackluster IMO. You wouldn't be able to tell this is the RTW. RAW felt very generic. Check out The Miz's promo though. That was my RAW highlight.
Click to expand...

Heard a bit about that. Actually, that is about all I've heard about Raw.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I skipped RAW last night, apparently like the millions...and millions of former RAW viewers.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Last years overall average viewership compared to this years:

2/2/15: 4.28 million viewers
2/1/16: 3.38 million viewers

900,000 less viewers than last years' Raw at this time.


----------



## DoublePass

But I thought there were no draws!

The Rock proved this imbecilic claim wrong when ratings spiked last week and decreased significantly the week after his appearance. 

Now, if only the WWE actually started pushing the right guys and consistently booked them as stars...


----------



## The True Believer

And rightfully deserved.


----------



## LilOlMe

> The February 2, 2015 edition of RAW averaged 4.28 million viewers and a 3.01 rating.


Compared to 3.38 million this year. So they've lost 900,000 viewers.

ETA: Jinx, Showstopper!


----------



## Kabraxal

LilOlMe said:


> The February 2, 2015 edition of RAW averaged 4.28 million viewers and a 3.01 rating.
> 
> 
> 
> Compared to 3.38 million this year. So they've lost 900,000 viewers.
> 
> ETA: Jinx, Showstopper!
Click to expand...

And the weekly drop was almost the same... If this doesn't kick Vince in the ass nothing will. Viewers want wrestling... But they aren't going to stick around for a fucking circus show.


----------



## LilOlMe

For the record, AJ was at the top of the 2nd hour and I think the only notable thing in hour 2, right? Yet it didn't fall off tremendously. 

Will be interesting to hear if he's one of the highest rated segments again. I bet yes.


----------



## Cliffy

They couldn't have timed the network any better

If mania were still on ppv they'd be doing 600k


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Ratings 2/1/16: Big Drop Off This Week*

WWE RAW Television Ratings Down On February 1

The WWE RAW television ratings are in for the February 1 broadcast, and WWE’s flagship show experienced a fairly large drop-off in viewers compared to last week’s RAW.

The show averaged 3.383 million viewers this week, which was an decrease of 715,000 viewers compared to last week’s RAW broadcast. The January 25 edition of RAW averaged 4.098 million viewers, which was the highest rating for the show in many months.

The hourly breakdown this week was as follows:

First Hour: 3.592 million viewers (4.140 million last week)

Second Hour: 3.464 million viewers (4.183 million last week)

Third Hour: 3.094 million viewers (3.972 million last week)

The trend of viewers tuning out throughout the show was very pronounced this week, with the third hour coming in with 500,000 less viewers than the opening hour of the show.

After a big bump last week following the Royal Rumble, the show seems to be back to a rating similar to where it has been for many months. Though the show was boosted by an appearance by Brock Lesnar, very little of consequence happened on the broadcast and it’s clear that viewers were not intrigued by RAW as the show went on.

RAW’s main competition this week was coverage of the first in the nation U.S. Presidential Iowa Caucuses. Many of the cable news networks, FOX and CNN notably, drew higher viewership than RAW this week in covering the results live from Iowa.

Source: Showbuzz Daily

http://www.topropepress.com/news/23461/wwe-raw-ratings-2116


----------



## David Klein

Ratings sunk like a stone this week 3.5 first hour 3.4 hour two and 3.0 in the third hour. Ouch.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## LilOlMe

Yeah, in fairness, I momentarily forgot about the Iowa caucuses. For those who don't know American politics, it's a big deal. It's the first step in deciding who becomes the next President of the US.

I did remember thinking last night that it would hurt the ratings.


----------



## LilOlMe

I expect ratings to rebound somewhat next week due to the Iowa caucus reason this week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> I expect ratings to rebound somewhat next week due to the Iowa caucus reason this week.


They can't get much lower; let's be honest. Nearly under 3 million in hour 3 during the RTWM is scary, caucus or not.


----------



## Empress

LilOlMe said:


> I expect ratings to rebound somewhat next week due to the Iowa caucus reason this week.


The ratings seem to be frozen in place at 3-3.5 million a week. I wish the WWE would capitalize on the small gains, momentum and not having football to compete against. But they put the minimum effort in. 

Did they advertise Brock? He usually gets a slight bump but I'm not sure what any performer other than The Rock can do at this point. It's up to creative.


----------



## DoublePass

Empress said:


> The ratings seem to be frozen in place at 3-3.5 million a week. I wish the WWE would capitalize on the small gains, momentum and not having football to compete against. But they put the minimum effort in.
> 
> Did they advertise Brock? He usually gets a slight bump but I'm not sure what any performer other than The Rock can do at this point. It's up to creative.


Brock hasn't done anything for ratings for well over 2 years now.


----------



## LilOlMe

ShowStopper said:


> They can't get much lower; let's be honest. Nearly under 3 million in hour 3 during the RTWM is scary, caucus or not.


It would help if they start making RAW matches matter. I don't know why they don't get the memo that meaningless tag main events are not the way to go.


----------



## The Tempest

3 milions in the third hour on the Road to WrestleMania :ha hopefully SD sinks as well. Oh this RTWM will be entertaining, all for the wrong reasons :kermit



ShowStopper said:


> They can't get much lower; let's be honest. Nearly under 3 million in hour 3 during the RTWM is scary, caucus or not.


I thought RAW would never go under 3 milions and we know what happened :draper2 Sure, it was past SummerSlam where nothing happens, but this is WM season and nothing is happening here as well.


----------



## LilOlMe

> RATINGS DROP TO NON-FOOTBALL RECORD LOW FOR RAW
> 
> 
> Raw set another all-time record low for the era for a non-football season broadcast last night averaging 3.37 million viewers.
> 
> The prior lowest audience outside of holidays and football season was 3.46 million set on June 29, 2015.
> 
> In particular was a strong third hour drop to 3.09 million viewers. Most of the third hours against the NFL topped last night's final hour. This RAW was headlined by Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. New Day.
> 
> Going in, expectations weren't strong with the Iowa Caucus coverage expected to hurt. The show was down 18 percent from last week, which showed the combination of the day after the Rumble increase and the Dwayne Johnson appearance didn't carry over a week later.
> 
> For the three hours:
> 
> 8 p.m. 3.59 million viewers
> 9 p.m. 3.46 million viewers
> 10 p.m. 3.09 million viewers


http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841


----------



## Marrakesh

Failing to sell out Raw's and only managing to draw near record low numbers in the ratings on the RTWM. :vince3

There won't be any buzz this year after WM either unless they decide to change their intended plans significantly. 

HHH/Reigns, Lesnar/Wyatt and Taker/whoever at this stage just aren't enticing match ups. Never mind the terrible builds and predictability of the outcomes, even on paper these are far from outstanding. 

What a mess. To think that the ONLY plan to generate interest in WWE is to continue to push Roman Reigns is frightening. Jesus, pushing any one guy on this terribly booked roster is a disaster waiting to happen.

The ratings in a year or two's time could be disastrous.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lowest ratings for a non-fooball Raw ever. Yikes.


----------



## Chrome

In addition to the Iowa Caucus, it wasn't a fallout show and going by the results, nothing important really happened on the show. That's the main reason the ratings dropped imo. And yeah, when hasn't that 3rd hour dropped dramatically?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> In addition to the Iowa Caucus, it wasn't a fallout show and going by the results, nothing important really happened on the show. That's the main reason the ratings dropped imo. And yeah, when hasn't that 3rd hour dropped dramatically?


Agree. And last week they had a Rock 30 minute appearance without commercial, which is far from the norm. It all balances out.


----------



## Chrome

Tbh, they deserve the shit rating just for the Show/Rowan match alone. Fuck were they thinking putting that match on TV? :ugh2


----------



## Born of Osiris

Agree with my brother @Chrome :ugh2

A fucking match like that on the RTWM. :chan


----------



## LilOlMe

Chrome said:


> Tbh, they deserve the shit rating just for the Show/Rowan match alone. Fuck were they thinking putting that match on TV?


And the crowd was actually into Big Show. :lol

Well, whatever. Any excuse to make Harper look like a boss is A-Ok in my book.


----------



## Shenroe

They need to end this Authority storyline, :ti My God, did way more harm than good. Hopefully Roman or w/e wins at wm and Steph and HHH get the hell out of the main product.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

_James Caldwell is reporting a *2.38 rating* on pwtorch and his twitter with a vastly different H1 number and overall viewership average compared to the other sites._

2/1 Raw TV Ratings – Raw loses post-Royal Rumble gains
BY JAMES CALDWELL, PWTORCH ASSISTANT EDITOR
February 2, 2016

All of the post-Royal Rumble gains from last week were lost this week, as Monday’s Raw fell nearly 20 percent.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

– February 1: Raw scored a 2.38 TV rating, down 19 percent from last week’s 2.93 rating after the Royal Rumble. Raw fell below the pre-Royal Rumble episode, which scored a 2.45 rating. This week’s show was more at the level of Raw against the NCAA football title game. Raw averaged 3.493 million viewers, down 15 percent from last week. Viewership was nearly identical to the pre-Rumble episode, erasing a gain of 600,000 viewers. Most concerning is the hourly trend, as Raw lost nearly 1.0 million viewers from the first to third hour.

3.922 million first hour viewers (respectable vs. 4.140 million 1H viewers last week)
3.464 million second hour viewers
3.094 million third hour viewers (down nearly 1.0 million from this week’s first hour and last week’s third hour)

– In the key demographics, Raw fell sharply across the board, even dipping below the pre-Rumble Raw in males 18-34 and males 18-49.

Adults 18-49: 1.22 rating this week, 1.49 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.22 rating pre-Rumble.
Males 18-49: 1.59 rating this week, 1.95 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.61 rating pre-Rumble
Males 18-49: 1.43 rating this week, 1.90 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.49 rating pre-Rumble

Caldwell’s Analysis: Raw felt extraordinarily too long this week and too much like a maintenance show/infomercial for WWE Corporate. It was not Raw, and viewers seemed to catch on as the show went along. Plus, they went through the advertised Brock Lesnar portion of the show in the first hour. WWE simply has not developed a roster (healthy or not) to support three-hour Raws week after week. Undercutting their own product by exposing the storylines as a put-on within the show does not help either.

https://twitter.com/jctorch/status/694637596337516544
https://twitter.com/jctorch/status/694637792404451328

_Wonder why this statistical discrepancy is occurring here and if it has occurred before. Miscommunication perhaps?_


----------



## SnapOrTap

BY GAWD ALL MIGHTY.

BERNIE SANDERS HAS OUTDRAWN THE BIG DAWG. 

ANOTHER "BIG DROP" FOR THE BIG DAWG.

DAM. 

ON THE ROAD TO MANIA, WITH NO FOOTBALL, ALMOST UNDER 3 MILLION.

BY GAWD ALL MIGHTY. 

Vince needs to get the $$$ and get the BERNIE. 

CROWD CHANTS: FEEL THE BERN. FEEL THE BERN.

Bernie vs Brock. The BURN VS THE BEAST.

BOOK IT. 

BERNIE'S MIC SKILLS AND CARDIO ARE BETTER THAN REIGNS.

WE CAN SELL OUT DALLAS. BELIEVE IN THE BERN.


----------



## Chrome

LilOlMe said:


> And the crowd was actually into Big Show. :lol
> 
> Well, whatever. Any excuse to make Harper look like a boss is A-Ok in my book.


And I heard the same crowd booed Reigns too. :lol

HHH/Show for the title at Mania! :vince5


----------



## David Klein

Shenroe said:


> They need to end this Authority storyline, :ti My God, did way more harm than good. Hopefully Roman or w/e wins at wm and Steph and HHH get the hell out of the main product.


They'll get rid of them for a week or two and the rating will go down one percent and they'll bring them back like last time.


----------



## Blade Runner

THE SHIV said:


> I skipped RAW last night, apparently like the millions...and millions of former RAW viewers.


Same. I tuned in for the first segment then shut everything off. It's been that way for 2 consecutive weeks. I just have zero interest and f^cks to give about this RTWM and the product as a whole right now


----------



## SnapOrTap

So now we can add two achievements for the Roman Empire:

1) Lowest non MNF rating ever.

2) Lowest rating ever (ROMAN 2:16 NEVER FORGET)


----------



## Marv95

Doesn't matter what else is on. If your show is good and entertaining to the masses people will watch. A caucus is not an excuse when Raw has went up against similar programming for over 20 years.


----------



## RatedR10

I hope PWTORCH has the breakdown for the 18-49 demo again.


----------



## SnapOrTap

WWE stock also down 4% lmao.

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=wwe+stock


----------



## skarvika

Roman Ratings coming through again!
A million bucks says they're _still_ gonna center the focus of the entire main roster product on him.:wut


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I'm sure this has been noted, but that hour 3 is just awful, They barely drew 3 million* without* football competition on The Road to Wrestlemania aka The Road to Nowhere. Surely this is worse than drawing sub three million against the NFL. Vince deserves it. I havent even watched this RAW and I might not at all. Just cant get excited for their product anymore.


----------



## Naka Moora

Man, I hate having to go back so many pages and look for the actual Ratings


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> Last years overall average viewership compared to this years:
> 
> 2/2/15: 4.28 million viewers
> 2/1/16: 3.38 million viewers
> 
> 900,000 less viewers than last years' Raw at this time.


I remember someone posted the year-by-year % changes and 2015-2016 is by far the largest negative change in WWE history, which is far out of the realm of the pattern.


----------



## Godway

The breakdown mentioned some very accurate information...such as THEY DO NOT HAVE THE ROSTER (healthy or not) TO SUPPORT THREE HOURS. That's their biggest killer. That analysis was correct, every RAW just feels like a fucking infomercial for WWE Corporate. Then the rest of RAW is the Itchy and Scratchy and Roman Show. 

The ratings reflect the product, for sure. But wait, Roman is on top! And the "legendary" HHH is the champ!!! Surely ratings have to be on the upswing?!!?!?!?! :lmao Fucking idiots. Start. Listening. To. Your. Fans.


----------



## sbzero546

THE SHIV said:


> I skipped RAW last night, apparently like the millions...and millions of former RAW viewers.


And millions! Lol I miss it every Monday night and watch it later


----------



## TheLooseCanon

WWE :heston


----------



## Empress

*2/1 Raw TV Ratings – Raw loses post-Royal Rumble gains*

All of the post-Royal Rumble gains from last week were lost this week, as Monday’s Raw fell nearly 20 percent.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

– February 1: Raw scored a 2.38 TV rating, down 19 percent from last week’s 2.93 rating after the Royal Rumble.

Raw fell below the pre-Royal Rumble episode, which scored a 2.45 rating. This week’s show was more at the level of Raw against the NCAA football title game.

Raw averaged 3.493 million viewers, down 15 percent from last week. Viewership was nearly identical to the pre-Rumble episode, erasing a gain of 600,000 viewers.

Most concerning is the hourly trend, as Raw lost nearly 1.0 million viewers from the first to third hour.

3.922 million first hour viewers (respectable vs. 4.140 million 1H viewers last week)
3.464 million second hour viewers
3.094 million third hour viewers (down nearly 1.0 million from this week’s first hour and last week’s third hour)
– In the key demographics, Raw fell sharply across the board, even dipping below the pre-Rumble Raw in males 18-34 and males 18-49.

Adults 18-49: 1.22 rating this week, 1.49 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.22 rating pre-Rumble.
Males 18-49: 1.59 rating this week, 1.95 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.61 rating pre-Rumble
Males 18-49: 1.43 rating this week, 1.90 rating last week post-Rumble, 1.49 rating pre-Rumble

Caldwell’s Analysis: Raw felt extraordinarily too long this week and too much like a maintenance show/infomercial for WWE Corporate. It was not Raw, and viewers seemed to catch on as the show went along. Plus, they went through the advertised Brock Lesnar portion of the show in the first hour. WWE simply has not developed a roster (healthy or not) to support three-hour Raws week after week. Undercutting their own product by exposing the storylines as a put-on within the show does not help either.


http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/02/feb1rawtvratings/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It took them literally one week to lose the Rumble shine. One Week...during the Road to WrestleMania...with no football. Craziness. Even I didn't think they were in _that_ bad of shape. Damn.


----------



## Reggie Dunlop

Next week: 2 1/2 hours of Vincent K!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## udarsha45

The ratings needs to fall down even more. Until the ratings hovers around this mark they wouldn't even bother. They need to feel desperate.


----------



## birthday_massacre

Reigns tanking the ratings even more.

Time to pick a new face of the company


----------



## Empress

birthday_massacre said:


> Reigns tanking the ratings even more.
> 
> Time to pick a new face of the company


He's not even the champion anymore for him to get blamed. 

Do you believe that any other performer on the roster can get the ratings out of 3-3.5 million range if the product stays the same?


----------



## Marrakesh

ShowStopper said:


> It took them literally one week to lose the Rumble shine. One Week...during the Road to WrestleMania...with no football. Craziness. Even I didn't think they were in _that_ bad of shape. Damn.


You really have to wonder what it is they are trying to achieve. What even is WWE anymore? :lol It's not particularly violent, it's lacking in characters and storylines and the 'humor' on offer is bottom of the toilet bowl material. Half the time it's just guys wrestling for no reason. 

There is no identity there. This 'reality era' bullshit is a cop out because they can't produce compelling stories anymore and have to rely on breaking the fourth wall to stay relevant. It's quite pathetic really. 

They have openly admitted they don't put the same effort into their shows as they used to (I remember being amazed that Vince said this on Austin's podcast) and they clearly aren't chasing ratings or trying to create controversy or gain notoriety. 

For some reason they are obsessed with charity :shrug and Raw seems like one long and painful infomercial about the WWE Network. 

:cole Hey, remember when we cared! $9.99

You see, it's obvious that their only objective is to make money yet by only pursuing this part of the business they make far less money than they could if they actually cared about the content of their shows. 

What a fucking goldmine WWE could be in the right hands. So much wasted talent and such a flawed philosophy on how to run a business. This stagnant mess is on the steep decline. It's only going to continue to get worse.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Empress said:


> He's not even the champion anymore for him to get blamed.


Reigns is the top babyface chasing the title. He's basically in the same position Bryan was in 2014. The obvious difference is that Bryan was white hot and Roman is ice cold.


----------



## Empress

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Reigns is the top babyface chasing the title. He's basically in the same position Bryan was in 2014. The obvious difference is that Bryan was white hot and Roman is ice cold.


I agree that Bryan was red hot and Roman isn't. The product was also better and with a healthier roster. 

For argument's sake, if Dean wins the belt and becomes the champion and the ratings stay the same or perhaps go lower, does he assume ownership? What if the title gets put back on Brock and the ratings stay the same? And so forth. 

If the ratings improve next week, I'm not going to give all credit to Reigns. I just wish there wasn't a pick and choose mindset when it comes to blaming/crediting Reigns. If he's blamed for bad ratings, then any increase should go to him as well. Unless it can just be accepted that maybe it's just the product overall that is the root evil.


----------



## chronoxiong

That third hour drop. Lord have mercy. Lol. Talk about trying to keep your audience interested. Looks like everyone are tired of the tag team main event matches.


----------



## McNugget

This is what happens when you book RAW as three hours of filler without any actual development or stakes.

Remember when midcard titles were defended on RAW? Meanwhile, the IC and Tag champions aren't in feuds for their belts.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Empress said:


> I agree that Bryan was red hot and Roman isn't. The product was also better and with a healthier roster.
> 
> For argument's sake, if Dean wins the belt and becomes the champion and the ratings stay the same or perhaps go lower, does he assume ownership?


Yes, but it was much easier to assign blame in 2014 when we consistently got quarter hour ratings breakdowns.

Reigns is pushed as the top babyface *in spite* of the crowd reacting against that push and *in spite* of the ratings. Nobody is going to give him or the WWE any leeway when those ratings continue to decline.

That's just reality. It's not _necessarily_ fair, but it's definitely what they deserve.


----------



## checkcola

I keep hearing CM Punk when he told Triple H he didn't need to wrestle him. I think the same is true now for Reigns. Anything is better than the Triple H/Roman Reigns endgame.


----------



## TNA is Here

2.3? Holly shit! Yes! :trips5

The dream of them going to 2.0 and below is drawing near.


----------



## Empress

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Yes, but it was much easier to assign blame in 2014 when we consistently got quarter hour ratings breakdowns.
> 
> Reigns is pushed as the top babyface *in spite* of the crowd reacting against that push and *in spite* of the ratings. Nobody is going to give him or the WWE any leeway when those ratings continue to decline.
> 
> That's just reality. It's not _necessarily_ fair, but it's definitely what they deserve.


I think the breakdowns may be coming back. Unless, last week was a one time thing. 

As for Reigns not being given any leeway, I don't agree. But I won't act as though I don't understand why he'd get the blame. I just think that standard should be applied to other superstars as well. If Dean, AJ Styles or someone else that is found more palatable can't reverse the trend of sliding ratings, I fully expect them to be held accountable as well and that there won't be any blaming on the product as a whole.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Rollins was blamed by some before he even got the title. It's how it's been for awhile now on here. Reigns also beats the shit out of everyone and pretty much stands tall 99% of the time. It's to the point, where in Cena's absence at least, he's the only one who gets booked like he matters and gets booked strong. I don't know how you blame a guy like Owens who loses every other week or a guy like AJ who just got here. Most of us here would pay good money to see guys like that get Reigns' booking. :shrug

Everything has come full circle now. That's for sure.


----------



## LilOlMe

Empress said:


> I think the breakdowns may be coming back. Unless, last week was a one time thing.
> 
> As for Reigns not being given any leeway, I don't agree. But I won't act as though I don't understand why he'd get the blame. I just think that standard should be applied to other superstars as well. If Dean, AJ Styles or someone else that is found more palatable can't reverse the trend of sliding ratings, I fully expect them to be held accountable as well and that there won't be any blaming on the product as a whole.


You're smart. You understand. With Reigns, wrestlers have been intentionally sabotaged and TPTB are doing everything they can to hand things to him on a silver platter.

Of course he is going to be scrutinized even more when that's the case. It's like, if they're doing all of that, there damn sure better be a great result out of that.

Having said that, others have gotten the blame when they were the top guys, though obviously markdom makes that selective at times. You're smart, and you know that as well. It's fair to raise that latter issue.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> For argument's sake, if Dean wins the belt and becomes the champion and the ratings stay the same or perhaps go lower, does he assume ownership? What if the title gets put back on Brock and the ratings stay the same? And so forth.


TBH -- I never understood the argument about whoever is champion is the direct catalyst for the ratings. CM Punk in 2008 was the champion but he was booked as a midcarder while the usual suspects occupied the storylines in the main segments

I think it has far more to do with how the show flows and the compelling hooks that you can introduce in your storylines to keep people interested. Even if someone is a complete failure as champion, the show could still draw if there's interesting developments happening throughout the night

The title is nothing more than a prop to add a semblance of legitimacy to a pseudo sport and to give people a reason to feud -- but it's not the be-all-end-all. It could take them a month to make the women's title feel more important if they put more emphasis and creative ideas behind it and if the division was talented enough to fill the necessary roles

Who's champion isn't the best way to gauge the success of the show, the main focus of your storylines is the main factor above all else IMO


----------



## Empress

If I had been one of the posters blaming Rollins nonstop for bad ratings, I'd own that. I spoke against his overexposure and I still stand by that criticism. I've been consistent in blaming the product. 

But if the ratings do increase, the reverse should also hold true for those blaming Reigns (even when he doesn't have the title). In that sense, Reigns is to be credited for last week's bump since the WWE champion and now the top babyface are responsible, top to bottom. And no, I don't seriously believe he's to be given credit for last week's bump but you get what I mean.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> If I had been one of the posters blaming Rollins nonstop for bad ratings, I'd own that. I spoke against his overexposure and I still stand by that criticism. I've been consistent in blaming the product.
> 
> But if the ratings do increase, the reverse should also hold true for those blaming Reigns (even when he doesn't have the title). In that sense, Reigns is to be credited for last week's bump since the WWE champion and now the top babyface are responsible, top to bottom. And no, I don't seriously believe he's to given credit for last week's bump but you get what I mean.


I was just answering your question if others get blamed. You were here for 2015. You saw someone else get blamed for months for almost every aspect of the show, even things that had nothing to do with him. A recent jump back into the archives and I found someone blaming him 4 months before he even won the title. Ridiculous, but it's how it goes.


----------



## Godway

Injuries aren't an excuse for declining ratings. They were going down under Rollins and Cena both. And Orton has always been a ratings killer. They simply got much worse under Roman. Not just Roman, but the McMahon family ensemble of Vince/Hunter/Stephanie, too. This angle is a dead end. Nobody buys it, nobody cares about it, this is going to be the smarks next opportunity to boo Roman at Mania in a match that shouldn't exist. 

It's hilarious. All the shit people talked on Punk/Bryan yet right now they'd be begging for the numbers they were pulling. And crowds were actually hot for the show under them as the top guy(s) too. Not the fucking dead zone that they are with everything going around Roman.


----------



## asdf122345

They should go back to 2 hours. 3 hours is kind of too much. Hell maybe 1 hour Raw so they can somehow stack their ppv. ANd let the wrestler be who they are instead of reading from a script.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Empress said:


> But if the ratings do increase, the reverse should also hold true for those blaming Reigns (even when he doesn't have the title). In that sense, Reigns is to be credited for last week's bump since the WWE champion and now the top babyface are responsible, top to bottom. And no, I don't seriously believe he's to be given credit for last week's bump but you get what I mean.


Don't be ridiculous. We all know Bo-Rida is the reason for last week's bump and that's not up for debate.

But damn... the numbers this week... ouch. I'd almost feel bad for them... if they'd have gotten fucking Sandow back on TV by now.


----------



## LordKain

I give them maybe another 2 or 3 more years until the USA network cancels both shows.


----------



## Empress

LilOlMe said:


> You're smart. You understand. With Reigns, wrestlers have been intentionally sabotaged and TPTB are doing everything they can to hand things to him on a silver platter.
> 
> *Of course he is going to be scrutinized even more when that's the case. It's like, if they're doing all of that, there damn sure better be a great result out of that.*
> 
> Having said that, others have gotten the blame when they were the top guys, though obviously markdom makes that selective at times. You're smart, and you know that as well. It's fair to raise that latter issue.


I do agree that there should be more output in relation to Roman's push. But it's not as if Roman's booking as the top guy has been perfect. He's handcuffed by creative as much as other talents are. What is he supposed to do with suffering succotach? McMahon/Reigns is a non starter outside of the RAW where Roman won. I'm just glad that he's not booked like a punk. I'll take a bland babyface with some credibility. I'm holding out hope that HHH can perform some kind of miracle and give us a hot angle. 

As for my other point, I still firmly believe that other talents would be given the benefit of a bad product before they were held in contempt and individually blamed. If Ambrose got the rocket strapped to him tomorrow and the ratings still didn't move, there would be more blaming Vince and creative than him. 



ShowStopper said:


> *I was just answering your question if others get blamed. * You were here for 2015. You saw someone else get blamed for months for almost every aspect of the show, even things that had nothing to do with him. A recent jump back into the archives and I found someone blaming him 4 months before he even won the title. Ridiculous, but it's how it goes.


I took your comment to mean that I was personally blaming Rollins and now it's full circle because it was Reigns' turn. If I misunderstood, then my apologies.

I'm not sure how Rollins could get blamed four months before he got the belt. Unless overexposure was the reason. But then again, Reigns was blamed as well during last year's RTW and he didn't even have the belt.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I do agree that there should be more output in relation to Roman's push. But it's not as if Roman's booking as the top guy has been perfect. He's handcuffed by creative as much as other talents are. What is he supposed to do with suffering succotach? I'm just glad that he's not booked like a punk. I'll take a bland babyface with some credibility.
> 
> As for my other point, I still firmly believe that other talents would be given the benefit of a bad product before they were held in contempt and individually blamed. If Ambrose got the rocket strapped to him tomorrow and the ratings still didn't move, there would be more blaming Vince and creative than him.
> 
> 
> 
> I took your comment to mean that I was personally blaming Rollins and now it's full circle because it was Reigns' turn. If I misunderstood, then my apologies.
> 
> I'm not sure how Rollins could get blamed four months before he got the belt. Unless overexposure was the reason. But then again, Reigns was blamed as well during last year's RTW and he didn't even have the belt.


No, I know you didn't. The other comment did mean that but not in relation to YOU, just so you know.

It's not even about blaming anyone anymore. It's just to the point where it's not even about blame but more about the fact that WWE has a serious problem that they created themselves with their boring, played out, near 20 year old formula for Raw. That's on them; not any of the talents.


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*Holy shit those ratings :wow

Can't say they don't deserve it tho. :draper2*


----------



## SnapOrTap

Vince, before you drop below 2.0, call Bryan. Just call him. 

Please.

I'd rather see him than Rowan vs Show Part II: Return of My Testicular Cancer.

Please.


----------



## CH25

Can Vince please step down. This entire show needs a MAJOR revamp. Everything about this show needs to change. Absolutely everything. This was probably the worst RAW episode I've seen in 20 years.


----------



## The Dazzler

Holy shit. When are they going to change things up? What they're doing isn't working.


----------



## Randy Lahey

LordKain said:


> I give them maybe another 2 or 3 more years until the USA network cancels both shows.


I agree. The end game for Vince will be all WWE programming on WWE Network. If you are pulling a 2.38 during RTWM, that equates to below a 2 come next football season.


----------



## LordKain

Randy Lahey said:


> I agree. The end game for Vince will be all WWE programming on WWE Network. If you are pulling a 2.38 during RTWM, that equates to below a 2 come next football season.


Pretty short sighted and stupid don't you think? I'm willing predict that they'll have less then a million subscribers worldwide by the time that happens.


----------



## Pinball Wizard Graves

CH25 said:


> Can Vince please step down. This entire show needs a MAJOR revamp. Everything about this show needs to change. Absolutely everything. This was probably the worst RAW episode I've seen in 20 years.


Then you haven't been watching Raw at all, if THIS episode was the worse. See you next Monday.

But to the overall point, The presentation definitely needs to change. From the graphics, commentators, website, show direction, logos, etc. WWE can do whatever it wants in-the-ring, but if the presentation is stale- it will still turn people off.


----------



## Hawkke

I just get a solid laugh anytime I see anyone on the roster getting blamed anymore for the ratings.. Even the champs can only do so much to get around outright sabotage through incompetence from the back.. You can say the guys are like trying to play poker.. they all get their starting hands, go a few draws, and then someone goes up behind them all and pulls their best 4 cards and replaces them with shit. and this is repeated ad-nauseum for every hand, every game, for months on end..

Or if that's not an easy enough analogy.. You see them all doing all they can to stay afloat in a pool then they all get covered over by a tarp of shitty creative, their heads held below the water the till they fucking drown from the weight of the failings of their leadership.


----------



## udarsha45

To be honest the wrestlers are not to be blamed for this. At the end of the day they are just doings their job's.

The person who is to blame is VKM and his entire creative team. That guy has so much money but can't afford to hire some good writers, who could write some good storylines, and make things interesting again??? 

WWE has brought this on themselves. So therefore no sympathy.


----------



## Annihilus

That 3rd hour drop







FeelsGoodMan

Very deserved, I actually fell asleep before the main event. Maybe that's WWEs goal? Unconscious viewers can't change the channel.


----------



## Dark_Raiden

SnapOrTap said:


> So now we can add two achievements for the Roman Empire:
> 
> 1) Lowest non MNF rating ever.
> 
> 2) Lowest rating ever (ROMAN 2:16 NEVER FORGET)


He wasn't champion during either of these. That was Sheamus and HHH. Not his fault. 

Also I don't know about anyone else but I personally can't watch anymore with LU on. It's like eating pound cake and then someone offers me moldy bread. Nah I'm good.


----------



## VitoCorleone

The problem isnt the champion, It isnt Roman Reigns.
The show itselfs sucks and has barely good moments.

Raw had meaningless random matches like (Breeze vs Titus...)
Raw didnt had Star Power. Plus the same Roman Reigns & Ambrose Tag Team Main Event Bullshit that we are tired off.


----------



## Reotor

I'll never understand this obsession with blaming this one guy being at the top and holding him responsible for the low rating.
If fixing the ratings was as simple as putting guy X at the top they would've done it by now.

But its not Rollins, or Sheamus or Roman. Its the product itself, the product itself entirely needs to be revamped.
Everything! from commentary to camera work, the set, the presentation, the storylines, characters, construction of the matches themselves, everything must be redesigned.

The entire philosophy of how this company works is outdated and must be changed.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Let's look at this 2.38 rating with relation to it's positioning within the Road to Wrestlemania.

Traditionally, the post-Rumble Raw is the second highest rated Raw of the year behind the post-Mania Raw. So? So the drop in ratings was always going to happen.

The question is, how far of a drop was this?

*2014*
Post-Rumble Raw: 3.46
Next Raw: 3.23
*Drop = 0.23*

*2015*
Post-Rumble Raw: 3.27
Next Raw: 3.01
*Drop = 0.26*

*2016*
Post-Rumble Raw: 2.93
Next Raw: 2.38
*Drop = 0.55*

Looking in the context of yearly patterns, this is not a good trend. As you can see, this years natural drop is over double previous years natural drop.


----------



## Bushmaster

Haven't watched Raw in forever, who's the top face atm. I know Cena is injured so I'm assuming it's someone else.

Road to Wrestlemania and getting numbers like that. With no more football :kobe7. I thought numbers would have gone up based on what many said before.


----------



## Fighter Daron

Iron Man said:


> Haven't watched Raw in forever, who's the top face atm. I know Cena is injured so I'm assuming it's someone else.
> 
> Road to Wrestlemania and getting numbers like that. With no more football :kobe7. I thought numbers would have gone up based on what many said before.


The top face is Triple H.


----------



## FROSTY

ShowStopper said:


> A 3.0 million for Hour 3 in THE ROAD TO WRESTLEMANIA.
> 
> :heyman6
> 
> HOLY FUCK.


*Yeah them casuals/children are really getting behind Reigns on his road to Wrestlemania








:bryanlol *


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Triple H is the top heel right now. They've run through a decent amount of the guys they thought can be top babyface (including Vince's number one choice); and none of them have worked thus far.


----------



## Drago

Eat this shit Vince and stay the course. You're doing so well. RTWM my ass.


----------



## FITZ

They've lost a lot of viewers in just 1 year...


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Nobody gives two fucks about this company anymore. Brilliant.
The drop from Hour 1 to Hour 3 basically says: "Same shit again? Ok, no thanks."

Let's hear it for one of the "biggest Stars in the world".

:applause


----------



## Empress

*This Week's WWE Total Divas Viewership Down For The Debut Of Mandy Rose*

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network, featuring the debut of Mandy Rose, drew 840,000 and ranked #18 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's episode, which drew 939,000 viewers and ranked #18 for the night on cable.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...divas-viewership-down-for-the-debut-of-mandy/


----------



## Reotor

Keep the good new coming!:tucky


----------



## Muerte al fascismo

Hunter and Reigns don't draw. Unbelievable!


----------



## Arkham258

Let's hope this downward slide continues. I think it is pretty obvious to every intelligent person at this point that change will not come until Vince's hand is forced


----------



## LPPrince

I got a new cable box on Monday and connected it to my Xbox One and television to get everything set up. Could've easily tuned in to Raw to watch something new on the box.

Didn't bother. Years ago I wouldn't miss Raw for anything, but now? Rofl


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's latest column:


> Raw on 2/1 set yet another era low mark for a non-football season or holiday night show averaging a 2.37 rating and 3,371,000 viewers (1.49 viewers per home). It would break the non-football or holiday low dating back to 1997. The prior lows in each category were a 2.44 rating, set on 1/18, and the prior viewership low of 3,463,000 viewers, was set on 6/29.
> 
> The number was expected to be down due to the news coverage of the Iowa Caucus. But falling 18 percent from the strongest number in months the week before for the combination of the day after the Royal Rumble and the appearance of Dwayne Johnson to a record low was disappointing. Raw was only in eighth place on cable for the night, with the top seven shows all having to do with the Caucus coverage on FOX News and CNN. However, the biggest losses were between the ages of 12-34, the age group that would figure to be hit less by the election and more by it not being the day after an event that caused a lot of talk and got people who are casual fans interested in the follow-up, and also the audience that The Rock would reach stronger.
> 
> The first hour did 3,592,000 viewers; the second hour did 3,464,000 viewers and the third hour did 3,094,000 viewers. The big third hour drop points to people not being interested in what was being built up for the final segment, which was the Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. New Day match.
> 
> In the 18-49 demo, the split between males and females was 65.4% to 34.6%.
> 
> In the demos, 12-17 did a 1.06 rating (down 21.5 percent), 18-34 did a 1.10 (down 22.0 percent), 35-49 did a 1.34 (down 14.6 percent) and 50+ did a 1.24 (down 16.2 percent).
> 
> *As far as who was lost from hour one to three, Women 18-49 dropped 15.7 percent, Men 18-49 dropped 2.5 percent*, Women 12-34 dropped 10.3 percent, Men 12-34 gained 7.3 percent and overall 50+ lost 18.8 percent.


I find this really interesting. That's the second time in almost as many weeks that we've seen women drop off dramatically. I wonder if this is the norm for women with this three hour show, or is something happening that they're just not into lately?


Also, about last week's show:


> Some notes on the 1/25 Raw viewership. The show stayed steady for the first hour, grew for the A.J. Styles vs. Chris Jericho match, fell after that, picked up for the 26 minutes of The Rock, and dropped from there. There was a comeback for the Roman Reigns & Dean Ambrose vs. Sheamus & Rusev match after 11 p.m., but some of that is people tuning in for the follow-up show. But the keys to the expected big first hour coming off the Rumble and then a drop not happening would be Styles-Jericho and Rock.


----------



## Y.2.J

When you have pathetic tag team matches that are irrelevant as your main event of the night...yeah you're going to lose viewers.

Unbelievable that they can't understand the simplest things...


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

LilOlMe said:


> From Meltzer's latest column:
> 
> I find this really interesting. That's the second time in almost as many weeks that we've seen women drop off dramatically. I wonder if this is the norm for women with this three hour show, or is something happening that they're just not into lately?
> 
> 
> Also, about last week's show:


Interesting. So, the first hour did do 3.5 million viewers and not 3.9 million like Caldwell reported. And the 12-34 age group they lost hard, which as Dave said, would be less about the Caucus than the other demos. Not good all around. Interesting about the women continuing to tuneout, too. Wonder what that's about.


----------



## udarsha45

Arkham258 said:


> Let's hope this downward slide continues. I think it is pretty obvious to every intelligent person at this point that change will not come until Vince's hand is forced


Couldn't agree with you more.


----------



## udarsha45

ShowStopper said:


> Interesting. So, the first hour did do 3.5 million viewers and not 3.9 million like Caldwell reported. And the 12-34 age group they lost hard, which as Dave said, would be less about the Caucus than the other demos. Not good all around. Interesting about the women continuing to tuneout, too. Wonder what that's about.


They want to see more of their beloved Roman Reigns. Smh.


----------



## LPPrince

ShowStopper said:


> Interesting. So, the first hour did do 3.5 million viewers and not 3.9 million like Caldwell reported. And the 12-34 age group they lost hard, which as Dave said, would be less about the Caucus than the other demos. Not good all around. Interesting about the women continuing to tuneout, too. Wonder what that's about.


Outside of wrestling fans, what kind of female demographic is WWE trying to gain? The kind that watches Total Divas.

In other words, the kind of fan that will most likely(accounting for exceptions) like a wrestler more for their looks than their talent or want to follow what the stars of TD are doing and nothing else.

Ignoring the "looks over anything else" angle, what do non-wrestling fans of TD have to get excited about in WWE?

I wouldn't know as I don't watch the show, but I doubt they give a shit about Becky Lynch or even Sasha Banks. They're probably more invested in the Bellas, Eva Marie, or some nobody I don't even know the name of. *shrugs*

WWE can't even get women invested in women's wrestling. Then as far as men's wrestling goes, the lady smarks are right along with the rest of us that are generally unhappy with the product, and the more casual ones are just gonna pick and choose who they dig and support them and likely only them. I wouldn't be surprised if some tune in to see one wrestler and then tune out if they aren't a big wrestling fan.

So thats my theory. But it could be a million other factors that have nothing to do with what WWE's doing. I don't know.


----------



## Arkham258

Honestly, Lucha Underground is the only show in wrestling catering to women, especially with what they did in the season 2 premiere.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I can't believe the ratings are this low during the Road to WM. Just as low as when they are going up against the NFL with Rollins as the Champion. Everything they're doing right now; or attempting to do, is a complete and utter failure.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

ShowStopper said:


> I can't believe the ratings are this low during the Road to WM. Just as low as when they are going up against the NFL. Everything they're doing right now; or attempting to do, is a complete and utter failure.


And yet in 2 weeks time, the ratings are going to spike slightly and the apologists will be out in full force saying "look, it's rising".

Only to find that after WrestleMania, the post-Raw Mania will have dropped compared to last years post-Raw Mania, and the rest of the year will be WWE's most monumental drop off in ratings.


----------



## Xenoblade

Muerte al fascismo said:


> Hunter and Reigns don't draw. Unbelievable!


Wtf? Trips is hardly even on the show.. If anything Lesnar and Reigns aren't drawing. As lesnar was the one who was heavily advertised.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Why the fuck does it matter if H wasn't so present in this show? The year is four weeks old, and he already cut a thousand minutes worth of promos.
The people tuning out because of his insomnia-curing presence aren't magically tuning in again, having the gift of foreseeing the show would have little of him.

People are sick of H, sick of Steph, sick of Reigns, and sick of this shit looking future. Lesnar is stuck in a nonsensical and contrieved story with Bray J. Wyatt (J is for Jobber), and people wonder why interest in him is melting as well.


----------



## Xenoblade

since being champion he only cut one long promo and it was very good and the ratings were much higher last week after him winning the title..

Trips might be champion but there is currently no focus on him... It's all about Roman vs Dean vs Brock.. IF you want to blame people for ratings this week start with those 3..


----------



## Xenoblade

Infact Brock is probably the one I would look at first, as his contract is the most flexible and expensive.

He is currently the biggest liability to the company and if he can't pull in any numbers than it might be time for him to be terminated...


----------



## DoublePass

ShowStopper said:


> I can't believe the ratings are this low during the Road to WM. Just as low as when they are going up against the NFL with Rollins as the Champion. Everything they're doing right now; or attempting to do, is a complete and utter failure.


Why is this surprising? Last year was one of the worst RTWMs in terms of viewership with Reigns as the main focal point. This year looks to be more of the same, as everyone knows Reigns will win at FL and at WM. 

I expected the ratings to be this bad based on last year's data.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Xenoblade said:


> since being champion he only cut one long promo and it was very good and the ratings were much higher last week after him winning the title..
> 
> Trips might be champion but there is currently no focus on him... It's all about Roman vs Dean vs Brock.. IF you want to blame people for ratings this week start with those 3..


Last week's ratings were because of the Royal Rumble, the post-Raw always has a ratings spike, and even that was abysmal this year.

Also, if H as champ had anything to do with a higher rating, it would show this week, because the current Raw will always interest people for next week's Raw. Or not.

If anything, the people who watched last week said "Fuck, this isn't worth it", and didn't tune in this week, evidently, thinking This isn't worth it, expecting more of the same crap.

On top of that, it is very evident now that H isn't nearly the star WWE would like to think of him as. Would someone else, like Rock, Austin, Michaels etc be the "Authority", I guarantee that Raw would have more viewers.
Triple H is the most overhyped guy in the Last 15 years.


----------



## A-C-P

Xenoblade said:


> Infact Brock is probably the one I would look at first, as his contract is the most flexible and expensive.
> 
> He is currently the biggest liability to the company and if he can't pull in any numbers than it might be time for him to be terminated...


Brock is not dumb, I doubt there is anyway to "terminate" his contract. Brock is getting paid what is promised him for the next 2 years no matter what kind of business he personally draws.

:Brock


----------



## SnapOrTap

O BABY.

DEMOCRATS SCHEDULING 4 MORE DEBATES.

DO YOU BELIEVE?

CAN THE BERN THE HITMAN SANDERS DROP THE WWE BELOW 3 MILLION ONE MORE TIME.

TUNE IN NEXT MONDAY, I MEAN DON'T TUNE IN BUT FIND OUT ON TUESDAY.

FEEL THE BERN. 

#ROMAN-EMPIRE-BERNS


----------



## LaMelo

WWE is in so much trouble.


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> Brock is not dumb, I doubt there is anyway to "terminate" his contract. Brock is getting paid what is promised him for the next 2 years no matter what kind of business he personally draws.
> 
> :Brock


I respect that Brock is about his $$$ business and doesn't sugarcoat it. He doesn't need to draw, bring in new viewers or anything else. Just pay him. 

On paper, Vince should expect more of a return on his investment. But Vince is the one who gave him a small fortune to just stand in the ring, smirk and suplex guys on random RAW's and appear at every other PPV. I'm not mad at Brock. I'd take the same sweet deal if it were given to me.

:vince$


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> I respect that Brock is about his $$$ business and doesn't sugarcoat it. He doesn't need to draw, bring in new viewers or anything else. Just pay him.
> 
> On paper, Vince should expect more of a return on his investment. But Vince is the one who gave him a small fortune to just stand in the ring, smirk and suplex guys on random RAW's and appear at every other PPV. I'm not mad at Brock. I'd take the same sweet deal if it were given to me.
> 
> :vince$


Some of it falls on the WWE themselves, like you say. in the way they book and use Brock when he does appear on Raw when he is not wrestling. But the one thing you can say about Brock for sure is when he is there to wrestle a match he never half asses that.

And I agree 100% on not blaming Brock, there is not one person on this site that would turn down the deal Brock was offered.

Either way I know for a fact that Brock draws in one viewer when he is on, and that is me.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Saying Lesnar is a burden for WWE is idiotic beyond belief. Don't blame Brock for WWE's inability to capitalize on him.


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> Some of it falls on the WWE themselves, like you say. in the way they book and use Brock when he does appear on Raw when he is not wrestling. *But the one thing you can say about Brock for sure is when he is there to wrestle a match he never half asses that.
> *
> And I agree 100% on not blaming Brock, there is not one person on this site that would turn down the deal Brock was offered.
> 
> Either way I know for a fact that Brock draws in one viewer when he is on, and that is me.


I agree with this 100%.

Last year, I was worried that he would half ass his match with Roman, but he didn't. A new multi million contract is sure to motivate anyone, but Brock does what he's booked to do without going through the motions. 

The WWE deserves the blame for how he's booked. If you have someone like Brock, who's proven that he can be a draw, you shouldn't take it for granted. It's just a waste of money not to capitalize. But Brock isn't losing sleep. He's getting paid regardless and like you said, I'm sure he has an iron clad contract. Bad ratings and revenue don't impact his bottom line.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(2/4) Vs last week(1/28)
2.664M(-2.06%) Vs 2.720M*


----------



## SnapOrTap

BY GAWD. 

BERNIE SANDERS.

AGAIN.

2 TIMES

2 TIMES

HE HAS DECIMATED THE JUGGERNAUT THAT IS THE WWE.

HE HAS NO SANITY. THIS MAN. PLEASE. WWE. RESCHEDULE RAW. DON'T GO UP AGAINST THIS 74 YEAR OLD JEW WHOSE DECIMATING YOU. 

THE RATINGS ARE BERNING. HIDE YOUR KIDS. HIDE YOUR WIVES. 

CAN HE MAKE IT A 3-PEAT.


----------



## LPPrince

Well there's a reason to vote Bernie in. lol


----------



## krai999

thank you Bernie clap clap clap clap clap thank you Bernie clap clap clap clap clap


----------



## Chrome

Bernie Sanders vs HHH WM 32 main event confirmed.


----------



## validreasoning

wwe's b show finishing top of the cable charts on a night with a presidental debate..damn thats impressive


----------



## RealLegend Killer

Good ole times, 4.4. in 2005.

http://corporate.wwe.com/news/2005/wwe-corporate-wwes-monday-night-raw-scores-huge-ratings-jump


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Bernie ain't no B+ player. He's gonna make WWE *FEEL THE BERN!*


----------



## Goldusto

hour 1, i dont know what will be, hur 2 i feel will tank hardcore, then hour 3 would be high

the show was very mediocre for most part, one or two high spots with dean, but they didnt even try for first hour.


----------



## DoubtGin

Does Bryan's segment count for Hour 3? Because there were nearly 30 minutes of overtime last night I think.


----------



## Marrakesh

DoubtGin said:


> Does Bryan's segment count for Hour 3? Because there were nearly 30 minutes of overtime last night I think.


I don't think the overrun is ever included which is why when I see 'Wrestler X failed to draw in the main event segment' I am left scratching my head because we don't have that information. 

We only have the hourly average for between 10pm-11p. No breakdowns and no overrun. 

Meltzer used to provide this but doesn't anymore. He may do for this segment if there was a large audience increase. 

If I am wrong btw, someone please correct me, but I am under the impression that the overruns aren't included in these ratings, and even if they were, it would be nearly impossible to tell if it drew or not without the quarter hour breakdowns given that the final number is juts the average for that hour.


----------



## Londrick

DoubtGin said:


> Does Bryan's segment count for Hour 3? Because there were nearly 30 minutes of overtime last night I think.


It will if hour 3 does good. :mj


----------



## Naka Moora

When are Ratings released?


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*I suspect the ratings for this episode to be great. I could see tons of people tuning in, just for Daniel Bryan.*


----------



## The Dazzler

Please ratings go up! (you can go back down again next week) :yes


----------



## Wynter

The ratings should be super amazing. We all know people had to tune in to see the farewell to one of the best superstars of this generation :bryan


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

If Daniel Bryan's retirement annoucement can't at least breathe alittle bit of life into the Failure that is this year's Road to WMs' ratings; then nothing will.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.907M
H2-3.905M
H3-3.368M

Avg-3.726M*










*H2 vs H1 (-0.0005%)
H3 Vs H2 (-13.75%)
H3 Vs H1 (-13.8%)

2/8 Vs 2/1
(+10.14%)
(+0.343M)

Note: Daniel Bryan's retirement announcement advertised prior.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Fans got tired of waiting for the announcement by the end of the show. Kind of like me. :hbk1

Still with that third hour drop, though. Yikes.


----------



## David Klein

First two hours drew 3.9 million viewers while the third hour sunk to 3.3 million viewers.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## krai999

breh where is the over time.


----------



## LilOlMe

Ouch. Will be interesting to hear if the overrun numbers were much higher than usual. Bryan's announcement didn't come until then. However, with that drop-off, not sure how high it could have been. 

I also didn't think that the way that the WWE marketed was great. They were like "as Bryan thanks his fans." They should have called it a retirement speech, or talked about it simply being a big announcement, as they've done in the past.


----------



## LilOlMe

3.726 million compared to 3.66 million last year.

Still finally higher than last year, though last year's rating sounds like a disaster:


> WWE Raw ratings (Feb. 9, 2015): Viewers drop dramatically despite Sting tease, Brock Lesnar appearance
> 
> WWE used the tease of Sting appearing (he never did, with impostors showing up in his stead) and a late promotional push for World Heavyweight Champion Brock Lesnar to help boost ratings for last night's episode of Monday Night Raw in Columbus, Ohio.
> 
> It failed, miserably.
> 
> Actually, viewers were down in a big way. The show averaged 3.66 million viewers, a huge drop from the 4.29 million it posted last week. The hourly breakdown shows a drop for each hour, as usual:
> 
> Hour one: 3.79 million
> Hour two: 3.67 million
> Hour three: 3.52 million
> 
> Those are incredibly low numbers, some of the worst Raw has posted in a number of years and there really isn't much of an explanation for it. All hands were on deck and we're just over one month away from WrestleMania 31 while there is no sporting competition.
> 
> Simply a one week anomaly? Or are fans simply uninterested in what WWE is currently offering?


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-ra...dramatically-despite-sting-tease-brock-lesnar


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

I dont think those numbers include the overrun, but I'm not really sure.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

They maintained consistent through the first and second hour - even though the third hour dropped tremendously, that tells me people were staying tuned for the Bryan announcement and/or the Ambrose/Lesnar confrontation - although based off the third hour dropping, even though the Ambrose/Lesnar segment was at the beginning of that, it should mean people stay tuned for that and dropped off massively afterwards. Of course people could've still came back for the Bryan retirement speech, but it wouldn't surprise me if between that and Ambrose/Lesnar that viewers dropped off massively. 

Or maybe some people just couldn't take the feels that the final segment would bring. 

Edit: Also if you look at the chart, the third hour was 86 minutes, obviously including the overrun.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm pretty sure the overrun isn't included in the 8-11PM rating. They showed up to see the announcement and waited a couple of hours, but by hour 3 of another awful, boring Raw they tapped out. Can't really blame them. And then WWE is dumb enough, because they can't manage time correctly, put Bryan's speech AFTER 11PM. They deserve these ratings.


----------



## LilOlMe

3.907 million in the first hour this week, compared to 3.59 million in the first hour last week.

So there was about a 9% jump in interest to start the show this week. Last week, the Iowa big caucus results didn't start coming in 'til later, so I'm not sure that that would have affected the first hour last week so much.


----------



## DoublePass

At least it's an improvement from last year's Reigns-centric RTWM.

The viewership will be in the 3.4-3.6 range after FL, however.


----------



## Wynter

Wow... It didn't even reach over 4 million.

Overrun or not, this is a beloved guy who is retiring and was having a farewell speech . For 600,000 people to not care to stay to watch that is baffling. Why watch Bryan speech but then suddenly change the channel during the Overrun? You would think those who really cared would stay until the end. 

I was expecting a way higher number for the first hour. Second hour was consistent though. 

3rd hour did the usual drop although I did expect it to be the highest.


----------



## Blade Runner

Retirements are never fun to watch. I'm a bit disheartened that hour 3 didn't fare as well but maybe it performed much better on the overrun. It seemed like the show did generate buzz but people probably phased out at some point. It's damn near impossible to watch 3 hours of RAW without falling asleep these days

Bryan DID generate a ton of buzz online tho, and his story got picked up by massive media outlets. The pouring of support he got was overwhelming which proves to me that he's a much bigger deal than some people give him credit for


----------



## Kabraxal

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Retirements are never fun to watch. I'm a bit disheartened that hour 3 didn't fare as well but maybe it performed much better on the overrun. It seemed like the show did generate buzz but people probably phased out at some point. It's damn near impossible to watch 3 hours of RAW without falling asleep these days
> 
> Bryan DID generate a ton of buzz online tho, and his story got picked up by massive media outlets. The pouring of support he got was overwhelming which proves to me that he's a much bigger deal than some people give him credit for


It was hard to watch the WWE be so disingenuos until he came out... They routinely belittled him an passed him off as a joke and suddenly he is the retiring hero. Could have rubbed a lot of people wrong with how fake the WWE came off.


----------



## THANOS

Keep in mind that his entire retirement speech began and concluded in the overrun. His music didn't even hit until 11:01pm. Comparing the overrun to past overruns would be more useful.


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Retirements are never fun to watch. I'm a bit disheartened that hour 3 didn't fare as well but maybe it performed much better on the overrun. It seemed like the show did generate buzz but people probably phased out at some point. *It's damn near impossible to watch 3 hours of RAW without falling asleep these days*
> 
> Bryan DID generate a ton of buzz online tho, and his story got picked up by massive media outlets. The pouring of support he got was overwhelming which proves to me that he's a much bigger deal than some people give him credit for


The show is too damn long. It's a chore to make it through.

I didn't expect 10 million viewers, but I did expect that a show based around Bryan's retirement would easily reach 4 million viewers. The WWE has been able to reach that milestone in the past six months. Given all the attention and affection for Bryan, it seemed very possible. 

The social media love was great to see. I'm happy to know that he's so loved. He was the #1 trend for a few hours.


----------



## Blade Runner

Kabraxal said:


> It was hard to watch the WWE be so disingenuos until he came out... They routinely belittled him an passed him off as a joke and suddenly he is the retiring hero. Could have rubbed a lot of people wrong with how fake the WWE came off.


True. It's like the commentary team did a complete 180 on how they treated him when he was a full-time competitor :lol

To their credit, I applaud them for at least attempting to paint him in a positive light even if it wasn't completely genuine. They went out of their way to make the night special for him which I can't really crap on

Still, it doesn't undo the years of missed opportunities and attempted character sabotage they did on commentary -- even if they spin it as trying to portray him as a sympathetic underdog, we all know that some of it was done to make him look like a geek so that he didn't outpop the likes of Cena


----------



## Chrome

Least the 1st 2 hours went up. Seems like no matter what, that 3rd hour is gonna drop.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Bryan was a hot commodity in the WM 30 era. That was a couple of years ago, though. Between being out for almost a year due to injury, and even the last time he WAS on TV; he was downgraded from World Champion to IC Champion. Add to that not being on TV in ages by today's standard; then making everyone wait through another tortorous Raw, and there you have it. Should've done it either at 8, 9, or 10PM at the top of any of those hours. 

If anything, it continues my theory that no one is a draw these days.

The fact that on a Road to WM Raw, with an advertised Brock appearance and advertised retirement announcement of one of the bigger names of *this* generation and they couldn't get to 4 million viewers for at least 1 of the 3 hours is scary, though.

Oh, and this Road to WM is officially the biggest FAIL of all time. It's over.


----------



## DoublePass

ShowStopper said:


> Oh, and this Road to WM is officially the biggest FAIL of all time. It's over.


That honor goes to last year's RTWM. Check the numbers.

Although with Reigns/HHH headlining this year, the numbers have the potential to be even uglier than last year.


----------



## A-C-P

Not surprising at all, people tuned in to see Bryan at the start, but just got sick of sitting through the dreck that was the rest of the show leading up to Bryan and decided I will just catch Bryan's speech on youtube.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DoublePass said:


> That honor goes to last year's RTWM. Check the numbers.
> 
> Although with Reigns/HHH headlining this year, the numbers have the potential to be even uglier than last year.


Last night's Raw was the first one that did a better number than last year's version of that particular week. It's this one right now, but that could change.


----------



## Wynter

WWE ENTERTAINMENT	USA	11:26 PM	3,368	1.3

The Overrun was counted


http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2016/02/09/monday-cable-ratings-feb-8-2016/

Seems there was a drop off.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> The show is too damn long. It's a chore to make it through.
> 
> I didn't expect 10 million viewers, but I did expect that a show based around Bryan's retirement would easily reach 4 million viewers. The WWE has been able to reach that milestone in the past six months. Given all the attention and affection for Bryan, it seemed very possible.
> 
> The social media love was great to see. I'm happy to know that he's so loved. He was the #1 trend for a few hours.


I'm a diehard Bryan fan and even I had moments where I wanted to shut the show off and look for the retirement segment the next day online -- The show is THAT bad these days. I'm not trying to make excuses, but I think it's more of a reflection on the lack of interest in WWE than it is on Bryan




ShowStopper said:


> *Bryan was a hot commodity in the WM 30 era*. That was a couple of years ago, though. Between being out for almost a year due to injury, and even the last time he WAS on TV; he was downgraded from World Champion to IC Champion. Add to that not being on TV in ages by today's standard; then making everyone wait through another tortorous Raw, and there you have it. Should've done it either at 8, 9, or 10PM at the top of any of those hours.
> 
> If anything, it continues my theory that no one is a draw these days.
> 
> The fact that on a Road to WM Raw, with an advertised Brock appearance and advertised retirement announcement of one of the bigger names of *this* generation and they couldn't get to 4 million viewers for at least 1 of the 3 hours is scary, though.
> 
> Oh, and this Road to WM is officially the biggest FAIL of all time. It's over.


Absolutely, and the ratings reflected that. The RTWM that year was a big draw and Bryan had an insane amount of momentum which I think saved the PPV from being an abysmal failure


----------



## 2Pieced

Without commercials last nights show went 2 hours 36 minutes so that must have been over 3 and a half hours real time. You just can't hold people that long for a wrestling show.


----------



## Erik.

To be fair, I fell asleep before I even got to the third hour (which saddens me considering that I knew what was coming and I really wanted to see the whole Bryan thing live) so I don't blame others for tuning out. Though to be fair, I am currently in the United Kingdom and it would have been 3:30am in the morning at that time.


----------



## Empress

*2/8 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – huge surge for Bryan Retirement show, what does it compare to?*


WWE Raw Social Media Tracking

February 8: Monday’s Raw jumped 65-135 percent in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings metrics compared to last week’s Raw. The show also nearly-doubled the post-Royal Rumble episode two weeks ago.

– Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 2.926 million, up 65 percent from last week.

It was the biggest audience since the post-Summerslam Raw in August 2015 drew 2.958 million.

– Raw’s total impressions were 21.342 million, up 134 percent from last week. It was the most impressions since the post-WrestleMania 31 Raw in March 2015.

– The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 83,000, up 130 percent from last week. Total tweets were 343,000, up 129 percent from last week.

– Despite the huge social media audience, Raw was unable to reach #1 among series & specials for the first time this year.

ABC’s “The Bachelor” drew huge social media activity to top Raw by a healthy margin. Raw would have ranked #1 if compared to one-off sports programming on Monday night.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/09/feb8rawtwitter/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

WM is done. If a Bryan retirement can't spike ratings all that much; then nothing can.


----------



## Wynter

A-C-P said:


> Not surprising at all, people tuned in to see Bryan at the start, but just got sick of sitting through the dreck that was the rest of the show leading up to Bryan and decided I will just catch Bryan's speech on youtube.


They could have easily came back in time for the speech, no? This is one of most popular guys of this era and he's potentially retiring. Many were even skeptical if this was a work or not. So there was a level of interest. 

I did the same thing, I didn't tune in, but came back near the end of the 3rd hour for Bryans speech. 

I'm honestly shocked many people simply left.


----------



## Born of Osiris

ShowStopper said:


> WM is done. If a Bryan retirement can't spike ratings all that much; then nothing can.


Watching it all burn down to ash will be fun.


----------



## KO Bossy

Why is anyone surprised? The show is shit and as passionate as Bryan's retirement was, they did a shit job of promoting it. Going by ratings patterns, the first 2 hours were highest, and then a giant drop in the third. Had they advertised this last week, or on Smackdown, then word could circulate around and maybe more people would have tuned in. Instead, they promoted it ON the show and that afternoon. Who is watching Raw, now? The same people who always seem to watch. If any Bryan fans stopped watching a while back, and aren't watching now, unless they "heard about it online", how would they know he was showing up on Raw? They wouldn't, so they didn't tune in.

At least Bryan is done with this clown show. Hey, remember in 2000 when Linda McMahon announced Austin would be at Backlash in Rock's corner and that generated a ridiculous amount of interest? And how they promoted him ahead of time to show up on the go home Smackdown? Or how they promoted his return at Unforgiven 2000? Or Triple H's return in 2002 on Raw? Or Rock's return to save WWF in 2001? Shit, they even promoted Batista's return in 2014. So again, why didn't they do it with this? There's NO way it was just decided in the past week and it "happened" to be that the upcoming Raw was in his home state, right near his hometown. This has been decided for a little while, so would it kill them to have done some advertising?


----------



## A-C-P

The Last Marauder said:


> They could have easily came back in time for the speech, no? This is one of most popular guys of this era and he's potentially retiring. Many were even skeptical if this was a work or not. So there was a level of interest.
> 
> I did the same thing, I didn't tune in, but came back near the end of the 3rd hour for Bryans speech.
> 
> I'm honestly shocked many people simply left.


I am sure alot of people did do that. Which actually means alot more people left over the first 2 hours than just what the total drop was.

But for alot of people once they switch off Raw, they usually don't come back I would think. Either something else catches their eye and they watch that, or do something besides watch TV all together.

The real story here is going to be the youtube views for Bryan's speech.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> WM is done. If a Bryan retirement can't spike ratings all that much; then nothing can.


Won't be anywhere near as successful as Wrestlemanias of past. I do think they'll still do well enough though just because it's Wrestlemania. People who haven't even watched wrestling since last years Wrestlemania will tune in because of the spectacle. I know a lot of my mates who only watch wrestling on the day Wrestlemania is on will tune in again, I don't think I'll be the only one in the world that happens to. They obviously proceed to ask questions like "who is he?" etc. and still act in surprise when the likes of HHH, Taker etc. show up, especially in wrestling capacity. Can't wait to see their reaction to HHH coming out as champion :lol


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

☆Shala☆;56980777 said:


> Watching it all burn down to ash will be fun.


That's what I've been doing for the past 3 months, breh. It's been a blast.

All of those failures during WWE's hottest time of year.

:drose


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I'm a diehard Bryan fan and even I had moments where I wanted to shut the show off and look for the retirement segment the next day online -- The show is THAT bad these days. I'm not trying to make excuses, but I think it's more of a reflection on the lack of interest in WWE than it is on Bryan


You've never tried to blame one person for the bad ratings. I'd never accuse you of making excuses. 

The proof is in the pudding at this point. It's the product. Daniel Bryan's retirement was huge. The WWE should've been able to retain their audience. I looked up at the clock as it was about to hit 10 last night and just wanted the damn show over with already. But I really wanted to see Bryan's speech and kept at it. I expected other people to feel similarly and this be another 4 million plus episode. 

Ratings aside, I'm glad Bryan was able to say goodbye in his own words. The viewers who tuned out missed a great speech. I thought it was his best.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Won't be anywhere near as successful as Wrestlemanias of past. I do think they'll still do well enough though just because it's Wrestlemania. People who haven't even watched wrestling since last years Wrestlemania will tune in because of the spectacle. I know a lot of my mates who only watch wrestling on the day Wrestlemania is on will tune in again, I don't think I'll be the only one in the world that happens to. They obviously proceed to ask questions like "who is he?" etc. and still act in surprise when the likes of HHH, Taker etc. show up, especially in wrestling capacity. Can't wait to see their reaction to HHH coming out as champion :lol


You are right. WM itself always does alright because it's WM and it's the only big show around. What I mean is the Road to WM and Raw's ratings during it are done.


----------



## Arya Dark

*There's also something to be said for people not wanting to be fucking depressed. Most of us watch wrestling to be entertained. You knew going in if you watched that speech you were going to be depressed and heartbroken if not both. I knew what would happen to me if I watched it but I watched it anyway. I was a mess the rest of the night and I would have been much better off simply not watching it. I could have read about it. There's no reason to purposefully depress yourself. *


----------



## Born of Osiris

Not to mention how many people probably turned that shit off the second Ziggler came out to face Owens for the 100th time :lmao


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> I am sure alot of people did do that. Which actually means alot more people left over the first 2 hours than just what the total drop was.
> 
> But for alot of people once they switch off Raw, they usually don't come back I would think. Either something else catches their eye and they watch that, or do something besides watch TV all together.
> 
> *The real story here is going to be the youtube views for Bryan's speech.*


This is about to cross 500K in a matter of hours.






Brock's confrontation with Roman and Dean is slightly outpacing it. I expect Bryan's clip to end the week with 3 million on the conservative side of things.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It's a good thing in the long run. We want people to tune out when WWE sucks; and they are. That is the big positive here.


----------



## A-C-P

Thanks for that info @Empress watching it live depressed me enough didn't want to look up the YT and get depressed all over again :mj2


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

:ti

The show is SO goddamn awful now and this Road to WM is so horrible that it undercutted Bryan's retirement speech. That's how bad the show and the company overall has gotten.

Austin and Rock may need to quit bullshitting and lace up the boots to save this dreck.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> You've never tried to blame one person for the bad ratings. I'd never accuse you of making excuses.
> 
> The proof is in the pudding at this point. It's the product. Daniel Bryan's retirement was huge. The WWE should've been able to retain their audience. I looked up at the clock as it was about to hit 10 last night and just wanted the damn show over with already. But I really wanted to see Bryan's speech and kept at it. I expected other people to feel similarly and this be another 4 million plus episode.
> 
> Ratings aside, I'm glad Bryan was able to say goodbye in his own words. The viewers who tuned out missed a great speech. I thought it was his best.


Meltzer called it the greatest segment in the history of television as far as wrestling goes -- I'm sure there's people that'll feverishly debate that opinion, but I can see why he thought that. It's certainly one of the most genuine and real moments where every second had an emotional impact, especially when you take Bryan's journey into account

Yeah I don't take part in blaming one single person for the drop in ratings. At one point in time that's how WWE booked by noticing who did well in the ratings and they booked their show accordingly, but nowadays it's a difficult gauger because the entire structure is so terribly stale that it would take a larger-than-life megastar-type persona to even make a small difference. I'd argue that Austin himself wouldn't have the momentum that he had in the AE if the product wasn't reflecting contemporary culture


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> You are right. WM itself always does alright because it's WM and it's the only big show around. What I mean is the Road to WM and Raw's ratings during it are done.


Completely agree with that point. I like that they started with something a little different this past week, Ambrose interrupting and then the whole Ambrose, Lesnar, Reigns situation. Thought they did well to get the show off to a bang.

Problem is, it's a real come down to live fans as well as those watching when we get to see ANOTHER Ziggler/Owens match and this guy deemed good enough for IC title feuds etc. can't even beat Ziggler. Infuriating and it wouldn't surprise me if that set the fans mood for the rest of the show.

Ambrose/Lesnar later in the show was the best part of the show besides the whole Bryan situation. Great story telling.


----------



## Empress

A-C-P said:


> Thanks for that info @Empress watching it live depressed me enough didn't want to look up the YT and get depressed all over again :mj2


I almost didn't watch. I attended a funeral earlier in the day and didn't want to be further depressed but I'm glad I watched it. 



DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Meltzer called it the greatest segment in the history of television as far as wrestling goes -- I'm sure there's people that'll feverishly debate that opinion, but I can see why he thought that. It's certainly one of the most genuine and real moments where every second had an emotional impact, especially when you take Bryan's journey int consideration
> 
> Yeah I don't take part in blaming one single person for the drop in ratings. At one point in time that's how WWE booked by noticing wo did well in the ratings and they booked their show accordingly, but nowadays it's a difficult gauger because the entire structure is so terribly stale that it would take a larger-than-life megastar-type persona to even make a small difference. I'd argue that Austin himself wouldn't have the momentum that he had in the AE if the product wasn't reflecting contemporary culture


I don't know if I'd go as far as Meltzer and calling it the "greatest" of all time. But to each their own. It's definitely in my Top 10 of Bryan's moment. Bryan winning the belt at WM 30 will always remain my favorite moment of his. If he gets into the HOF this year, that will automatically become #2 . 

Austin and Rock would never have touched greatness in today's era of WWE. They'd still be Stunning Steve Austin and Rocky Maivia.


----------



## Wynter

Oh, are we counting youtube views now :troll 

Nah, I'm fucking with you @DAMN SKIPPY 





Or am I 

:westbrook4


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

:lol For the record, I'm still giving no fucks about Youtube views. Consistency for me, plz.

Watching the 2001 Raws now; amazing this is the same show that I watched last night.


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> I almost didn't watch. I attended a funeral earlier in the day and didn't want to be further depressed but I'm glad I watched it.


I am sorry for your (much more impactful) loss.

I am glad I watched it to, and I am as happy as I am sad with the whole Bryan thing, my actual thoughts past the sadness I posted in the Bryan Retirement Thread.


----------



## Wildcat410

There was no compelling reason to tune in, save Bryan's speech. But people know they can catch that all over the internet the next day. It isn't surprising they did not tune in en masse or stick around through another listless three hours.

I didn't think anything could be less inspiring than last year's Road to Wrestlemania. But this fed is proving me wrong there so far. I think the wear down factor is getting worse over time. You know the product is not good and it becomes increasingly difficult to care. The negativity and lack of passion builds on itself.


----------



## Blade Runner

The Last Marauder said:


> Oh, are we counting youtube views now :troll
> 
> Nah, I'm fucking with you @DAMN SKIPPY
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Or am I
> 
> :westbrook4


:homer2



Hey, Youtube views = eyeballs :draper2


----------



## TyAbbotSucks

:sip


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> :homer2
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Youtube views = eyeballs :draper2


And :vince$


I'm sure Vince is on the phone with The Rock now. 

I do think he's going to appear on RAW one more time before WM 32.


----------



## Wynter

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> :homer2
> 
> 
> 
> Hey, Youtube views = eyeballs :draper2


Ayyyyy, I haven't used the Homer face in a while 

And I agree. Younger generations are very much into social media and youtube. I think it's a good metric for interest. Not as far as drawing on TV obviously, but youtube does have its place in gauging things. 

Brock vs Dean and Bryans speech are nearly at a million. I'd definitely take that into account, especially compared to other videos from that Raw. If majority went to see certain talents/videos, it shows where the interest lied the most.

The twitter increase also should be taken into account.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Completely agree with that point. I like that they started with something a little different this past week, Ambrose interrupting and then the whole Ambrose, Lesnar, Reigns situation. Thought they did well to get the show off to a bang.
> 
> Problem is, it's a real come down to live fans as well as those watching when we get to see ANOTHER Ziggler/Owens match and this guy deemed good enough for IC title feuds etc. can't even beat Ziggler. Infuriating and it wouldn't surprise me if that set the fans mood for the rest of the show.
> 
> Ambrose/Lesnar later in the show was the best part of the show besides the whole Bryan situation. Great story telling.


I agree the storyline was much better with Ambrose doing the talking instead of Reigns, or a Reigns/Authority opening boring promo like we usually get. Hopefully, they keep letting Dean doing the talking until Fastlane.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Wow, not even above 4 Million.

Their Most popular guy just retired, and not even 4 Million tune in. They are fucked. Not just Wrestlemania. They. Are. Fucked.


----------



## DemonKane_Legend

The second hour drew 3.905 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.368 million viewers n other words people didn't give a damn about bryan's retirement and they changed the channel. Fact


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*"I TOLD YOU NO ONE CARED ABOUT BRYAN, DAMMIT!" :vince3

Seriously though, if Daniel fucking Bryan, their most over babyface since Stone Cold & The Rock, announcing his retirement couldn't save these ratings, then this RTWM is fucked. :lol*


----------



## Blade Runner

The Last Marauder said:


> Ayyyyy, I haven't used the Homer face in a while
> 
> And I agree. Younger generations are very much into social media and youtube. I think it's a good metric for interest. Not as far as drawing on TV obviously, but youtube does have its place in gauging things.
> 
> Brock vs Dean and Bryans speech are nearly at a million. I'd definitely take that into account, especially compared to other videos from that Raw. If majority went to see certain talents/videos, it shows where the interest lied the most.
> 
> The twitter increase also should be taken into account.


Even television ratings is not a super accurate metric because it only covers Americans with Nielson boxes, but it remains the best gauger we have and it does show trends based on those specific focus groups. but yeah, definitely. Social media plays a huge part in things in an era where people rather digest their content at THEIR own time. That's why Netflix and other streaming services are taking off. RAW could be doing extremely poor in television viewership but maybe their product is being consumed in fragments at a later date and on a different medium. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for them, but it does count for something. Television is rapidly becoming an archaic concept which is why they're trying so hard to plug their Network in prep for the future


----------



## Shenroe

ShowStopper said:


> WM is done. If a Bryan retirement can't spike ratings all that much; then nothing can.


Don't you think you being a bit overdramatic on this thread.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Shenroe said:


> Don't you think you being a bit overdramatic on this thread.


Consdering this is the lowest rated Road to WM ever; no. I honestly can't see what would increase ratings right now. If you have any ideas, you can always chime in with them?


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Even television ratings is not a super accurate metric because it only covers Americans with Nielson boxes, but it remains the best gauger we have and it does show trends based on those specific focus groups. but yeah, definitely. Social media plays a huge part in things in an era where people rather digest their content at THEIR own time. That's why Netflix and other streaming services are taking off. RAW could be doing extremely poor in television viewership but maybe their product is being consumed fragments at a later date. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for them, but it does count for something. *Television is rapidly becoming an archaic concept which is why they're trying so hard to plug their Network in prep for the future*


The WWE effectively used the Network last night for the continuation of Bryan's celebration. It was nice to see all the wrestlers on the ramp. And then Vince and Titus playing around. :lmao


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Even television ratings is not a super accurate metric because it only covers Americans with Nielson boxes, but it remains the best gauger we have and it does show trends based on those specific focus groups. but yeah, definitely. Social media plays a huge part in things in an era where people rather digest their content at THEIR own time. That's why Netflix and other streaming services are taking off. RAW could be doing extremely poor in television viewership but maybe their product is being consumed in fragments at a later date and on a different medium. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for them, but it does count for something. Television is rapidly becoming an archaic concept which is why they're trying so hard to plug their Network in prep for the future


Many of us tried saying this last year but were rejected by others. Interesting, eh?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

ShowStopper said:


> Consdering this is the lowest rated Road to WM ever; no. I honestly can't see what would increase ratings right now. If you have any ideas, you can always chime in with them?


No, there is nothing left as far as drawing power is concerned. That's it.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> I agree the storyline was much better with Ambrose doing the talking instead of Reigns, or a Reigns/Authority opening boring promo like we usually get. Hopefully, they keep letting Dean doing the talking until Fastlane.


I don't think they'll keep Reigns on the back burner for long. For whatever reason they don't seem to want to get Reigns involved, they're building to something, lets hope they make the correct decision.


----------



## Wynter

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Even television ratings is not a super accurate metric because it only covers Americans with Nielson boxes, but it remains the best gauger we have and it does show trends based on those specific focus groups. but yeah, definitely. Social media plays a huge part in things in an era where people rather digest their content at THEIR own time. That's why Netflix and other streaming services are taking off. RAW could be doing extremely poor in television viewership but maybe their product is being consumed in fragments at a later date and on a different medium. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for them, but it does count for something. Television is rapidly becoming an archaic concept which is why they're trying so hard to plug their Network in prep for the future


Very accurate. No one can deny that big increase in Twitter ratings. There WAS interest for sure and that's undeniable. 

As you said, it's why online services are so big now. It's why the music biz now count streaming services such as Spotify in singles/albums sales. Social media/online is becoming the norm and now factors largely in things now. 

It Bryan gets over 4 million views this week for his speech on YouTube, I say that's perfectly right to point out how many people were interested.


----------



## KO Bossy

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Meltzer called it the greatest segment in the history of television as far as wrestling goes -- I'm sure there's people that'll feverishly debate that opinion, but I can see why he thought that. It's certainly one of the most genuine and real moments where every second had an emotional impact, especially when you take Bryan's journey into account
> 
> Yeah I don't take part in blaming one single person for the drop in ratings. At one point in time that's how WWE booked by noticing who did well in the ratings and they booked their show accordingly, but nowadays it's a difficult gauger because the entire structure is so terribly stale that it would take a larger-than-life megastar-type persona to even make a small difference. I'd argue that Austin himself wouldn't have the momentum that he had in the AE if the product wasn't reflecting contemporary culture


See, its kind of unfair to compare something like Bryan's retirement to, I dunno, Austin and the beer truck. One is real, the other is scripted. Things that break kayfabe are automatically going to be viewed differently. Is anyone gonna boo his retirement? Of course not. There will be nothing but applause. Because its real. Thus, you can compare it to other real promos, like Flair's retirement, Edge's retirement, HBK's retirement, etc.

Now Austin and the beer truck was an epic, legendary segment, but we know its not real. Compared to something that's real, its automatically going to hold less weight based on that premise alone.

Meltzer is entitled to his opinion. I won't compare real and scripted wrestling moments because I find it foolish to do so. Its a stacked playing field right off the bat. Its like asking "who was a better human being, this wrestler or this doctor?" Who is really not going to say the doctor, who saves lives? Anyway, my 2 cents. I view all the retirements as equally good because WWE usually does a pretty great job with them. This was definitely classy, so kudos to them.


----------



## Shenroe

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Even television ratings is not a super accurate metric because it only covers Americans with Nielson boxes, but it remains the best gauger we have and it does show trends based on those specific focus groups. but yeah, definitely. Social media plays a huge part in things in an era where people rather digest their content at THEIR own time. That's why Netflix and other streaming services are taking off. RAW could be doing extremely poor in television viewership but maybe their product is being consumed in fragments at a later date and on a different medium. I'm not saying that it's the best outcome for them, but it does count for something. Television is rapidly becoming an archaic concept which is why they're trying so hard to plug their Network in prep for the future


sshh, we don't need rational post here. It's either black or white.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Shenroe said:


> sshh, we don't need rational post here. It's either black or white.


It's not a new thought, though. Many of us said the same thing about Nielsen Ratings in this very thread and past ratings threads. This line of thinking is only convienently being accepted now by a certain few. But most of us have known this for quite some time.


----------



## Wynter

I can season some steak with the leftover salt from the Seth Rollins bashing that happened here months ago :lol


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> I can season some steak with the leftover salt from the Seth Rollins bashing that happened here months ago :lol


No reason to be salty now. The Road to WM has been a complete and utter failure with someone else as the top guy. Butterflies and Rainbows now. Just calling it how we're seeing it like it was done last year. :shrug

Get those ratings up, damnit!

:vince5


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> I don't think they'll keep Reigns on the back burner for long. For whatever reason they don't seem to want to get Reigns involved, they're building to something, lets hope they make the correct decision.


Reigns needs a heel turn. How many of those ugly shirts is he selling that's forcing him to stay a face? Everyone knows I'm an unapologetic Reigns fan, but he was the third wheel last night last night. His character makes no sense. I'm not sure why he's booked to be so laid back. Now would be the ideal time to turn him against Dean. 

I hope something is in the works. I hope Dean catches fire in the next few weeks and forces the WWE to adjust their plans regarding Roman. I have no issues at all with Ambrose as the top face and Reigns as the heel. I'm not sure where Rollins fits in though when he returns, if he'll be face or heel if Roman turns.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> I don't think they'll keep Reigns on the back burner for long. For whatever reason they don't seem to want to get Reigns involved, they're building to something, lets hope they make the correct decision.


Dean winning? Wouldn't get my hopes up. Nor is Reigns turning. No shot.


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> Reigns needs a heel turn. How many of those ugly shirts is he selling that's forcing him to stay a face? Everyone knows I'm an unapologetic Reigns fan, but he was the third wheel last night last night. His character makes no sense. I'm not sure why he's booked to be so laid back. Now would be the ideal time to turn him against Dean.
> 
> I hope something is in the works. I hope Dean catches fire in the next few weeks and forces the WWE to adjust their plans regarding Roman. I have no issues at all with Ambrose as the top face and Reigns as the heel. I'm not sure where Rollins fits in though when he returns, if he'll be face or heel if Roman turns.


Its like the WWE has no idea what to do with Reigns anymore as a face. You can argue they never did really know what they were doing, but I mean it seems like there is no plan anymore and its a week to week thing. Right now it just seems they know they want to do HHH/Reigns for the title at WM 32 but have no idea how they are going to get there. So in the meantime they will just hide Reigns behind Ambrose, Lesnar, and Heyman.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*WWE Raw rating for the February 8 edition featuring Daniel Bryan’s retirement speech

February 9, 2016*

Monday’s WWE Raw scored a *2.65 rating*, up from the *2.38 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *3.726 million* viewers, up from the *3.383 million* average from last week.

Powell’s POV: As previously noted, the third hour of the show was the lowest, however the show had a lengthy overrun that doesn’t show up in these numbers. The bulk of Daniel Bryan’s retirement speech aired during the overrun. The February 9, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a *2.72 rating* with *3.658 million* viewers.

http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/0...on-featuring-daniel-bryans-retirement-speech/

_And here it's stated the overrun is not included, now am confused._


----------



## Erik.

Empress said:


> Reigns needs a heel turn. How many of those ugly shirts is he selling that's forcing him to stay a face? Everyone knows I'm an unapologetic Reigns fan, but he was the third wheel last night last night. His character makes no sense. I'm not sure why he's booked to be so laid back. Now would be the ideal time to turn him against Dean.
> 
> I hope something is in the works. I hope Dean catches fire in the next few weeks and forces the WWE to adjust their plans regarding Roman. I have no issues at all with Ambrose as the top face and Reigns as the heel. I'm not sure where Rollins fits in though when he returns, if he'll be face or heel if Roman turns.


Agreed.

Have Ambrose take a beating and crawl up to Reigns but Reigns just smiles at him and lays him out citing his reasons that he's had enough carrying Ambrose and having him as a sidekick etc.

I think the problem is, as much as Reigns need something as fresh as a heel turn. I can't help but feel Ambrose needs it too. Not to suit his crowd reactions like Reigns but to tweak his character. Ambrose being heel could just get him bigger reactions but in the long run, the character tweak is going to help him as well as the way he works in the ring, providing us hopefully with a more methodical and slow heel working style.


----------



## Blade Runner

KO Bossy said:


> See, its kind of unfair to compare something like Bryan's retirement to, I dunno, Austin and the beer truck. One is real, the other is scripted. Things that break kayfabe are automatically going to be viewed differently. Is anyone gonna boo his retirement? Of course not. There will be nothing but applause. Because its real. Thus, you can compare it to other real promos, like Flair's retirement, Edge's retirement, HBK's retirement, etc.
> 
> Now Austin and the beer truck was an epic, legendary segment, but we know its not real. Compared to something that's real, its automatically going to hold less weight based on that premise alone.
> 
> Meltzer is entitled to his opinion. I won't compare real and scripted wrestling moments because I find it foolish to do so. Its a stacked playing field right off the bat. Its like asking "who was a better human being, this wrestler or this doctor?" Who is really not going to say the doctor, who saves lives? Anyway, my 2 cents. I view all the retirements as equally good because WWE usually does a pretty great job with them. This was definitely classy, so kudos to them.


True, context is important especially if you're trying to present your personal opinion as a fact or/ consensus opinion

For me it's about the emotional value and the significance of the segment, and how well it stacks up over time. Whether something is scripted or real, that doesn't play into how the segment made me feel. Those criterias are only important if you're being more specific from an objective POV --

I don't want to compare and rate retirement speeches anyway because that's not my place. Even if the segment has "imperfections" it doesn't matter at all because it usually comes from a genuine place. The impact of the segment depends mostly on how big your connection is to that performer and how much you could relate to their words as if you were living the moment vicariously through them in an empathetic way-- In Meltzer's case that guy would be Bryan


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> Powell’s POV: As previously noted, the third hour of the show was the lowest, however the show had a lengthy overrun that doesn’t show up in these numbers. The bulk of Daniel Bryan’s retirement speech aired during the overrun. The February 9, 2015 edition of Raw delivered a 2.72 rating with 3.658 million viewers.


Overrun was not included. That changes everything. Overrun usually isn't included, so this makes much more sense.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Have Ambrose take a beating and crawl up to Reigns but Reigns just smiles at him and lays him out citing his reasons that he's had enough carrying Ambrose and having him as a sidekick etc.
> 
> I think the problem is, as much as Reigns need something as fresh as a heel turn. I can't help but feel Ambrose needs it too. Not to suit his crowd reactions like Reigns but to tweak his character. Ambrose being heel could just get him bigger reactions but in the long run, the character tweak is going to help him as well as the way he works in the ring, providing us hopefully with a more methodical and slow heel working style.


If you turn Ambrose; then Reigns stays face. And there in lies the clusterfuck of this situation. They booked themselves into a corner and are fucked now.


----------



## DoublePass

ShowStopper said:


> Last night's Raw was the first one that did a better number than last year's version of that particular week. It's this one right now, but that could change.


That's not what I meant. 

Last year's RTWM was a failure because it was the biggest, or at least one of the biggest, year to year decreases in viewership. They were losing 500K-1 million viewers from previous years. That's unheard of. 

That this RTWM has lower viewership is no surprise, since they've already lost a large chuck of viewers that is likely not coming back anytime soon. With a HHH/Reigns main event all but set for WM and the other rumored Mania matches, of course the ratings are likely to drop even further. They've done a poor job of building guys up (guys that people actually care for and that don't have to be forced on the audience.)


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

If anything, Ambrose is turning heel and everything from last night is setting it up for Dean to turn heel.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> Agreed.
> 
> Have Ambrose take a beating and crawl up to Reigns but Reigns just smiles at him and lays him out citing his reasons that he's had enough carrying Ambrose and having him as a sidekick etc.
> 
> *I think the problem is, as much as Reigns need something as fresh as a heel turn. I can't help but feel Ambrose needs it too.* Not to suit his crowd reactions like Reigns but to tweak his character. Ambrose being heel could just get him bigger reactions but in the long run, the character tweak is going to help him as well as the way he works in the ring, providing us hopefully with a more methodical and slow heel working style.


That's so true, but Dean is more viable as a face than Roman. Reigns needs the tweak more. He needs a complete overhaul. As @A-C-P said, I don't get the booking for Reigns anymore. I thought the ending of TLC was a turning point, but we always end up at the starting line with Reigns. Reigns needs to just snap again. Last night, I felt that Reigns let Brock beat up Dean and then took his time coming to the ring. But that could just be me thinking small things are hints to a Reigns turn. 

Dean would be a cool heel. I'd love to see him as a mash up of Jake the Snake and Brian Pillman.


----------



## Shenroe

I value much more overall interest( ratings/ youtube clicks/network subs/twitter ratings/live attendance/international popularity/mainstream coverage) than simply taking ratings at face value, without analysis, context, interpretation but that's just me.


----------



## The Bloodline

Their most over babyface in years announcing his retirement couldn't reach 4 million. Roman going apeshit and Vince return/championship angle did. All this told me was
*
Angles/Storylines> Single Performers in most cases*

Single talents can't spike ratings anymore obviously as we continue to see but interesting storytelling still can. Raw downfall has been their angles or rather lack of interesting angles and it will continue to be. Roman can get boo'd out the building but put him(or ANYONE) in a interesting angle and people will tune in to see it all unfold.

I'm shocked more people didn't stick around to see Bryan farewell though , The whole show was building up to it and we hadn't seen him in a while. For the first 2 hours to be so close and just dip after that was weird. I like bryan but not nearly the way a lot of people love him and I sure wasn't gonna turn from raw last night and miss his appearence. :shrug:


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> Dean winning? Wouldn't get my hopes up. Nor is Reigns turning. No shot.


I think the booking just leads to cracks in the relationship which we will probably see at Fast Lane. Reigns pinning Ambrose following a spear perhaps, the ref raising his hand whilst he is showered with boos. Not necessarily a heel turn but getting the job done by any means necessary and this is how Reigns plays it out following Fast Lane. Ambrose hesitantly accepts this but then following Mania we get some more interactions between them,


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> If you turn Ambrose; then Reigns stays face. And there in lies the clusterfuck of this situation. They booked themselves into a corner and are fucked now.


Agreed. Then you get the situation much like you did with Punk/Cena where your more talented guy who is more than capable of being the top guy and top face is going to be going from face to heel turn and be the guy they may occasionally put the title on but not have their show revolve around against a guy who will ALWAYS be face, never turn and end up winning the feud.


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> Overrun was not included. That changes everything. Overrun usually isn't included, so this makes much more sense.


Showbuzz daily counted the Overrun, that's why it's 86 minutes instead of 60 on the chart.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> Showbuzz daily counted the Overrun, that's why it's 86 minutes instead of 60 on the chart.


I'm just going by what Powell said. I always do.


----------



## KO Bossy

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> True, context is important especially if you're trying to present your personal opinion as a fact or/ consensus opinion
> 
> For me it's about the emotional value and the significance of the segment, and how well it stacks up over time. Whether something is scripted or real, that doesn't play into how the segment made me feel. Those criterias are only important if you're being more specific from an objective POV --
> 
> I don't want to compare and rate retirement speeches anyway because that's not my place. Even if the segment has "imperfections" it doesn't matter at all because it usually comes from a genuine place. The impact of the segment depends mostly on how big your connection is to that performer and how much you could relate to their words as if you were living the moment vicariously through them in an empathetic way-- In Meltzer's case that guy would be Bryan


Well, that explains it. I'm trying to be more objective. 

Context is absolutely important. And for me, being scripted or real does play into how a segment makes me feel. As a wrestling fan, seeing Steve Austin turn heel at WM17 made me upset. My favorite wrestler at the time joining Vince McMahon, then beating up JR and my other favorite, Rock...I felt betrayed. But I still knew it wasn't real, and that only affects people to a degree. You wanna know something that upset me way more? Raw is Owen. Why? Because Owen legit died. How can you seriously compare the emotion of something scripted with something real? Yes, you can evoke similar emotions, but not to the same level. The only way you maybe can is if the scripted product is based on something real. Let's say Schindler's List. It was based on true events, and the very real Holocaust that saw millions of people subject to genocide. At least then the feelings of sadness and horror are in the same ballpark. Even then, its nothing like actually living through it.

Reality will always have a major edge in this regard. This segment wouldn't have been nearly as memorable if, say, Bryan came out and did a fake retirement like after having lost a loser leaves town match. He's done forever, as we're concerned. And with that reality comes certain levels of emotion that almost no scripted act can replicate.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Agreed. Then you get the situation much like you did with Punk/Cena where your more talented guy who is more than capable of being the top guy and top face is going to be going from face to heel turn and be the guy they may occasionally put the title on but not have their show revolve around against a guy who will ALWAYS be face, never turn and end up winning the feud.


Yeah, man. Couple this situation with the hot potato they've played with the Title over the past 3 months; and the whole main event scene is a complete clusterfuck right now. This is all on Vince though for being stubborn and going with what he wants to go with; all the while knowing it's going to take a miracle to make it work because no one else wants to see it; as we see with the ratings every single week now; including their supposed best and hottest time of the year, the Road to WM. Sad, really.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*OH MAN, WHAT HAPPENED?! Ratings God Bryan tanked the 3rd hour despite the whole show being about him? Now all of a sudden ratings don't matter? How convenient. Ever since Survivor Series, I've been told Reigns being on top is single handedly killing the company. I was told about a week ago that a third hour decrease means no one cares, despite it consistently decreasing 90% of the time. What's your excuse? It wasn't promoted :drake1? He had 11,000 retweets before the show announcing his retirement :mj4. He had 30 slideshows detailing his career air throughout the night :mj4. The Rock's return was only advertised as "big star returning" and it caused a huge spike in ratings. Nice try though ositivity.*



ShowStopper said:


> It's not a new thought, though. Many of us said the same thing about Nielsen Ratings in this very thread and past ratings threads. This line of thinking is only convienently being accepted now by a certain few. But most of us have known this for quite some time.


*Yeah bullshit. You've been doing nothing but blaming Reigns for not increasing ratings for the past 3 months as you make bitter indirect comments. You've been blindly cosigning anyone who said Bryan is a draw, despite the evidence of increased ratings during the summer of 2014 in his absence. You were wrong about that, and you were wrong about him being held back for Reigns. It must suck for that overpushed hack that no one cares about to draw more interest than Bryan's heavily promoted retirement in a match against Sheamus.*


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Fan Reportedly Gets Kicked Out From WWE RAW During Daniel Bryan’s Retirement Speech

Posted by PWMania.com Staff on 02/09/2016 -
- According to Reddit user DuragVince, a fan was taken out of the arena during the Daniel Bryan segment:*

“So some guy ended up getting thrown out (and roughed up) by security for trying to start a chant by singing that “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye” song while Daniel was talking. It was during the moment the whole place went silent while he was going over his gratitude; the guy started screaming the tune at the top of his lungs. Three security guys rushed him and just pulled him out of our row and he was out of there quick. You can tell by the look on his face that he didn’t even know what was happening.”


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *OH MAN, WHAT HAPPENED?! Ratings God Bryan tanked the 3rd hour despite the whole show being about him? Now all of a sudden ratings don't matter? How convenient. Ever since Survivor Series, I've been told Reigns being on top is single handedly killing the company. What's your excuse? It wasn't promoted :drake1? He had 11,000 retweets before the show announcing his retirement :mj4. He had 30 slideshows detailing his career air throughout the night :mj4. The Rock's return was only advertised as "big star returning" and it caused a huge spike in ratings. Nice try though ositivity.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Yeah bullshit. You've been doing nothing but blaming Reigns for not increasing ratings for the past 3 months as you make bitter indirect comments. You've been blindly cosigning anyone who said Bryan is a draw, despite the evidence of increased ratings during the summer of 2014 in his absence. You were wrong about that, and you were wrong about him being held back for Reigns. It must suck for that overpushed hack that no one cares about to draw more interest than Bryan's heavily promoted retirement in a match against Sheamus.*


Damn right I've blamed Reigns and guess what? I WILL CONTINUE TO. Just like you did with Rollins before he even won the World Title. :drake1

Get over it. MASSIVE MAINSTREAM APPEAL ROMAN REIGNS IS....

GASP....

NOT A DRAW!

:delrio

Bryans Road to WM has outdrawn this sad shit we've seen the past 2 months.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Damn right I've blamed Reigns and guess what? I WILL CONTINUE TO. Just like you did with Rollins before he even won the World Title. :drake1
> 
> Get over it. MASSIVE MAINSTREAM APPEAL ROMAN REIGNS IS....
> 
> GASP....
> 
> NOT A DRAW!
> 
> :delrio
> 
> Bryans Road to WM has outdrawn this sad shit we've seen the past 2 months.


*Yeah, Rollins is still the worst champion of all time. Your point? Didn't he pull shitty ratings on ESPN too while Roman did the best? WHOOPS! Another thing you were wrong about.*


----------



## Empress

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *Fan Reportedly Gets Kicked Out From WWE RAW During Daniel Bryan’s Retirement Speech
> 
> Posted by PWMania.com Staff on 02/09/2016 -
> - According to Reddit user DuragVince, a fan was taken out of the arena during the Daniel Bryan segment:*
> 
> “So some guy ended up getting thrown out (and roughed up) by security for trying to start a chant by singing that “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye” song while Daniel was talking. It was during the moment the whole place went silent while he was going over his gratitude; the guy started screaming the tune at the top of his lungs. Three security guys rushed him and just pulled him out of our row and he was out of there quick. You can tell by the look on his face that he didn’t even know what was happening.”


I'm glad this happened. Not because I hate Daniel Bryan. I love him but folks have got it in their heads that fans can chant absolutely anything at the talents. Buying a ticket is not a license to be an asshole. Reigns, Big Show, Eva Marie and Tyler Breeze don't deserve the abuse anymore than Bryan does. It would've been awful if the entire arena started with the “na, na, na, na, hey, hey, hey, goodbye” song while he's being sincere about his career ending.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Yeah, Rollins is still the worst champion of all time. Your point? Didn't he pull shitty ratings on ESPN too while Roman did the best? WHOOPS!*


Rollins as the focus of the show with NFL competition is doing better than the Road to WM with Reigns as the focus.

:heyman6 :heyman6 :heyman6

I thought ratings were going to increase significantly right away? I thought we were going to get ASS KICKING GOAT HEELS all over the show? I thought the boring 20 minute opening segments were going to end? Oh. Nevermind.

:ti


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I stayed up till 4am to hear his retirement speech but I was pretty pissed off that it was put at the end of the show. I hate staying up that late. 

I think many were hoping that it would be on first (like Edge?) but instead dragging it to the end, especially as its depressing as hell, isn't must see TV. 


If DB had tweeted he would make his decision that night then maybe there would have been more.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Rollins as the focus of the show with NFL competition is doing better than the Road to WM with Reigns as the focus.
> 
> :heyman6 :heyman6 :heyman6
> 
> I thought ratings were going to increase significantly right away? I thought we were going to get ASS KICKING GOAT HEELS all over the show? I thought the boring 20 minute opening segments were going to end? Oh. Nevermind.
> 
> :ti


*As wrong as you are about record low ratings Rollins, the argument was mainstream appeal. Reigns drew more interest in the mainstream, therefore your snide comments just backfired yet again. Take your :loses and move on*


----------



## Blade Runner

KO Bossy said:


> Well, that explains it. I'm trying to be more objective.
> 
> Context is absolutely important. And for me, being scripted or real does play into how a segment makes me feel. As a wrestling fan, seeing Steve Austin turn heel at WM17 made me upset. My favorite wrestler at the time joining Vince McMahon, then beating up JR and my other favorite, Rock...I felt betrayed. But I still knew it wasn't real, and that only affects people to a degree. You wanna know something that upset me way more? Raw is Owen. Why? Because Owen legit died. How can you seriously compare the emotion of something scripted with something real? Yes, you can evoke similar emotions, but not to the same level. The only way you maybe can is if the scripted product is based on something real. Let's say Schindler's List. It was based on true events, and the very real Holocaust that saw millions of people subject to genocide. At least then the feelings of sadness and horror are in the same ballpark. Even then, its nothing like actually living through it.
> 
> Reality will always have a major edge in this regard. This segment wouldn't have been nearly as memorable if, say, Bryan came out and did a fake retirement like after having lost a loser leaves town match. He's done forever, as we're concerned. And with that reality comes certain levels of emotion that almost no scripted act can replicate.


I don't disagree with much of what you said, but that's looking at things from a specific lens which is your prerogative. If Meltzer gave out awards on the "greatest moment" without taking specific criterias into consideration then yeah, totally questionable. His opinion was measured with the Flair segment but I didn't see him mention scripted segments in the same frame. I assume that it was implied without saying that he was referring specifically to segments that were grounded in realism

Owen's tribute wasn't treated as a segment but an all encompassing show so I wouldn't even compare it on that very basis. I was absolutely gutted when Owen died but I would put that entire situation completely apart because there was absolutely zero glorification involved. Retirement speeches are in some ways aimed to entertain even if the implications are tragic. It remains a performance in a segment no matter how genuine or off-the-cuff it might be

but like I said, in my personal criteria for GSOAT is all about how invested I was emotionally, scripted or real. There's merit to the comparisons because that real segment operates in the same world as the scripted one and shares a mutual connection. Bryan's WWE journey was mostly scripted on television and that tied into the emotional impact of his retirement speech. If there wasn't that thread of backstory and storyline narrative then I might've considered a flawlessly executed scripted segment to be much more impactful. There's countless scripted segments that resonated with me more than Edge's retirement and i'm an Edge fan. That's why I don't get too fussy about criterias in this case, especially on a subjective level


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *As wrong as you are about record low ratings Rollins, the argument was mainstream appeal. Reigns drew more interest in the mainstream, therefore your snide comments just backfired yet again. Take your :loses and move on*



I'm just going to leave this right here:

http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841

Last week was the lowest rated Raw with *No NFL Competition* EVER. Not wrong. Very much correct. Even sadder since this is the Road to WM. Take your "L."

Not even a retirement speech could bring this dead-dick Road to WM back to life for even a week. :lmao


----------



## SnapOrTap

ShowStopper said:


> I'm just going to leave this right here:
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841
> 
> Last week was the lowest rated Raw with *No NFL Competition* EVER. Not wrong. Very much correct. Even sadder since this is the Road to WM. Take your "L."
> 
> Not even a retirement speech could bring this dead-dick Road to WM back to life for even a week. :lmao


You should send him a gif of Reigns.

He sends me them every week. :kobefacepalm


----------



## SnapOrTap

Legit BOSS said:


> *Yeah, Rollins is still the worst champion of all time. Your point? Didn't he pull shitty ratings on ESPN too while Roman did the best? WHOOPS! Another thing you were wrong about.*


Calm your salt mines mate.
*
If I seem to recall, you said Roman was going to be the next Rock.*

Lol.


----------



## KO Bossy

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I don't disagree with much of what you said, but that's looking at things from a specific lens which is your prerogative. If Meltzer gave out awards on the "greatest moment" without taking specific criterias into consideration then yeah, totally questionable. *His opinion was measured with the Flair segment* but I didn't see him mention scripted segments in the same frame. I assume that it was implied without saying that he was referring specifically to segments that were grounded in realism
> 
> Owen's tribute wasn't treated as a segment but an all encompassing show so I wouldn't even compare it on that very basis. I was absolutely gutted when Owen died but I would put that entire situation completely apart because there was absolutely zero glorification involved. Retirement speeches are in some ways aimed to entertain even if the implications are tragic. It remains a performance in a segment no matter how genuine or off-the-cuff it might be
> 
> but like I said, in my personal criteria for GSOAT is all about how invested I was emotionally, scripted or real. There's merit to the comparisons because that real segment operates in the same world as the scripted one and shares a mutual connection. Bryan's WWE journey was mostly scripted on television and that tied into the emotional impact of his retirement speech. If there wasn't that thread of backstory and storyline narrative then I might've considered a flawlessly executed scripted segment to be much more impactful. There's countless scripted segments that resonated with me more than Edge's retirement and i'm an Edge fan. That's why I don't get too fussy about criterias in this case, especially on a subjective level


What'd he say about the Flair segment?


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> Overrun was not included. That changes everything. Overrun usually isn't included, so this makes much more sense.


That's what I thought. It's never included so why would it be included now?


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> I'm just going to leave this right here:
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841
> 
> Last week was the lowest rated Raw with *No NFL Competition* EVER. Not wrong. Very much correct. Even sadder since this is the Road to WM. Take your "L."
> 
> Not even a retirement speech could bring this dead-dick Road to WM back to life for even a week. :lmao


*Now show me a week of Rollins doing record high increases. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T :delrio! I'm pretty sure the NFL wasn't on while he was killing the show with his 40 minutes of jobbing and overall failure during the summer. All you're admitting right now is that Bryan isn't a draw-something I've been saying for a year and a half.*


----------



## Empress

TheShieldSuck said:


> I stayed up till 4am to hear his retirement speech but I was pretty pissed off that it was put at the end of the show. I hate staying up that late.
> 
> I think many were hoping that it would be on first (like Edge?) but instead dragging it to the end, especially as its depressing as hell, isn't must see TV.
> 
> 
> *If DB had tweeted he would make his decision that night then maybe there would have been more.*


Bryan tweeted about his retirement and the media was all over it. So, it was advertised but many people chose not to watch for various reasons. The Rock was also a "surprise" guest a few weeks ago and he got the WWE past the 4 million mark. 

Last week, I posted if there would be excuses if a talent outside of Roman Reigns would get the full brunt of blame if they were the focus of the the show and the numbers weren't high. Or as high as some expected. I just wish people would stop picking and choosing when the talent is to blame and not the actual product as a whole. 

Although, I think it was the best booking to save Bryan for last. He was the draw and it wasn't wrong to assume that his speech could sustain interest for three hours. Bryan's retirement in the opening segment would've started RAW on a bad note IMO.


----------



## Saved_masses

Legit BOSS said:


> *OH MAN, WHAT HAPPENED?! Ratings God Bryan tanked the 3rd hour despite the whole show being about him? Now all of a sudden ratings don't matter? How convenient. Ever since Survivor Series, I've been told Reigns being on top is single handedly killing the company. I was told about a week ago that a third hour decrease means no one cares, despite it consistently decreasing 90% of the time. What's your excuse? It wasn't promoted :drake1? He had 11,000 retweets before the show announcing his retirement :mj4. He had 30 slideshows detailing his career air throughout the night :mj4. The Rock's return was only advertised as "big star returning" and it caused a huge spike in ratings. Nice try though ositivity.*


Jesus Christ, I've read through most of the thread since the numbers were put up and this is by far the most petty post I've seen, congrats!

ratings were still up from last week in the wake of Bryan's announcement, Twitter ratings spiked also.

I actually set my alarm over in the UK for 1am (start time of raw) as I believed he would be the first segment as a lot of others would have thought. I immediately switched off when I knew he'd be the last segment, and when you take into consideration the overrun and the amount of kids that love Bryan, it's no surprise the numbers dipped in the final hour (as it always does).

Plus I don't know if I'm reading the ratings correctly but did the final hour not draw close to the average rating of Raw last week? that's pretty good going if you ask me, especially for a final segment. :shrug

But anyways keep trying to start that smark war bud!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Now show me a week of Rollins doing record high increases. Oh wait, YOU CAN'T :delrio! I'm pretty sure the NFL wasn't on while he was killing the show with his 40 minutes of jobbing and overalm failure. All you're admitting right now is that Bryan isn't a draw-something I've been saying for a year and a half.*


Rollins isn't a draw; but Raw ratings didn't dip to below a 2.5 rating until September 7, 2015, first week of NFL games. WWE has been getting that, slightly higher, and slightly lower than that during their hottest time of year these past couple of months. It's one thing to pull in those numbers in September for WWE; it's awhole other animal to get those numbers right NOW in WWE's hot season with their new Face of the Company as the focus of the show. That's ahwole other level of failure, especially for a Face of the Company type who is supposed to draw. Guys like Rollins don't draw, we all know that. Guys like Reigns are supposed to draw. But he is *not*. This weeks Raw still did better than last weeks', without Bryan.

Also, I bet Vince would kill to have the ratings they got for Bryan's road to WM over this years. :shrug


----------



## virus21

Man, WrestleMania this year might be the WM equivalent of the 1980 Summer Olympics


----------



## TNA is Here

2.6 is pretty bad for a big event like Bryan's retirement.


----------



## Blade Runner

KO Bossy said:


> What'd he say about the Flair segment?



Nothing elaborate, but he posted this --

https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/696913055456763904

:draper2


----------



## Restomaniac

ShowStopper said:


> It's not a new thought, though. Many of us said the same thing about Nielsen Ratings in this very thread and past ratings threads. This line of thinking is only convienently being accepted now by a certain few. But most of us have known this for quite some time.


I wonder if WWE get figures from SKY. 
SKY is now a totally digital platform. They know EVERYTHING their boxes are doing. They can even tell if you have fitted a different drive in it when you telephone with a problem and such like. I don't believe for 1 second they don't have figures (live and recorded) for their broadcasts.


----------



## Kabraxal

And here comes Legit Boss embarrassing himself..... Just stop. Please. You have no argument to make your guy look any better than any other wrestler on the main roster. Nothing. You are just hurting the perception towards the rational Reigns fans on this forum.

And just because you brought up mainstream appeal..... A small and not well known segment isn't much of a foundation to fling your pathetic L gifs around at others. Especially when others have had more exposure.


----------



## THANOS

BBR the overrun isn't included in the viewership. When we get a breakdown from pwtorch in the next few days we'll see how Bryan actually did.

That said, you can't sit there and say this proves Bryan isn't a draw when we actually have legitimate quarter hour/minute breakdowns which show he was drawing the most viewers on the show back when he was competing. The guy was outdrawing HHH, Orton, Cena, Taker, Lesnar and the Shield on the RTWM30, and his awful Kane feud after the event outdrew Evolution/Shield. It's all inarguable because we actually have figures to prove it. There's also the significant increases he provided to Smackdown both when he was WHC and every time since then that he was on it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Rollins isn't a draw; but Raw ratings didn't dip to below a 2.5 rating until September 7, 2015, first week of NFL games. WWE has been getting that, slightly higher, and slightly lower than that during their hottest time of year these past couple of months. It's one thing to pull in those numbers in September for WWE; it's awhole other animal to get those numbers right NOW in WWE's hot season with their new Face of the Company as the focus of the show. That's ahwole other level of failure, especially for a Face of the Company type who is supposed to draw. Guys like Rollins don't draw, we all know that. Guys like Reigns are supposed to draw. But he is *not*.
> 
> Also, I bet Vince would kill to have the ratings they got for Bryan's road to WM over this years. :shrug


*Not really, since Roman was getting booed throughout the RTWM last year and the ratings were higher. It's funny how you pick and choose when to use the yearly consistent decline argument, but not surprising in the slightest. Reigns can draw when he's given a compelling storyline, as proven after TLC. I'm not worried about that, but the overall show quality. Nothing truly matters outside of the main event, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Roman is winning. They're still doing useless rematches and the entire card is full of jobbers, but you won't mention that. You'll just blindly blame Roman and only Roman, then ignore or make every excuse in the world for his positive numbers.*


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> And here comes Legit Boss embarrassing himself..... Just stop. Please. You have no argument to make your guy look any better than any other wrestler on the main roster. Nothing. You are just hurting the perception towards the rational Reigns fans on this forum.
> 
> And just because you brought up mainstream appeal..... A small and not well known segment isn't much of a foundation to fling your pathetic L gifs around at others. Especially when others have had more exposure.


I have to back up BBR a little bit. I don't co-sign with everything that he's posting but there is a double standard when it comes to ratings. Reigns hasn't been granted the benefit of the product being bad, overruns for stagnant ratings. Even when he's not the champ, he's still blamed. 

But the episode he won the belt on RAW did manage 4 million in the ratings. I don't say that to give him wholesale credit but that's the last time the WWE put up those numbers without the benefit of The Rock. Angles and solid stories will do the trick more than one particular performer. It has to be an all hands on deck effort by the WWE. 

As for Bryan, he is a proven draw. I can't blame the WWE for assuming he could pull in big ratings. It's why he was saved for the 3rd hour. 

I just really hope that HHH and Vince have something up their sleeves for WM 32.


----------



## Randy Lahey

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> *Meltzer called it the greatest segment in the history of television as far as wrestling goes* -- I'm sure there's people that'll feverishly debate that opinion, but I can see why he thought that. It's certainly one of the most genuine and real moments where every second had an emotional impact, especially when you take Bryan's journey into account
> 
> Yeah I don't take part in blaming one single person for the drop in ratings. At one point in time that's how WWE booked by noticing who did well in the ratings and they booked their show accordingly, but nowadays it's a difficult gauger because the entire structure is so terribly stale that it would take a larger-than-life megastar-type persona to even make a small difference. I'd argue that Austin himself wouldn't have the momentum that he had in the AE if the product wasn't reflecting contemporary culture


Was it really any better than Edge's retirement speech? Edge was a bigger star with greater longevity.

I don't really see Daniel Bryan as being anything other than an Indy guy that got himself over during a team of low popularity for the WWE. He was literally the tallest midget.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Not really, since Roman was getting booed throughout the RTWM last year and the ratings were higher. It's funny how you pick and choose when to use the yearly consistent decline argument, but not surprising in the slightest. Reigns can draw when he's given a compelling storyline, as proven after TLC. I'm not worried about that, but the overall show quality. Nothing truly matters outside of the main event, and it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that Roman is winning. They're still doing useless rematches and the entire card is full of jobbers, but you won't mention that. You'll just blindly blame Roman and only Roman, then ignore or make every excuse in the world for his positive numbers.*



Dude, you said the product would improve drastically once Rollins is gone. If anything, I'm the one who's been saying since Day 1 with or without Rollins; the show is STILL gonna suck. I'm under no delusions about that. If I was, I'd be saying when Rollins does come back that the show quality is going to improve and the ratings are going to improve; since that's exactly what you alluded to would happen once Reigns took over. And it hasn't happened. 

And I don't know why you keep saying I didn't acknowledge the good number they did after TLC. I stood up and accepted it and you even liked my post for it. But one good rating doesn't overcome 2-3 months of shit ratings; especially in their hottest time of year which makes it even sadder.


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Nothing elaborate, but he posted this --
> 
> https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/696913055456763904
> 
> :draper2


Thanks for posting this. Ric Flair had the benefit of a retirement angle with HBK. That added to his speech on RAW. Bryan made it official yesterday. So, I see where Meltzer is coming from. I don't necessarily agree but I get it.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THANOS said:


> BBR the overrun isn't included in the viewership. When we get a breakdown from pwtorch in the next few days we'll see how Bryan actually did.
> 
> That said, you can't sit there and say this proves Bryan isn't a draw when we actually have legitimate quarter hour/minute breakdowns which show he was drawing the most viewers on the show back when he was competing. The guy was outdrawing HHH, Orton, Cena, Taker, Lesnar and the Shield on the RTWM30, and his awful Kane feud after the event outdrew Evolution/Shield. It's all inarguable because we actually have figures to prove it. There's also the significant increases he provided to Smackdown both when he was WHC and every time since then that he was on it.


*That's not my problem. Lack of overrun was NEVER considered for Roman. If the third hour was bad, he took ALL of the blame. Now all of a sudden those same people bitching about Reigns want to come up with every excuse in the world for Bryan producing lackluster 3rd hour numbers? :mase:nah*


----------



## KO Bossy

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Nothing elaborate, but he posted this --
> 
> https://twitter.com/davemeltzerWON/status/696913055456763904
> 
> :draper2


Hmmm...and we all know how much of a mark for Flair Meltzer is. Maybe its just a high and we'll get a better idea when it wears off? I dunno, but coming from him, that's awfully high praise.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> Thanks for posting this. Ric Flair had the benefit of a retirement angle with HBK. That added to his speech on RAW. Bryan made it official yesterday. So, I see where Meltzer is coming from. I don't necessarily agree but I get it.


tbh -- I prefered Flair's WCW return segment in '98 over his retirement segment, especially in hindsight considering that Flair didn't actually retire :lol


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> tbh -- I prefered Flair's WCW return segment over his retirement segment, especially in hindsight considering that Flair didn't actually retire :lol


I wanted to find Flair and kick his ass when he went back to wrestling after his match with Shawn Michaels. I thought he spit on the retirement angle and HBK by not giving it up. But that's probably HBK mark in me. 

How many times has Ric retired? :lol :lmao 

Bryan's video is at 756,172 views on YouTube. It should definitely cross 1 million by tonight.


----------



## THANOS

Legit BOSS said:


> *That's not my problem. Lack of overrun was NEVER considered for Roman. If the third hour was bad, he took ALL of the blame. Now all of a sudden those same people bitching about Reigns want to come up with every excuse in the world for Bryan producing lackluster 3rd hour numbers? :mase:nah*


That's certainly a fine stance, but there's information in there that can only be achieved comparatively. I would only consider the overrun in comparison to past weeks' overruns. That can show the difference between the normal spike and added interest. 

Was Roman's overruns spiking at a rate greater than average? If it was than that is solid info at building his drawing ability. If it was consistent with previous weeks, than it's not. I personally don't have that information, but answering that would tell us if we can contribute it to him in those cases.

My issue is more with you saying, "Bryan isn't a draw, I've been saying this for the past year and a half". This can be easily argued and has been put to bed far too many times for you to be saying this now. I'm sure you know this, so I'll just chalk it up to you be overanxious lol.


----------



## McNugget

Nearly every problem with RAW boils down to it being a three hour show. But that also goes hand in hand with the end of the brand split. Now WWE's producing six hours of main roster content per week, with five titles in play. A few years ago, with RAW, SD, and ECW totaling five hours of content per week, they had nine titles, split across each piece. RAW's two hours had four titles, SD's two hours had four titles, and ECW's one hour had one title.

Nothing is at stake on RAW anymore because with so much time and so few titles, everything else is left to midcard meaningless crap. This and the total length of the show hurt that third hour rating nearly every single week.


----------



## Kabraxal

Empress said:


> Kabraxal said:
> 
> 
> 
> And here comes Legit Boss embarrassing himself..... Just stop. Please. You have no argument to make your guy look any better than any other wrestler on the main roster. Nothing. You are just hurting the perception towards the rational Reigns fans on this forum.
> 
> And just because you brought up mainstream appeal..... A small and not well known segment isn't much of a foundation to fling your pathetic L gifs around at others. Especially when others have had more exposure.
> 
> 
> 
> I have to back up BBR a little bit. I don't co-sign with everything that he's posting but there is a double standard when it comes to ratings. Reigns hasn't been granted the benefit of the product being bad, overruns for stagnant ratings. Even when he's not the champ, he's still blamed.
> 
> But the episode he won the belt on RAW did manage 4 million in the ratings. I don't say that to give him wholesale credit but that's the last time the WWE put up those numbers without the benefit of The Rock. Angles and solid stories will do the trick more than one particular performer. It has to be an all hands on deck effort by the WWE.
> 
> As for Bryan, he is a proven draw. I can't blame the WWE for assuming he could pull in big ratings. It's why he was saved for the 3rd hour.
> 
> I just really hope that HHH and Vince have something up their sleeves for WM 32.
Click to expand...

I only hold one guy accountable for the ratings... Vince. His booking is shit and that is why it is all spiralling out of control. He's relied on tricks for the few ratings pops he's had and the following week is the telling figure. Vince/Reigns/title popped a rating then it evaporated in a week. The Rock popped a rating then it was gone the next week. 

Hell, last night was a decent increase overall and yet we all know next week will probably fall off a cliff. And each pop is getting less high than the last. This isn't Rollins or Reigns or any one wrestlers fault. That is all on Vince.

BBR just plays an immature game where he is silent when the ratings "hurts" Reigns but yells and throws out bullshit when it happens to someone else. It was mildly frustrating before, but here, when most are actually blaming Vince and the booking.... Well, his overbearing markdom is obnoxious and has become infuriatingly petty.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

@THANOS

Last weeks 3rd hour did 3.0 million viewers. This weeks did 3.368 million. That's much higher than last weeks hour 3 which featured only the Road to WM crap and no Bryan. Bryan increased viewers by 370,000 viewers. Without him, it might have even slipped under 3 million like it almost did last week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SnapOrTap said:


> You should send him a gif of Reigns.
> 
> He sends me them every week. :kobefacepalm


Don't worry bro, I got you later.

:Seth


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> @THANOS
> 
> Last weeks 3rd hour did 3.0 million viewers. This weeks did 3.368 million. That's much higher than last weeks hour 3 which featured only the Road to WM crap and no Bryan. Bryan increased viewers by 370,000 viewers. Without him, it might have even slipped under 3 million like it almost did last week.


Eh? I'm still not sure I'd even use that information, or I would put too much stock into it. What we really require is something we may not get, comparative breakdowns. I would like to see how Bryan's overrun compared to overruns the past few months. I think that would be more relevant here.

I also don't trust those source which are saying the overrun is included in the overall rating since it never has been before. I believe Bryan's music didn't even hit until 11:01pm. I just hope we get a Torch breakdown this week, so we can actually see the difference, clear as day.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

THANOS said:


> Eh? I'm still not sure I'd even use that information, or I would put too much stock into it. What we really require is something we may not get, comparative breakdowns. I would like to see how Bryan's overrun compared to overruns the past few months. I think that would be more relevant here.
> 
> I also don't trust those source which are saying the overrun is included in the overall rating since it never has been before. I believe Bryan's music didn't even hit until 11:01pm. I just hope we get a Torch breakdown this week, so we can actually see the difference, clear as day.


I agree with all of that. I'm just saying last night's Hour 3 did better than last weeks. Hell, last nights hour 1 and hour 2 both got 3.9's while last week's Hours 1 and 2 only did 3.5 ad 3.4. I'm saying Bryan drew them in, but by hour 3 the fans gave up because it was too long of a boring show. But the viewers were there for last night.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THANOS said:


> That's certainly a fine stance, but there's information in there that can only be achieved comparatively. I would only consider the overrun in comparison to past weeks' overruns. That can show the difference between the normal spike and added interest.
> 
> Was Roman's overruns spiking at a rate greater than average? If it was than that is solid info at building his drawing ability. If it was consistent with previous weeks, than it's not. I personally don't have that information, but answering that would tell us if we can contribute it to him in those cases.
> 
> My issue is more with you saying, "Bryan isn't a draw, I've been saying this for the past year and a half". This can be easily argued and has been put to bed far too many times for you to be saying this now. I'm sure you know this, so I'll just chalk it up to you be overanxious lol.


*You can argue his segment increases and I can argue The Shield doing better numbers during the summer and we'd both be right. The fact of the matter is his storyline carried him just like Roman's did. In this day and age, the only true draw is The Rock.The rest rely on great booking.*


----------



## Arkham258

A-C-P said:


> Not surprising at all, people tuned in to see Bryan at the start, but just got sick of sitting through the dreck that was the rest of the show leading up to Bryan and decided I will just catch Bryan's speech on youtube.


Nail on the head

From reading this, I think people just got sick of waiting to see Bryan and left

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/09/10394/

"*Raw drew an unusually high audience in the first and second hours – drawn in for Daniel Bryan’s retirement – but by the time Bryan’s retirement speech rolled around at the very end of the show, the audience fell off by 14 percent.*"

*Caldwell’s Analysis:* *Raw got a boost they would not have received without a special event like Daniel Bryan’s retirement*. *However, that third hour really captures the disconnect with today’s audience*. General viewers simply do not have the time or patience to wait through a three-hour Raw. And, WWE has not developed a roster or consistent storylines to keep the show moving without things bogging down mid-way through. *Bryan’s exit really captured the long-standing issue since it’s obvious that viewers were checking in the first hour and then the second hour for Bryan’s retirement.*


----------



## Empress

*2/8 Raw TV Ratings for D-Bryan Retirement Show – the trend is still present*


More than any other Raw in the three-hour Raw era, Monday’s Raw captured that Raw is just too long for the average viewer.


Raw drew an unusually high audience in the first and second hours – drawn in for Daniel Bryan’s retirement – but by the time Bryan’s retirement speech rolled around at the very end of the show, the audience fell off by 14 percent.

Also, there was the thinking that perhaps Raw could get back to a 3.0 rating for the first time since post-WrestleMania 31, but Raw did not come close.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

– February 8: Raw scored a 2.65 rating, which was up 11 percent from last week’s show. However, Raw was short of the post-Royal Rumble episode scoring a 2.93 rating two weeks ago.

Raw averaged 3.726 million viewers, which provided a 10 percent boost from last week’s audience. However, the third hour was problematic.

First Hour: 3.907 million viewers (close to post-Rumble)
Second Hour: 3.905 million viewers (close to post-Rumble)
Third Hour: 3.368 million viewers (14 percent decline from the second hour)

In the key demographics, Raw got a big boost across the board compared to last week’s Raw, but the audience levels remained a stairstep below the post-Rumble Raw.

Adults 18-49: 1.49 rating post-Rumble, 1.22 last week, and 1.36 this week.
Males 18-34: 1.90 rating post-Rumble, 1.43 last week, and 1.74 rating this week.
Males 18-49: 1.95 rating post-Rumble, 1.59 last week, and 1.79 rating this week.

Caldwell’s Analysis: Raw got a boost they would not have received without a special event like Daniel Bryan’s retirement. However, that third hour really captures the disconnect with today’s audience. General viewers simply do not have the time or patience to wait through a three-hour Raw. And, WWE has not developed a roster or consistent storylines to keep the show moving without things bogging down mid-way through. Bryan’s exit really captured the long-standing issue since it’s obvious that viewers were checking in the first hour and then the second hour for Bryan’s retirement.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/09/10394/


----------



## Chrome

McNugget said:


> Nearly every problem with RAW boils down to it being a three hour show. But that also goes hand in hand with the end of the brand split. Now WWE's producing six hours of main roster content per week, with five titles in play. A few years ago, with RAW, SD, and ECW totaling five hours of content per week, they had nine titles, split across each piece. RAW's two hours had four titles, SD's two hours had four titles, and ECW's one hour had one title.
> 
> Nothing is at stake on RAW anymore because with so much time and so few titles, everything else is left to midcard meaningless crap. This and the total length of the show hurt that third hour rating nearly every single week.


I think no brand extension and 5 titles is fine tbh. The problem is WWE booking is awful and they can't book a non-title feud to save their lives. Only time a non-title feud is worth a damn is when a part-timer is involved.


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> I only hold one guy accountable for the ratings... Vince. His booking is shit and that is why it is all spiralling out of control. He's relied on tricks for the few ratings pops he's had and the following week is the telling figure. Vince/Reigns/title popped a rating then it evaporated in a week. The Rock popped a rating then it was gone the next week.
> 
> Hell, last night was a decent increase overall and yet we all know next week will probably fall off a cliff. * And each pop is getting less high than the last. This isn't Rollins or Reigns or any one wrestlers fault. That is all on Vince.*
> 
> BBR just plays an immature game where he is silent when the ratings "hurts" Reigns but yells and throws out bullshit when it happens to someone else. It was mildly frustrating before, but here, when most are actually blaming Vince and the booking.... Well, his overbearing markdom is obnoxious and has become infuriatingly petty.


That is the crux of the issue. The big events are becoming diminishing returns. Big events shouldn't be to "pop" the ratings but what's expected from RAW. If the product were consistently good, the viewers would give the WWE more grace when things dip. But since this is the RTW, it just feels like any other time of the year.

As for BBR, I'm just going to play devil's advocate. I don't believe that many of the same people blaming Vince and the product for Bryan not being able to draw/retain numbers would make the same accommodation for Reigns. They haven't. I know a lot of posters troll in here. But there are people who are dead serious blaming Roman and Roman alone for bad ratings. It would be argued that fans watch what they want; they tune in for what they want to see. 

For me, Bryan not being able to hit that sweet number just shows that this is a WWE problem, not really on any particular talent. Reigns, Ambrose, Rollins, Wyatt, etc could move the needle if they had the proper booking. Even Brock doesn't do anything to move the ratings out of 3-3.5 million range.


----------



## The True Believer

Can all this salt peddling hold out until we get those quarterly breakdowns back? 'uckin hell, WrestlingForum, you're killing me. Like, shit. Do you know how many unsalted bags of popcorn out there are suffering right now and ya'll are just tossing that shut out there, all silly-nilly like you're feeding the pigeons at the park with breadcrumbs? Think, people. THIIIIIIIIINK.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> That is the crux of the issue. The big events are becoming diminishing returns. Big events shouldn't be to "pop" the ratings but what's expected from RAW. If the product were consistently good, the viewers would give the WWE more grace when things dip. But since this is the RTW, it just feels like any other time of the year.
> 
> As for BBR, I'm just going to play devil's advocate. I don't believe that many of the same people blaming Vince and the product for Bryan not being able to draw/retain numbers would make the same accommodation for Reigns. They haven't. I know a lot of posters troll in here. But there are people who are dead serious blaming Roman and Roman alone for bad ratings. It would be argued that fans watch what they want; they tune in for what they want to see.
> 
> For me, Bryan not being able to hit that sweet number just shows that this is a WWE problem, not really on any particular talent. Reigns, Ambrose, Rollins, Wyatt, etc could move the needle if they had the proper booking. Even Brock doesn't do anything to move the ratings out of 3-3.5 million range.


Well said. And people aren't doing anything differently right now than what was done last year. Rightly or wrongly, this thread, ever since I first joined back in 2012, always blames who the focus of the show is. Last year it was Rollins and this year it is Reigns. Just the nature of this thread for some reason.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Last Week:

Hour 1: *3.592 Million*
Hour 2: *3.464 Million*
Hour 3: *3.094 Million*

This Week:

Hour 1:* 3.907 Million*
Hour 2: *3.905 Million*
Hour 3: *3.368 Million*

Every hour last night was much higher than last weeks. Big difference from last week's disaster. At least there's that.


----------



## The Bloodline

Arkham258 said:


> Nail on the head
> 
> From reading this, I think people just got sick of waiting to see Bryan and left
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/09/10394/
> 
> "*Raw drew an unusually high audience in the first and second hours – drawn in for Daniel Bryan’s retirement – but by the time Bryan’s retirement speech rolled around at the very end of the show, the audience fell off by 14 percent.*"
> 
> *Caldwell’s Analysis:* *Raw got a boost they would not have received without a special event like Daniel Bryan’s retirement*. *However, that third hour really captures the disconnect with today’s audience*. General viewers simply do not have the time or patience to wait through a three-hour Raw. And, WWE has not developed a roster or consistent storylines to keep the show moving without things bogging down mid-way through. *Bryan’s exit really captured the long-standing issue since it’s obvious that viewers were checking in the first hour and then the second hour for Bryan’s retirement.*


Only issue I have with this is just 2 weeks ago when the Rock was only teased the ratings were 
*Hour one: 4.14 million
Hour two: 4.18 million
Hour three: 3.97 million*

Fans will and have stuck around recently if theres a big interest. It's why I can't really get behind Caldwell with this one. It seems like he's reaching. Yes it's bizarre the 3rd hour dropped so much but blaming it on just being the 3rd hour is lazy


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wow. The first two hours of last night came close to the first two hours of The Rock??? Two 3.9's vs. Two 4.1's???? I didn't even know that. That is very good. Much better than I originally thought. Rock came on at 9:50PM, too while Bryan didn't come on until after 11. Not bad at all.


----------



## THANOS

ShowStopper said:


> Wow. The first two hours of last night came close to the first two hours of The Rock??? Two 3.9's vs. Two 4.1's???? I didn't even know that. That is very good. Much better than I originally thought. Rock came on at 9:50PM, too while Bryan didn't come on until after 11. Not bad at all.


Yep, very good. Another thing to consider is the Rock's segment boosted both the 2nd and 3rd hour's overall numbers, while Bryan's segment didn't even occur until after the 3rd hour, so it's impact wouldn't even the final hour at all. The 1st two hours being at 3.9 is a good indication of the interest though, especially since we've seen Brock fail to pop a good number a few times the past few months, so it's down to Bryan being the common difference between this week and last.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

THANOS said:


> Yep, very good. Another thing to consider is the Rock's segment boosted both the 2nd and 3rd hour's overall numbers, while Bryan's segment didn't even occur until after the 3rd hour, so it's impact wouldn't even the final hour at all. The 1st two hours being at 3.9 is a good indication of the interest though, especially since we've seen Brock fail to pop a good number a few times the past few months, so it's down to Bryan being the common difference between this week and last.


Yep. Rock's Raw was also the night after the Rumble and night after a World Title change. That Raw had a number of things going for it that last night's Raw didn't. Only special thing about last night's Raw was the Bryan announcement. It did pretty well against a stacked Raw with a Rock appearance. Interesting.


----------



## The Bloodline

ShowStopper said:


> Yep. Rock's Raw was also the night after the Rumble and night after a World Title change. That Raw had a number of things going for it that last night's Raw didn't. *Only special thing about last night's Raw was the Bryan announcement.* It did pretty well against a stacked Raw with a Rock appearance. Interesting.


You would think that would carry a hell of a lot of weight though. To be fair 2 weeks ago it wasn't advertised as A Rock appearence. It was advertised as a returning star. Unlike last night Raw that had a clear picture and hours of hype leading into it. There was a solid first 2 hours. So the audience were there and well aware, they just didn't stay for what the show was building to. I used 2 weeks ago as an example prove a strong audience will stay for the 3rd hour if they think it's worth it. My post was in response to Caldwell, who completely glossed over that in his analysis.


----------



## The Caped Crusader

That rating speaks volumes really. All the bullshit mark wars on here about this superstar and that superstar. Well, turns out casuals don't give a shit about Daniel Bryan. The same way they don't give a shit about any other active superstar in the WWE today. That rating and viewers is incredibly weak for Bryan considering the amount of hype marks on here gave him. But that's only if you believed that bullshit hype in the first place.

The biggest problem WWE has right now is their product. Whereas ten years ago they had a lot of starpower with Cena, Batista, HHH, HBK, Taker, Angle etc. they have next to nothing today. This is why they need to focus on building a few stars as quickly as possible.

Reigns, Ambrose, Owens are all three guys they need to cement. With Rollins, and Cena, that'll give them 5 main eventers in total, with Reigns being your centre face. Throw in Wyatt as 6 but he's beginning to look like a lost cause with the way they've been booking him. The sooner they establish credibility, the better it will be for them because the product has interesting things going on. It's also exactly why WM32 should have had Reigns/Lesnar and HHH/Ambrose. You could elevate two guys in one show, and straight away, things would look better for post-WM.

You need 5-6 guys at the top of the card, and a decent mid-card. The problem right now is they have 1-2 guys at the top of the card, and a mediocre mid-card which is holding back potential main eventers like Ambrose, Wyatt and Owens.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

ZeroFear0 said:


> You would think that would carry a hell of a lot of weight though. To be fair 2 weeks ago it wasn't advertised as A Rock appearence. It was advertised as a returning star. Unlike last night Raw that had a clear picture and hours of hype leading into it. There was a solid first 2 hours. So the audience were there and well aware, they just didn't stay for what the show was building to. I used 2 weeks ago as an example prove a strong audience will stay for the 3rd hour if they think it's worth it. My post was in response to Caldwell, who completely glossed over that in his analysis.


Everyone knew it was The Rock, though. Former WWE Champion/Legend with Raw in Miami, Rock's hometown. Everyone pretty much knew.

Still, very impressive numbers for the first two hours last night. It rivaled Rock's first two hours, and Bryan didn't appear until after 11. Rock is a much better draw than Bryan, as he should be. Rock is up there with Austin and Hogan; so he should draw a million times better than Bryan. 

Raw was a chore to sit through last night. I've watched every Raw ever and I almost tapped out too, and I'm a Bryan fan. The Raw with The Rock was the night after the Rumble with a World Title change to a part timer. It was a much better Raw than last night's snoozefest. Without Bryan; last night's Raw does what last week's Raw did, which was a 3.5, 3.4, and 3.0 which is pathetic this time of year.


----------



## Chrome

Rock's a bigger draw than Bryan.









Still a pretty nice boost though.


----------



## thegockster

All this debate about who draws and who don't is still going on, I thought we settled this a long time ago, Reigns can't draw for shit, He can't even sell out small arenas, I'm surprised this is still up for debate


----------



## Naka Moora

I can't lie I expected a much bigger number after all the hype, he got 50,000 retweets which is an INSANE amount. Non the less, he had a great night and he can move on. We love you Bryan.


----------



## Starbuck

:lmao This thread. Never change. 

I don't for one second believe the overrun is counted in that final hour. Bryan has been the only true new TV draw WWE has created in years. While I wasn't expecting his segment to be a record breaker, I definitely think it did more than 3.3 million. Hell, Mark Henry's fake retirement a few years ago did better than that, even HHH's fake retirement further back beat it too iirc. No way am I buying that. The show jumped from shit last week right up to 3.9 million at the open with the only difference being Bryan's retirement announcement and all the social media hype from throughout the day. The way I see it, he takes the credit for the initial interest and WWE are just lucky that so many people decided to stick around for the rest. 

And if you people still haven't figured out that the storylines draw above all else in todays wrestling world then you're all fucking idiots pretty much. Reigns was cold as ice 2 months ago. Stick him in a hot angle and boom, instant ratings and viewer interest. It's the only tried and true method of getting viewers to watch when you don't have The Rock as a bandaid every week.


----------



## McNugget

Chrome said:


> I think no brand extension and 5 titles is fine tbh. The problem is WWE booking is awful and they can't book a non-title feud to save their lives. Only time a non-title feud is worth a damn is when a part-timer is involved.


That's fair, but midcard titles make it a lot easier to add stakes to a match. Even one more title, a television title or a cruiserweight title or whatever, would help eliminate 1-2 matches each night where guys are just going out and having a match that has no bearing on anything.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

LOL, a Ratings discussion, in 2016. More like a discussion on hypocrisy and double standards galore. If this doesn't prove that ratings are *obsolete* then nothing else will. The most popular star of the last 10 years retiring with prior notice, garnering very considerable mainstream coverage and the show doesn't even cross 4 million. @SnapOrTap, buddy where are you? Don't worry I did catch your snide remark in the Bryan thread, just wanted to congratulate you on yet another of yours failed shows of false theatrics! Keep raking them up pal.


----------



## FROSTY

Empress said:


> And :vince$
> 
> 
> I'm sure Vince is on the phone with The Rock now.
> 
> I do think he's going to appear on RAW one more time before WM 32.


*Wearing this,










:bryanlol*


----------



## Xenoblade

Figured.. People tuned out because they wanted an exciting match to close the show.. Not a bunch of crying about retiring from a guy who hasn't even been on the show in months and months.


----------



## The_It_Factor

This thread is always comedy... I was hoping people had to come to their senses after last night and realized that no one is a draw anymore.

I should've known better.


----------



## SnapOrTap

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> LOL, a Ratings discussion, in 2016. More like a discussion on hypocrisy and double standards galore. If this doesn't prove that ratings are *obsolete* then nothing else will. The most popular star of the last 10 years retiring with prior notice, garnering very considerable mainstream coverage and the show doesn't even cross 4 million. @SnapOrTap, buddy where are you? Don't worry I did catch your snide remark in the Bryan thread, just wanted to congratulate you on yet another of yours failed shows of false theatrics! Keep raking them up pal.


Last Week:

Hour 1: 3.592 Million
Hour 2: 3.464 Million
Hour 3: 3.094 Million

This Week:

Hour 1: 3.907 Million
Hour 2: 3.905 Million
Hour 3: 3.368 Million

Yea dude. A 400,000 increase in the first hour is "non-significant." A near HALF MILLION increase in the second hour is "non-significant."

He brought eyes back on the product. 

The product's been shit for ages now, and the fact that he can bring back that kind of number is huge. 

Yea, it's not Rocky level numbers, but it's not Reigns 2.16 levels atrocious. 

Ratings matter mate, because without it, these guys don't get their TV deal. They can't sustain themselves on the Network alone.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

SnapOrTap said:


> Last Week:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.592 Million
> Hour 2: 3.464 Million
> Hour 3: 3.094 Million
> 
> This Week:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.907 Million
> Hour 2: 3.905 Million
> Hour 3: 3.368 Million
> 
> *Yea dude. A 400,000 increase in the first hour is "non-significant." A near HALF MILLION increase in the second hour is "non-significant."
> 
> He brought eyes back on the product. *
> 
> The product's been shit for ages now, and the fact that he can bring back that kind of number is huge.
> 
> Yea, it's not Rocky level numbers, but it's not Reigns 2.16 levels atrocious.
> 
> Ratings matter mate, because without it, these guys don't get their TV deal. They can't sustain themselves on the Network alone.


The Iowa Caucus was going on last Monday. The whole political process (elections and debates) are drawing huge numbers. That probably had an impact on last week's RAW rating. 

Also, you bring Reigns. The ratings improved dramatically the night after TLC from the low 3s to the low 4s for that 12/14 RAW. Some will use the argument that all post PPV RAWs do well. That wasn't the case after Survivor Series when Sheamus won the WWE title.


----------



## Arkham258

Frosted Tarasenk O's said:


> *Wearing this,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :bryanlol*


WWE jabronis thinking it was a tap out shirt:lmao


----------



## Empress

Frosted Tarasenk O's said:


> *Wearing this,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :bryanlol*


Hours later and I'm still laughing at this. :bryanlol 

Whoever is handling their social media page got ripped a new one. But at least LU keeps getting Rock's endorsement. It would be great if LU could become a competitive alternative to WWE in terms of brand name and value.

Your sig is giving me the feels. I'm never going to see Bryan do that kick again. :frown2:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Boy Wonder said:


> The Iowa Caucus was going on last Monday. The whole political process (elections and debates) are drawing huge numbers. That probably had an impact on last week's RAW rating.
> 
> Also, you bring Reigns. The ratings improved dramatically the night after TLC from the low 3s to the low 4s for that 12/14 RAW. Some will use the argument that all post PPV RAWs do well. That wasn't the case after Survivor Series when Sheamus won the WWE title.


And then the ratings went right back down and didn't go back up until night after Rumble and Rock appearance. And back down again, and slightly up this week due to the Bryan announcement. There's a trend there.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

ShowStopper said:


> And then the ratings went right back down and didn't go back up until night after Rumble and Rock appearance. And back down again, and slightly up this week due to the Bryan announcement. There's a trend there.


It shows that if WWE does something big or shocking fans will be interested. WWE had some momentum going with Vince/Reigns, but the involvement of Stephanie just sucked the life out of that.


----------



## SnapOrTap

It's interesting that someone made a claim that the debates aren't doing well when the last Dem debate had terrible viewership. 

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/12/20/tv-ratings-saturday-dec-19-2015/

THE 2ND DEM DEBATE DID LOWER THAN THE ONE IN NOVEMBER.

Bernie is a draw, but last week was just a microchasm of this companies declining viewership. 

And with Bryan/Punk/Taker/Rocky on their way out, it's going to get worse.

Owens is jobbing for telling creative they essentially slow.

Little Brother Ambrose channeling his brain damaged gimmick.

Reigns dominating the ME scene for years.

It's not going to get better.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Boy Wonder said:


> It shows that if WWE does something big or shocking fans will be interested. WWE had some momentum going with Vince/Reigns, but the involvement of Stephanie just sucked the life out of that.


They need HUGE things to take place to even move the needle. Nights after some PPVs, World Title change to a part timer, Rock appearance, Retirement announcement. They can't move the needle unless something like that takes place; which is a huge problem. Even bigger problem during the Road to WM. Not a good look.

Also, the irony of Rock wearing a non-WWE wrestling shirt during a Road to WM in which he is going to be a part of is not lost on me. :drake1 Hilarious.


----------



## DoublePass

The_It_Factor said:


> This thread is always comedy... I was hoping people had to come to their senses after last night and realized that *no one is a draw anymore.*
> 
> I should've known better.


That's the fucking problem. People keep repeating this and they think they've made some sort of intelligent point. They haven't. They're simply stating the problem - i.e. that no one draws anymore.

The fact that they don't have any guys on the full time roster who can draw viewers in is why they are in the situation they are in. They put way too much time and effort into guys who will never draw irrespective of how much you push them, and they completely neglect the guys who have potential to generate interest in the product.

Stop pushing certain guys down people's throat when the fans have made it clear they want no part of them. Vince/Steph/HHH have shown that they are not clever enough to manipulate the fans into getting behind their hand picked wrestlers. So just give the fans who they want, just as they did during the AE.


----------



## SnapOrTap

The Boy Wonder said:


> It shows that if WWE does something big or shocking fans will be interested. WWE had some momentum going with Vince/Reigns, but the involvement of Stephanie just sucked the life out of that.


There hasn't been any momentum though.

Reigns has been involved in the mainevent for the last 2 months-ish and no where during that time did the ratings cross 4 million.

The ONE EXCEPTION was the Rock episode. 

It's a pattern and there isn't any significant competition either. 

No MNF. No big NBA games.

But I going to make a bold prediction. Once the Voice comes back on, I don't think they'll hit 4 million again (barring special appearances).


----------



## Empress

The Boy Wonder said:


> It shows that if WWE does something big or shocking fans will be interested. WWE had some momentum going with Vince/Reigns, but the involvement of Stephanie just sucked the life out of that.



I really thought HHH getting the belt would inject some urgency into the title scene but it's still Stephanie who is the main antagonizer. Maybe things will pick up after FastLane but the RTM should be when all the stops are pulled, not three weeks before WM 32. 

If the WWE puts out an entertaining show, people will watch. But folks have got to stop choosing when it's the talent or product to blame for stagnant ratings simply based on who they like.


----------



## SnapOrTap

It's not going to get better either.

People think Zayn/Balor/Nakamura/NXT guys coming up will improve the product but it won't because the problem is at the ownership level. 

I'm a FUCKING TIMBERWOLVES FAN. I know this better than anyone else.

When your ownership is dogshit, it'll trickle down and infect everything else.

Genuinely, we have the WORST creative booking team of all time.

Genuinely, this is the most SENILE Vince has ever been. 

Genuinely, this is one of the most talented rosters in a long time but they are booked to the point of absurdity. Kevin Owens of all people hasn't won a match in a month. 

It's funny because a couple of weeks ago, HHH tweeted that things will change. It's been weeks and the product is basically as bad as it was before. It's like GroundHog Day every Monday.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I really thought HHH getting the belt would inject some urgency into the title scene but it's still Stephanie who is the main antagonizer. Maybe things will pick up after FastLane but the RTM should be when all the stops are pulled, not three weeks before WM 32.
> 
> If the WWE puts out an entertaining show, people will watch. *But folks have got to stop choosing when it's the talent or product to blame for stagnant ratings simply based on who they like.*


It's been done for years in this thread, unfortunately. This is no different than anyother year I've been here since late 2012. People are only outspoken about it when it's their guy; myself included.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I'll admit I hate Reigns. I'm a Reigns hater, but maybe if he was booked a little better, he'd be tolerable. I blame Reigns for the ratings but at the end of the day, 100% of it can't be attributed to him. 

This company is delusional in thinking that putting this guy in situations where he has to work the mic/work with bad ring workers will bring viewers in. Those 2 things aren't his assets. 

They also thought booking Rollins like an absolute bitch was a good idea and that notion is just so damn upsetting. Props to Rollins though, I still remember him handling himself like a star and rising above their garbage. 

But if you want someone to draw, YOU HAVE TO PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO SUCCEED.

That's one of the reasons why I felt a connection to Bryan. In spite of their bullshit booking/politics, he overcame the odds. And in my eyes, that's a true Superman.


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> It's not going to get better either.
> 
> People think Zayn/Balor/Nakamura/NXT guys coming up will improve the product but it won't because the problem is at the ownership level.
> 
> I'm a FUCKING TIMBERWOLVES FAN. I know this better than anyone else.
> 
> When your ownership is dogshit, it'll trickle down and infect everything else.
> 
> Genuinely, we have the WORST creative booking team of all time.
> 
> Genuinely, this is the most SENILE Vince has ever been.
> 
> Genuinely, this is one of the most talented rosters in a long time but they are booked to the point of absurdity. Kevin Owens of all people hasn't won a match in a month.
> 
> *It's funny because a couple of weeks ago, HHH tweeted that things will change. It's been weeks and the product is basically as bad as it was before. It's like GroundHog Day every Monday.*


I used to give HHH the benefit of doubt. I saw how NXT was run and assumed that if he had more freedom from Vince, things would be different. But my mind changed around TLC. They finally got Reigns super OVER and then HHH just disappears. He returns at the Rumble, wins the belt and then nothing. 

I find this creative team quite incompetent. Reigns is their priority and he's booked like a bland babyface. I can't get excited for Dean's push because I know it has an expiration date. Rollins is HHH's prized student and was booked like a second rate champ. If they can't get the golden boys right, it's scary how much they just don't get it. I won't even talk about Wyatt and how misused he's been. Why isn't he targeting Brock? 

Since I'm an addict, I'll be watching until WM 32. And then, I'll stop tuning in for a bit. I had wanted Summerslam tickets to see a returning Rollins at the Barclays Center, but what's the point? They barely care about building to WM 32. I have no idea how they plan on selling out the AT&T Stadium. Maybe offer discounted prices.


----------



## DoublePass

Empress said:


> I have no idea how they plan on selling out the AT&T Stadium. Maybe offer discounted prices.


Discounted prices? They're going to have to _pay_ people to sit through the garbage they have planned for WM.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Empress said:


> I used to give HHH the benefit of doubt. I saw how NXT was run and assumed that if he had more freedom from Vince, things would be different. But my mind changed around TLC. They finally got Reigns super OVER and then HHH just disappears. He returns at the Rumble, wins the belt and then nothing.
> 
> I find this creative team quite incompetent. Reigns is their priority and he's booked like a bland babyface. I can't get excited for Dean's push because I know it has an expiration date. Rollins is HHH's prized student and was booked like a second rate champ. If they can't get the golden boys right, it's scary how much they just don't get it. I won't even talk about Wyatt and how misused he's been. Why isn't he targeting Brock?
> 
> Since I'm an addict, I'll be watching until WM 32. And then, I'll stop tuning in for a bit. I had wanted Summerslam tickets to see a returning Rollins at the Barclays Center, but what's the point? They barely care about building to WM 32. I have no idea how they plan on selling out the AT&T Stadium. Maybe offer discounted prices.


Here's his EXACT QUOTE in DECEMBER.

"*We just have to become more disciplined and more Creative with how we do things, and how we operate the shows*. We’ve had some unfortunate situations with injuries and everything else. *It’s on us to be more creative and come up with a better format; a better show. We hear people’s frustrations and in a lot of ways feel the same way.* It’s fixing it. And, trying to fix it. It is what it is. How we fix it, we’re not 100 percent sure yet. But, we will get there. Trust me.”

Here's the audio in case anyone wants a listen:
http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/650...t-on-the-main-roster-more#Li0sc8WU3VbXmbTy.99

Within that time:

1) We had a mediocre Royal Rumble.
2) We had Ambrose adopt a brain damage gimmick.
3) We had the Usos vs New Day over and over and over and over again
4) We had Kalisto lose his title THE DAY AFTER HE WON IT to Del Rio
5) We had KO lose an insanely high amount of matches. 
6) We have no idea who Wyatt is feuding with.
7) We had no significant development for the Divas title
8) We had Brie Bella get a title shot out of nowhere.

There's so much more. I give up at this point. The WWE speared me in their feud vs the fans. I'm down for the count. 1. 2. 3.

No company hates their viewers as much as this company hates us. I genuinely believe that.


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> I'll admit I hate Reigns. I'm a Reigns hater, but maybe if he was booked a little better, he'd be tolerable. I blame Reigns for the ratings but at the end of the day, 100% of it can't be attributed to him.
> 
> This company is delusional in thinking that putting this guy in situations where he has to work the mic/work with bad ring workers will bring viewers in. Those 2 things aren't his assets.
> 
> They also thought booking Rollins like an absolute bitch was a good idea and that notion is just so damn upsetting. Props to Rollins though, I still remember him handling himself like a star and rising above their garbage.
> 
> But if you want someone to draw, YOU HAVE TO PUT THEM IN A POSITION TO SUCCEED.
> 
> *That's one of the reasons why I felt a connection to Bryan. In spite of their bullshit booking/politics, he overcame the odds. And in my eyes, that's a true Superman.*


The beauty of Daniel Bryan's success is that it wasn't planned. It just happened. The WWE used to just go where the momentum was leading them and not having their hand forced. 

I never understood why they had Rollins losing so much. Cena beat him cleanly on RAW. That's disgusting. The WWE champ should not be losing every other RAW. It also bothered me more than it should that Rollins came out first when he "fought" Brock. 

I like Reigns, but I know he's bland. What little character he has makes no sense. Although, I do think they need to put the mic in his hand and force him to get better. Under 5 minutes is cool. He also needs to speak up and stop acting as if he's afraid. He looks scared as hell half the time. 

And I think you mentioned something about Owens questioning creative. When did this happen?

If the WWE did give out free tickets to WM 32, I'd go. I'd like to go to at least one Wrestlemania but at this rate, I wouldn't pay for this year's Mania. That's far too much money to spend on something I'm only mildly excited about.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Empress said:


> The beauty of Daniel Bryan's success is that it wasn't planned. It just happened. The WWE used to just go where the momentum was leading them and not having their hand forced.
> 
> I never understood why they had Rollins losing so much. Cena beat him cleanly on RAW. That's disgusting. The WWE champ should not be losing every other RAW. It also bothered me more than it should that Rollins came out first when he "fought" Brock.
> 
> I like Reigns, but I know he's bland. What little character he has makes no sense. Although, I do think they need to put the mic in his hand and force him to get better. Under 5 minutes is cool. He also needs to speak up and stop acting as if he's afraid. He looks scared as hell half the time.
> 
> And I think you mentioned something about Owens questioning creative. When did this happen?
> 
> If the WWE did give out free tickets to WM 32, I'd go. I'd like to go to at least one Wrestlemania but at this rate, I wouldn't pay for this year's Mania. That's far too much money to spend on something I'm only mildly excited about.


https://www.reddit.com/r/SquaredCir..._ambrose_was_originally_planned_to_eliminate/

So I can't find the original link but the tldr summary was that KO found out that Ambrose was booked to eliminate AJ and he went to creative and requested that he be the one to do it because it didn't make sense for a face to eliminate another really popular face.

Apparently there was a rumor days after the Rumble that creative was upset that KO questioned their decision in front of Vince or some garbage and since then have been booking him like this.

Not sure if it's true, but its the only explanation to his current booking. It was by a credible source too, I think.


----------



## Empress

Thank you @SnapOrTap

I hate this company and their sheer pettiness at times. I take most dirtsheet rumors with a grain of salt, but Kevin Owens went from being booked like a credible top heel to losing and throwing temper tantrums at ringside. I really believed him losing to Dean meant a push to the main event. 

Owens actually had a point though. If he had eliminated AJ Styles, that would've given him more heat. He does a lot of small things with his character that I liked. He sold his Rumble "injuries" beautifully. They'll realize their stupid mistake in throwing cold water on Owens. I hope it's before Mania. I'd hate to see him lose there. Unless of course he's placed in the Battle Royal which is probably worse.


----------



## Marrakesh

Marrakesh said:


> I don't think the overrun is ever included which is why when I see 'Wrestler X failed to draw in the main event segment' I am left scratching my head because we don't have that information.
> 
> We only have the hourly average for between 10pm-11p. No breakdowns and no overrun.
> 
> Meltzer used to provide this but doesn't anymore. He may do for this segment if there was a large audience increase.
> 
> If I am wrong btw, someone please correct me, but I am under the impression that the overruns aren't included in these ratings, and even if they were, it would be nearly impossible to tell if it drew or not without the quarter hour breakdowns given that the final number is juts the average for that hour.


I asked this earlier, does anyone have any confirmation that overruns are never included in these ratings? I've always assumed that they weren't. 

Also, huge drop off for hour three last night which if you had sat through the first two hours would come as no surprise. Far from the worst Raw in recent times but again, nothing was really happening. 

The Brock/Reigns/Ambrose main event feud feels so timid. Ambrose is trying his hardest to get this match over by cutting passionate and aggressive promos while Reigns and Brock just stand there and make goofy facial expressions. :shrug He then gets f5'ed or tossed aside like garbage by Brock. 

It's just insanely bad storytelling unless they up the ante in the coming weeks, because right now there is no reason whatsoever for the audience to care about this match. It's a repeat of the match nobody wanted at last year's Wrestlemania with the midcard Intercontinental champion stuck in the middle of it, so he can take beatings and eat a pin. Who the fuck cares?

As for the Bryan segment, it was post 11pm and it went on for nearly half an hour. Unless someone releases the breakdown for Raw we'll never know if it got a huge increase or not (although it wouldn't even surprise me if it didn't because Raw is just too fucking long)

I think the numbers going into Wrestlemania this year are going to be hilarious. 

No stars and shit feuds. Even this rating is probably much higher than they would have gotten had it not been for the buzz around Bryan retiring. 

A lot of pressure on HHH/Reigns to draw for WWE this year. There is going to be fuck all else. 

They're already in the process of ruining guys like Owens, Ambrose and even Ryback (had they actually repackaged him) who could have helped bulk out the Mania card if they were booked strong. 

What about guys like Rusev or Del Rio too? Why is everyone a fucking jobber? 

Dreadful show. Deserves it's abysmal ratings.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

SnapOrTap said:


> Last Week:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.592 Million
> Hour 2: 3.464 Million
> Hour 3: 3.094 Million
> 
> This Week:
> 
> Hour 1: 3.907 Million
> Hour 2: 3.905 Million
> Hour 3: 3.368 Million
> 
> Yea dude. A 400,000 increase in the first hour is "non-significant." A near HALF MILLION increase in the second hour is "non-significant."
> 
> He brought eyes back on the product.
> 
> The product's been shit for ages now, and the fact that he can bring back that kind of number is huge.
> 
> Yea, it's not Rocky level numbers, but it's not Reigns 2.16 levels atrocious.
> 
> Ratings matter mate, because without it, these guys don't get their TV deal. They can't sustain themselves on the Network alone.


So, by the same token you'd also agree that the Reigns-Vince confrontation which led to Reigns winning the title resulting in a * 27%* jump from previous week has to be a much more compelling viewing than watching the most popular wrestler of the last 10 years retiring with prior notice? You can pick your poison. This isn't even a Reigns-Bryan-Rollins thing which you're making it out to be. Don't pull me into this long standing double standard ridden ratings feud, my views have been consistent from even the time Rollins was champion. 

BTW, it'd be laughable to say that WWE would be concerned about last night's ratings. They got incredible coverage in the media capped off by a segment that would go down in wrestling history. The ratings have been falling for 10 years and still they get lucrative deals, this in itself is a testament to the fact that the standard of viewership expected is a dynamic parameter. If and when they even reach a 2 million average, TV would be near obsolete by that time and most of the sponsors would have shifted their base to the Internet.

Last night's rating is * in no way * a pertinent indicator to the interest in the product and especially the final segment . Not even close.


----------



## murder

Bryan wasn't even in the third hour.


----------



## Overcomer

People are saying despite Bryan's appearance the ratings were still low....of course, a lot of people have simply packed up and closed shop. You can't alienate your audience for years and then expect them to tune in, even if you go for the gusto and pull a rabbit out of your hat.

Booking wise, the WWE has been on the skidz for so long I wasn't really surprised having read the recent posts *about the ratings and discussion*. Next week the ratings will dip again because of a lack of interest (w/ some maybe never coming back as they held out hope to see Bryan return to the ring).


----------



## THANOS

Overcomer said:


> People are saying despite Bryan's appearance the ratings were still low....of course, a lot of people have simply packed up and closed shop. You can't alienate your audience for years and then expect them to tune in, even if you go for the gusto and pull a rabbit out of your hat.
> 
> Booking wise, the WWE has been on the skidz for so long I wasn't really surprised having read the recent posts *about the ratings and discussion*. Next week the ratings will dip again because of a lack of interest (w/ some maybe never coming back as they held out hope to see Bryan return to the ring).


Eh? If you look at the numbers, the 1st and 2nd hours both increased by nearly 500,000 viewers each from the previous week, and the 3rd hour increased by 300,000. Keep in mind that Bryan's entire segment didn't even air until after the 3rd hour completed, so whatever viewers his promo had is not in the overall rating. We would need to see a breakdown to see just well the overrun performed.


----------



## Empress

*This Week's WWE Total Divas Viewership Down*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 810,000 and ranked #21 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's episode, which drew 840,000 viewers and ranked #18 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 939,000 viewers.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0210/607508/this-week-wwe-total-divas-viewership-down/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

What a disaster for WWE. They're bringing in the same ratings in the Road to WM that they were in the fucking Fall of 2015. :lmao Time to re-think some things.


----------



## Empress

Total Divas is really flopping this season. The ratings have been lower each week.

It's crazy how there's more drama outside of WWE programming that really gets people's attention. The latest example being Titus O' Neil. If only the same were true on screen. It could help with the ratings.


----------



## udarsha45

ShowStopper said:


> What a disaster for WWE. They're bringing in the same ratings in the Road to WM that they were in the fucking Fall of 2015. :lmao Time to re-think some things.


Nothing is gonna change anytime soon mate.


----------



## Higuzishi

M18-49 Breakdown for RAW this week which featured Bryan's retirement is available now. Jericho-Miztv Q5 segment ended up topping RAW with a 1.23m viewers average. Daniel Bryan's retirement itself - which was a massive overrun of 25 minutes, taking over a big chunk of USA's post-RAW show viewers - did not inherently see any significant increase in viewership. The 25 minute overrun averaged a 1.217m viewers overall. The minute-by-minute breakdown shows viewers falling off as the retirement segment dragged on. 


Hour 1 - 

*Q1:* 1.157 million viewers (1.84 rating)

*Q2:* 1.041 million viewers (1.65 rating)

*Q3:* 1.097 million viewers (1.74 rating)

*Q4:* 1.056 million viewers (1.68 rating)


Hour 2 -

*Q5:* Show-High 1.230 million viewers (1.95 rating)

*Q6:* Show-Low 1.065 million viewers (1.69 rating)

*Q7:* 1.111 million viewers (1.76 rating)

*Q8:* 1.199 million viewers (1.90 rating)


Hour 3 -

*Q9:* 1.174 million viewers (1.86 rating). The quarter-by-quarter decline began…

*Q10:* 1.103 million viewers (1.75 rating)

*Q11:* 1.088 million viewers (1.73 rating)

*Q12:* 1.077 million viewers (1.71 rating)


25 minute Over-Run - 

*Q13:* 1.233 million viewers (1.96 rating)

*Q14:* 1.172 million viewers (1.86 rating)


Minute-by-minute breakdown of Bryan's speech...

11:01 - 1,142,000 - 1.81
11:02 - 1,214,000 - 1.93
11:03 - 1,222,000 - 1.94
11:04 - 1,244,000 - 1.98
11:05 - 1,257,000 - 2.00
11:06 - 1,275,000 - 2.00
11:07 - 1,276,000 - 2.03
11:08 - 1,296,000 - 2.06
11:09 - 1,283,000 - 2.04
11:10 - 1,266,000 - 2.01
11:11 - 1,261,000 - 2.00
11:12 - 1,249,000 - 1.98
11:13 - 1,269,000 - 2.02
11:14 - 1,281,000 - 2.03
11:15 - 1,252,000 - 1.99
11:16 - 1,244,000 - 1.98
11:17 - 1,244,000 - 1.97
11:18 - 1,239,000 - 1.97
11:19 - 1,221,000 - 1.94
11:20 - 1,157,000 - 1.84
11:21 - 1,147,000 - 1.82
11:22 - 1,141,000 - 1.81
11:23 - 1,138,000 - 1.81
11:24 - 1,143,000 - 1.82
11:25 - 970,000 - 1.54

1,217,000 Viewership Average. *1.93* Rating.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

^

But But ratings!


----------



## Empress

The Miz bringing in those ratings. :miz

He's usually one of the most interesting parts of RAW for me. I like him. 

As for viewers tuning out for Bryan's speech, it did start to drag on. The WWE makes you sit through 3 hours of RAW and then they start to go over. But I wanted to hear what Bryan had to say and kept watching. 

Creative should've given Bryan more time in the third hour. I think he started speaking at 11 p.m.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> ^
> 
> But But ratings!


WWE posted their fourth quarter results today for 2015. Have you read them yet? Net loss for the quarter of $1.2 million compared to a loss of $1.6m in 2014. 

Included the network launch in India (From November)

Subscriber count flat lined again even with this addition which means either there was minimal business from India or the extra business they picked up was just replacing losses from other markets. 

They also gave an updated subscriber count as of right now and again they are still at or around the 1.2m number even with the recent additions of Japan, Austria, Switzerland and Germany last month.

So that's around 9 months of minimal or no growth despite significant expansion.

If you remember back in 2015, the network showed immediate strong growth following the launch in the UK. 

I found it interesting as it seems to side with my argument that these non English speaking international markets are not very lucrative (in terms of selling them a subscription service)

Therefore, the falling interest in the US should be a huge concern. 

There is a lot of talk of 'record revenues' throughout the report but the network stagnation must be slightly worrying. Especially when you consider that their TV deals played a large part in these 'record revenues' as did their international subscriber counts on the network which don't appear to be moving despite the expansion.

Q1 and Q2 reports of this year should make very interesting reading.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> WWE posted their fourth quarter results today for 2015. Have you read them yet? Net loss for the quarter of $1.2 million compared to a loss of $1.6m in 2014.
> 
> Included the network launch in India (From November)
> 
> Subscriber count flat lined again even with this addition which means either there was minimal business from India or the extra business they picked up was just replacing losses from other markets.
> 
> They also gave an updated subscriber count as of right now and again they are still at or around the 1.2m number even with the recent additions of Japan, Austria, Switzerland and Germany last month.
> 
> So that's around 9 months of minimal or no growth despite significant expansion.
> 
> If you remember back in 2015, the network showed immediate strong growth following the launch in the UK.
> 
> I found it interesting as it seems to side with my argument that these non English speaking international markets are not very lucrative (in terms of selling them a subscription service)
> 
> Therefore, the falling interest in the US should be a huge concern.
> 
> There is a lot of talk of 'record revenues' throughout the report but the network stagnation must be slightly worrying. Especially when you consider that their TV deals played a large part in these 'record revenues' as did their international subscriber counts on the network which don't appear to be moving despite the expansion.
> 
> Q1 and Q2 reports of this year should make very interesting reading.


The entire report is in the General section and it's reporting record revenue despite what people were calling the terminal decline of the company with regards to ratings. BTW, I'm still examining the report, see you in the General section thread in a few minutes.

BTW hilarious to see that the 4000 posts in this thread have amounted to nothing. This entire thread is invalidated.


----------



## Blade Runner

Am I looking at this wrong but didn't Bryan bring in the most viewers in Q13? 1,233 > 1,230 in Q5 (which they said is the show's high). Unless they're not counting the overrun


So much for the segment not drawing :draper2


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Am I looking at this wrong but didn't Bryan bring in the most viewers in Q13? 1,233 > 1,230 in Q5 (which they said is the show's high). Unless they're not counting the overrun
> 
> 
> So much for the segment not drawing :draper2


LOL, the post disappeared.

I took it to mean that viewers started tuning out as Bryan's speech went on. Maybe the information was wrong.

But the WWE had a strong financial quarter. So, ratings don't matter that much if they're making bank. 

http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/1910057-wwe-reports-strong-financial-results.html


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> LOL, the post disappeared.
> 
> I took it to mean that viewers started tuning out as Bryan's speech went on. Maybe the information was wrong.
> 
> But the WWE had a strong financial quarter. So, ratings don't matter that much if they're making bank.
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/1910057-wwe-reports-strong-financial-results.html


:lmao yeah where did the post go?



> First Hour
> 
> – Q1: 1.157 million viewers (1.84 rating)
> 
> – Q2: 1.041 million viewers (1.65 rating)
> 
> – Q3: 1.097 million viewers (1.74 rating)
> 
> – Q4: 1.056 million viewers (1.68 rating)
> 
> Second Hour
> 
> – Q5: Show-High 1.230 million viewers (1.95 rating)
> 
> – Q6: Show-Low 1.065 million viewers (1.69 rating)
> 
> – Q7: 1.111 million viewers (1.76 rating)
> 
> – Q8: 1.199 million viewers (1.90 rating)
> 
> Third Hour
> 
> – Q9: 1.174 million viewers (1.86 rating). The quarter-by-quarter decline began…
> 
> – Q10: 1.103 million viewers (1.75 rating)
> 
> – Q11: 1.088 million viewers (1.73 rating)
> 
> – Q12: 1.077 million viewers (1.71 rating)
> 
> Over-Run
> 
> – Q13: 1.233 million viewers (*1.96 rating*)
> 
> – Q14: 1.172 million viewers (1.86 rating)


Yeah some viewers tuned out, but according to the numbers Bryan's speech did do the strongest Q, and by Q14 he still pulled in a respectable number. It seems like the show went on too long and some people needed to sleep. It's understandible with a half-hour overrun


----------



## Marrakesh

Empress said:


> LOL, the post disappeared.
> 
> I took it to mean that viewers started tuning out as Bryan's speech went on. Maybe the information was wrong.
> 
> But the WWE had a strong financial quarter. So, ratings don't matter that much if they're making bank.
> 
> http://www.wrestlingforum.com/general-wwe/1910057-wwe-reports-strong-financial-results.html


This isn't true Empress. These record revenues in both the domestic and International markets were driven by the escalation of their TV rights fees as well as income from the WWE network. It says this in the report. 

The problem with this is that the network's subscriber counts have completely flat lined over a 9 month period despite significant expansion and as we all know, their TV ratings are bombing at a rate much higher than the general decline of most other shows. 

These reports are worded so as to present WWE's business in the strongest possible light. 

'Record Revenues' have been made in areas which are showing little to no potential for growth or rapid decline. 

Nowhere near as rosy as it's made out to be in a WWE report. 

That being said, the results this year should far more revealing.


----------



## Empress

Thanks @Marrakesh

This report does seem to be a mixed bag. There seems to be something in this report that can confirm that WWE is still a financial juggernaut but other instances where this is cause for concern. They do need to address why the Network has not grown at a more substantial rate. I think it's two years old now. Stagnation should not have set in. 1-1.3 million subscribers should not be the ceiling when there were 10 million viewers during the AE era. That audience which left could potentially be mined. 

I also think the WWE is shooting themselves in the foot. They're making a lot of money but they could make so much more with just the slightest effort. They're doing the bare minimum and making millions on top of millions. They'd make even more with a hot product.


----------



## DoubtGin




----------



## The True Believer

And just like they have before, quarterly breakdowns tell the full story and look who happened to draw the biggest rating overall. Heh. Who would've guessed? :HHH2

Anyways, here's something for people to consider:

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0211/607543/why-tv-ratings-arent-as-important-to-wwe-now/

Now keep in mind, the article title doesn't dismiss TV ratings as a whole since they say "not as important". Thing is, social media ratings and YouTube hits for the WWE have MNR as one of their prime targets and that show just so happens to be on TV. With Network subscriptions being as stagnant as they are, I doubt moving RAW from off of TV to the Network would be a smart move for them right now so their TV deal isn't irrelevant 
.


----------



## Marrakesh

Spidey said:


> And just like they have before, quarterly breakdowns tell the full story and look who happened to draw the biggest rating overall. Heh. Who would've guessed? :HHH2
> 
> Anyways, here's something for people to consider:
> 
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0211/607543/why-tv-ratings-arent-as-important-to-wwe-now/
> 
> Now keep in mind, the article title doesn't dismiss TV ratings as a whole since they say "not as important". Thing is, social media ratings and YouTube hits for the WWE have MNR as one of their prime targets and that show just so happens to be on TV. With Network subscriptions being as stagnant as they are, I doubt moving RAW from off of TV to the Network would be a smart move for them right now so their TV deal isn't irrelevant
> .


You're right it wouldn't be possible without huge changes to the company that would require a lot of risk on their part. These deals account for around $200m of their annual revenue at present.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

So, the 1st QH of the overrun got the highest QH of the night.

:bryan

:yes

But people celebrated in this thread saying he didn't draw.

:mj4


----------



## The True Believer

ShowStopper said:


> So, the 1st QH of the overrun got the highest QH of the night.
> 
> :bryan
> 
> :yes
> 
> But people celebrated in this thread saying he didn't draw.
> 
> :mj4


For some reason, people decided to take the average of both the third hour and the overrun and use that as a metric for Bryan's appeal despite the fact Bryan's retirement promo was well into the overrun. It's why we need quarterly breakdowns to be part of this discussion since analyzing numbers at a surface level doesn't cut it.


----------



## Poseirekt

Is the breakdown posted yet?



> Overall Raw Flow (M18-49 Demo)
> 
> First Hour
> 
> – Q1: 1.157 million viewers (1.84 rating)
> 
> – Q2: 1.041 million viewers (1.65 rating)
> 
> – Q3: 1.097 million viewers (1.74 rating)
> 
> – Q4: 1.056 million viewers (1.68 rating)
> 
> Second Hour
> 
> – Q5: Show-High 1.230 million viewers (1.95 rating)
> 
> – Q6: Show-Low 1.065 million viewers (1.69 rating)
> 
> – Q7: 1.111 million viewers (1.76 rating)
> 
> – Q8: 1.199 million viewers (1.90 rating)
> 
> Third Hour
> 
> – Q9: 1.174 million viewers (1.86 rating). The quarter-by-quarter decline began…
> 
> – Q10: 1.103 million viewers (1.75 rating)
> 
> – Q11: 1.088 million viewers (1.73 rating)
> 
> – Q12: 1.077 million viewers (1.71 rating)
> 
> Over-Run
> 
> – Q13: 1.233 million viewers (1.96 rating)
> 
> – Q14: 1.172 million viewers (1.86 rating)



Note that the 25 minutes Bryan's retirement segment was entirely in the overrun. It started at 11:01 pm after Raw's three hour close. Raw's high point was Q5 drawn by The Miz and Chris Jericho. 

In conclusion, it can be observed that Bryan's retirement did not perform well, as Q5 in the middle of the show drew almost identical rating and viewership. Typically overrun, especially one that long, is expected to generate a big boost. The Rock's return in 2011, for instance, featured in a long overrun that night drew close to 6 million viewers in overall viewership. There also wasn't any big jump noted at any point during the farewell speech, when you look at the min by min breakdown below.










Viewers gradually appear to tune out as Bryan's speech went on.


----------



## murder

Fair comparison, Bryan to big blockbuster movie Megastar The Rock, nice


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Wow, that breakdown shows there was interest in the Bryan retirement speech, but not to the immense degree we thought. Also apparently the Ambrose/Lesnar brawl didn't do well either (unless it started in Q8 and ended only part way through quarter 9). It didn't do horribly in the grand scheme as it was still the biggest point of the night besides Q5 and the overrun, but I would've thought it did the highest based off the hourly numbers we got.

Instead what really did well was Jericho/Miz, which was centered around the AJ Styles program. This shows, along with the Styles/Jericho match, that AJ does draw to some degree at least.


----------



## Poseirekt

murder said:


> Fair comparison, Bryan to big blockbuster movie Megastar The Rock, nice


I wasn't comparing them. Just pointed out the overrun wasn't a success as it was expected to be. Overrun is typically expected to draw big, since it has the added viewers from the show that follows RAW on USA. Especially long ones, as noted with Rock's return in 2011. 

Besides, the Rock wasn't a "blockbuster movie megastar" in 2011. Its only in recent years, his stock went up huge in hollywood. Granted, Rock is a bigger name compared to Bryan. But this was a highly anticipated controversial retirement of Bryan. Also, Bryan is compared to the likes of The Rock all the time. "Most over since Austin/Rock" - I see this post too often when people refer to Bryan's stardom. In any case, I only brought up the Rock because both segments involved a lengthy overrun. Nothing else to it.




#BadNewsSanta said:


> Wow, that breakdown shows there was interest in the Bryan retirement speech, but not to the immense degree we thought. Also apparently the Ambrose/Lesnar brawl didn't do well either (unless it started in Q8 and ended only part way through quarter 9). It didn't do horribly in the grand scheme as it was still the biggest point of the night besides Q5 and the overrun, but I would've thought it did the highest based off the hourly numbers we got.
> 
> Instead what really did well was Jericho/Miz, which was centered around the AJ Styles program. This shows, along with the Styles/Jericho match, that AJ does draw to some degree at least.


Lesnar and Ambrose was in Q8 and it did quite well, even managed to outdraw Q9 which was top of the 3rd hour. And yes, Jericho/AJ/Miz angle seems hot at the moment.


----------



## Bret Hart

Case closed folks..

Vince McMahon noted during today's Fourth Quarter 2015 earnings call that the company isn't as worried about TV ratings like they once were.

An investor asked about WWE TV ratings being down for several quarters now and Vince said the ratings are down but not as much as other programming on the networks they work with. Vince talked about how people aren't watching TV as much as they used to. Vince said TV is still extremely important to WWE but when you add in their digital and social content, their audience is consuming content when they want to and how they want to. Vince said that is important to WWE.

Vince added that WWE is not just about TV ratings anymore. He acknowledged that the company used to "live and die by" ratings but that was before the era of new media.

Check out our full call recap with more news at this link.
Read more at http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe...Important_to_WWE_Now.html#DEubvFhFvF5WvGfH.99


----------



## Empress

Daniel Bryan's retirement video is at 2,165,382 views on Youtube. I knew it would have no trouble crossing that 3 million mark by the end of the week. His other clips from RAW are in the 300-500K range. 

The Miz and Jericho segment, which seemed to get high ratings, is at 258,648 views. 

The Brock/Roman/Dean segments have more than 1 million views each.


----------



## Blade Runner

Hulk Hogan said:


> Case closed folks..


TBF, this thread should only be active when there's a HUGE drop or a HUGE rise in week-to-week ratings because nitpicking a .2 here and a .3 there is far from an accurate gauger if you're trying to prove a point. The ratings have been fluctuating more or less around the same average for over a decade. It's very pointless to microanalyse slight increases/decreases every single week especially in 2016 (UNLESS there's a consistant pattern of progressive increase or decrease which is rarely the case)

I do understand the fun in it tho, especially when it comes to serving as a platform for petty and harmless ''mark wars'' from people that don't take it to serious/obsessive levels


----------



## DoublePass

Hulk Hogan said:


> Case closed folks..
> 
> Vince McMahon noted during today's Fourth Quarter 2015 earnings call that the company isn't as worried about TV ratings like they once were.
> 
> An investor asked about WWE TV ratings being down for several quarters now and Vince said the ratings are down but not as much as other programming on the networks they work with. Vince talked about how people aren't watching TV as much as they used to. Vince said TV is still extremely important to WWE but when you add in their digital and social content, their audience is consuming content when they want to and how they want to. Vince said that is important to WWE.
> 
> Vince added that WWE is not just about TV ratings anymore. He acknowledged that the company used to "live and die by" ratings but that was before the era of new media.
> 
> Check out our full call recap with more news at this link.
> Read more at http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe...Important_to_WWE_Now.html#DEubvFhFvF5WvGfH.99


Nonsense.

Since the decline in ratings, which started back in 2013 but saw a sharp downward trend starting in 2014, WWE's net income has been the lowest it's been in a long time during the 2013-2015 period. Also, they had a net loss in Q4.

Additionally, investors didn't buy his absurd claim that TV ratings do not matter anymore. WWE's stock has taken a huge pounding all day after they released their quarterly reports.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Hulk Hogan said:


> Case closed folks..
> 
> Vince McMahon noted during today's Fourth Quarter 2015 earnings call that the company isn't as worried about TV ratings like they once were.
> 
> An investor asked about WWE TV ratings being down for several quarters now and Vince said the ratings are down but not as much as other programming on the networks they work with. Vince talked about how people aren't watching TV as much as they used to. Vince said TV is still extremely important to WWE but when you add in their digital and social content, their audience is consuming content when they want to and how they want to. Vince said that is important to WWE.
> 
> Vince added that WWE is not just about TV ratings anymore. He acknowledged that the company used to "live and die by" ratings but that was before the era of new media.
> 
> Check out our full call recap with more news at this link.
> Read more at http://www.lordsofpain.net/news/wwe...Important_to_WWE_Now.html#DEubvFhFvF5WvGfH.99


I dont think Vince means any of this. He's hardly going to overplay it also YouTube dont mean shit. Not enough commercials also Add Block.


----------



## murder

Back when WCW was kicking their butt in the ratings, he said the same "ratings don't matter" bullshit. He actually made fun of WCW and how they "live and die" by the rating. Now he basically just admitted that they did that as well back then. His mind probably changed once they took over in the ratings.

And now when ratings are shit again, he's back to ratings don't matter, even though he always appears on screen in no time when ratings fall.


----------



## squarebox

so I was going to post this in another thread but since this is the main ratings thread I thought I'd post it here...

I don't really understand the whole 'ratings don't matter anymore' excuse that some people are using. You see TV programs get cancelled all the time if they aren't pulling in ratings, why should WWE be any different? And let's just say if it really got to the stage where they're barely pulling in enough viewers to keep USA satisfied, how do you think that would look on the company? What excuse will they use then? "Oh, we only cater to social media now"? Come on.


----------



## murder

squarebox said:


> I don't really understand the whole 'ratings don't matter anymore' excuse that some people are using. You see TV programs get cancelled all the time if they aren't pulling in ratings, why should WWE be any different? And let's just say if it really got to the stage where they're barely pulling in enough viewers to keep USA satisfied, how do you think that would look on the company? What excuse will they use then? "Oh, we only cater to social media now"? Come on.


Exactly and like we've seen with WCW and TNA, once you got canceled on one network, it's very difficult to find another, much less to get a similar deal.

And we have to remember, WCW as still the #1 Show on TNT, when they got canceled. Raw has not even been #1 on a regular Basis for a long time. Weren't they like #8 for cable last Monday?! Good luck, Vince, good luck!


----------



## Poseirekt

RAW is #1 on USA.


----------



## murder

... since it costs them the most to produce Raw, they better be #1 and stay #1 , regularly.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(2/11) Vs last week(2/4)
2.414M(-9.38%) Vs 2.664M*


----------



## David Klein

2.4 million viewers going against the presidential debate, hopefully Vince won't blame AJ.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G900A using Tapatalk


----------



## Empress

*WWE Smackdown viewership for show headlined by AJ Styles vs. Chris Jericho*


Thursday's WWE Smackdown averaged 2.414 million viewers for USA Network, according to Showbuzzdaily.com. The number was down from the 2.664 million count from last week.

Powell's POV: A disappointing number considering that WWE promoted the AJ Styles vs. Chris Jericho match a week out and again on Monday's Raw. We hope to have the actual rating and more numbers later today or on Saturday morning.

http://prowrestling.net/article.php...eadlined-by-AJ-Styles-vs.-Chris-Jericho-45875


----------



## Daemon_Rising

squarebox said:


> so I was going to post this in another thread but since this is the main ratings thread I thought I'd post it here...
> 
> I don't really understand the whole 'ratings don't matter anymore' excuse that some people are using. You see TV programs get cancelled all the time if they aren't pulling in ratings, why should WWE be any different? And let's just say if it really got to the stage where they're barely pulling in enough viewers to keep USA satisfied, how do you think that would look on the company? What excuse will they use then? "Oh, we only cater to social media now"? Come on.


Exactly this.

When WWE *signed* to USA Network on March 10th 2005, their previous 5 ratings on Spike were as follows:

3.7
3.9
4.0
4.1
3.8
*Average: 3.9*

6 months later when they *first aired* on USA Network, their first 5 USA Network ratings were as follows:

3.2
4.4
3.95
3.65
3.9
*Average: 3.82*

Last 5 Raw USA Network ratings *as of today*:

2.36
2.45
2.93
2.38
2.65
*Average: 2.554*

The slump continues and is only going to get worse with the type of presentation of product they are offering.


----------



## Shenroe

Why do they only show the quartely breakdown only when DB is aroubd? pisses me off.


----------



## Marrakesh

Shenroe said:


> Why do they only show the quartely breakdown only when DB is aroubd? pisses me off.


Is it not Meltzer who makes these breakdowns public?

I remember reading someone said that he claimed they weren't worth posting anymore. Not sure why if they have access to minute by minute breakdowns of important segments. 

Surely, these are far more valuable than the official ratings for Raw as we don't even have access to the overrun numbers and an hourly average can be massively misleading.


----------



## Shenroe

Marrakesh said:


> Is it not Meltzer who makes these breakdowns public?
> 
> I remember reading someone said that he claimed they weren't worth posting anymore. Not sure why if they have access to minute by minute breakdowns of important segments.
> 
> *Surely, these are far more valuable than the official ratings for Raw as we don't even have access to the overrun numbers and an hourly average can be massively misleading.*


Totally, ether you post the whole picture or nothing.


----------



## Bushmaster

Haven't really been keeping up but do ratings mean nothing starting now or was it also like this last year?


----------



## The Boy Wonder

squarebox said:


> so I was going to post this in another thread but since this is the main ratings thread I thought I'd post it here...
> 
> *I don't really understand the whole 'ratings don't matter anymore' excuse that some people are using. You see TV programs get cancelled all the time if they aren't pulling in ratings, why should WWE be any different?* And let's just say if it really got to the stage where they're barely pulling in enough viewers to keep USA satisfied, how do you think that would look on the company? What excuse will they use then? "Oh, we only cater to social media now"? Come on.


Ratings should matter, but with WWE it's different because they have so many different ways to make money: PPV buys, Network subs, live events, merchandise, etc.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

The Boy Wonder said:


> Ratings should matter, but with WWE it's different because they have so many different ways to make money: PPV buys, Network subs, live events, merchandise, etc.


And despite that they only made $25m profit last year. 

I did some calculation and if you factor in that WWE went from 3.0 when they did the deal to now 2.5 well thats a 6th of ratings that are gone. If you factor that into the TV deal then that is.....$25m! So basically they are completely reliant on the USA Network and their generosity. Ratings certainly do matter. If USA Network wisens up then WWE is screwed. Its not like they got many offers last time so why would a Network pay the same as now when they have lost 1/6th of the ratings?

So yeah it has 100% to do with the ratings.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

All bullshit and stupid trolling aside from all of us; there is ONE legitimate way that ratings do mean alot to WWE. And that's with the USA Network. When WWE's current deal with the USA Network is over; and if WWE's ratings are down; that could and likely would affect the next offer that USA Network makes to WWE. And if WWE gets a lower deal with USA Network; that absolutely affects WWE's bottom line. And that wouldn't be the fault of ANY of the talents', but all on Vince's shoulders. Even if you want to blame the 20 some odd ridiculous former Soap Opera writers they have writing Raw; fine. But remember Vince ok's the shit that they present to him every week in the production meetings.

But anyway, yeah, that's the one way that the ratings can/would matter; if USA Network lowballs the shit out of WWE; like they did with this current deal. Vince thought they were going to get a much better deal than what they got. If USA Network low balls WWE again with this next deal; it could be a problem for WWE's bottom line.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

murder said:


> Exactly and like we've seen with WCW and TNA, once you got canceled on one network, it's very difficult to find another, much less to get a similar deal.
> 
> And we have to remember, WCW as still the #1 Show on TNT, when they got canceled. Raw has not even been #1 on a regular Basis for a long time. Weren't they like #8 for cable last Monday?! Good luck, Vince, good luck!


WCW wasn't cancelled because of ratings. The new people in charge didn't want wrestling period, and the lost 60 million were a good excuse.


----------



## murder

Right, so they are basically only one Jamie Kellner away from Raw and SD being cancelled.


----------



## validreasoning

raw was number one on cable last monday, sd was number one on cable this past thursday and number one the previous thursday..

raw is far and away top show on usa and killing the shows usa are spending millions on per episode like colony and mr robot (both of which have been renewed for next season). nothing outside raw (and sometimes sd) on usa ranks on the most watched weekly top 25.

you can't compare wcw and turner with wwe and usa. turner not only broadcast wcw it also owned them...usa doesn't own wwe. smackdown was cancelled by mynetwork tv in 2010 and got a better deal for more money with syfy. tna was cancelled by destination america and got a better deal in far more homes with pop

el rey are spending roughly the same amount of money per hour to produce lu as usa spend on airing wwe raw so its far from this huge megadeal some here think it is. usa have managed to attract more advertisers since this current deal began so expect a bigger deal next time around.

anyway here are the annual raw *live+dvr ratings *reported to the sec. only included the timeframe that wwe started reporting january 1st until december 31st (they used to report may to april prior to 2007)

2015...3.2
2014...3.4
2013...3.4
2012...3.3
2011...3.6
2010...3.5
2009...3.7
2008...3.4
2007...3.7


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Cannot wait for that fucking huge ratings spike in the third hour for the wrestling classic that they put on.

Maybe they now start booking shit in that third hour on purpose, to have an excuse for that huge drop off.


----------



## neeggi

Ambrose should get ALL THE CREDIT FOR raw ratings if it does great, he is the one carrying the show.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

validreasoning said:


> raw was number one on cable last monday, sd was number one on cable this past thursday and number one the previous thursday..
> 
> raw is far and away top show on usa and killing the shows usa are spending millions on per episode like colony and mr robot (both of which have been renewed for next season). nothing outside raw (and sometimes sd) on usa ranks on the most watched weekly top 25.
> 
> you can't compare wcw and turner with wwe and usa. turner not only broadcast wcw it also owned them...usa doesn't own wwe. smackdown was cancelled by mynetwork tv in 2010 and got a better deal for more money with syfy. tna was cancelled by destination america and got a better deal in far more homes with pop
> 
> el rey are spending roughly the same amount of money per hour to produce lu as usa spend on airing wwe raw so its far from this huge megadeal some here think it is. usa have managed to attract more advertisers since this current deal began so expect a bigger deal next time around.
> 
> anyway here are the annual raw *live+dvr ratings *reported to the sec. only included the timeframe that wwe started reporting january 1st until december 31st (they used to report may to april prior to 2007)
> 
> 2015...3.2
> 2014...3.4
> 2013...3.4
> 2012...3.3
> 2011...3.6
> 2010...3.5
> 2009...3.7
> 2008...3.4
> 2007...3.7


DVR doesn't mean shit. People don't watch the ads and very often skip through 80% of the show anyway. Wrestling simply isn't worth as much to advertisers than something like Mr Robot and WWE didn't get any other better offers for the rights to RAW.


----------



## RatedR10

Are ratings delayed?


----------



## Chrome

RatedR10 said:


> Are ratings delayed?


I hope they're not delayed because of fucking Valentine's Day. :will2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> I hope they're not delayed because of fucking Valentine's Day. :will2


Yesterday was President's Day. Don't know if that weak ass holiday is enough to delay them or not, though?


----------



## Erik.

That third hour is going to be brilliant :lol


----------



## Chrome

ShowStopper said:


> Yesterday was President's Day. Don't know if that weak ass holiday is enough to delay them or not, though?


To be fair, President's Day is more important than Valentine's Day, so it's possible it will be delayed because of that.


----------



## DoublePass

They will be delayed. They haven't released the ratings for Sunday either.

We gotta wait until tomorrow.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> To be fair, President's Day is more important than Valentine's Day, so it's possible it will be delayed because of that.


Yep, especially since V-Day fell on a Sunday. Still not sure if they will be delayed or not, though.


----------



## A-C-P

DoublePass said:


> They will be delayed. They haven't released the ratings for Sunday either.
> 
> We gotta wait until tomorrow.


----------



## RatedR10

Yep, they're delayed.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Damn, now I have to wait a whole 24 hours to know whether to give credit to Ambrose or blame Reigns for the ratings?


----------



## THANOS

I actually wouldn't be surprise if the 3rd hour does better than we are expecting. For some reason the viewers seem to love those monster matches. I remember one year when they did Kane vs Big Show, and everyone was predicting it would sink the show, then the breakdown came out and it drew the highest.

You never know sometimes?

:draper2


----------



## Empress

*2/15 Raw Social Media – 60% decline from Daniel Bryan Raw*

There was a natural decline in Raw’s social media activity on Monday night following the big Daniel Bryan Retirement Show last week. However, the decline put Raw in year-low territory…


WWE Raw Social Media Tracking

February 15: Raw fell 60 percent in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings metrics compared to last week’s D-Bryan show.

– The unique audience was 1.273 million, cut in half (57 percent) from 2.926 million uniques last week.

The previous 2016 low was 1.252 million on January 11 against the National Title football game.

– Total impressions were 7.834 million, down 63 percent from 21.342 million last week.

– The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was down 62 percent.

– Total tweets on Raw was 136,000, down 60 percent from last week.

Among series & specials on Monday night, Raw ranked #3 behind the “Grammy Awards” on CBS and this week’s “Bachelor” episode on ABC.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #2 behind the U.S. Women’s National Team soccer match.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/16/215-raw-social-media-60-decline-from-daniel-bryan-raw/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

60% decline from social media activity in comparison to last week's Bryan episode.

:lmao

No one cares about Bryan, though, right?

:mj4


----------



## Chrome

"Quick, make Bryan unretire and then retire again dammit!" :vince4


----------



## Marrakesh

I would be surprised if there was any appetite whatsoever for this weeks Raw. 

I think we are going to see similar numbers to the week before last week, possibly worse. 

Were they up against the Grammys? I Dunno, I don't see anything on this show that would have maintained viewers for three hours and I don't see any storylines or angles that would have generated enough interest to retain last weeks Hour 1 number. 

I'm thinking we might be in record low territory for this time of year yet again. 

I firmly believed that Taker was going to return in the final segment because Big Show/Strowman made no sense in that spot without something planned and I STILL turned off my TV. 

Of course, it turned out that it was just positioned so prominently because Big Show was on the Stone Cold podcast afterwards :ti 

Three hours of nothing last night. Ambrose loses the title and it's hard to give a shit given the circumstances :lol


----------



## Empress

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/699702149899554816


*2/11 WWE Smackdown Ratings – sharp decline post-Daniel Bryan Raw*

The pattern of an uptick in Raw viewership leading to an uptick in Smackdown viewership was broken for the most-recent Smackdown episode.


WWE Smackdown TV Ratings Tracking

– February 11: WWE Smackdown scored a 1.72 rating on USA Network, down eight percent from a 1.86 rating the previous week.

Smackdown drew 2.414 million viewers, down nine percent (250,000 viewers) from 2.664 million viewers last week.

Smackdown followed the Daniel Bryan Retirement edition of Raw, which produced a solid week-to-week uptick in ratings and viewership. However, Smackdown did not follow Raw’s lead, as the blue brand went the opposite direction.

Smackdown was hit hard in the males 18-34 demographic, registering the lowest point through six weeks on USA Network. Other demographics did not fare well, either.

Males 18-34 was down 27 percent
Males 18-49 was down 16 percent
Adults 18-49 was down 12 percent

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02...-ratings-sharp-decline-post-daniel-bryan-raw/


----------



## Blade Runner

The ratings this week are rather pointless tbh -- The WWE certainly won't panic if they tanked knowing that they were up against the Grammys. I'm sure they didn't even bother pretending like they cared about putting on a good show, which might explain the main event that we got


----------



## FITZ

If I recall I remember a bunch of people saying that the USA Network had some serious problems during the first hour and they weren't able to watch Raw. I'm sure that's not going to help anything.


----------



## Naka Moora

FITZ said:


> If I recall I remember a bunch of people saying that the USA Network had some serious problems during the first hour and they weren't able to watch Raw. I'm sure that's not going to help anything.


Yeah dude, it went totally down for like a good 5 mins or more.


----------



## The Bloodline

Yeah all Optimum users missed like a good 25 minutes. I can see how many didn't bother to come back.


----------



## Restomaniac

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> The ratings this week are rather pointless tbh -- The WWE certainly won't panic if they tanked knowing that they were up against the Grammys. I'm sure they didn't even bother pretending like they cared about putting on a good show, which might explain the main event that we got


The thing is I don't understand that viewpoint and to be honest it fits in with WWE's 'don't give a fuck' attitude which is why the show is so poor. EVERY WWE program should matter. It did in the past which is why the product wasn't the utter shite it is today.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

I have Optimum. It went black at some point during the Henry match (maybe even during his entrance?) and came back on after the divas title segment. End of 1st hour into 2nd hour may have dropped a chunk of viewers and hurt the ratings because of that.


----------



## Empress

USA went down for me as well. I checked back 20 minutes later and RAW had returned.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.661M
H2-3.537M
H3-3.233M

Avg-3.477M*










*H2 vs H1 (-3.38%)
H3 Vs H2 (-8.59%)
H3 Vs H1 (-11.69%)

2/15 Vs 2/8
(-6.68%)
(-0.249M)

Note: Grammy Awards competition and cable outage for some viewers.*


----------



## SnapOrTap

Pretty shitty ratings.

Hopefully they're worse next week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

No Daniel Bryan to put up a semi-respectable Hours 1 & 2 this week. Big difference.


----------



## RatedR10

I wish the third hour was worse.


----------



## SnapOrTap

It's only a matter of time before they start dropping below 3 million for all 3 hours.

Those will be the days.

Those will be the days.

I hope Reigns is the champion during those times, so I can shit on him :mark::mark::mark::mark::mark::mark::mark::mark:


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Sadly those ratings are pretty good.

They are going to need to go sub 3 million for panic mode.


----------



## DoubtGin

Could be worse, tbh.

But given it's WM season, you'd expect better.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Comparison to this week last year:


Last year (2/16/15):

Hour one: *4.13* million
Hour two: *4.02* million
Hour three: *3.82* million

This year (2/15/16):

Hour one: *3.66* million
Hour two: *3.53* million
Hour three: *3.23* million


HUGE decline from 2015 to 2016. The steady and significant decline from one year to the next continues. Yikes.


----------



## Naka Moora

Damn, Compared to last year that's so bad. But what were they expecting putting Big show in a main event :lol


----------



## Erik.

Obvious drop in the third hour was always going to happen with what they gave us having the Social Outcasts/Zack Ryder and Big Show/Strowman shit - the numbers in Wrestlemania season though are real poor. 

Last week:

Hour 1: 3.907 Million
Hour 2: 3.905 Million
Hour 3: 3.368 Million

Still a drop in thousands throughout the first two hours.


----------



## Restomaniac

UFO said:


> Damn, Compared to last year that's so bad. But what were they expecting putting Big show in a main event :lol


Can anyone tell me if they were up against the Grammys last year at this time? If they were then that kind of puts to bed the whole 'well they were up against the Grammys so they didn't give a shite' excuse.

Edit: I've checked it myself and it was 2/8/15


----------



## Naka Moora

Restomaniac said:


> Can anyone tell me if they were up against the Grammys last year at this time? If they were then that kind of puts to bed the whole 'well they were up against the Grammys so they didn't give a shite' excuse.


They were up against the grammys, and USA network went down for a lot of people during RAW. The grammys pulled a 23.1 rating I think which is fucking insane.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

UFO said:


> They were up against the grammys, and USA network went down for a lot of people during RAW. The grammys pulled a 23.1 rating I think which is fucking insane.


It is. Certain stuff still does draw good TV ratings. Whether it be an awards show, sports, top of the line TV shows, etc.


----------



## Erik.

Restomaniac said:


> Can anyone tell me if they were up against the Grammys last year at this time? If they were then that kind of puts to bed the whole 'well they were up against the Grammys so they didn't give a shite' excuse.


They weren't up against the Grammys last year, no.


----------



## Naka Moora

Erik. said:


> They weren't up against the Grammys last year, no.


Shit! @erik is right @Restomaniac I misread the question! I thought you asked about this year.


----------



## Restomaniac

Then surely the comparison need to be this year against the Grammys and 2015 against the Grammys. If the huge drop off is still there then it should be a major concern for WWE.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

UFO said:


> They were up against the grammys, and USA network went down for a lot of people during RAW. The grammys pulled a 23.1 rating I think which is fucking insane.


The only ones watching are the hardcores. The numbers are struggling to fall further becuase they have already moved on.


----------



## Wildcat410

SnapOrTap said:


> It's only a matter of time before they start dropping below 3 million for all 3 hours.


Some time back I remember thinking this would happen in the 2017 NFL season. But the way the year to year numbers are shaping up, it looks like the upcoming NFL season is being primed for it.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

I feel compelled to mention that the most important Raw segment of Bryan's career last week hasn't even managed to gain 3M views while a whole bunch of Reigns segments on WWE's youtube channel managed to gain more than twice as many views, including his Championship win on Raw which got 10M views. I'm just pointing it out since the importance of youtube views were brought up last week as a way to gauge who is a draw and who isn't.:justsayin

But on the other hand, its safe to say that anyone can be put in a main event spot and draw the highest views on youtube no matter what, as that shitty Strowman vs Big Show has outdrawn everything else on the show in terms of youtube viewship with nearly a million views (with the 5-way IC title match being the second highest). So it really doesn't matter whose segments draw the highest, especially if they're in main event segments whether it's Reigns, Ambrose, Cena or even Ryback, the main event seems to get the highest viewership. Hope that argument can be put to rest now.


----------



## Restomaniac

UFO said:


> Shit! @erik is right @Restomaniac I misread the question! I thought you asked about this year.


NP bud.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wildcat410 said:


> Some time back I remember thinking this would happen in the 2017 NFL season. But the way the year to year numbers are shaping up, it looks like the upcoming NFL season is being primed for it.


It could happen. I'm still shocked that they haven't gotten a bump in the ratings since the NFL season ended. How is that possible? Plus, it now being the Road to WM. If you were to tell me that they wouldn't get at least a small increase due to the NFL season ending and/or the Road to WM starting; I'd say there's no chance they don't at least get a slight bump. But they really haven't. That has to be concerning.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

i guess they care more about the oscars than the grammies though, they wouldnt want that to compete with fastlane even if its more like fillerlane this year until WM comes around


----------



## Chrome

LOL at "Filler Lane." Sounds about right.


----------



## Restomaniac

It seems the Grammys were held on a Sunday in 2015.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Restomaniac said:


> It seems the Grammys were held on a Sunday in 2015.


makes me wonder though, does wwe really want their post mania RAW to go head to head with the NCAA finals every year? If they consider that RAW vital in setting a tone and precedent for the summer, would they even prepone or postpone WM a week either way from the finals? there has to be a huge chunk of viewers who would watch that raw if the finals arent on the same day


----------



## Shenroe

Ambrose,Reigns,Virgil it doesn't really matter anymore :ti


----------



## Wildcat410

ShowStopper said:


> It could happen. I'm still shocked that they haven't gotten a bump in the ratings since the NFL season ended. How is that possible? Plus, it now being the Road to WM. If you were to tell me that they wouldn't get at least a small increase due to the NFL season ending and/or the Road to WM starting; I'd say there's no chance they don't at least get a slight bump. But they really haven't. That has to be concerning.


I'm surprised it is _this bad this quickly_ too. I guess as time goes on, more people are just not caring. 

Getting viewers back is going to be more difficult as time goes on. When people get in a habit of putting something aside, it usually takes changing the script and going offbeat to get them to commit again. The WWE's habit and rep are predictable and vanilla these days though.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Chrome said:


> LOL at "Filler Lane." Sounds about right.


"WWE FastForwardLane" maybe a more accurate description tbh :hunter


----------



## Shenroe

They should just ditch the Authority storyline altogether. Been going on for 4years and hasn't done anyone any good.
EDIT:WM main event, if Roman wins, he gets rid of the Authority for good. That'll get him over.


----------



## Erik.

Shenroe said:


> They should just ditch the Authority storyline altogether. Been going on for 4years and hasn't done anyone any good.
> EDIT:WM main event, if Roman wins, he gets rid of the Authority for good. That'll get him over.


The only person it did good was Daniel Bryan and he's now retired. End this shit, I agree.


----------



## Wildcat410

The Authority angle has become merely an excuse for Trips and Steph to plaster themselves all over the tv these days. It helps no one anymore and has become a drag on the program.


----------



## Erik.

The WWE simply wouldn't know how book a show without an "authority" figure.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Bring back John Laurenaitis.
I'm serious. Then at least it would be funny and entertaining when he announces something super serious, instead of the awkward embarassing silence that is filling arenas currently.


----------



## Empress

*2/15 Raw TV Ratings are in – decline from D-Bryan Raw*

Monday’s WWE Raw episode leading into Fast Lane took a natural decline following the big Daniel Bryan Retirement show last week. The result was landing just below the 2016 average.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

February 15: Raw scored a 2.48 rating, down six percent from a 2.65 rating for D-Bryan Raw last week.

This landed slightly below the 2016 average of a 2.53 rating.

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.477 million viewers, down seven percent (250,000 viewers) from 3.726 million viewers last week.

Following the typical Raw viewership pattern, the third hour of Raw dragged down the overall audience.

First Hour: 3.661 million viewers
Second Hour: 3.537 million viewers
Third Hour: 3.233 million viewers, a decline of nine percent from the second hour.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: The demos fell double-digit percentages compared to last week. For comparison purposes, the key demos were slightly above/below the January 11 Raw against the college football title game.

Adults 18-49 was down 11 percent vs. last week
Males 18-34 was down 16 percent vs. last week
Males 18-49 was down 12 percent vs. last week
The decline in the individual demos was more pronounced than the overall TV rating and viewership.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/17/215-raw-tv-ratings-are-in-decline-from-d-bryan-raw/


----------



## Daemon_Rising

The ratings could have been worse, tbh.

The concerning thing is that they are going down on the RTWM when traditionally they stay constant and then start to peak a little. Also concerning is that the average at this point of the year is 2.53. It was at 2.93 this time last year.


----------



## Badbadrobot

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> I feel compelled to mention that the most important Raw segment of Bryan's career last week hasn't even managed to gain 3M views while a whole bunch of Reigns segments on WWE's youtube channel managed to gain more than twice as many views, including his Championship win on Raw which got 10M views. I'm just pointing it out since the importance of youtube views were brought up last week as a way to gauge who is a draw and who isn't.:justsayin
> 
> But on the other hand, its safe to say that anyone can be put in a main event spot and draw the highest views on youtube no matter what, as that shitty Strowman vs Big Show has outdrawn everything else on the show in terms of youtube viewship with nearly a million views (with the 5-way IC title match being the second highest). So it really doesn't matter whose segments draw the highest, especially if they're in main event segments whether it's Reigns, Ambrose, Cena or even Ryback, the main event seems to get the highest viewership. Hope that argument can be put to rest now.


And Bryan winning at wm has 9.7m views, I'm of the opinion like most social media you tube views is a fairly throwaway metric, I've a hard time connecting, it to money spent or true interest other than passing a couple of minutes whilst in a queue or surfing multiple clips quickly again whilst bored.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Bring back John Laurenaitis.
> I'm serious. Then at least it would be funny and entertaining when he announces something super serious, instead of the awkward embarassing silence that is filling arenas currently.


:bryan2 :brie1







https://youtu.be/pQAcGlwdSjI?t=30s :cenaooh :nikkilol

:dance2 :avit: :dance2


----------



## JTB33b

Do you mean to tell me that Big Show vs Strowman didn't bring in more viewers?? WTF


----------



## The True Believer

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Bring back John Laurenaitis.
> I'm serious. Then at least it would be funny and entertaining when he announces something super serious, instead of the awkward embarassing silence that is filling arenas currently.


Laurinaitis was the man. I loved Big Johnny. And the thing is, dude got heat.






His awkward mic delivery really made his character as that boss who think he's cool when everyone knows that he's a huge dork. And he was actually engaging whenever he interacted with other characters whereas Triple H/Stephanie are usually boring drones that won't shut the fuck up.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Daemon_Rising said:


> The ratings could have been worse, tbh.
> 
> The concerning thing is that they are going down on the RTWM when traditionally they stay constant and then start to peak a little. Also concerning is that the average at this point of the year is 2.53. It was at 2.93 this time last year.


Vince etc will just say that everywhere else is doing bad so we're doing OK and technically he would be right. Viewership is down 13% across all US channels last year so the ratings have to fall further.

RAW needs to be sub 2.0 before panic mode initiates.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> I feel compelled to mention that the most important Raw segment of Bryan's career last week hasn't even managed to gain 3M views while a whole bunch of Reigns segments on WWE's youtube channel managed to gain more than twice as many views, including his Championship win on Raw which got 10M views. I'm just pointing it out since the importance of youtube views were brought up last week as a way to gauge who is a draw and who isn't.:justsayin


*
Of course, but that will be completely ignored, as the ratings are entirely blamed on Reigns, despite us being told that putting the focus on Ambrose would bring in 4 million viewers. Ambrose had the first hour dedicated to him and the viewers dropped. This "insert indy guy here and he'll spike ratings" mentality is complete bullshit.*



> But on the other hand, its safe to say that anyone can be put in a main event spot and draw the highest views on youtube no matter what


*That's not true. No one gave a damn about the table match that main evented on the 8th, as it's still sitting under 1 million views. This is just another excuse they use to divert credit from the interest that Reigns draws across multiple platforms.*


----------



## BlackoutLAS

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Of course, but that will be completely ignored, as the ratings are entirely blamed on Reigns, despite us being told that putting the focus on Ambrose would bring in 4 million viewers. Ambrose had the first hour dedicated to him and the viewers dropped. This "insert indy guy here and he'll spike ratings" mentality is complete bullshit.*
> 
> 
> *That's not true. No one gave a damn about the table match that main evented on the 8th, as it's still sitting under 1 million views. This is just another excuse they use to divert credit from the interest that Reigns draws across multiple platforms.*


AHAHAHA you're grasping so hard it's pathetic. WWE's most viewed video is a battle royale, are battle royales the biggest draw in WWE? 

With 27 million views is Great Khalis debut. Was Khali the biggest draw in this generation? Should WWE do more kissing contests because that video got more views than a video with anyone on the current roster? Maybe use your brain once in a while?

:Rollins:Rollins:Rollins:Rollins


----------



## donlesnar

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Of course, but that will be completely ignored, as the ratings are entirely blamed on Reigns, despite us being told that putting the focus on Ambrose would bring in 4 million viewers. Ambrose had the first hour dedicated to him and the viewers dropped. This "insert indy guy here and he'll spike ratings" mentality is complete bullshit.*
> 
> 
> *That's not true. No one gave a damn about the table match that main evented on the 8th, as it's still sitting under 1 million views. This is just another excuse they use to divert credit from the interest that Reigns draws across multiple platforms.*


u must be out of ur mind to tell reigns draws. hear the boos


----------



## DoublePass

Anyone who thinks that youtube views (which aren't even unique views) is indicative of anything has a mental deficiency. Just as anyone who thinks Reigns draws, despite all of the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, is mentally deficient.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Of course, but that will be completely ignored, as the ratings are entirely blamed on Reigns, despite us being told that putting the focus on Ambrose would bring in 4 million viewers. Ambrose had the first hour dedicated to him and the viewers dropped. This "insert indy guy here and he'll spike ratings" mentality is complete bullshit.*
> 
> 
> *That's not true. No one gave a damn about the table match that main evented on the 8th, as it's still sitting under 1 million views. This is just another excuse they use to divert credit from the interest that Reigns draws across multiple platforms.*


:henry3
That 8-man tables match was not the main event, Daniel Bryan's retirement speech was, and you know that very well. And DB's speech did get the highest viewership of the week, so my point still stands. Reigns' segment was in the middle of the show this week instead of the main event and got 1m views, less than than the IC title match, and Show vs Strowman. Like I said, the main event is usually the highest drawing segment of the week, no matter who you put there. Of course I have to acknowledge the exceptions such as when an actual megastar like the Rock shows up, whose segment got close to 5m views which is predictably higher than the Ambreigns vs LON main event which still got a solid a main event viewership of 3m, in line with the usual trend.

And correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Raw supposedly get 10% less viewership going head to head with NFL which draw around 10-14m people? if that's the case, I would say Raw actually did pretty great losing just 6% from last week's DB farewell show going against Better Call Saul, X Files, and the Grammy's which drew twice as many viewers (25m) as a regular NFL game does.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Speaking of Dean Ambrose, I'm not one of those people who expect him to draw shit when he's been booked and presented like a complete joke most of his career when his ex Shieldmates (along with Cena, Taker, Brock) who got 10x bigger pushes couldn't stop Raw from getting record-low ratings. :lol

It'll take Ambrose being presented as a serious character the next 6-8 months (and probably a heel turn too) to build his credibility back up if they really want the audience to start taking him seriously again. And then he MAY start drawing something. And it can't be just him coming out cutting a promo trying to convince everyone that he should be taken as a main event level threat while everything else that happens on the show only serves to prove otherwise :lol which is what's happening right now. 

It's worth mentioning that when Ambrose was being pushed as contender for the WWE Championship last year (May-June), they were getting close to 4m viewership, which is much higher than what Raw is getting now despite it being the RTWM. Instead of pulling the trigger then when the time was right and try to make a new star, they pushed him back down, had him job to Kane, Sheamus, Rollins, Harper, Wyatt and get squashed by Big Show all in the span of one month and left him off the Battleground card when he main evented the previous PPV. After which they decided he's best used as Roman Reigns' sidekick (which still hasnt changed) because they had no interest in making him a top guy.

Not to mention a solid show from top to bottom and a captivating top storyline is more likely to increase ratings than just one guy being pushed anyway. For example, if the Wyatts took over Raw and ran roughshod on everyone for a few months (after that Wyatt family vs BOD feud which they should've WON), a storyline like that COULD have increased ratings, instead of just pushing guys to the top and expecting them to automatically to draw ratings.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

donlesnar said:


> u must be out of ur mind to tell reigns draws. hear the boos


Since when does booing decide one's drawing power? Brock was a much bigger draw in 2012 when he was getting smaller reactions than Dolph Ziggler that year (for the most part). He gets much bigger reactions now, but evidently has lost his drawing power. Crowd reactions are not an accurate determinant of someone's drawing ability bro.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> :henry3
> That 8-man tables match was not the main event, Daniel Bryan's retirement speech was, and you know that very well. And DB's speech did get the highest viewership of the week, so my point still stands. Reigns' segment was in the middle of the show this week instead of the main event and got 1m views, less than than the IC title match, and Show vs Strowman. Like I said, the main event is usually the highest drawing segment of the week, no matter who you put there. Of course I have to acknowledge the exceptions such as when an actual megastar like the Rock shows up, whose segment got close to 5m views which is predictably higher than the Ambreigns vs LON main event which still got a solid a main event viewership of 3m, in line with the usual trend.
> 
> And correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Raw supposedly get 10% less viewership going head to head with NFL which draw around 10-14m people? if that's the case, I would say Raw actually did pretty great losing just 6% from last week's DB farewell show going against Better Call Saul, X Files, and the Grammy's which drew twice as many viewers (25m) as a regular NFL game does.


*Well damn, someone from the other side who uses logical and factual arguments instead of REIGNSSUXLOL. I like this guy.*


----------



## Empress

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> Of course, but that will be completely ignored, as the ratings are entirely blamed on Reigns, despite us being told that putting the focus on Ambrose would bring in 4 million viewers. Ambrose had the first hour dedicated to him and the viewers dropped. This "insert indy guy here and he'll spike ratings" mentality is complete bullshit.*
> 
> 
> *That's not true. No one gave a damn about the table match that main evented on the 8th, as it's still sitting under 1 million views. This is just another excuse they use to divert credit from the interest that Reigns draws across multiple platforms.*


I'm not going to take any cheap shots at Dean, Bryan or Seth, but this thread does get relatively quiet when it's someone other than Roman Reigns who can be held accountable for low ratings. The root issue is the problem and booking. Almost any guy on the roster can be turned into a draw if creative gets their act together. 

As for social media, Roman's metrics are always good. His showdown with Heyman is already past 1 million views. At the moment, only the Big Show/Braun main event has more.


----------



## THANOS

BlackoutLAS said:


> AHAHAHA you're grasping so hard it's pathetic. WWE's most viewed video is a battle royale, are battle royales the biggest draw in WWE?
> 
> *With 27 million views is Great Khalis debut. Was Khali the biggest draw in this generation? Should WWE do more kissing contests because that video got more views than a video with anyone on the current roster? Maybe use your brain once in a while*?
> 
> :Rollins:Rollins:Rollins:Rollins


You know what that tells me, WWE's 2nd biggest, if not biggest, audience is in India. Khali is a massive draw there, which doesn't show up in the ratings but does in youtube views and facebook likes. The same goes for John Cena and Roman Reigns. I've always known this, and it can be, more or less, verified if you venture over to the facebook pages for these stars and read the comments.

This is far from a slight against any of them, because it means they are popular, just not nearly as much as guys like Bryan and Punk in North America.


----------



## Empress

*How Did This Week's WWE Total Divas Do?*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 808,000 and ranked #21 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's episode, which drew 810,000 viewers and ranked #21 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 840,000 viewers.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0218/607759/how-did-this-week-wwe-total-divas-do/


----------



## THANOS

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> :henry3
> That 8-man tables match was not the main event, Daniel Bryan's retirement speech was, and you know that very well. And DB's speech did get the highest viewership of the week, so my point still stands. Reigns' segment was in the middle of the show this week instead of the main event and got 1m views, less than than the IC title match, and Show vs Strowman. Like I said, the main event is usually the highest drawing segment of the week, no matter who you put there. Of course I have to acknowledge the exceptions such as when an actual megastar like the Rock shows up, whose segment got close to 5m views which is predictably higher than the Ambreigns vs LON main event which still got a solid a main event viewership of 3m, in line with the usual trend.
> 
> And correct me if I'm wrong but doesnt Raw supposedly get 10% less viewership going head to head with NFL which draw around 10-14m people? if that's the case, I would say Raw actually did pretty great losing just 6% from last week's DB farewell show going against Better Call Saul, X Files, and the Grammy's which drew twice as many viewers (25m) as a regular NFL game does.


You want to use youtube views to justify your points, fine, but retirement promos are never huge youtube draws, because people don't want to watch their favourite stars retire. 

Case in point.

- All of Ric Flair's farewell address videos on youtube have drawn no more than 1.6m, and most are around 200k (this has had 7 years to compile views)

- Edge's farewell address video from WWE's channel only has 1m views (this has had 4 years to compile views)

- Trish Stratus' farewell address video from WWE's channel only has 600k views (uploaded 4 years ago)

- Shawn Michaels' farewell address from WWE's channel only has 640k views (uploaded 5 years ago)

And finally,

- *Daniel Bryan' farewell address from WWE's channel has 2.8 MILLION views (uploaded ONLY 1 week ago)*

If anything, your point helps prove that Bryan DOES in fact draw.


----------



## DoublePass

Empress said:


> As for social media, Roman's metrics are always good. His showdown with Heyman is already past 1 million views. At the moment, only the Big Show/Braun main event has more.


Again, YouTube views aren't "unique views." You can't gain any valuable information by simply looking at YT views.

As for social media metrics, those are very easily manipulated. Have you ever heard of YTView.com or other such companies? Their sole purpose is to provide clients (often large companies and celebrities) with fake social media followers. The fake social media follower market is huge.


----------



## Empress

DoublePass said:


> Again, YouTube views aren't "unique views." You can't gain any valuable information by simply looking at YT views.
> 
> As for social media metrics, those are very easily manipulated. Have you ever heard of YTView.com or other such companies? Their sole purpose is to provide clients (often large companies and celebrities) with fake social media followers. The fake social media follower market is huge.


As with all things, social media has to deal with inflation. But in recent years, there have been attempts to crack down on fake accounts used to boost the profile of celebrities and brands. Even if 15% of 10M followers are fake, you still have a substantial amount left for an audience. 

In regards to Youtube/links, you can discern if a person/product has the ability to gain an audience, retain and grow it. A lot of brands are looking for click/rate ratio and engagement. The issue then becomes converting that traffic into $$$.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

THANOS said:


> You want to use youtube views to justify your points, fine, but retirement promos are never huge youtube draws, because people don't want to watch their favourite stars retire.
> 
> Case in point.
> 
> - All of Ric Flair's farewell address videos on youtube have drawn no more than 1.6m, and most are around 200k (this has had 7 years to compile views)
> 
> - Edge's farewell address video from WWE's channel only has 1m views (this has had 4 years to compile views)
> 
> - Trish Stratus' farewell address video from WWE's channel only has 600k views (uploaded 4 years ago)
> 
> - Shawn Michaels' farewell address from WWE's channel only has 640k views (uploaded 5 years ago)
> 
> And finally,
> 
> - *Daniel Bryan' farewell address from WWE's channel has 2.8 MILLION views (uploaded ONLY 1 week ago)*
> 
> If anything, your point helps prove that Bryan DOES in fact draw.



You're not taking into consideration the massive growth of Youtube users worldwide over the past few years. WWE has tons of videos with no stars being featured that easily manage to get 1m views now. Their top 10 Raw/SD moments videos regularly get 1-1.5m views which is as much as Flair's retirement video from SEVEN years ago. Back then it was a huge deal if a video got over a million of views, nowadays pop musicians have no problem crossing the 1 billion mark for their music videos, which was unthinkable 6-7 yrs ago. Basically, the passage of time actually works in favour of newer videos, not older ones as you're trying to say.
Here's an ordinary WWE video where LITERALLY NOTHING happens, that somehow has over a million views. Check it out :lol


----------



## THANOS

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> You're not taking into consideration the massive growth of Youtube users worldwide over the past few years. WWE has tons of videos with no stars being featured that easily manage to get 1m views now. Their top 10 Raw/SD moments videos regularly get 1-1.5m views which is as much as Flair's retirement video from SEVEN years ago. Back then it was a huge deal if a video got over a million of views, nowadays pop musicians have no problem crossing the 1 billion mark for their music videos, which was unthinkable 6-7 yrs ago. Basically, the passage of time actually works in favour of newer videos, not older ones as you're trying to say.
> Here's an ordinary WWE video where LITERALLY NOTHING happens, that somehow has over a million views. Check it out :lol


That still doesn't rule out the fact that people can freely search up anything they want, on there, at any time. Just because more people are using youtube today doesn't mean they're only going to watch current videos. Hell, all I have to type in is "WWE retirement" and it brings up all of the videos. It's as easy as that, and they could easily click on any of the videos, such as HBK or Flair's, but they haven't.

The fact remains that retirement videos don't draw because fans don't want to watch their favourite performers non-kayfabe retire, because it's not a fun video for anyone.

You also compared a Reigns video (his title win) which occurred 2 months to a Bryan video from a week ago. These WWE videos don't compile 10 million views in 1 week, unless it's the Rock, like mentioned.


----------



## Empress

*WWE launches new website, hoping to turn around WWE.com*

One of WWE’s goals for 2016 is to turn around their WWE.com website business.


The first step was introducing a new main website on Thursday that executive Stephanie McMahon previewed to Variety at the beginning of 2016.

WWE announced via press release the main items included in the new WWE.com:

– An “all-new look” with a variety of site designs that change depending on the time of day and day of week.

– Mobile-first approach in design, which Stephanie previewed in 2015, aiming to be “seamless across handsets, tablets, or desktop computers.”










– Video-heavy features “that puts video first and nearly everywhere.” WWE will include relevant video clips throughout the website “depending on when fans visit the site and what pages they visit.”

– The launch of English, Spanish, and German language sites featuring teams of WWE employees “who will curate up-to-the-minute content during and around all WWE live TV programming.”

– Improved social sharing and commenting features, allowing fans to share content immediately from anywhere on the site. WWE Superstar and fan social posts will be “showcased and integrated into the content.”

– Infinite scroll on the homepage, with more features popping up as users scroll down the page.

The key for the new website is whether it creates more traffic and attracts more advertisers to the site.

WWE noted in their 2015 annual report that WWE.com Revenues decreased by $4.8 million in 2014 compared to 2013 “due to lower advertising across various platforms.” Plus, the effect of WWE Network drawing people away from buying PPVs through the website.

The new website is a collaboration of WWE’s digital division and “Code and Theory,” which has experience designing “successful content distribution and publishing platforms for partners including Bloomberg, Vogue, and NBC.”






http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/18/11184/


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

THANOS said:


> That still doesn't rule out the fact that *people can freely search up anything they want, on there, at any time*. Just because more people are using youtube today doesn't mean they're only going to watch current videos. Hell, all I have to type in is "WWE retirement" and it brings up all of the videos. It's as easy as that, and they could easily click on any of the videos, such as HBK or Flair's, but they haven't.
> 
> The fact remains that retirement videos don't draw because fans don't want to watch their favourite performers non-kayfabe retire, because it's not a fun video for anyone.
> 
> You also compared a Reigns video (his title win) which occurred 2 months to a Bryan video from a week ago. These WWE videos don't compile 10 million views in 1 week, unless it's the Rock, like mentioned.


I agree with this, but the insane amount views newer videos get still shows that for whatever reason, people don't go back to watching older videos no matter how important they are at a high frequency. Also, I don't buy the notion people wouldn't want to watch their favourite wrestler's farewell segment, which may very well be the last time they get to see them. HBK is my all time favourite, and I've gone back and watched his farewell promo more than any of his post-2002 promos (except the one where he trashed Hogan :lol) the last few years. Charlotte, who surely isn't as relevant her dad has more viewers for her matches than almost any of Ric Flair's matches.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MSzJRZKYx60
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgpPgQLS20
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khyYC4b4kQA
compare them with any Ric's matches view count that were uploaded before 2012.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AKJ2dqvu_UI
This is the only match that got higher views, uploaded just 2 years ago.

Also, since we're still talking about the relevancy of how long a video has been up on Youtube is, here are videos of DB's WM storyline from TWO years ago.










all less than 8m views, while Reigns' *very recent* videos like these have all got above 8m views.









for the record, I don't believe Reigns is a bigger draw than DB or anything at all :lol. I don't think he is. Im just trying to show that all the various metrics that are used to judge how big of a draw a particular wrestler is all have their flaws, and they cannot be used to concretely and accurately assess a wrestler's drawing ability, it doesnt matter whether we are talking about youtube viewership, TV Ratings, or merch sales or live attendance, that's all.:eva2:homer4


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I don't know why (or who, exactly) anyone would think Dean being pushed would get Raw 4 million + viewers. And that's not a dig at him, but no one of the full time roster can do that on a *consistent* basis; at least not yet, with the current day booking. It's even stranger when you take into consideration that Ambrose has been presented as a joke for 99% of his singles run on the main roster. It takes alot more than a couple week push to increase ratings to that degree. Fans aren't as dumb as they used to be when it comes to stuff like this. They're not going to be fooled by 2 weeks of decent booking to that degree.


----------



## JokersLastLaugh

Hey guys I have a question, sorry if it's answered already but there are way too many pages to look through in this thread.

How do ratings and PVRs combine? I don't watch any WWE program, Raw, Smackdown or PPVs live. It's all recorded. I assume lots of others are the same. How is this counted into the ratings?


----------



## StraightYesSociety

"While in the past we would scan views for spam immediately after they occurred, starting today we will periodically validate the video’s view count, removing fraudulent views as new evidence comes to light. We don’t expect this approach to affect more than a minuscule fraction of videos on YouTube, but we believe it’s crucial to improving the accuracy of view counts and maintaining the trust of our fans and creators." - Google 

It's a lot easier to buy views nowadays than it was before. Specially for YouTube partners. My friend bought around 100k views for some video project he did in order to score a job. Same with subcribers or followers on other social media. Also monetizing those views isn't as easy as people think. First there has to be no ad blockers on the view but it does give you extra if there are interactions with the ad. I doubt they would make anywhere near 4 million dollars (Pewdiepie makes that). So it's very little revenue compared to TV. I would say they make like 2 million dollars if I had to guess. So, yeah, drawing on YouTube isn't that big of a deal.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

JokersLastLaugh said:


> Hey guys I have a question, sorry if it's answered already but there are way too many pages to look through in this thread.
> 
> How do ratings and PVRs combine? I don't watch any WWE program, Raw, Smackdown or PPVs live. It's all recorded. I assume lots of others are the same. How is this counted into the ratings?


I think they included digital recordings with the latest financials to make the ratings sound better than they are. I think it was a 3.2 overall.

Of course advertisers dont care about them.


----------



## DoublePass

ShowStopper said:


> *I don't know why (or who, exactly) anyone would think Dean being pushed would get Raw 4 million + viewers.* And that's not a dig at him, but no one of the full time roster can do that on a *consistent* basis; at least not yet, with the current day booking. It's even stranger when you take into consideration that Ambrose has been presented as a joke for 99% of his singles run on the main roster. It takes alot more than a couple week push to increase ratings to that degree. Fans aren't as dumb as they used to be when it comes to stuff like this. They're not going to be fooled by 2 weeks of decent booking to that degree.


Legit Boss was making shit up because he knows Reigns has been a massive failure despite being the strongest booked wrestler on the full time roster in the last 2 years. He's trying to say, "hey look, it's not just Reigns - here's _another_ guy who can't draw!" 

The problem with that is that no one was saying that inserting Ambrose into the main event just to eat the pin and then dropping him back down to the mid card would result in 4+ million viewers. People have been saying that if you book him right, make him credible, and make him the top face (as opposed to Reigns) then you'd start to see more interest generated in the company. 

At this point, there's no reason to compare the two. Of course neither will draw, but for two completely different reasons. 

Reigns: because he has zero potential and will never amount to anything regardless of how well he is booked

Ambrose: because he's been treated like a jobber for most of his singles run and has never been built up as a main eventer


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Dunno why people thought the Grammys would affect WWE ratings. Two totally different age groups.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> I don't know why (or who, exactly) anyone would think Dean being pushed would get Raw 4 million + viewers. And that's not a dig at him, but no one of the full time roster can do that on a *consistent* basis; at least not yet, with the current day booking. It's even stranger when you take into consideration that Ambrose has been presented as a joke for 99% of his singles run on the main roster. It takes alot more than a couple week push to increase ratings to that degree. Fans aren't as dumb as they used to be when it comes to stuff like this. They're not going to be fooled by 2 weeks of decent booking to that degree.


I don't think it even has to be necessarily Dean but he is a good example to use. Pushing a superstar or even superstars that are talented and LIKED by the fans would do a better job at increasing ratings, I have no doubt about this - but then this gets me back down my usual route of getting the majority of the roster over because the MORE you have over, the better the roster is going to be, the better the crowds are going to react and the more money you will make, and ratings will increase.

Play it slow, give these superstars a chance on the mic, backstage segments to build and stay TRUE to their characters and allow them to get over whether it's heels or faces. Make the heels ones that get booed so the crowd and those watching WANT to see them get beat by an over face that's being built up on their level.

Sorry, I'm rambling.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(2/18) Vs last week(2/11) 
2.458M Vs 2.414M
(+1.82%/+0.044M)

Note: Brock Lesnar's first SmackDown appearance in almost 12 years and go-home SmackDown to Fastlane.*


----------



## TheShieldSuck

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *SmackDown viewership this week(2/18) Vs last week(2/11)
> 2.458M Vs 2.414M
> (+1.82%/+0.044M)
> 
> Note: Brock Lesnar's first SmackDown appearance in almost 12 years and go-home SmackDown to Fastlane.*


They wasted Lesnar on a Smackdown. He should have been on RAW.


----------



## Empress

*How Was WWE SmackDown Viewership With Brock Lesnar?*



> - Last night's WWE SmackDown drew 2.458 million viewers, according to Showbuzz Daily. This is up 2% from last week's 2.414 million viewers. SmackDown ranked #3 for the night in viewers, behind the GOP Town Hall on CNN and NASCAR. SmackDown ranked #3 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind Vikings and the NBA's Chicago Bulls vs. Cleveland Cavaliers game.


http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0219/607786/wwe-smackdown-viewership-up/



*2/18 Smackdown TV Ratings – Not much of a Brock Pop*

WWE saved Brock Lesnar’s WWE TV appearance this week for the final Smackdown leading into Fast Lane. But, it did not make much of a difference in TV ratings.


WWE Smackdown TV Ratings Tracking

February 18: WWE Smackdown scored a 1.76 rating, slightly up from a 1.72 rating last week.

Smackdown was down one-tenth of a rating from three straight weeks of 1.87 ratings at the end of January and beginning of February.

– Smackdown drew 2.458 million viewers, an improvement of two percent from 2.414 million viewers last week.

Again, Smackdown was still down about 150-200,000 viewers from the same audience levels at the end of January and beginning of February.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Although the overall TV rating and viewership barely moved from last week, the key male demos improved.

Males 18-34 jumped two-tenths of a rating from last week’s dreadful rating, males 18-49 improved one-tenth of a rating, and adults 18-49 slightly improved from last week. All three demos were below two weeks ago, though.

– Through seven weeks on USA Network, Smackdown has averaged a 1.81 rating and 2.586 million viewers, placing this week’s show below average.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/19/feb18sdratings/


----------



## Born of Osiris

Wow a whole 2% :eagle


----------



## Marrakesh

Lesnar is not drawing right now for WWE, at all. As a wrestling company you are in a fucking sorry state when you can't book someone like Brock Lesnar well enough to draw for you. 

He's the 'strongest' booked wrestler on the roster while simultaneously being completely uninteresting like everybody else. 

Where are the hype video packages and Lesnar rampages? Do they even market him anymore? :lol

He just stands there 99% of the time while Heyman screams about his accomplishments. This has been going on for nearly three years now. 

We get it, He's BRRRRRRRAAAACCCCKKKKK LESNAAARRRRRRRRRRR. So, fucking do something with him on a weekly basis.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Brock Lesnar can't do anything. The Company as a whole has a public image that is poison to anyone looking for excitement on TV.


----------



## LaMelo

Smackdown will probably have better ratings than Raw.


----------



## Brock

But, but, but they don't care about TV ratings, 

Right.........RIGHT?

You know it's a sad state when not even Lesnar can shift the numbers enough. It's partly how they book him of course, partly how they book whatever storyline he's involved in, and partly how they garner the interest for him appearing. 

All three they seem to struggle with, which is quite something. He should have been on both Raw/SD IMO.

I get they are trying to get SD back up more, they can't just say it, they need to start writing good shit for the show.

Still, good to see him on SD and I enjoyed it.


----------



## frenchguy

Hey i watched RAw in US version and i have a question : how does the advertisment system work in the US ? In France, we only have one ad per hour (most of the times) but it seems very different for you.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

frenchguy said:


> Hey i watched RAw in US version and i have a question : how does the advertisment system work in the US ? In France, we only have one ad per hour (most of the times) but it seems very different for you.


In France you have just 1 add an hour? Is that for everything?

In the UK we have 5 minutes of ads every 15 minutes of program.


----------



## frenchguy

Sport : ad at the half-time
Movies : ads: one time per hour (if the movie starts at 9:00 PM, ad at 9:45 PM) 


And we have no ads at all on public TV after 9:00PM


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

America is the country of unlimited commercial break. Europeans aren't used to that.


----------



## squarebox

ShowStopper said:


> 60% decline from social media activity in comparison to last week's Bryan episode.
> 
> :lmao
> 
> No one cares about Bryan, though, right?
> 
> :mj4


But but but Bryan isn't a draw remember! Nobody cares about vanilla midgets!

:lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


----------



## Erik.

60% is a pretty damn huge drop - but I wonder if that was to do with more people tweeting about the Grammys etc.

Will be interesting to see what their social media activity is following the coming Raw, then again if they decide to give us something the fans actually WANT at FastLane, the fall out of the PPV may be enough to get it back up to what it usually is.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

squarebox said:


> But but but Bryan isn't a draw remember! Nobody cares about vanilla midgets!
> 
> :lmao:lmao:lmao:lmao


Pre-maturely celebrating on this very thread about Bryan's supposed fail, only for it to come out that he was the highest rated QH of the night. :lmao :lmao :lmao

Ratings right now, during the Road to WM, being the same and at times even worse than when Rollins had all that air time. :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THANOS said:


> - *Daniel Bryan' farewell address from WWE's channel has 2.8 MILLION views (uploaded 2 weeks ago)*
> 
> If anything, your point helps prove that Bryan DOES in fact draw.


*
Considering a throwaway match between Reigns and Ambrose vs. The Dudleyz ON SMACKDOWN was uploaded 3 days ago and already has 2.3 mil, this only proves my point about Reigns consistently being the biggest Youtube draw:*







THANOS said:


> You also compared a Reigns video (his title win) which occurred 2 months to a Bryan video from a week ago. These WWE videos don't compile 10 million views in 1 week, unless it's the Rock, like mentioned.



*Not a title match, nothing on the line, no Vince, and it's on the show that "no one watches".*


----------



## Peerless

Main event matches always draw more than promos in terms of youtube ratings. It's likely that fans no longer watch the matches and just go to youtube for highlights, which is a possibility.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

That PPV. :heyman6


----------



## SnapOrTap

I'm going to now blame the dogshit rating on Reigns for the next couple of weeks

:>

BELIEVE DATTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.

COME ON BELOW 3 MILLION.

LET'S GO MUTHAFUCKAS.


----------



## Marrakesh

SnapOrTap said:


> I'm going to now blame the dogshit rating on Reigns for the next couple of weeks
> 
> :>
> 
> BELIEVE DATTTTTTTTTTTTTTT.
> 
> COME ON BELOW 3 MILLION.
> 
> LET'S GO MUTHAFUCKAS.


I'll say this, from top to bottom there is fuck all going on of any interest whatsoever but Reigns/HHH is now THE official 'Hook'.

Whatever Lesnar etc do now is secondary as the main event of Wrestlemania has been confirmed (unless they decide they have to shoehorn someone in again, but it seems unlikely now)

The ratings from here on in depend largely on this story line and whether or not the fans are going to stay with them and watch for Roman Reigns (The new 'star'. HHH is not the one under the spotlight at all here.) 

So, if the ratings tank or increase significantly in the next few weeks, Roman Reigns will play a huge part in that. 

They lost every ounce of good will they had post TLC within a week and it will not be easy to gain that back again after they duped the fans by foreshadowing a complete rethink of his character only to make no noticeable alterations whatsoever. 

The upcoming Raw's are being held in very vocal 'smark' cities also. Should be interesting. 

I won't be surprised if Lesnar makes his way into this main event (which would be damning indictment on Roman Reigns standing with their fanbase) 

They have another mess on their hands. Maybe we'll get that Survivor Series nosedive tonight in the ratings. I can't see how they would increase.


----------



## Erik.

You can see why the third hour always tends to drop can't you?

We've had Ryback, Kane and Big Show vs. the Wyatt Family, Sasha Banks vs. Naomi and we'll get Reigns vs. Sheamus too. 

I mean the execution of Raw hasn't been the best tonight.

Shane returning should have ENDED the show. You end the show on a buzz.


----------



## Empress

I hope the ratings are solid. RAW started off strong with Shane's return and ended gangbusters with HHH killing Roman. HHH, Roman and Shane McMahon were all trending.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I hope Shane brought the ratings to Raw. He deserves it. Only good part of the show.


----------



## Empress

*2/22 Raw Social Media – huge pop, but was it enough to top D-Bryan’s Retirement?*

Monday’s Raw following the Fast Lane PPV definitely got a Shane Pop in social media interest. Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings metrics indicate Raw topped the post-Royal Rumble episode by a healthy margin and fell just short of Daniel Bryan retirement Raw from two weeks ago.


Raw Social Media Tracking

February 22: Monday’s Raw jumped 100-164 percent in the individual social media metrics compared to last week’s Raw leading into Fast Lane.

It was still not good enough to take the #1 spot among series & specials on Monday night, as Raw trailed “The Bachelor” on ABC.

– Raw’s unique Twitter audience was 2.802 million, up 120 percent from last week.

– Total impressions were 20.689 million, up 164 percent from last week.

– The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 64,000, up 106 percent from last week. Total tweets were 286,000, up 110 percent from last week.

Comparisons – Post-Rumble Raw, D-Bryan Retirement Raw, Shane Post-Fast Lane Raw

Unique Audience

D-Bryan Raw: 2.926 million
Shane Raw: 2.802 million
Post-Rumble: 1.824 million
Total Impressions

D-Bryan Raw: 21.342 million
Shane Raw: 20.689 million
Post-Rumble: 14.343 million
Unique Authors

D-Bryan Raw: 83,000
Shane Raw: 64,000
Post-Rumble: 54,000
Number of Tweets

D-Bryan Raw: 343,000
Shane Raw: 286,000
Post-Rumble: 243,000

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/23/feb22rawtwitter/


----------



## Naka Moora

Thing is, you can't really compare the two situations, Daniel Bryans retirement was promoted all day, and he had 60,000 retweets before the show started. Shane was a total surprise. So Shane has had a HUGE impact.


----------



## Erik.

Will be interesting to see if there is a bump next week - you'd THINK people will want to see where the Shane storyline goes. 

It's amazing but it really can work. I literally ONLY tuned in last night because of the Lesnar/Ambrose video they put on their facebook page and then I stayed for Shane. Good work WWE.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Will be interesting to see if there is a bump next week - you'd THINK people will want to see where the Shane storyline goes.
> 
> It's amazing but it really can work. I literally ONLY tuned in last night because of the Lesnar/Ambrose video they put on their facebook page and then I stayed for Shane. Good work WWE.


There's already been rumors that Shane won't be on TV again until WM. fpalm They better put him on Raw practically every week, or they are even dumber than we already know that they are.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> There's already been rumors that Shane won't be on TV again until WM. fpalm They better put him on Raw practically every week, or they are even dumber than we already know that they are.


Really? I hope that isn't true!


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-4.201M
H2-4.055M
H3-3.396M

Avg-3.884M*










*H2 vs H1 (-3.48%)
H3 Vs H2 (-16.25%)
H3 Vs H1 (-19.16%)

2/22 Vs 2/15
(+11.71%)
(+0.407M)

Note: Shane McMahon returns after 6 years and fallout show after Fastlane.*


----------



## Erik.

Better numbers then what we're used to seeing in recent months. Considering Shane wasn't even advertised, they done well to stick. 

Not surprised the third hour dropped considering what we saw, In fact I thought it'd be lower.


----------



## TheWire

First two hours - very good, and much better than we've seen for most of the last year.

Hour 3 - LOL @ people still giving no fucks about Reigns.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SHANE the DRAW. :damn Happy for him. You know he's gotta be happy.

That third hour, though. Nearly a drop of a full million. Gotta be close to a record-breaking drop. :mj4


----------



## JBLoser

Jesus Christ that drop off to the 3rd hour.


----------



## TheWire

ShowStopper said:


> SHANE the DRAW. :damn Happy for him. You know he's gotta be happy.
> 
> *That third hour, though. Nearly a drop of a full million. Gotta be close to a record-breaking drop*. :mj4


The Reigns effect.


----------



## JY57

WWE really needs to start trying to convince USA someway somehow to eliminate that 3rd hour. Its pretty much a lost cause.


----------



## David Klein

So a huge drop in viewers in the third hour when the son in law and the big dog were featured, shocker.


----------



## 2Pieced

It's really simple WWE.

If you can't book a 3 hour show then get rid of the third hour because nobody wants to stick around to watch a long boring show.


----------



## JBLoser

JY57 said:


> WWE really needs to start trying to convince USA someway somehow to eliminate that 3rd hour. Its pretty much a lost cause.


Considering how Vince told stockholders the other day that he doesn't think ratings matter or are indicative of anything, that's probably not happening any time soon. Even though it absolutely should.


----------



## Empress

I'm glad that Shane's return brought in ratings. The hype and interest in him was well deserved.



The third hour is higher than last week's.



> Hour one: 3.66 million
> Hour two: 3.53 million
> Hour three: 3.23 million


http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...stlane-go-home-show-roman-reigns-dean-ambrose

I'm glad that Roman Reigns could give that third hour a much needed boost. opcorn

It's hardly the worse it's been but the third hour should be done away with.


----------



## yopyop

Shane's return tops the night, Overrun with the bloody beatdown was the second biggest.


----------



## Mr. I

The above guff about the third hour is sarcasm, right?


----------



## RatedR10

JBLoser said:


> Considering how Vince told stockholders the other day that he doesn't think ratings matter or are indicative of anything, that's probably not happening any time soon. Even though it absolutely should.


He told that to shareholders but the ratings very much do matter. Ratings are the basis are any TV deal they get. Poor ratings = less money. Almost a million people tuned out from the 1st to 3rd hour. The third hour either needs to be scrapped or they need to find a way to get viewers to stick around.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

In comparison to last years at this time:

This year:

Hour 1: 4.2 Million
Hour 2: 4.0 Million
Hour 3: 3.2 Million

Last year:

Hour 1: 4.1 Million
Hour 2: 4.1 Million
Hour 3: 4.18 Million

Comparing last years hour 3 to this years Hour 3. :lmao :lmao :lmao

Last year overall still win, too. BIG TIME.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Same average viewing audience the night Reigns won the title on RAW with Vince returning. That show though had more consistent viewership hour to hour. Maybe a rating around 2.7, beating that show's 2.66 and also Bryans retirement show(2.65) which was pre advertised.

2nd highest viewership/rating since the RAW after WM31 besides the Rumble fallout which scored a 2.93 with 4.1M viewers.


----------



## TheWire

Empress said:


> I'm glad that Shane's return brought in ratings. The hype and interest in him was well deserved.
> 
> 
> 
> The third hour is higher than last week's.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...stlane-go-home-show-roman-reigns-dean-ambrose
> 
> I'm glad that Roman Reigns could give that third hour a much needed boost. opcorn
> 
> It's hardly the worse it's been but the third hour should be done away with.


Boost? Shane (in the first hour) and Lesnar/Ambrose (in the 2nd hour) brought in over 4 million viewers per hour. Nearly a million of those viewers disappeared in the 3rd hour for Reigns' main event match.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Maybe word spread fast enough about Brocks ambush of Ambrose and Shane appearing, that a lot of them decided to watch RAW only after being informed of the same leading to that huge H1. Then again some of them did expect Taker to show up or new WM feuds to take shape with this episode too. So that too helped.


----------



## Empress

TheWire said:


> Boost? Shane (in the first hour) and Lesnar/Ambrose (in the 2nd hour) brought in over 4 million viewers per hour. Nearly a million of those viewers disappeared in the 3rd hour for Reigns' main event match.


The third hour didn't dip to some record low. It held up better than it has in recent weeks. 

It pulled the same amount of viewers as last week's Hour 2.

Most of the Hour 3 ratings have fallen below H1 & 2 but most of the posters in this thread frame it as a Roman Reigns issue rather than it just being a trend.


----------



## TheWire

Empress said:


> The third hour didn't dip to some record low. It held up better than it has in recent weeks.
> 
> It pulled the same amount of viewers as last week's Hour 2.
> 
> Most of the Hour 3 ratings have fallen below H1 & 2 but most of the posters in this thread frame it as a Roman Reigns issue rather than it just being a trend.


Indeed, hour 3 usually drops in viewership. But it was a pretty dramatic drop this week. Far more than usual.


----------



## Chrome

Shane da Gawd. That 3rd hour drop though. bama4

They really need to go back to 2 hours at some point.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> The third hour didn't dip to some record low. It held up better than it has in recent weeks.
> 
> *It pulled the same amount of viewers as last week's Hour 2.
> *


Last week's Hour 2 pulled in 3.5 million viewers. This week's Hour 3 only did 3.2 million.

Last weeks numbers:

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...stlane-go-home-show-roman-reigns-dean-ambrose


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Last week's Hour 2 pulled in 3.5 million viewers. This week's Hour 3 only did 3.2 million.
> 
> Last weeks numbers:
> 
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...stlane-go-home-show-roman-reigns-dean-ambrose


I edited my posts because I had a few windows open with various ratings dates.

I read this week's third hour rating as 3.5. That's why I made the comparison that they were similar. If I'm wrong, I can own to that.


----------



## FROSTY

JBLoser said:


> Jesus Christ that drop off to the 3rd hour.


*Everybody knows that's Roman Reigns "special hour" where he makes his "magic." So yeah people tune the fuck out lol.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I edited my posts because I had a few windows open with various ratings dates.
> 
> I read this week's third hour rating as 3.5. That's why I made the comparison that they were similar. If I'm wrong, I can own to that.


No big deal at all. I figured it was due to something like that. :shrug

Anyway, I wish they'd get rid of that third hour. But I guess they feel the 3rd hour dip is okay since they get paid by USA for it. But it's also bad from an over-exposure aspect. Oh well. Their company.


----------



## Red Dead

I know this has probably been said before but WWE really got to move Raw back to a 2 hour show.

This is not the WWF roster of 2002. What I find the 3 hour Raw does is that there are plenty of pointless filler matches and viewers tune out more and therefore miss some of the more important segments/matches.

I know that there is more to improving a show than the length but I think if Raw goes back to 2 hours it would flow much better.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> No big deal at all. I figured it was due to something like that. :shrug
> 
> Anyway, I wish they'd get rid of that third hour. But I guess they feel the 3rd hour dip is okay since they get paid by USA for it. But it's also bad from an over-exposure aspect. Oh well. Their company.


I just want to make sure I have everything right. I like Reigns, but I'm not going to blindly defend a drastic drop.

Where did you get 3.2 million for Hour 3?

Johnny posted this



> H1-4.201M
> H2-4.055M
> H3-3.396M
> 
> Avg-3.884M


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I just want to make sure I have everything right. I like Reigns, but I'm not going to blindly defend a drastic drop.
> 
> Where did you get 3.2 million for Hour 3?
> 
> Johnny posted this


Oh, my bad. Not 3.2, but 3.3. Point still stands, though. Last weeks hour 2 (3.5) is is still higher than this week's hour 3. My bad on the 0.1 downgrade, though.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

_Not sure how this is going to affect their post WM plans and didn't think this needed a new thread, so here it is._

*WWE Drops The Payback Pay-Per-View And Moves Extreme Rules Up One Month*

Ticketmaster is now listing the WWE Payback pay-per-view for May 22nd in New Jersey at the Prudential Center as WWE Extreme Rules. As noted, tickets were set to go on sale this week for Payback. The Prudential Center's website has replaced the Payback logo with a standard WWE pay-per-view logo and the name Payback is nowhere on the event page. However, a press release for Payback tickets was just posted yesterday so this appears to be a last minute change from WWE. Extreme Rules had previously been announced for April 24th but no location was named. We'll keep you updated on the change.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...back-pay-per-view-and-moves-extreme-rules-up/


----------



## Erik.

To be fair we did get:

Ryback, Kane and Big Show vs. The Wyatt Family. 
Sasha Banks vs. Naomi
Roman Reigns vs. Sheamus

With zero storyline progression bar the beat down at the end, which probably prevented the rating from being even lower.


----------



## Naka Moora

What the hell, That 3rd hour..And there is people who honestly believe that Roman Reigns is a mainstream wonderboy


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I don't think it matters who they put in Hour 3. They've tried everybody; and everybody has produced a drop in that hour. Hour 3 is doomed unless it's the night after WM. All this does is prove that no one on the roster is a draw; which has been our point the entire time.


----------



## Empress

*
WWE RAW Viewership Up This Week*

Monday's 2/22 episode of WWE RAW drew 3.884 million viewers, up from last week's 3.46 million.

The show featured fallout from WWE Fastlane, the surprise return of Shane McMahon and several major developments for Wrestlemania 32.

Here's the hourly breakdown, courtesy of ShowbuzzDaily.com:

Hour 1: 4.201 million
Hour 2: 4.055 million
Hour 3: 3.396 million

RAW dominated the cable charts for the evening, with RAW winning the night and claiming 3 of the top 4 most-watched hours.

http://rajah.com/node/50983


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

If they take Shane off of Raw for the rest of the Road to WM; they are idiots.


----------



## KO Bossy

A broken nose and a drop of 700,000 viewers. All in a night's work for the Big Dog. Its his yard, and its full of turds.


Jesting aside, does anyone else find it hilarious that even a Shane McMahon return can't boost them anywhere near a 3.0? What does this rating translate to, like a 2.5 or 2.6? Maybe they'll figure out someday that returning stars don't make up for shitty booking and stupid writing.


Who am I kidding, of course they won't figure it out.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> I don't think it matters who they put in Hour 3. They've tried everybody; and everybody has produced a drop in that hour. Hour 3 is doomed unless it's the night after WM. All this does is prove that no one on the roster is a draw; which has been our point the entire time.


Thank you on the correction before. I honestly had my numbers confused, but I agree with this. 

H3 has been bad for some time now. Years. I just took exception to it once again being made a Roman Reigns issue when the ratings have fallen even when he didn't appear in the 3rd hour.

These are the past few weeks. There's always a dip. 

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...6-viewers-up-big-daniel-bryan-retirement-show

http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe/20...stlane-go-home-show-roman-reigns-dean-ambrose


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KO Bossy said:


> A broken nose and a drop of 700,000 viewers. All in a night's work for the Big Dog. Its his yard, and its full of turds.
> 
> 
> Jesting aside, does anyone else find it hilarious that even a Shane McMahon return can't boost them anywhere near a 3.0? What does this rating translate to, like a 2.5 or 2.6? Maybe they'll figure out someday that returning stars don't make up for shitty booking and stupid writing.
> 
> 
> Who am I kidding, of course they won't figure it out.


I was thinking, this is great and all, but even a Shane appearance for the first time in nearly a decade only produced low 4 millions. They were at 5 just a few years ago. Seems like those days are gone.

Also, even scarier, WWE just blew their final load of guys who have been gone for awhile. Who else is there now? Shane was the last one.


----------



## KO Bossy

ShowStopper said:


> If they take Shane off of Raw for the rest of the Road to WM; they are idiots.


First off, they will. Second, even if they didn't, he's not going to be pulling in these ratings going forward. He got a return spike, that's it. They have 5 weeks until Mania...5 long weeks to completely fuck this up, which I'm betting they will.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> Also, even scarier, WWE just blew their final load of guys who have been gone for awhile. *Who else is there now?* Shane was the last one.






























>


----------



## Empress

KO Bossy said:


> First off, they will. Second, even if they didn't, he's not going to be pulling in these ratings going forward. He got a return spike, that's it. They have 5 weeks until Mania...5 long weeks to completely fuck this up, which I'm betting they will.


Shane spoke as though he's not appearing until Mania. And we all know Undertaker isn't showing up to do his part with this "feud".

I know a lot of people don't care about Roman/HHH, but they need to fix that angle going into Mania. I've tried to defend it for months, but the top "face" shouldn't be booed out of the building. It's not even dueling chants. It was Die Rocky Die deja vu. To be honest, I was cheering the beatdown. But I like bloody brawls and wanted to see HHH go psycho. 

I'll be disappointed if Roman shows up smiling to RAW next week.


----------



## KO Bossy

ShowStopper said:


> I was thinking, this is great and all, but even a Shane appearance for the first time in nearly a decade only produced low 4 millions. They were at 5 just a few years ago. Seems like those days are gone.
> 
> Also, even scarier, WWE just blew their final load of guys who have been gone for awhile. Who else is there now? Shane was the last one.


Of course they're gone. The show is the rankest smelling type of ass imaginable. Took them a while to dig this hole and its gonna take them YEARS to dig out of it. Years of good solid booking and competent writing, plus a few good angles to hook them in. This company has been stagnant crap for like...a decade, with a few bright spots in between.

I think Shane is one of the last, but there's still a couple left. Angle is one. Maybe a Goldberg return. Maybe ABA Taker (although those times are getting thin). And MAYBE Eric Bischoff would generate a bit of interest. That's it.


----------



## The Caped Crusader

UFO said:


> What the hell, That 3rd hour..And there is people who honestly believe that Roman Reigns is a mainstream wonderboy


Well, it still did better than Daniel Bryan's retirement and delusional people on here thought he was mainstream.

The third hour issue has little to do with superstars. You have to be quite dense or dumb to have not figured that out by this stage.


----------



## Saved_masses

that's a decent rise for the first two hours, but my god that third hour. It needs to go, now. Make the most of Smackdown and have feuds switch between both weekly in 4 hours of TV. Have one or two main storylines on either show each week to gage interest from the viewers, the 3 hour Raws are just too much now and NO ONE can draw in that slot.

Raw 2 hours with 3/4 PPV storylines
Smackdown 2 hours with 3/4 PPV storylines.
Interchange stories between Raw and Smackdown each week.
Any other time on the shows can have decent filler matches or even segments.


----------



## McNugget

My god. Roman was advertised for the ME the entire night and they lost 700,000 viewers for the final hour. That's fucking incredible. The show fell off a cliff but even still, that kind of loss when the guy who is supposed to be your big money featured player is advertised for the main event is astounding.

I'm really interested to see the segment breakdown.


----------



## KO Bossy

Empress said:


> Shane spoke as though he's not appearing until Mania. And we all know Undertaker isn't showing up to do his part with this "feud".
> 
> I know a lot of people don't care about Roman/HHH, but they need to fix that angle going into Mania. I've tried to defend it for months, but the top "face" shouldn't be booed out of the building. It's not even dueling chants. It was Die Rocky Die deja vu. To be honest, I was cheering the beatdown. But I like bloody brawls and wanted to see HHH go psycho.
> 
> I'll be disappointed if Roman shows up smiling to RAW next week.


That fucking smirk has got to go. If anything is a complete Cena repeat, its that.

I don't even get it. Why not get mad? Its a regular human emotion. If anything, NOT getting mad and laughing it off is what people can't comprehend. How can you relate to someone who behaves in an inhuman way? People get mad, he doesn't seem to, so its like watching some weird alien vaguely mimicking human behaviour. And its not something we can side with.



Oh god. It just hit me. Like a bolt of lightning. You know what Roman is? 












This is Roman Reigns. He's Ned fucking Flanders. 

Homer makes a song about hating Ned? Ned sings it and is a fan.

Roman Reigns loses the WWE title? He comes out smirking.

Homer tells Flanders to piss off? He smiles and says Okilley Dokilley.

Sheamus wins the WWE title after screwing Reigns? Reigns grins and insults his tater tots.


Except Ned is supposed to be funny, which he is, in a quirky way. Roman is supposed to be taken seriously...

And guess what? When Roman showed rage, the fans got somewhat interested. Just like...








And sure enough, people took Ned seriously and this helped him grow as a character.

I'm convinced of it now. Vince has the early years of the Simpsons in his VHS player (that's right, VHS) and this is where he's getting Roman's material. Come on, tater tots? Sufferin' Succotash? 







TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS?!


----------



## The Bloodline

This drop was as bad as the drop 2 weeks ago. Only difference is that one was building up to a big retirement speech for Bryan and this one had nothing of interest being advertised. So I'm actually shocked the hour 3 numbers are pretty identical, even higher. Just shows how bad hour 3 is for them most of the time. 2 Hour shows again please


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> I don't think it matters who they put in Hour 3. They've tried everybody; and everybody has produced a drop in that hour. Hour 3 is doomed unless it's the night after WM. All this does is prove that no one on the roster is a draw; which has been our point the entire time.


It's also the booking of the show.

The matches they put on that third hour WERE begging for viewers to turn over. The award ceremony should have ended the show.

The announcement that Taker would be Shanes opponent is the sort of thing you want to end the show on. You tend to build up to your biggest moment not start off with it whilst the show goes down hill from there.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> It's also the booking of the show.
> 
> The matches they put on that third hour WERE begging for viewers to turn over. The award ceremony should have ended the show.
> 
> The announcement that Taker would be Shanes opponent is the sort of thing you want to end the show on. You tend to build up to your biggest moment not start off with it whilst the show goes down hill from there.


Good point. I would've put the Shane thing on last, too. The point, IMO, is to end the show on a high note. And the Shane appearance was the highest of highs we've had in years. Although, if they do that, then Hours 1 and 2 aren't in the 4 millions like they were.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Shane outdraws Roman/HHH by more than just a nose. Numbers were pretty good until the final hour, which besides the total viewer slide, also dropped two tenths in the demo. That is not a ringing endorsement for the titular Main Event of Mania. Time to make Taker/Shane the actual Main Event.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> Good point. I would've put the Shane thing on last, too. The point, IMO, is to end the show on a high note. And the Shane appearance was the highest of highs we've had in years. Although, if they do that, then Hours 1 and 2 aren't in the 4 millions like they were.


The way I look at the 3 hour shows nowadays, I don't know if it's just me but I feel even the WWE don't like the 3 hour format but it brings in so much more money than just 2 hours that they're keeping it there.

I mean look at some of the fucking shit they put on it and its ALWAYS lower then every other hour yet they do nothing about it. They obviously put something good on the end because they can't just end the show with Sasha vs. Naomi, in fact what do I know? They fucking ended the go home show to a PPV with Big Show, Kane and Ryback vs. Wyatts.


----------



## Empress

@KO Bossy

Unless HHH takes control of Roman's booking and Vince GTFO, I just don't see myself continuing to be a fan of Reigns past Mania. I like Joe Anoaʻi just fine, but it's not just the "haters" who are tired of a 6'3 guy being scripted as a bland, smiling babyface. I'm just over it at this point. He could be a draw and realize the potential the WWE has in him if creative would just do the obvious. Turn him heel. If you won't, give him an edge at least. I want the guy from The Shield back, not Ned Flanders. It's kind of messed up that I enjoyed HHH performing the Passion of the Christ on Roman. 

As for the Shane announcement, I don't mind that it kicked off RAW. It's just that there wasn't much after. You had to wait until the last 5 minutes for something major to happen. 

Speaking of which, the Reigns beatdown, Shane's return and Dean/Brock all have over 1 million views on YouTube.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> The way I look at the 3 hour shows nowadays, I don't know if it's just me but I feel even the WWE don't like the 3 hour format but it brings in so much more money than just 2 hours that they're keeping it there.
> 
> I mean look at some of the fucking shit they put on it and its ALWAYS lower then every other hour yet they do nothing about it. They obviously put something good on the end because they can't just end the show with Sasha vs. Naomi, in fact what do I know? They fucking ended the go home show to a PPV with Big Show, Kane and Ryback vs. Wyatts.


Yeah, you'd have to think they are getting paid EXTREMELY well for that third hour by USA. If they're not; they're even bigger idiots than we think. It's still a bad move, though. Over-exposing the shit out of your product for present day financial gain over the long term health of the product is STUPID. They still make plenty of money even without the third hour.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, you'd have to think they are getting paid EXTREMELY well for that third hour by USA. If they're not; they're even bigger idiots than we think. It's still a bad move, though. Over-exposing the shit out of your product for present day financial gain over the long term health of the product is STUPID. They still make plenty of money even without the third hour.


Thing is the proof is for 2 hours they can get 4,000,000 viewers. They're not sustaining that for three hours. If they go back to 2 hours, they have a solid base of 4,000,000 to perhaps build on. 

Focus on building up your roster within that 2 hours, backstage segments, shorter matches, get people over. The more people you have over the more money the superstars will make and you'll be making up for that third hour in no time.


----------



## Arkham258

KO Bossy said:


> That fucking smirk has got to go. If anything is a complete Cena repeat, its that.
> 
> I don't even get it. Why not get mad? Its a regular human emotion. If anything, NOT getting mad and laughing it off is what people can't comprehend. How can you relate to someone who behaves in an inhuman way? People get mad, he doesn't seem to, so its like watching some weird alien vaguely mimicking human behaviour. And its not something we can side with.
> 
> 
> 
> Oh god. It just hit me. Like a bolt of lightning. You know what Roman is?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is Roman Reigns. He's Ned fucking Flanders.
> 
> Homer makes a song about hating Ned? Ned sings it and is a fan.
> 
> Roman Reigns loses the WWE title? He comes out smirking.
> 
> Homer tells Flanders to piss off?  He smiles and says Okilley Dokilley.
> 
> Sheamus wins the WWE title after screwing Reigns? Reigns grins and insults his tater tots.
> 
> 
> Except Ned is supposed to be funny, which he is, in a quirky way. Roman is supposed to be taken seriously...
> 
> And guess what? When Roman showed rage, the fans got somewhat interested. Just like...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And sure enough, people took Ned seriously and this helped him grow as a character.
> 
> I'm convinced of it now. Vince has the early years of the Simpsons in his VHS player (that's right, VHS) and this is where he's getting Roman's material. Come on, tater tots? Sufferin' Succotash?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TELL ME WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS?!


Someone described Reigns perfectly on a podcast I listened to recently. He said if someone who doesn't watch wrestling watched Fastlane, this is what they would think when the main event happened. They'd see Lesnar and think that guy looks like a fucking monster. He's going to fucking HURT someone. They'd see Ambrose and think that guy looks fucking cool...and a little crazy. I have to watch just to see what this psycho is actually going to do. Then out comes Roman.....................

Wow, that guy looks like...a wrestler

The point they were making on the podcast was that Roman Reigns just looks like a generic pro wrestler. He's basically what non wrestling fans picture in their head when they think of wrestlers. There's nothing unique about him. There's nothing special about him. He's just a guy with big muscles who looks like he's on steroids...i.e. what ALL wrestlers look like to non wrestling fans.


----------



## CJohn3:16

I am not surprised by the 3rd hour drop. Everything was weak there. The ME was shit. Who cares about Reigns vs Sheamus? A Reigns/HHH contract signing would draw more tbh.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Thing is the proof is for 2 hours they can get 4,000,000 viewers. They're not sustaining that for three hours. If they go back to 2 hours, they have a solid base of 4,000,000 to perhaps build on.
> 
> Focus on building up your roster within that 2 hours, backstage segments, shorter matches, get people over. The more people you have over the more money the superstars will make and you'll be making up for that third hour in no time.


I agree. But apparently the payday is more valuable to Vince then any of that.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

_Isnt this viral yet?_ :grin2:

*The role Byron Saxon played in the Roman Reigns and Triple H angle*

Fan video footage has surfaced of Byron Saxton passing something to Roman Reigns during his angle with Triple H from the end of Monday’s WWE Raw. Saxton reaches out and hands something to Reigns, who was a bloody mess seconds later. You can watch the footage at

Facebook.com/nightsneakjames/videos/10153218436591571/

Powell’s POV: Kayfabe, brother! I like to think that Byron was offering Roman the support that only his loving touch can provide.

http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/02/23/the-role-byron-saxon-played-in-the-roman-reigns-and-triple-h-angle/


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> I agree. But apparently the payday is more valuable to Vince then any of that.


It's such a shame really isn't it - because if Raw was two hours yesterday, it would have been a pretty damn good Raw. 

Open:- Shane return.
Opening match:- Entertaining opening, perhaps Owens title match.
Top of the hour:- Ambrose/Lesnar segment.
Second match:- Perhaps put AJ Styles/Jericho stuff here.
Backstage segment:- Triple H and Stephanie.
Main Event:- Reigns vs. Sheamus, HHH beatdown.


You get the hot opening to bring the viewers in. You have a great Owens match to keep the viewers there. Ambrose/Lesnar segment following the hype of the video posted earlier in the night and Heyman putting Ambrose over on the mic. 

You CONTINUE to keep the viewers with favourites like AJ Styles and Jericho along with the entertaining match we got. In that backstage segment, perhaps have HHH tease how Reigns will find out who the game really is etc. etc. You then have the main event and the beat down at the end.

I mean you cut out the bullshit with Kane, Big Show, Ryback and you leave other bullshit off or leave that to Smackdown, you get the IC title over, you get the WHC feud over, you get excitement with regards to Shanes return and Ambrose/Lesnar get a top of the hour booking.

I have no doubt if they booked Raw like this every single week but switching spots with where they put Lesnar/Ambrose, how they end up portraying Reigns/HHH, start bringing in the likes of Taker to build the feud. Switch up the likes of Owens matches and then build the divas stuff with Sasha/Becky/Charlotte and then have Owens cut a backstage promo etc to keep him on television, you will continue to have steady ratings and MAYBE even see an increase.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

That drop is deep. 

They need to go to 2hrs ASAP. They are jeopodizing the WWE's long term future.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

THE SHIV said:


> Shane outdraws Roman/HHH by more than just a nose. Numbers were pretty good until the final hour, which besides the total viewer slide, also dropped two tenths in the demo. That is not a ringing endorsement for the titular Main Event of Mania. *Time to make Taker/Shane the actual Main Event.*


My client Brock Lesnar is the actual Main Event!:heyman4

I wonder if I should point out that Big Show vs Strowman as the main event last week (that I dont think anybody was dying to see) 'only' led to 430,000 viewership drop from H1 to H3, while this week it was 800,000.:hmm:

Oh well, good luck Vince!:lebron8ac


----------



## Blade Runner

ZeroFear0 said:


> This drop was as bad as the drop 2 weeks ago. Only difference is that one was building up to a big retirement speech for Bryan and this one had nothing of interest being advertised. So I'm actually shocked the hour 3 numbers are pretty identical, even higher. Just shows how bad hour 3 is for them most of the time. 2 Hour shows again please


True, but the overrun for Bryan's retirement pulled in a better number than anything on the entire show that night. That's when most of it took place

Not arguing your point tho, 3 hours is too long ESPECIALLY for a criminally uninspired show like RAW


----------



## Godway

I wouldn't say it means "Shane is a draw". It just means when you do something BIG, that actually feels like a shakeup, fresh, new, etc, people will watch. The audience has suffered for months with the show starting and ending with awful Roman Reigns promos, angles, matches, etc.. It's about fucking time there is something different going on here, and an angle that feels BIG compared to the rest of the show.


----------



## The Caped Crusader

Why is everyone attributing the viewership to Shane's appearance? You all realize it was a surprise appearance, don't you? That rating has more to do with the fallout of Fastlane, and the advertised award, than it does with Shane showing up. It's not like hundreds of thousands of people suddenly decided to tune in because Shane appeared, and word magically spread out to all of them and made them want to turn on the TV.


----------



## Bret Hart

They NEEEEEEEEEEED to go back to 2 hours live 9-11 and have a 3rd hour for the live audience where it starts at 8:00.

Dark matches etc.


----------



## Empress

*2/22 Raw TV Ratings post-PPV, plus historical hourly drop*

Monday’s Raw following the Fast Lane PPV fell in-between Daniel Bryan Raw and post-Royal Rumble Raw among the three most-watched episodes of the year. The other big story was the largest drop in viewership from the second to third hour in three-hour Raw history.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

February 22: Raw scored a 2.73 rating, up 10 percent from a 2.48 rating last week leading into Fast Lane.

Raw’s three highest-rated shows of the year:

Jan. 25: 2.93 rating post-Rumble
Feb. 22: 2.73 rating post-Fast Lane/Shane McMahon Return
Feb. 8: 2.65 rating for Daniel Bryan Retirement Raw

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.884 million viewers, up 12 percent from last week’s show leading into Fast Lane.

It was the second-most viewers of the year behind post-Royal Rumble Raw and edged out Daniel Bryan’s Retirement show. Both of these shows had a similar issue – big third-hour decline.

First Hour: 4.201 million viewers for an hour featuring an uninterrupted 30-minute opening segment.
Second Hour: 4.055 million viewers.
Third Hour: 3.396 million viewers, a loss of about 650,000 viewers (16.3 percent decline) from the second hour.

It was the largest drop in viewers from the second to third hour in the history of three-hour Raws dating back to July 2012.

The previous high was 15.5 percent for an episode in November 2012. More recently, the D-Bryan retirement show two weeks ago declined 13.8 percent from the second to third hour.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Raw increased across the board from last week, but there was not a huge week-to-week jump like the D-Bryan Retirement Raw two weeks ago.

Monday’s Raw ranked #3 among the Big Three most-watched Raws of the year in the key demos.

Adults 18-49

Post-Rumble: 1.49 rating
D-Bryan Raw: 1.36 rating
Post-Fast Lane: 1.31 rating
Males 18-34

Post-Rumble: 1.90 rating
D-Bryan Raw: 1.74 rating
Post-Fast Lane: 1.62 rating
Males 18-49

Post-Rumble: 1.95 rating
D-Bryan Raw: 1.79 rating
Post-Fast Lane: 1.70 rating


http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/23/feb22rawtvratings/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

So, it was the biggest drop from hour 2 to hour 3 in Raw history. I knew it!


----------



## SnapOrTap

ANOTHER ACCOLADE TO ADD TO THE ROMAN EMPIRE.

BELIEVE DAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAT.

ROMAN 2.16

ROMAN BELOW 3 MILLION

AND NOW

WAIT FOR IT































ROMAN "WORST HOURLY DROP IN RAW HISTORY" REIGNS.

DO YOU BELIEVE

DO YOU BELIEVE

YES.

SPEAR

SPEAR

SPEAR

DOWN GO THE VIEWERS. HE'S BROKEN THE VIEWERS IN HALF. BY GAWD.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

The Caped Crusader said:


> Why is everyone attributing the viewership to Shane's appearance? You all realize it was a surprise appearance, don't you? That rating has more to do with the fallout of Fastlane, and the advertised award, than it does with Shane showing up. It's not like hundreds of thousands of people suddenly decided to tune in because Shane appeared, and word magically spread out to all of them and made them want to turn on the TV.


Two reasons.
1. The massive increase in social media interest driven by Shane's return.
2. The fact that his segment has the highest views on youtube BY FAR, when the main event usually gets the highest views.

Poor Shane-O-Mac, already having to carry Raw on his back.:batista3


----------



## Empress

*WWE Prioritizing YouTube Show, WrestleMania Tickets*

- WWE is prioritizing JBL's WWE Network series. According to a source, Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn are very impressed with how the show has come together. Comparatively, the show is outperforming Chris Jericho's WWE Network podcast, but is still far behind Steve Austin's numbers.

- Tickets for WrestleMania 32 have seen a spark on the secondary market. According to TiqIQ, the average asking price is currently $518, which is the most expensive of the past 6 years. TiqIQ is also running a flash sale where you can use code "MANIA" for $32 off "TNTickets" listings to any WWE event here.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0223/607947/wwe-prioritizing-youtube-show/


----------



## SnapOrTap

518 dollar tickets.

Shit product.

Shit mainevent. 

Shit Face of the Company.

No Cena. No Bryan. 

Yea, I think that'll help sellout the stadium :>


----------



## Empress

I think they will sell out the AT&T Stadium. Or come very close. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if tickets are discounted.

Beyonce announced her tour and she sold out the AT&T Stadium within a day. I'd love to know how much of WM 32 is sold out at this point. A hot product would help sales. Hopefully, RAW will add to the momentum since Undertaker will be there.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Empress said:


> I think they will sell out the AT&T Stadium. Or come very close. Although, I wouldn't be surprised if tickets are discounted.
> 
> Beyonce announced her tour and she sold out the AT&T Stadium within a day. I'd love to know how much of WM 32 is sold out at this point. A hot product would help sales. Hopefully, RAW will add to the momentum since Undertaker will be there.


I don't think it'll sell out. They had trouble selling out Fast lane and they haven't had a sellout Raw in quite some time I think.


----------



## Empress

SnapOrTap said:


> I don't think it'll sell out. They had trouble selling out Fast lane and they haven't had a sellout Raw in quite some time I think.


Do you know if there's a website where WM 32 tickets can be tracked? It's 40 days away. I would hope they're at least over 70% at this point. 

It's very telling that a pop star can sell out a stadium tour and the WWE hasn't been able to do the same for weeks. But I'll give Vince all the credit in the world if he can fill up that stadium.


----------



## squarebox

They can't hold their TV audiences for so long anymore. When they just throw random guys out there to have a match, throw in a comedy act or two (which usually aren't even funny), then pile on the ads it's no wonder people lose patience and turn it off.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

I think that one poster Validreasoning was pretty good at evaluating WWE's performance on the business side. He might be the only one on this forum who can tell us out how WWE is doing with WM32 ticket sales.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Empress said:


> Do you know if there's a website where WM 32 tickets can be tracked? It's 40 days away. I would hope they're at least over 70% at this point.
> 
> It's very telling that a pop star can sell out a stadium tour and the WWE hasn't been able to do the same for weeks. But I'll give Vince all the credit in the world if he can fill up that stadium.


http://www.vividseats.com/sports/wwe-wrestlemania-tickets/wwe-wrestlemania-4-3-1750083.html

This isn't accurate because its just one side but it shows the available seats. Lots of seats still left.


----------



## Empress

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> I think that one poster Validreasoning was pretty good at evaluating WWE's performance on the business side. He might be the only one on this forum who can tell us out how WWE is doing with WM32 ticket sales.





SnapOrTap said:


> http://www.vividseats.com/sports/wwe-wrestlemania-tickets/wwe-wrestlemania-4-3-1750083.html
> 
> This isn't accurate because its just one side but it shows the available seats. Lots of seats still left.


Thank you both. I hope @validreasoning makes an appearance in this thread. I'd like to know if he thinks WM 32 can sell out at this rate.

:hano at those available seats. If I lived in Texas, I'd pick up a few tickets with some of those seats still available. Yikes.


----------



## dougfisher_05

SnapOrTap said:


> 518 dollar tickets.
> 
> Shit product.
> 
> Shit mainevent.
> 
> Shit Face of the Company.
> 
> No Cena. No Bryan.
> 
> Yea, I think that'll help sellout the stadium :>


I for one ain't paying that shit to go to the show. I was really looking forward to Mania since its going to be so close to me. But nah, fuck that. I ain't paying that much to see Taker job to Shane, Ambrose job to Lesnar, and HHH job to Reigns. 

I can watch that shit from my house for free.


----------



## VJ'S T.V

Make Brock Lesnar stand in the ring : Ratings will be good.
Bring Someone back from the attitude era: Ratings will be awesome.


----------



## 4everEyebrowRaisin

Empress said:


> *WWE Prioritizing YouTube Show, WrestleMania Tickets*
> 
> - WWE is prioritizing JBL's WWE Network series. According to a source, Vince McMahon and Kevin Dunn are very impressed with how the show has come together. Comparatively, *the show is outperforming Chris Jericho's WWE Network podcast, but is still far behind Steve Austin's numbers.*


Fuck the ratings, this is the most important news right here. 










A swig of beer for the working man! Still the fucking GOAT.


----------



## joe1016zw

I find it interesting that he only focused on a couple of July numbers and didn't bring up August at all, which was a better month rating wise. Interesting.


----------



## Redzero

at the interest on the ME of fucking WM.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

ShowStopper said:


> So, it was the biggest drop from hour 2 to hour 3 in Raw history. I knew it!


No mystery there. People came for the big surprise, peeked if there was more of Shane to come, tuned out at the prospect of Reigns vs Sheamus. Who can blame them?


----------



## JTB33b

Should have had Dean/Brock segment in the main event. It would have given Dean more time to recover from the parking lot beatdown and he wouldn't have had to crawl to the ring. He could have still sold the injury but not to the extent he did and he could have came to the ring with a chair.


----------



## birthday_massacre

ShowStopper said:


> So, it was the biggest drop from hour 2 to hour 3 in Raw history. I knew it!


No one wants to see Reigns.

He is the ratings killer. The Roman Empire has truly fallen.


----------



## rome94

OK first of all, Better Call Saul, comes on the last hour... I'm sure viewers were more interested in seeing that then seeing match after match after match with a main event that's been done time and time again. But you'll seem to lack the understand why would those 4.2 millions viewer tune in before Raw began in the first place...ITS SURELY NOT SHANE CAUSE HE WASN'T ADVERSITIES.... AT ALL!!! Who would anyone guess Shawn was there. That's why i'm sure his youtube video is high now. Roman Reigns win was talked about at other Media sites like CBS, FOX sports, Yahoo!, Baltimore Sun, Rolling Stone, and Forbes... These media site reaches people who don't watch WWE much...so I'm sure they wanted to see the Fastlane fallout.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Total Divas Viewership Down Again
*
Source: Showbuzz Daily

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 777,000 viewers and ranked #21 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's episode, which drew 808,000 viewers and also ranked #21 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 810,000 viewers.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0224/607982/wwe-total-divas-viewership-down-again/


----------



## rome94

Oh and I just learned that #cancelwwenetwork trend on twitter again....just like last year lmao....and you don't think that helped rating go up like it did before? It just creates intrigue


----------



## Annihilus

That 3rd hour drop... I honestly think fans would be more invested in HHH vs Shane for the title and control of the company, than the fuccboi shampoo model.


----------



## Blade Runner

Annihilus said:


> That 3rd hour drop... I honestly think fans would be more invested in HHH vs Shane for the title and control of the company, than the fuccboi shampoo model.


HHH isn't really a draw in 2016, let's call a spade a spade. It's not just Reigns


Shane will draw because of the novelty, but if they half-ass his storyline then I give it no more than 3 weeks before people lose interest


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Why you no draw Roman vs Sheamus? You can't draw if McMahon gave you 2 jobbers crayons.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(2/25) Vs last week(2/18) 
2.395M Vs 2.458M 
(-2.56%/-0.063M) 

Note: Fallout SmackDown to Fastlane.*


----------



## Lothario

Largest 3rd hour drop off in history. :mj4 Yikes. Should have ended RAW with the award ceremony and opened with Reigns/Hunter beat down.


----------



## Brodus Clay

Sheamus, Rollins and Reigns can't fucking draw, HHH opinions and suggestions about the main event need to be ignored by Vince.

These 3 buffoons make Cena look like a god.


----------



## Starbuck

Lothario said:


> Largest 3rd hour drop off in history. :mj4 Yikes. Should have ended RAW with the award ceremony and opened with Reigns/Hunter beat down.


And then everyone would be saying how Shane doesn't draw because the reason for the high opening interest in the show was a direct result from Fastlane the night before. It's exactly the same with Bryan's retirement. He is responsible for the initial interest to begin with. Obviously people stuck around but switch the opening and closing segments around and you'd probably get the same result tbh.


----------



## Frost99

Brodus Clay said:


> Sheamus, Rollins and Reigns can't fucking draw, HHH opinions and suggestions about the main event need to be ignored by Vince.
> 
> *These 3 buffoons make Cena look like a god.*


:vince5 _"YES...YES....YES....HAHAHAHA_"









#WWELogic #REIGNS-A-MANIA #CrazyOldBastardMcMahon


----------



## Brodus Clay

Frost99 said:


> :vince5 _"YES...YES....YES....HAHAHAHA_"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #WWELogic #REIGNS-A-MANIA #CrazyOldBastardMcMahon


Hahaha, Daaaaaaaamn!!


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> And then everyone would be saying how Shane doesn't draw because the reason for the high opening interest in the show was a direct result from Fastlane the night before. It's exactly the same with Bryan's retirement. He is responsible for the initial interest to begin with. Obviously people stuck around but switch the opening and closing segments around and you'd probably get the same result tbh.



They wouldn't have gotten 4 million viewers the first two hours of this week's show if Shane didn't come out at the top of hour 1. It was smart on their part. If Shane comes out in Hour 3; Hours 1 and 2 don't get 4 million viewers. It made sense on their part.


----------



## Empress

2/26 WWE Stock Track – WWE continues to rebound from Financial Week downturn

2/25 Smackdown TV Ratings – no bump post-Raw


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> They wouldn't have gotten 4 million viewers the first two hours of this week's show if Shane didn't come out at the top of hour 1. It was smart on their part. If Shane comes out in Hour 3; Hours 1 and 2 don't get 4 million viewers. It made sense on their part.


Nobody knew Shane was going to be there. The initial interest came from the fallout to Fastlane. Just like with Bryan's retirement 2 weeks ago. That was the hook for people to tune in. I don't know why you or anybody else would find that hard to believe. A number one contender was decided for Wrestlemania. That's usually enough to get people interested. 

If they were really smart they would have put Shane in hour 3 and promoted that ceremony like the biggest thing in the world. The interest was already there from Fastlane. If they promoted it properly, really properly, there's a chance they could have done a much better hour 3 than Reigns vs Seamus of all things. 

If you're going to credit Bryan for the overall spike on his retirement show, which smart people would be inclined to do, then you have to credit the fallout to Fastlane for the initial spike here. You can't have it both ways. 

Going forward I have no doubt the McMahon story is going to kill everything else though. It will be pretty shocking if it doesn't tbh.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> Nobody knew Shane was going to be there. The initial interest came from the fallout to Fastlane. Just like with Bryan's retirement 2 weeks ago. That was the hook for people to tune in. I don't know why you or anybody else would find that hard to believe. A number one contender was decided for Wrestlemania. That's usually enough to get people interested.
> 
> If they were really smart they would have put Shane in hour 3 and promoted that ceremony like the biggest thing in the world. The interest was already there from Fastlane. If they promoted it properly, really properly, there's a chance they could have done a much better hour 3 than Reigns vs Seamus of all things.
> 
> If you're going to credit Bryan for the overall spike on his retirement show, which smart people would be inclined to do, then you have to credit the fallout to Fastlane for the initial spike here. You can't have it both ways.
> 
> Going forward I have no doubt the McMahon story is going to kill everything else though. It will be pretty shocking if it doesn't tbh.


The opening Shane segment lasted 31 minutes which is an insane amount of time and much longer than the normal opening segment. I wouldn't be surprised if people texted, called, or tweeted to their friends that Shane was on Raw in that 31 minute time period. I know I texted a friend who hasn't watched in years; and he tuned in immediately. Plus, Shane was trending on Twitter worldwide immediately. I think you can credit Fastlane some, but I think Shane was the MUCH bigger reason, tbh. In the end; it's not that big of a deal, though. Even with the Shane return; it still somehow did worse than the Raw after Fastlane last year by alittle bit; which is pretty unfathomable.

I'm kinda split on if Shane should've been on in Hour 1 or 3. There are good arguments for both.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Starbuck said:


> If you're going to credit Bryan for the overall spike on his retirement show, which smart people would be inclined to do, then you have to credit the fallout to Fastlane for the initial spike here. You can't have it both ways.


*
This is what most Roman detractors in the thread don't get. They want to blame him for drop offs in the 3rd hour, while simultaneously making every excuse in the world for Bryan's massive drop off. Find me one solid month of the 3rd hour increasing in viewers or remaining stable. You can't. The fact of the matter is 3rd hour drop offs are almost guaranteed due to the length of the show and nothing particularly interesting keeping the viewers hooked for long periods of time. There have been nearly two years of meaningless rematches with no story. Add in multiple sets of commercials during these meaningless rematches and you're begging for the channel to be changed. If you want to blame Reigns for every dropoff while negating spikes being centered around him, then don't give any credit to Bryan for ratings spikes and deflect blame when his segments drop off.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Yep. It does not matter in the least who is in the third hour; outside of The Rock, I suppose. Third hour is DOOMED to fail; no matter what. Only thing I'll say about the Bryan retirement speech is the first QH of his retirement speech had the highest QH of the night; so that is huge. But it's good to see we're all starting to realize most third hours' are screwed no matter who is in them. At this time last year; hell; even late last year; alot of folks hadn't quite realized that yet. Good to see it is now. Better late than never.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> The opening Shane segment lasted 31 minutes which is an insane amount of time and much longer than the normal opening segment. I wouldn't be surprised if people texted, called, or tweeted to their friends that Shane was on Raw in that 31 minute time period. I know I texted a friend who hasn't watched in years; and he tuned in immediately. Plus, Shane was trending on Twitter worldwide immediately. I think you can credit Fastlane some, but I think Shane was the MUCH bigger reason, tbh. In the end; it's not that big of a deal, though. Even with the Shane return; it still somehow did worse than the Raw after Fastlane last year by alittle bit; which is pretty unfathomable.
> 
> I'm kinda split on if Shane should've been on in Hour 1 or 3. There are good arguments for both.


Bryan's segment lasted the same and also trended worldwide immediately. I have no doubt Shane showing up certainly helped but people were already there before he was and that's a direct overflow from Fastlane. 

A high opening hour is usually an indication of what happened on the prior weeks show or post PPV. I think most everybody will be expecting the same or better for next week now that we know Shane is here and 3 matches have been made. 







Legit BOSS said:


> *
> This is what most Roman detractors in the thread don't get. They want to blame him for drop offs in the 3rd hour, while simultaneously making every excuse in the world for Bryan's massive drop off. Find me one solid month of the 3rd hour increasing in viewers or remaining stable. You can't. The fact of the matter is 3rd hour drop offs are almost guaranteed due to the length of the show and nothing particularly interesting keeping the viewers hooked for long periods of time. There have been nearly two years of meaningless rematches with no story. Add in multiple sets of commercials during these meaningless rematches and you're begging for the channel to be changed. If you want to blame Reigns for every dropoff while negating spikes being centered around him, then don't give any credit to Bryan for ratings spikes and deflect blame when his segments drop off.*


Reigns has several huge spikes in interest related to him. He needs a compelling story to draw interest, just like everyone else, probably even moreso given his limitations. Putting him against Seamus for the millionth time is not the solution. He's fucked post Mania if he stays face. He's already worked all the top heels and nobody is watching Reigns vs Strowman even if you fucking paid them to. It's going to be painful.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> Bryan's segment lasted the same and also trended worldwide immediately. I have no doubt Shane showing up certainly helped but people were already there before he was and that's a direct overflow from Fastlane.
> 
> A high opening hour is usually an indication of what happened on the prior weeks show or post PPV. I think most everybody will be expecting the same or better for next week now that we know Shane is here and 3 matches have been made.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reigns has several huge spikes in interest related to him. He needs a compelling story to draw interest, just like everyone else, probably even moreso given his limitations. Putting him against Seamus for the millionth time is not the solution. He's fucked post Mania if he stays face. He's already worked all the top heels and nobody is watching Reigns vs Strowman even if you fucking paid them to. It's going to be painful.


I agree that some of them were there due to it being the night after the PPV. No doubt about it. But to the tune of 4.2 million viewers? I don't think nearly all of it was due to that. Shane was on TV for the better part of a half-hour. That's a TON of time for word to get out that something BIG just happened for the first time in years. Also; thanks to that guy on Reddit; it came out hours before the show; that something big was planned. I didn't think it'd be Shane; but it did come out well in advance of Raw. I don't know if I expect a huge opening hour next week. Shane isn't even there I don't think and they had that huge 3rd hour drop; biggest 3rd hour drop ever, which is crazy. I'm not making any predictions, but it should be interesting.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ok, well, Meltzer just answered a tweet on Twitter in response to someone asking him how much money WWE gets for the third hour of Raw:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703773295506644992
Is this common knowledge? $32 million dollars just for the third hour of Raw?! If so, now we know why they won't scrap it. Holy fucking shit.


----------



## Chrome

With that, we're probably more likely to get 4-hour Raws in the future as opposed to going back to 2 hours.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Chrome said:


> With that, we're probably more likely to get 4-hour Raws in the future as opposed to going back to 2 hours.


I know, right? No shot of them going back to two hours now.


----------



## Erik.

That's unreal. 

Unless they can recoup that $32,000,000 somewhere else throughout the week, we will NEVER be going back to 2 hours. 

Which is a shame really because 2 hour Raws would be bearable with the talent they have on the roster and less lower card air time. It just amazes me that they're getting paid this money and they're not willing to even make 3 hours watchable for the fans who tune in to the first hour. Lazy.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Chrome said:


> With that, we're probably more likely to get 4-hour Raws in the future as opposed to going back to 2 hours.


LOL I know, right? fuck it, they should just go ahead and add an extra hour to Smackdown, Main Event and Superstars as well. :Vince


Main Roster by the end of it all....
:sodone:sodone:sodone


----------



## Chrome

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> LOL I know, right? fuck it, they should just go ahead and add an extra hour to Smackdown, Main Event and Superstars as well. :Vince
> 
> 
> Main Roster by the end of it all....
> :sodone:sodone:sodone


Shit, why stop there, just go ahead and do a 24-hour Raw. Who wouldn't want to watch a whole day of Raw!? :vince5


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Chrome said:


> Shit, why stop there, just go ahead and do a 24-hour Raw. Who wouldn't want to watch a whole day of Raw!? :vince5


"If we broadcast 24 hr Raws, we'll make a grand total of $32*24=$768m a year!
That's higher than our current annual revenue! Genius!" :vince5:vince2


----------



## D.M.N.

*Raw - 15th February 2015 [Live + VODSAL > Live + 3 day]*
Hour 1 - 3.661 million > 4.015 million (+9.7% / +354k)
Hour 2 - 3.537 million > 3.910 million (+10.5% / +373k)
Hour 3 - 3.233 million > 3.599 million (+11.3% / +366k)

_Sources: ShowBuzz Daily and TV By The Numbers_


----------



## Drago

Chrome said:


> Shit, why stop there, just go ahead and do a 24-hour Raw. Who wouldn't want to watch a whole day of Raw!? :vince5


RAW ALL NIGHT LONG After WM confirmed. :mj2

In main event - last fan breathing match.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Starbuck said:


> Reigns *has several huge spikes in interest related to him.* He needs a compelling story to draw interest, just like everyone else, probably even moreso given his limitations. Putting him against Seamus for the millionth time is not the solution. He's fucked post Mania if he stays face. He's already worked all the top heels and nobody is watching Reigns vs Strowman even if you fucking paid them to. It's going to be painful.


I'm listening ... ?


----------



## LaMelo

The women and kids love Roman!


----------



## Xobeh

Ignore please. Posted in wrong topic.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Receives YouTube's Diamond Play Button, Touts More Than 10 Million YouTube Subscribers*


WWE® SURPASSES 10 MILLION YOUTUBE SUBSCRIBERS JOINING THE RANKS OF TAYLOR SWIFT, JIMMY FALLON AND ELLEN DEGENERES

STAMFORD, Conn., February 29, 2016 – WWE (NYSE: WWE) today received the highly-coveted Diamond Play Button, YouTube's highest honor, after surpassing 10 million subscribers, further solidifying itself as one of the world's top channels on the site. WWE joins Taylor Swift, The Ellen Show and The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon as YouTube's Diamond Play Button honorees.

With more than 8 billion video views in the last 12 months, WWE is the No. 1 Sports channel on YouTube. WWE continues to be a leader in digital and social media, with more than 600 million combined social media followers globally and more than 790 million social media engagements in 2015 alone.

Since launching in 2008, WWE's YouTube channel has featured award-winning original short-form programming, including popular shows such as 5 Things, WWE Fury, WWE Game Night, WWE Top 10 and Superstar Ink. In addition, WWE's channel on YouTube airs live pre-shows for pay-per-view events that include exclusive matches and commentary.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...uts-more-than-10-million-youtube-subscribers/


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Wrong thread.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

ShowStopper said:


> Ok, well, Meltzer just answered a tweet on Twitter in response to someone asking him how much money WWE gets for the third hour of Raw:
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/703773295506644992
> Is this common knowledge? $32 million dollars just for the third hour of Raw?! If so, now we know why they won't scrap it. Holy fucking shit.


Without it they would be in the red.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TheShieldSuck said:


> Without it they would be in the red.


Without Reigns, you wouldn't be in the red.


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter Ratings*

- Monday's RAW ranked #4 among series & specials for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Bachelor, Combine Primetime and The Voice. RAW had a unique audience of 1.407 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week's 2.802 million. RAW had total impressions of 10.207 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is down from last week's 20.689 million impressions.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0301/608151/wwe-raw-twitter-ratings/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.961M
H2-3.660M
H3-3.551M

Avg-3.724M*










*H2 vs H1 (-7.59%)
H3 Vs H2 (-2.98%)
H3 Vs H1 (-10.35%)

2/29 Vs 2/22
(-4.11%)
(-0.160M)

Note: Undertaker advertised to return after 3 months.*


----------



## RatedR10

Better numbers this week, smaller drop from the 1st to 3rd hour than in recent weeks and that's with ADR vs. Ambrose as the advertised main event. :ambrose


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Last year:

Hour one: 3.54 million
Hour two: 4.06 million
Hour three: 3.86 million

This year:

H1-3.961M
H2-3.660M
H3-3.551M


Last year wins again. But not as big as a drop in Hour 3 as last week. Still nothing to write home about for WM season, though. And definitely a better rating than the quality of the show deserved. People were probably hoping Shane would appear, too.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Did they just drop the segment for the Rusev bodyslam Maserati challenge?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> Did they just drop the segment for the Rusev bodyslam Maserati challenge?


They did the segment before Raw aired. :mj4


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> They did the segment before Raw aired. :mj4


No I mean wasnt the challenge supposed to be a segment on RAW? Where Rusev had to call out someone? I was hoping for a new feud.

On a side note, the viewership is just about the same as the Daniel Bryan Farewell RAW, so the rating must be in that ballpark.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> No I mean wasnt the challenge supposed to be a segment on RAW? Where Rusev had to call out someone?


We all thought that. But they did the Rusev segment before Raw came on. It was a dark segment.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> We all thought that. But they did the Rusev segment before Raw came on. It was a dark segment.


I see. Oh well, what we got was Brie and Lana instead in the televised slot.

:argh:


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> They did the segment before Raw aired. :mj4


:serious:

I actually wanted to see this. So, Lana gets screen time and Rusev doesn't? Last year, he was such a beast. I doubt he'll even be in a match at WM 32. 

As for the ratings, they held steady. I know I kept waiting for The Undertaker to show up.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

The last hour was such a drag. And am wondering if HHH is defending his title on the upcoming network special where Reigns interferes.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> :serious:
> 
> I actually wanted to see this. So, Lana gets screen time and Rusev doesn't? Last year, he was such a beast. I doubt he'll even be in a match at WM 32.
> 
> As for the ratings, they held steady. I know I kept waiting for The Undertaker to show up.


Rusev has been booked terribly. He's not even a factor anymore. Pretty crazy.

Remember when people were having a cow during last year's RTWM ratings? I wonder how they feel this year since thus far every week from last year has beaten every week from this year. And that's even with Shane here this year; which he obviously wasn't there last year. Not good.


----------



## Erik.

Is the third hour drop not being so big a factor in anything?


----------



## Marrakesh

Unremarkable ratings but you would have to assume that these are definitely on the high end of what they are capable of these days and Post Wrestlemania season should be interesting this year. 

Obviously turning Roman Reigns is a necessity in the long run but it will lose all impact the longer they leave it. He's on thin ice and very close to generating that X-Pac heat. 

They have to make big plans for Shane McMahon taking over Raw but they just don't seem up to the task. 

The 8 months following Wrestlemania this year are really crucial in regards to their network subscription numbers and TV ratings. At the moment I just can't see any way they don't lose more viewers and potentially lose subscribers (or at least fail to grow again).


----------



## Empress

*
How Was Monday's WWE RAW Viewership For The Undertaker's Return?*
Posted By: Ben Kerin on Mar 01, 2016
Source: Showbuzzdaily.com. 

Monday’s WWE Raw viewership averaged 3.742 million viewers which was down from the 3.884 million average from last week. The show featured the return of The Undertaker.

The first hour of Raw averaged 3.961 million viewers, second 3.660 million viewers and the third and final hour of the show averaged 3.551 million viewers.

http://www.wrestlingnewssource.com/...ndays-WWE-RAW-Viewership-For-The-Undertakers/


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Rusev has been booked terribly. He's not even a factor anymore. Pretty crazy.
> 
> Remember when people were having a cow during last year's RTWM ratings? I wonder how they feel this year since thus far every week from last year has beaten every week from this year. And that's even with Shane here this year; which he obviously wasn't there last year. Not good.


I'm surprised by the laziness of WWE creative. They're not even trying. I still haven't read anything about the AT&T Stadium being sold out. A hot four weeks could make the difference. The Bryan/Authority angle was. One of my personal favorite is HBK vs. Austin. That really got a lot of mainstream press. Shane brought excitement to the card but the WWE ruined that in one night. 

I fully expect them to give out tickets to WM 32 to break the attendance record.

Seth, Roman and even Brock get blamed for the bad ratings. But I don't think Vince cares that much as long as he gets 3-3.5 million viewers each week.


----------



## KO Bossy

Erik. said:


> Is the third hour drop not being so big a factor in anything?


Yeah, I think its because of Ambrose. After the opening segment, and the advertisement that Ambrose was in the main event, it became sort of obvious that there'd be something between him and Hunter. And I think that tease (and delivery) garnered some attention.

I also think its because people figured Shane might show up, even though he didn't, its possible fans believed he would.

Either or, this shows there's more interest in Ambrose vs Hunter than Hunter vs Reigns. Last week was the biggest drop off in history with Reigns main eventing.


----------



## Chrome

KO Bossy said:


> Yeah, I think its because of Ambrose. After the opening segment, and the advertisement that Ambrose was in the main event, it became sort of obvious that there'd be something between him and Hunter. And I think that tease (and delivery) garnered some attention.
> 
> I also think its because people figured Shane might show up, even though he didn't, its possible fans believed he would.
> 
> Either or, this shows there's more interest in Ambrose vs Hunter than Hunter vs Reigns. Last week was the biggest drop off in history with Reigns main eventing.


Pairing Reigns with Sheamus probably didn't help either.


----------



## Erik.

KO Bossy said:


> Yeah, I think its because of Ambrose. After the opening segment, and the advertisement that Ambrose was in the main event, it became sort of obvious that there'd be something between him and Hunter. And I think that tease (and delivery) garnered some attention.
> 
> I also think its because people figured Shane might show up, even though he didn't, its possible fans believed he would.
> 
> Either or, this shows there's more interest in Ambrose vs Hunter than Hunter vs Reigns. Last week was the biggest drop off in history with Reigns main eventing.


Was the third hour number this week much different to last weeks third hour number?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> Was the third hour number this week much different to last weeks third hour number?


3.6 vs. 3.36


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> 3.6 vs. 3.36


and only a 0.4 drop from first to third? Those are solid numbers regarding consistency. That's a show without three of their main stars for Wrestlemania in Lesnar, Shane and Reigns.


----------



## Mifune Jackson

Chrome said:


> Pairing Reigns with Sheamus probably didn't help either.


No, but Ambrose was paired with Del Rio, another League of Nations member, and he fared better.


The evidence couldn't be more obvious to Vince and anyone who'd be running a wrestling company. People want Ambrose. No, he isn't pulling Stone Cold numbers right now, but they really need to cultivate this guy in the same way they've been cultivating Reigns for 2 years. Cultivate him until someone does better.

Of course, Ambrose is still going to be the fall guy so Reigns can beat Hunter and then have a feud with his former heel partner.


----------



## Empress

*2/29 Raw TV Ratings are in for post-Shane McMahon Raw
*

Monday’s Raw TV Ratings dipped following last week’s big Shane McMahon episode, remaining well off the pace of recent WrestleMania Seasons.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

February 29: Raw scored a 2.63 rating, down one-tenth from a 2.73 rating last week.

This time last year, Raw scored a 2.97 rating. It captures the difference between this year’s Mania Season and last year, which itself was way down from a 3.31 rating two years ago.

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.724 million viewers, down four percent (about 160,000) viewers from last week’s audience for Shane McMahon Raw.

First Hour: 3.961 million viewers
Second Hour: 3.660 million viewers

Third Hour: 3.551 million viewers (3.0 percent decline from the second hour, which is much better than 16.3 percent last week)

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Raw actually increased very slightly in the males & adults 18-49 ratings this week compared to last week. Males 18-34 was down from last week, though.
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/01/229-raw-tv-ratings-are-in-for-post-shane-mcmahon-raw/


----------



## sarcasma

Erik. said:


> Is the third hour drop not being so big a factor in anything?


Ambrose draws...THE END.


----------



## rome94

Oh please, I noticed all this Dean Ambrose bias... Dean carried the show from start to the main event and didn't get 4 million viewers that it had been, even while the undertaker being advertised...Ya'll never this UNDERSTANDING if Reigns was in the show.


----------



## Chrome

> This time last year, Raw scored a 2.97 rating. It captures the difference between this year’s Mania Season and last year, which itself was way down from a 3.31 rating two years ago.


Ouch.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> and only a 0.4 drop from first to third? Those are solid numbers regarding consistency. That's a show without three of their main stars for Wrestlemania in Lesnar, Shane and Reigns.


As in 3.6 million viewers vs. 3.36 million viewers; those were viewership numbers not rating numbers. It was an extra 240,000 viewers in this weeks Hour 3 than last week's. Nice increase; but nothing insane; especially for WM season.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> As in 3.6 million viewers vs. 3.36 million viewers; those were viewership numbers not rating numbers. It was an extra 240,000 viewers in this weeks Hour 3 than last week's. Nice increase; but nothing insane; especially for WM season.


I got that. My reply was the thousands of viewers from the first hour to the third hour, they only lost 0.4 viewers from start to finish didn't they? Whereas last week they nearly lost a full million didn't they? Unless of course I am reading the ratings wrong then I apologise, I'm not very good at this. I'd say it was pretty good on Ambrose if he didn't bring such a loss and the consistency was at least there.

I guess we will find out if Shane McMahon is this all inspiring draw. If next weeks Raw is at all over 4,000,000 viewers then that's impressive from him.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Forget Amb*reigns* it's all about those Amb*ratings*. :ambrose

Last week was higher overall, but that's attributable to ppv interest and the return of the not quite prodigal McMahon. Dean anchored this week's third hour and it was higher. It's far too early to say that Dean is gaining momentum,but he apparently did pretty well last night.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Erik. said:


> I got that. My reply was the thousands of viewers from the first hour to the third hour, they only lost 0.4 viewers from start to finish didn't they? Whereas last week they nearly lost a full million didn't they? Unless of course I am reading the ratings wrong then I apologise, I'm not very good at this. I'd say it was pretty good on Ambrose if he didn't bring such a loss and the consistency was at least there.
> 
> I guess we will find out if Shane McMahon is this all inspiring draw. If next weeks Raw is at all over 4,000,000 viewers then that's impressive from him.


No, you're right; from hour 1 to hour 3 they went from 3.9 million to 3.5 million; so yeah; that's a 400,000 viewers loss; whereas last weeks drop was the largest ever.

I was wrong about Hour 3 this week vs Hour 3 last week, though. It wasn't 3.6 vs. 3.36 it was 3.5 vs. 3.36. So, they had an extra 140,000 extra viewers in Hour 3 this week vs. last week. The number itself from this week isn't all that impressive. BUT the thing that is good about the number this week is that it doesn't have as large of a drop as last weeks' did; which again; was the largest drop ever.


----------



## Empress

Next week's RAW ratings should be interesting since Shane is being advertised. But Vince's initial boost a few months ago seemed to last only a few episodes before the ratings returned to "normal".


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

KO Bossy said:


> Yeah, I think its because of Ambrose. After the opening segment, and the advertisement that Ambrose was in the main event, it became sort of obvious that there'd be something between him and Hunter. And I think that tease (and delivery) garnered some attention.
> 
> I also think its because people figured Shane might show up, even though he didn't, its possible fans believed he would.
> 
> Either or, this shows there's more interest in Ambrose vs Hunter than Hunter vs Reigns. Last week was the biggest drop off in history with Reigns main eventing.


Credit for the third hour holding up mostly goes to the Undertaker. I mean, no doubt a lot of fans would rather see HHH-Ambrose than HHH-Reigns (quite a few reasons why I say this), but Taker is the main reason for that 3rd hour number.

Suffice to say those poor souls that watched last night's trainwreck of a show aren't probably coming to back to watch next week's Raw loluttahere



THE SHIV said:


> Forget Amb*reigns* it's all about those Amb*ratings*. :ambrose
> 
> Last week was higher overall, but that's attributable to ppv interest and the return of the not quite prodigal McMahon. Dean anchored this week's third hour and it was higher. It's far too early to say that Dean is gaining momentum,but he apparently did pretty well last night.


I doubt Ambrose is gaining momentum being booked like Bo Dallas the last 6 weeks. :lol Even Steve Austin would lose all his aura and momentum if he had this guy's booking.


----------



## KO Bossy

Erik. said:


> and only a 0.4 drop from first to third? Those are solid numbers regarding consistency. That's a show without three of their main stars for Wrestlemania in Lesnar, Shane and Reigns.


The fact is that the drop off over this show was a lot less steep than with Reigns last week. And as @Chrome said, yes, Reigns was facing Sheamus, but this week, Ambrose was facing ADR, who is pretty much on the same level of being not over as his Irish counterpart. 

Don't get me wrong-it still lost viewers, and that's not good. The third hour itself is a curse. That being said, at least the notion of a Hunter/Ambrose interaction in the main event kept some people sticking around, it seems. 3.6 million people, about. Contrast this to last week where Reigns vs Sheamus drove away something like 700k people, the most ever for Raw. This week should be considered a success, by comparison.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

I would think Taker was the reason the third hour didn't drop as much as usual, but if it was Ambrose/Del Rio? Then damn, they really did make a huge mistake at Fastlane. We'd have to see the breakdown though to know for sure.


----------



## rome94

Empress said:


> Next week's RAW ratings should be interesting since Shane is being advertised. But Vince's initial boost a few months ago seemed to last only a few episodes before the ratings returned to "normal".


Why Shane need to be there? Can Ambrose do it? I notice he hadn't ... it didn't go pass 4 million viewers this week like they have been


----------



## Lothario

Not bad, Dean. May not be as pretty to look at to some fans but you're infinitely more entertaining than Samoan Cena.











Glad he isn't faltering.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

rome94 said:


> Why Shane need to be there? Can Ambrose do it? I notice he hadn't ... it didn't go pass 4 million viewers this week like they have been


Ambrose isn't supposed to draw; he isn't in a position to. Not while the WWE is trying to make sure the audience knows he's nothing but a secondary character/non-factor/sidekick of Reigns.


----------



## Empress

rome94 said:


> Why Shane need to be there? Can Ambrose do it? I notice he hadn't ... it didn't go pass 4 million viewers this week like they have been


I think Undertaker helped with this week's rating as well. Even though it didn't reach 4 million and fell overall, at least there wasn't a drastic drop. Dean had a lot to do with that. Unlike some, I won't pick and choose when a talent gets credit. 

I do agree with your overall point that there is bias in this thread when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose. Or whoever a poster likes that isn't named Reigns when the ratings, etc come in.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

> Why Shane need to be there? Can Ambrose do it? I notice he hadn't ... it didn't go pass 4 million viewers this week like they have been


"like they have been." You make it seem like they hit 4 million regularly; when they don't. Not even close. If this is the big bump they got due to it being WM season; that's pathetic. In the grand scheme of things; these numbers are terrible when you compare them to past RTWM's. Outside of the Shane episode last week; this number is alittle bit better than their non-RTWM numbers; but it's still nothing to write home about. This is the Road to WM. They should be much, much higher than this. I would think the fact that they didn't hit 4 million or more viewers once the week after Shane came back has to be viewed as a disappointment; especially during the Road to WM. And this isn't on any of the talents; but Vince and Creative. But yeah, it is better than the average Raw of 2016; but whoopty-damn-doo. That's not saying much.

On a sidenote, I may have drank too much coffee this morning, :lol


----------



## Empress

The Undertaker issues a chilling warning to Mr. McMahon: Raw, February 29, 2016 2,214,174

This actually has 2 million views already. :lmao :lol Guess it was a hit after all.

I wonder if it can beat the Shane segment from last week which is over 5 million views.


----------



## Empress

*WWE Total Divas Suffers Big Drop In Viewers, Audience Continues To Fall*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Tuesday's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 591,000 viewers and ranked #39 for the night on cable.

This is down 24% from last week's episode, which drew 777,000 viewers and ranked #21 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 808,000 viewers and the week before that drew 810,000.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0302/608193/another-drop-in-viewers-for-wwe-total-divas/


*Which WWE Executives Made More Money Than Vince McMahon Last Year?, Triple H's Pay*

The Stamford Advocate has a new article looking at the pay for some of WWE's Executives. It was noted that three WWE executives have received the first of two big stock awards to keep them on-board and reward their extra duties related to the WWE Network.

After the addition of the stock rewards, George Barrios received $4.5 million for his role as Chief Financial and Strategy Officer, Kevin Dunn received $4.8 million as Executive Producer and Michelle Wilson received $4.5 million as Chief revenue and Marketing Officer. This makes them higher earners that CEO Vince McMahon last year, who was paid $3.3 million, a 37% increase from 2014.

Executive Vice President of Talent, Live Events and Creative Paul "Triple H" Levesque was paid $3.1 million, including $1.7 million for his on-screen character.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...made-more-money-than-vince-mcmahon-last-year/


----------



## JBLoser

LOL Total Divas. I'm glad that show is turning into a sinking ship.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

On the Observer Newsletter today, Meltzer noted that Ambrose should be credited for the strong third hour, and that the company thinks that Reigns has much more mainstream appeal(while Ambrose's bigger reactions are from a hardcore base), but this weeks rating would suggest the opposite. 

Coupled with a 14 minute overrun, you would think the third hour would do terribly this week(especially considering the Taker segment was like 2 seconds), and the fact that Ambrose/Del Rio as the main event seems like death.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

No danger of Reigns in the third Hour, ratings stabilize in the third hour. And that's with Alberto del Rio!

I'm laughing so hard my sternum will crack.

People stay for a character that is actually carrying himself as a badass? What a shock.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

Ambrose brings the 3rd hour draw. :ambrose4


----------



## Bushmaster

Empress said:


> I think Undertaker helped with this week's rating as well. Even though it didn't reach 4 million and fell overall, at least there wasn't a drastic drop. Dean had a lot to do with that. Unlike some, I won't pick and choose when a talent gets credit.
> 
> I do agree with your overall point that there is bias in this thread when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose. Or whoever a poster likes that isn't named Reigns when the ratings, etc come in.


You weren't around when Rollins was champ right :drake1


----------



## Empress

Iron Man said:


> You weren't around when Rollins was champ right :drake1


Seth definitely didn't deserve all the hate he got. If a lot of people are going to look the other way when Brock (using him as an example) can't bring in 4 million viewers each time he makes an appearance, Rollins should be cut a break. The show, for the most part, is a chore to sit though. That goes beyond one performer. 

A loss of overall viewers from last week's RAW rating is still a loss. If it were Reigns or Rollins who the show was built around, that would be highlighted more. 

When Seth returns, I promise to be a better Rollinite. At this point, I just want him back. I miss the guy. :vince7


----------



## Marrakesh

The Inbred Goatman said:


> On the Observer Newsletter today, Meltzer noted that Ambrose should be credited for the strong third hour, and that the company thinks that Reigns has much more mainstream appeal(while Ambrose's bigger reactions are from a hardcore base), but this weeks rating would suggest the opposite.
> 
> Coupled with a 14 minute overrun, you would think the third hour would do terribly this week(especially considering the Taker segment was like 2 seconds), and the fact that Ambrose/Del Rio as the main event seems like death.


Still with the 'mainstream appeal' garbage. 

Reigns has been portrayed as if he were a Greek God since day one and in all that time there has been no evidence whatsoever of any significant mainstream appeal. 

Reigns has a relatively small fanbase just like every upper midcard geek despite the fact he's pushed and presented like a genuine top star (even if they are going about it the wrong way as they are with just about everybody else too) 

I think if Ryback had gotten Reigns push the guy would be 10x as over but who knows or cares at this point. (Are WWE testing the water with Ryback again now that he appears to be getting another push as a 'monster' tweener? Fuck knows, but if they are then they are losing faith in Reigns. It's be a very WWE move to try and get Ryback over to replace Reigns. It's almost like for like except Ryback can actually connect with the fans better)

Anyways, Ambrose, Rollins and Wyatt are all potential solutions to the problems.


----------



## Empress

*How much is Shane McMahon making back in WWE?, plus WWE discloses company standing
*

We will begin to unpack a lot of interesting information included in WWE’s annual shareholders notice released on Tuesday…

– One item is a disclosure about Shane McMahon’s status with WWE and how much he is making for his return to WWE “as a performer for the company.”

WWE noted that Shane will receive “in excess of $120,000 for these services,” which includes the advertised WrestleMania match against The Undertaker. The full amount will be disclosed at a later time.

WWE also noted that “no agreement has been reached at this time” with Shane beyond his return to WWE as a TV character.

WWE disclosed Shane’s status in the shareholders notice since Shane “is a former executive officer and performer with the company.”

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/03/shanemoney/


*WWE announces “multi-year deal” with phone company*

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/03/wwe-announces-multi-year-deal-with-phone-company/

*
TOTAL DIVAS SEASON FIVE RATINGS*
http://www.pwinsider.com/ViewArticle.php?id=99509


----------



## DoublePass

The Inbred Goatman said:


> On the Observer Newsletter today, Meltzer noted that Ambrose should be credited for the strong third hour, and that the company thinks that Reigns has much more mainstream appeal(while Ambrose's bigger reactions are from a hardcore base), but this weeks rating would suggest the opposite.
> 
> Coupled with a 14 minute overrun, you would think the third hour would do terribly this week(especially considering the Taker segment was like 2 seconds), and the fact that Ambrose/Del Rio as the main event seems like death.


This isn't surprising. We haven't had many quarter hour breakdowns in the last 2 1/2 years or so, but each and every single one we've had has shown Ambrose's segments gaining a considerable amount of viewers. Meltzer has also pointed out that he sells a lot of merch. And that's despite being booked like an afterthought for most of that period.

If Ambrose had Reigns' booking, and if he was solidified as the top face, the viewership would easily be well over 4 million each week and his merch sales would be near the level of Cena - not a distant 2nd, which is all that Reigns has been able to accomplish.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Ambrose is just a less over Zack Ryder but with the perks of being a Shield member. He is not the guy anymore or less than Roman. The guy doesnt exist in wwe.


----------



## Empress

*WWE SmackDown Twitter Ratings*

- After not ranking for several weeks, last night's WWE SmackDown ranked #5 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind the GOP Presidential Debate, Grey's Anatomy, American Idol and How to Get Away with Murder. SmackDown had a unique audience of 833,000, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from the 512,000 on February 4th. SmackDown had total impressions of 2.679 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This was down from February 4th's 2.132 million.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0304/608253/wwe-looks-at-the-undertaker-and-hell-in-a-cell/


----------



## The Renegade

The Inbred Goatman said:


> On the Observer Newsletter today, Meltzer noted that Ambrose should be credited for the strong third hour, and that the company thinks that Reigns has much more mainstream appeal(while Ambrose's bigger reactions are from a hardcore base), but this weeks rating would suggest the opposite.
> 
> Coupled with a 14 minute overrun, you would think the third hour would do terribly this week(especially considering the Taker segment was like 2 seconds), and the fact that Ambrose/Del Rio as the main event seems like death.


Definitely believe that Ambrose deserves credit for the stable ratings this week (congrats are in order), but why are we assuming that its casuals turning the channel on Reigns and not hardcores?

Either way, there's something to be said about your top face not maintaining figures, no matter what the demographic may be. If they're dead set on keeping him face, maybe you swap the two in the pecking order? Have another one of Reign's brothers hold down the title that he couldn't. Build to a heel turn and title bout at SummerSlam or something, idk. Just spit balling here.


----------



## rome94

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> Ambrose isn't supposed to draw; he isn't in a position to. Not while the WWE is trying to make sure the audience knows he's nothing but a secondary character/non-factor/sidekick of Reigns.


But he's not now Ambrose is on his own. He's in a position that he's the main event of a coming PPV...so its not fair to say he not suppose to draw


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Empress said:


> Seth definitely didn't deserve all the hate he got. If a lot of people are going to look the other way when Brock (using him as an example) can't bring in 4 million viewers each time he makes an appearance, Rollins should be cut a break. The show, for the most part, is a chore to sit though. That goes beyond one performer.
> 
> A loss of overall viewers from last week's RAW rating is still a loss. If it were Reigns or Rollins who the show was built around, that would be highlighted more.


I'll do the right thing and acknowledge the fact that Ambrose shouldn't be credited for the 3rd hour being solid this week (you can go back and check my post) as he isn't a draw. But you're one of the most mature and level-headed posters I've seen on this forum. I'm sure you see the issue with having equally high expectations on Reigns and Ambrose to draw good ratings, when one guy has been treated like a huge deal for years while the other is booked and presented as a geek. It's like expecting a Chris Jericho or a Booker T to draw on the same level as The Rock/HHH/Undertaker back in 2002. It's ridiculous and unfair to even compare them IMO. Same goes for Seth-Roman comparisons to a lesser extent.

You have to remember though that this thread was probably created in the first place so that marks can take the piss out of wrestlers they don't like while raving about their favourites using numbers they are not even qualified to analyse, whether its seriously or just for comedy. For years CM Punk detractors on here were using ratings to argue that Punk should've never gotten a main event push, and now ratings are actually worse. That is just one example among many.


I'm just saying, don't let some of the comments on here get to you too much. Especially when some posters are just being sarcastic and somewhat childish on purpose.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

rome94 said:


> But he's not now Ambrose is on his own. He's in a position that he's the main event of a coming PPV...so its not fair to say he not suppose to draw


Yes it is. Name one guy in WWE history that could *draw like a main eventer* while being booked like Ambrose; an upper level enhancement talent who loses most of his feuds and PPV matches, lost every single one of his big matches, and has never accomplished anything noteworthy in his singles career other than winning a midcard title that he lost in 2 months.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(3/3) Vs last week(2/25) 
2.491M Vs 2.395M 
(+4.00%/+0.096M) *


----------



## Erik.

Pretty strong gain this week.


----------



## RelivingTheShadow

The Renegade said:


> Definitely believe that Ambrose deserves credit for the stable ratings this week (congrats are in order), but why are we assuming that its casuals turning the channel on Reigns and not hardcores?
> 
> Either way, there's something to be said about your top face not maintaining figures, no matter what the demographic may be. If they're dead set on keeping him face, maybe you swap the two in the pecking order? Have another one of Reign's brothers hold down the title that he couldn't. Build to a heel turn and title bout at SummerSlam or something, idk. Just spit balling here.


Because in WWE's eyes, Hardcores are the people that will NEVER stop watching. But people have stopped watching during Reigns' ascension, so by WWE logic, casuals are leaving the show since the hardcores never will.


----------



## LaMelo

Ambrose gets credit for getting destroyed?


----------



## Desprado

The Fresh Prince of Boyle Heights said:


> Ambrose gets credit for getting destroyed?


For burying KO.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The Fresh Prince of Boyle Heights said:


> Ambrose gets credit for getting destroyed?


No, for carrying Reigns' feud AND bringing in the numbers Reigns is supposed to while being destroyed.


----------



## validreasoning

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> Yes it is. Name one guy in WWE history that could *draw like a main eventer* while being booked like Ambrose; an upper level enhancement talent who loses most of his feuds and PPV matches, lost every single one of his big matches, and has never accomplished anything noteworthy in his singles career other than winning a midcard title that he lost in 2 months.


mysterio won the whc title and rumble but he was booked weaker than ambrose is re: getting destroyed by khali, kane etc and he drew huge numbers for wwe 

mick foley prior to winning title in january 99 was booked similar to ambrose is now and he was drawing big numbers

bryan in 2011-early 2012 was booked a fluke comedy heel who was struggling to beat santino and still drawing 3+ million viewers for sd


----------



## Shenroe

validreasoning said:


> mysterio won the whc title and rumble but he was booked weaker than ambrose is re: getting destroyed by khali, kane etc and he drew huge numbers for wwe
> 
> mick foley prior to winning title in january 99 was booked similar to ambrose is now and he was drawing big numbers
> 
> bryan in 2011-early 2012 was booked a fluke comedy heel who was struggling to beat santino and still drawing 3+ million viewers for sd


Yep, placement and booking are only half the equation. The skills of the wrestler, his character etc count too.


----------



## Peerless

validreasoning said:


> mysterio won the whc title and rumble but he was booked weaker than ambrose is re: getting destroyed by khali, kane etc and he drew huge numbers for wwe
> 
> mick foley prior to winning title in january 99 was booked similar to ambrose is now and he was drawing big numbers
> 
> bryan in 2011-early 2012 was booked a fluke comedy heel who was struggling to beat santino and still drawing 3+ million viewers for sd


Do you honestly believe if WWE had that Bryan they would be drawing 3M+ viewers on SD atm?


----------



## validreasoning

Peerless said:


> Do you honestly believe if WWE had that Bryan they would be drawing 3M+ viewers on SD atm?


Why not

Sd was doing 2.1-2.3 million a few months before that during ortons run as champion


----------



## TheShieldSuck

I heard the 3rd hr is worth like $35m for WWE and WWE only made a profit of $25m last year. That's really terrible that they made $50m in 2010, a year with just 2hr RAW's. 

What a failure.


----------



## sarcasma

Ambrose POPPING that Smack Down rating. 

No Reigns in sight.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

@validreasoning 

I'm not sure what huge numbers (pertaining to Rey) you're talking about. I've checked the SD ratings on gerweck.net. They dropped pretty badly during his reign as World Champion, so that argument goes out the window. Although, I have no idea how his merch sales and house show attendance numbers as a headliner held up against those of Cena's and Batista's. Maybe you could post those stats if they're available somewhere. I do know that Rey was one of the biggest merch movers on the roster at the time, but so is Ambrose right now.

You're right about Mick Foley though, his feud with The Rock helped Raw beat Nitro for good. One of many reasons why I've always maintained that he was the 3rd most important AE star behind Rock and Austin.

As for DB, SD did get slightly better ratings when he was the World Champion, although that might've had a lot to do with it being RTWM at the time. SD has been drawing 20% higher viewership from Jan till now than what SD was getting the last 2 months of 2015 on average, you can do the calculations yourself and correct me if I'm wrong. In comparison, SD got a 4% increase in viewership during Bryan's reign as WHC over SD's average viewership during the last 2 months of 2011. Hell, Raw this week had 400,000 more viewers than the star-studded Raw from October last year where Austin, Lesnar, Taker, HHH, Cena, Flair and HBK all made an appearance.

I might as well bring up that Raw was drawing better ratings when Ambrose was chasing the WWE title for a brief period last year, than it's been drawing on average this entire RTWM.
Also want to point out that SD this week (carried by Ambrose-Owens) drew better than the last 2 SDs, which had rare guest appearances by HHH and Lesnar.

While I can't say Ambrose is a ME level draw, he seems to be doing alright when put in main event positions, considering the current standard of being a ME level draw in WWE 8*D. And certainly no worse than how Rey and DB were doing when they're held up against the standard of a top level draw during their time.


----------



## Empress

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> I'll do the right thing and acknowledge the fact that Ambrose shouldn't be credited for the 3rd hour being solid this week (you can go back and check my post) as he isn't a draw. But you're one of the most mature and level-headed posters I've seen on this forum. *I'm sure you see the issue with having equally high expectations on Reigns and Ambrose to draw good ratings, when one guy has been treated like a huge deal for years while the other is booked and presented as a geek.* It's like expecting a Chris Jericho or a Booker T to draw on the same level as The Rock/HHH/Undertaker back in 2002. It's ridiculous and unfair to even compare them IMO. Same goes for Seth-Roman comparisons to a lesser extent.
> 
> You have to remember though that this thread was probably created in the first place so that marks can take the piss out of wrestlers they don't like while raving about their favourites using numbers they are not even qualified to analyse, whether its seriously or just for comedy. For years CM Punk detractors on here were using ratings to argue that Punk should've never gotten a main event push, and now ratings are actually worse. That is just one example among many.
> 
> 
> I'm just saying, don't let some of the comments on here get to you too much. Especially when some posters are just being sarcastic and somewhat childish on purpose.


One, thank you and I return the compliment. I like a good discussion/debate. 

Secondly, I'm glad you brought up the issue of booking. Ambrose is deemed as an "afterthought" and "geek" because of his. I agree that he has not had the most stellar booking but that is a blanket argument that covers the entire roster, including Reigns. The RAW rating popped after TLC , the angle with Reigns/HHH and Roman winning the title. Following that, the WWE cleared the board with all the momentum they had and HHH disappeared. Reigns went back to smiling and the rest is history. The ratings fell. 

Brock has appeared on RAW/Smackdown and the ratings have been stagnant. Many have argued that he's not booked correctly. I'd concede that as well, but that shouldn't be recognized only for him. Reigns has gotten exposure and screen time but the booking hasn't been there. The WWE is literally hiding him at the moment. The decisions they've made in regards to him have not been to his benefit.


Furthermore, this week's RAW rating was down. Yes, it wasn't a drastic drop but it was still down. I know people come in here to be petty, childish and troll. But I'm not going along with acting like this is the best news ever. If it were Reigns or Rollins, this thread would drag out until Monday. 

As for this week's Smackdown rating, there was a 4% increase. I'm more than happy to give Dean/Owens credit. But when Reigns similarly gave the show a bump, it didn't matter to some. 

Overall, I do agree that expectations for Reigns/Ambrose shouldn't be given equal parity. But Reigns did help deliver 4 million viewers when the booking came together for him. I believe 90% of the roster could be draws if creative got their act together. Outside of the ratings, Reigns does great on social media, sells a good amount of merch which may be the reason why he's in quicksand as a face. It may not be worth it to Vince financially to flip him.


----------



## Lothario

God I love watching Roman's fans squirm. The shift from being passive aggressive about it all to outright getting visibly distraught and angry is glorious.


----------



## Empress

Lothario said:


> God I love watching Roman's fans squirm. The shift from being passive aggressive about it all to outright getting visibly distraught and angry is glorious.


If you're referring to me, you can quote me or refer to something. 

I'm not much of a Reigns "fan" as I used to be, but folks sure do love taking cheap shots at us.


----------



## Empress

*3/3 WWE Smackdown TV Ratings – Thursday’s show stuck at same level*

WWE Smackdown remains stuck at the same TV Ratings level below the first part of 2016.


WWE Smackdown TV Ratings Tracking 2016

March 3: Thursday’s Smackdown on USA Network scored a 1.76 rating, about even with a 1.74 rating last week.

The last four weeks of Smackdown have been stuck one stair-step below the previous three weeks…

Jan. 21: 1.87 rating
Jan. 28: 1.87 rating
Feb. 4: 1.86 rating
Feb. 11: 1.72 rating
Feb. 18: 1.76 rating
Feb. 25: 1.74 rating
Mar. 3: 1.76 rating

– Smackdown did improve to 2.491 million viewers, up four percent (96,000) viewers from last week’s audience.

It was the most viewers since February 4.

– In the key demographics, Smackdown was steady with last week in adults and males 18-49.

However, males 18-34 dropped one-tenth of a rating to a four-week low.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/04/march3smackdownratings/
*

3/4 WWE Stock Track – WWE continues to rebound, nearly hits 2016 high-point*
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/04/march4wwestocktrack/


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

@Empress

I definitely get your frustration with people picking and choosing who to give credit/blame for ratings. Roman did deserve credit for the post-TLC Raw ratings bump. And the only reason Ambrose isn't bashed more on this thread is because he isn't getting that top guy push. He's not that much more popular than Reigns in the IWC, and far less so than Seth and Owens. Mark my words, if he ever gets actual main event push, tons of people will flock here making post after post about how much he isn't a draw. I hope you'll be here then to enjoy that lol. It's something that happens to literally every wrestler.

As far as getting bad booking from a character standpoint goes, I think there's a major difference between a guy like Roman not being given the right character to play, and a guy like Ambrose playing a character that's portrayed as a joke. Even though Roman plays a kid-friendly smiling character (Ambrose often plays that overly happy smiling character too), his character was always portrayed as somebody the audience should take seriously. He was never portrayed as a borderline comedy character the audience should laugh at, like Ambrose. They always present the Ambrose character as a looney/wacko/insane, as if they want the audience to think he's Eugene or something. You could literally put him in a match against R-Truth and the commentary team can describe these two characters the exact same way, they wouldn't have to change a thing. It's.....pretty crazy actually.

Not to mention they were outright burying Ambrose on commentary around Survivor Series time, making sure the casual audience sees that it would be embarrassing to have him represent the company as the WWE Champion because of how incredibly ugly he is. It wasn't even like an argument where the heel commentator says something derogatory, and the face commentator fires back by putting over the wrestler's heart, talent, popularity with the crowd, etc, just outright burial. It reminded me of the time they were calling Bryan a 'goatfaced farm animal' who doesn't have the look of a champion on commentary 3 years ago. Can you imagine how hard it would've been for Roman maintain his overness if they booked him to play a character they know the audience wouldn't take seriously, like Festus for example?

Imagine if WWE ever had Roman beg the referee to stop a match like a complete bitch like Ambrose did in this match, what fan would ever take him seriously as a top face after that? :lol




Even from a character booking standpoint, Roman still has it better than a lot of other wrestlers on the roster I think, even though his character booking could definitely be better. Just be glad he's not out there throwing mustard, popcorn and soda in his opponents' face every other week. :agree: And I don't think booking him as the character he was at the end of TLC and the night after is a solution to all this anyway. I might talk about it some other time I guess.
Also, he's being kept away right now so he could recover from his surgery, I thought you knew that.:shrug

I don't think social media or merch sales are a factor in Roman being kept as a babyface. Fastlane was heavily panned on social media. Plus, his merch sales numbers are apparently not even close to Cena's according to Meltzer. Ambrose and Rollins could easily make up for his decreased sales figures if booked seriously. And It's not like heels don't sell massive amount of merch anyway. I think it has more to do with Vince's stubbornness and impatience. He probably doesn't feel like postponing Roman taking over from Cena as the FOTC any longer. I honestly don't mind if he doesn't turn heel, I'm hoping for an Ambrose heel turn much more really.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Explain how Reigns has caused the post-TLC Raw rating push, when a) he wasn't even champ going into Raw, and b ) ratings didn't move at all for him in ANY OTHER SHOW.

That rating was an anomaly. Nothing more. It would be far more logical to say Sheamus popped that rating because he became champ, and it went to hell again the following week because he lost the title after one night. 
But nobody will ever say that.

In reality, people tuned into Raw to find out where that storyline begun at TLC would go. Then Reigns won the title, and people were like, Meh, hotshotting bullshit.


----------



## Empress

*3/7 Raw Twitter Ratings – Monday’s show falls to year-low*

Monday’s Raw scored the lowest Nielsen Twitter TV Rating of the year. It seems that the Road to WrestleMania lacked buzz for a second consecutive week following Shane McMahon’s big return two weeks ago.


WWE Raw Social Media Tracking 2016

March 7: Raw drew a unique Twitter audience of 1.250 million, down 11 percent from last week.

It was the smallest audience of the year, just a hair below the Raw against the college football title game on January 11.

February 22: 2.802 million post-Fast Lane/Shane’s big return
February 29: 1.407 million last week
March 7: 1.250 million this week

– Total impressions were 10.180 million, almost identical to 10.207 million last week.

– The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 38,000, up slightly from 34,000 last week.

Total tweets were 186,000, up from 166,000 last week.

– Raw ranked #2 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing “The Bachelor” on ABC. Raw has yet to rank #1 this year.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #3 behind one NBA game and the Iona vs. Monmouth college basketball tournament finals game, which had just as much action, drama, showmanship, and suspense going down to the last play of the game.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/08/march7rawtwitter/


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Not surprising.

Aside from "Hey it's Shane", this show has nothing. And I mean nothing.

Slow burn is fine, but not three weeks away from Mania.


----------



## Blade Runner

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> @Empress
> 
> I definitely get your frustration with people picking and choosing who to give credit/blame for ratings. Roman did deserve credit for the post-TLC Raw ratings bump. And the only reason Ambrose isn't bashed more on this thread is because he isn't getting that top guy push. He's not that much more popular than Reigns in the IWC, and far less so than Seth and Owens. Mark my words, if he ever gets actual main event push, tons of people will flock here making post after post about how much he isn't a draw. I hope you'll be here then to enjoy that lol. It's something that happens to literally every wrestler.



Ambrose isn't THAT much more popular than Reigns in 2016, and the lack of reaction that he got in Chicago proves this -- the only reason that he edges out Reigns is because he doesn't get booed (although the fans did chant "boring" at his matches on more than one occation), but if you gauge Reigns and Ambrose's PRO reactions they get around the same amount of support. Sometimes Reigns actually gets lots of support in certain cities but it's rarely overwhelmingly huge reactions -- same with Ambrose

Ambrose is definitely more popular on this forum tho, he's no doubt the favorite with the more "hardcore" fanbase but sometimes I think his reactions get overemphasized. He WAS very over consistantly during the late 2014/early 2015 period but now his reaction range mostly between good, decent and indifferent with the rare huge pop like at the end of the RR this year. There's a doube standard when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose too. When Reigns get crickets in his matches, there's about 10 pages of people pointing out the fact that he isn't over -- yesterday Wyatt/Ambrose got crickets and only 3-4 people pointed out the fact that the crowd was dead lol

:draper2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Ambrose isn't THAT much more popular than Reigns in 2016, and the lack of reaction that he got in Chicago proves this -- the only reason that he edges out Reigns is because he doesn't get booed (although the fans did chant "boring" at his matches on more than one occation), but if you gauge Reigns and Ambrose's PRO reactions they get around the same amount of support. Sometimes Reigns actually gets lots of support in certain cities but it's rarely overwhelmingly huge reactions -- same with Ambrose
> 
> Ambrose is definitely more popular on this forum tho, he's no doubt the favorite with the more "hardcore" fanbase but sometimes I think his reactions get overemphasized. He WAS very over consistantly during the late 2014/early 2015 period but now his reaction range mostly between good, decent and indifferent with the rare huge pop like at the end of the RR this year. There's a doube standard when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose too. When Reigns get crickets in his matches, there's about 10 pages of people pointing out the fact that he isn't over -- yesterday Wyatt/Ambrose got crickets and only 3-4 people pointed out the fact that the crowd was dead lol
> 
> :draper2


I agree, he didn't get as big of a response as I thought he would get, either. But it would be interesting to see if he would get a better response if he was being pushed as the face of the company; or not. Also, before very recently; Ambrose had been getting the best face response on the roster for months and months on end; again; before very recently. Could be that people have lost faith in his booking or are tired of him seeing him get laid out all the time.


----------



## Empress

@DAMN SKIPPY you live up to your name.

@ShowStopper I've gotten tired of Dean getting beat up each week. I don't find any appeal to it. A former Shield member shouldn't be such an underdog. 

I'm just waiting for John Laurinaitis to show us if the ratings held steady or dipped this week.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> I agree, he didn't get as big of a response as I thought he would get, either. But it would be interesting to see if he would get a better response if he was being pushed as the face of the company; or not. Also, before very recently; Ambrose had been getting the best face response on the roster for months and months on end; again; before very recently. Could be that people have lost faith in his booking or are tired of him seeing him get laid out all the time.


True, I remember when he was feuding with Rollins during the MITB build and fans were passionately chanting loud AAAAAMBROSE chants during the Authority segments. THAT was certainly an example of him being very over. It's been a while since i've heard anything like that for him recently especially on a consistant basis. On occations he gets big pops but you can tell that his momentum fizzled quite a bit

Not sure about his reactions as the top face -- there'd probably be a portion of the fanbase that'd get fickle and start booing him. Although perception goes a long way. When you're treated as a big deal, the casuals USUALLY jump on board


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> True, I remember when he was feuding with Rollins during the MITB build and fans were passionately chanting loud AAAAAMBROSE chants during the Authority segments. THAT was certainly an example of him being very over. It's been a while since i've heard anything like that for him recently especially on a consistant basis. On occations he gets big pops but you can tell that his momentum fizzled quite a bit
> 
> Not sure about his reactions as the top face -- there'd probably be a portion of the fanbase that'd get fickle and start booing him. Although perception goes a long way. When you're treated as a big deal, the casuals USUALLY jump on board


If you're an undercarder/midcarder, and you are lucky enough to be very much over; it only lasts so long if the fans don't start to see some kind of progress for the guy in terms of moving up the roster and not getting laidout all the time. It could be that people are simply tired of that. It also did him no favors when for months on end he's been nothing more than Reigns' "little buddy." There were actually people on here who enjoyed that; and I never understood why. It held back one of them (Dean) and did absolutely nothing for the other (Reigns). Stupid move on WWE's part.


----------



## Bushmaster

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> True, I remember when he was feuding with Rollins during the MITB build and fans were passionately chanting loud AAAAAMBROSE chants during the Authority segments. THAT was certainly an example of him being very over. It's been a while since i've heard anything like that for him recently especially on a consistant basis. On occations he gets big pops but you can tell that his momentum fizzled quite a bit
> 
> Not sure about his reactions as the top face -- there'd probably be a portion of the fanbase that'd get fickle and start booing him. Although perception goes a long way. When you're treated as a big deal, the casuals USUALLY jump on board


A credit to Rollins who some say was a terrible heel :Cocky. I was at that MITB PPV, Ambrose and Ziggler were no doubt the most over faces in that show. 

Is there even another uppder midcard face atm. He is the most over but I'm starting to think it's because the rest of the roster is just meh. The other supposed top face gets no reaction or booed out the building half the time while other faces are probably lost in midcard hell.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.760M
H2-3.614M
H3-3.279M

Avg-3.551M*










*H2 vs H1 (-3.88%)
H3 Vs H2 (-9.26%)
H3 Vs H1 (-12.79%)

3/7 Vs 2/29
(-4.65%)
(-0.173M)*


----------



## Blade Runner

Iron Man said:


> A credit to Rollins who some say was a terrible heel :Cocky. I was at that MITB PPV, Ambrose and Ziggler were no doubt the most over faces in that show.
> 
> Is there even another uppder midcard face atm. He is the most over but I'm starting to think it's because the rest of the roster is just meh. The other supposed top face gets no reaction or booed out the building half the time while other faces are probably lost in midcard hell.


I really don't know lol -- AJ Styles is very over but he's nowhere near the main storylines right now. I'd only call him upper midcard because he's in a featured WM match against Jericho with a decent storyline around it that lasted longer than 2 weeks


----------



## DoublePass




----------



## Empress

Iron Man said:


> A credit to Rollins who some say was a terrible heel :Cocky. I was at that MITB PPV, Ambrose and Ziggler were no doubt the most over faces in that show.
> 
> *Is there even another uppder midcard face atm. *He is the most over but I'm starting to think it's because the rest of the roster is just meh. The other supposed top face gets no reaction or booed out the building half the time while other faces are probably lost in midcard hell.


I'd say AJ Styles is the most consistently over face on the roster.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Ambrose isn't THAT much more popular than Reigns in 2016, and the lack of reaction that he got in Chicago proves this -- the only reason that he edges out Reigns is because he doesn't get booed (although the fans did chant "boring" at his matches on more than one occation), but if you gauge Reigns and Ambrose's PRO reactions they get around the same amount of support. Sometimes Reigns actually gets lots of support in certain cities but it's rarely overwhelmingly huge reactions -- same with Ambrose
> 
> Ambrose is definitely more popular on this forum tho, he's no doubt the favorite with the more "hardcore" fanbase but sometimes I think his reactions get overemphasized. He WAS very over consistantly during the late 2014/early 2015 period but now his reaction range mostly between good, decent and indifferent with the rare huge pop like at the end of the RR this year. There's a doube standard when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose too. When Reigns get crickets in his matches, there's about 10 pages of people pointing out the fact that he isn't over -- yesterday Wyatt/Ambrose got crickets and only 3-4 people pointed out the fact that the crowd was dead lol
> 
> :draper2


I never said Ambrose gets that big reactions. When WWE's put so much effort into cooling him off the last year and a half, and transfer all his heat onto other people, I'm just surprised he gets that much reaction at all. They've definitely succeeded, to a degree, into pushing him into that Dolph Ziggler territory where the fans just don't take him seriously anymore. This is why I want them to turn him heel. He's already lost all his potential to become a huge babyface, and is in dire need of a heel turn to get his credibility back. It's his natural role anyway. Plus Seth will be coming back as a big babyface and he will be slotted into that #2 babyface spot that Dean is in now. So it's all for the better.

And yes, there is a double standard when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose like you said, and there's a reason for it. Reigns is one of the most hyped, protected and pushed stars in WWE history, and the other guy is a midcarder who is sometimes used as a jobber in main events whenever WWE needs someone to play that role. I guarantee you, if Reigns was booked *the exact same way *Ambrose has been the past 2 years, he wouldn't be any more over than the Social Outcasts right now. That's the reason it's surprising to me and a lot of other people that he still sometimes gets better reactions than Reigns. I have no idea why you'd even try to make this preposterous comparison between the two tbh. :shrug


----------



## Empress

Are the RAW ratings

3.7
3.6
3.2

I don't know if I'm reading the chart wrong.

EDIT: Thanks @JonnyAceLaryngitis 

I didn't see your post at first.


----------



## Bushmaster

Totally forgot about AJ Styles fpalm. I haven't watched Raw for a while but did catch the tag match from last night. If the Jericho feud works out he could be a legit main eventer sooner rather than later.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

ShowStopper said:


> I agree, he didn't get as big of a response as I thought he would get, either. But it would be interesting to see if he would get a better response if he was being pushed as the face of the company; or not. Also, before very recently; Ambrose had been getting the best face response on the roster for months and months on end; again; before very recently. Could be that *people have lost faith in his booking or are tired of him seeing him get laid out all the time*.


100%. You've completely hit the nail on the head.:clap

Now some babyfaces might survive that, like Bryan, Bayley and Zayn...those who are natural babyfaces. But not guys like Ambrose, Orton, Austin, or Reigns for that matter. They're not pure babyfaces, the type of booking they require to be over with the crowd is very different.


----------



## Blade Runner

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> I never said Ambrose gets that big reactions. When WWE's put so much effort into cooling him off the last year and a half, and transfer all his heat onto other people, I'm just surprised he gets that much reaction at all. They've definitely succeeded, to a degree, into pushing him into that Dolph Ziggler territory where the fans just don't take him seriously anymore. This is why I want them to turn him heel. He's already lost all his potential to become a huge babyface, and is in dire need of a heel turn to get his credibility back. It's his natural role anyway. Plus Seth will be coming back as a big babyface and he will be slotted into that #2 babyface spot that Dean is in now. So it all for the better.
> 
> And yes, there is a double standard when it comes to Reigns and Ambrose like you said, and there's a reason for it. Reigns is one of the most hyped, protected and pushed stars in WWE history, and the other guy is a midcarder who is sometimes used as a jobber in main events whenever WWE needs someone to play that role. I guarantee you, if Reigns was booked *the exact same way *Ambrose has been the past 2 years, he wouldn't be any more over than the Social Outcasts right now. That's the reason it's surprising to me and a lot of other people that he still sometimes gets better reactions than Reigns. I have no idea why you'd even try to make this preposterous comparison between the two tbh. :shrug


I would agree with you up until recently. Ambrose has been getting prominantly featured on RAW and made out to be a big deal. I would expect that to translate in big momentum but he's struggling to get that top guy pop most of the time. He's actually being set up to get the biggest reactions on the show -- he's featured strongly, as an underdog no less, and he's the one guy in Reigns' crossfires as far as someone set up to potentially replace him on the card. It's no coincidence that Ambrose lasted until the end of the RR. Sure part of it was to get heat on HHH, but another part was to build up Ambrose which (to their credit) have been trying as of late. Ambrose is CERTAINLY being presented as a much bigger deal than a midcarder. He's a main eventer right now and arguably the second best pushed full-timer on the roster in the wake of all the injuries

and Reigns also has a hinderance that people fail to consider. he had to overcome a huge fan backlash that most wrestlers never come back from. To his credit (and that of the WWE) they at least turned it around to the point where he got a huge reaction in Philly a year later -- Reigns is presented as the top guy, sure, but so was Cena and he got booed out of the building. This is 2016 where people jump on bandwagons. The fact that Reigns still manages to get some positive reactions deserves a bit of credit IMO. Do I think hthat he's getting top guy reactions proportionate to his push? F^ck no, but the guy is over to a significant degree and he was getting top guy reactions months before the RR 2014 took place. He's in a bad position being the symbol of corporate stubborness and being stuck with the stigma of the guy being in the way of the other fan favorites. Dean Ambrose was never put in that position so the perception is very different from the offset


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Good job, WWE. Any interest they drew with Shane two weeks ago seems to be entirely gone. These are the same numbers they had before WM season. And the 3rd hour number sucks this week.

:heyman6


----------



## Kabraxal

Creeping to a sub 3 million level in the WM season.... Thought Shane would help. But I didn't watch last night so must be what many are doing.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *H1-3.760M
> H2-3.614M
> H3-3.279M
> 
> Avg-3.551M*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *H2 vs H1 (-3.88%)
> H3 Vs H2 (-9.26%)
> H3 Vs H1 (-12.79%)
> 
> 3/7 Vs 2/29
> (-4.65%)
> (-0.173M)*





Empress said:


> Are the RAW ratings
> 
> 3.7
> 3.6
> 3.2
> 
> I don't know if I'm reading the chart wrong.
> 
> EDIT: Thanks @JonnyAceLaryngitis
> 
> I didn't see your post at first.


You're welcome anytime Empress. There were three posts posted almost exactly the same time, so I guess a refresh of the page was needed. :grin2:

On a side note, looks like RAW is teetering precipitously to a sub 2.5R again with sub 3.5M viewership. On the RTWM that is. :no:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

3.2 million in Hour 3 for a Raw 4 weeks before WM is scary. Just a .2 or .3 away from being sub 3 million; which once seemed impossible in March. Wow.


----------



## Chrome

Not really a good number tbh, and the 3rd hour drop trend continues.


----------



## KO Bossy

KO Bossy said:


> First off, they will. *Second, even if they didn't, he's not going to be pulling in these ratings going forward. He got a return spike, that's it.* They have 5 weeks until Mania...5 long weeks to completely fuck this up, which I'm betting they will.


What do you know, I'm right again. Guess I'm some sort of savant. 

And as I quoted this same post in another thread, I was right about them completely fucking this up, which they did after that awful Vince/Taker segment last week.

What even happened in the third hour, outside of the repeat main event? I can tell you right now that hearing we were getting Bray/Ambrose for the 800th time pretty much told the audience to stop watching at 10pm.


----------



## Fighter Daron

What? I thought Dean Ambrose was the biggest draw of all time.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> 3.2 million in Hour 3 for a Raw 4 weeks before WM is scary. Just a .2 or .3 away from being sub 3 million; which once seemed impossible in March. Wow.


I wonder now many people will blame Dean Ambrose/Bray Wyatt or just the bad product. As you pointed out last week, the third hour is crap. The product is mediocre overall, but three hours on a Monday Night really highlights that. 

The WWE really blew their load on Shane's return. 

I see such a fuss being made by the WWE over WM 33 while WM 32 continues to go off the rails. fpalm


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

ShowStopper said:


> If you're an undercarder/midcarder, and you are lucky enough to be very much over; it only lasts so long if the fans don't start to see some kind of progress for the guy in terms of moving up the roster and not getting laidout all the time. It could be that people are simply tired of that. It also did him no favors when for months on end he's been nothing more than Reigns' "little buddy." There were actually people on here who enjoyed that; and I never understood why. It held back one of them (Dean) and did absolutely nothing for the other (Reigns). Stupid move on WWE's part.


Quite frankly, you're making way too much sense with this post lol. This is actually a reason I'm a little worried about AJ Styles. He's so over right now, and stupid booking decisions like the ones you've mentioned here could derail his momentum if WWE isn't careful with how they book him. The last we need is another hot babyface become just another guy on the roster.


----------



## dreammaster

anybody know the song they use in Shane promo package highlighting is matches


----------



## squarebox

lol @ those ratings during WM season.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I wonder now many people will blame Dean Ambrose/Bray Wyatt or just the bad product. As you pointed out last week, the third hour is crap. The product is mediocre overall, but three hours on a Monday Night really highlights that.
> 
> The WWE really blew their load on Shane's return.
> 
> I see such a fuss being made by the WWE over WM 33 while WM 32 continues to go off the rails. fpalm


Even with last week's 3rd hour increase from the week before that; I didn't think it was a big deal, tbh, like some did. A 3.36 to 3.5 increase is an increase and it is a higher 3rd hour than they usually get (like we saw this week); but it's nothing spectacular. It was better than the usual, though, so I will give them that.

Agree about WM 33. Not too long ago this was going to be "the biggest WM of all time." Seems like WWE knows that is not happening anymore and they are planning on next year's WM being the bigger WM. Between the horrible booking and the injuries; they fucked WM 32 badly.


----------



## Chrome

Empress said:


> I wonder now many people will blame Dean Ambrose/Bray Wyatt or just the bad product. As you pointed out last week, the third hour is crap. The product is mediocre overall, but three hours on a Monday Night really highlights that.
> 
> The WWE really blew their load on Shane's return.
> 
> I see such a fuss being made by the WWE over WM 33 while WM 32 continues to go off the rails. fpalm


Wait until they fuck up 33 too and start hyping up 34 next year lol.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

RAW's average viewership during all 3 hours this week is exactly equal to the viewership of the 3rd hour of last week's RAW. Not sure what that entails.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> Even with last week's 3rd hour increase from the week before that; I didn't think it was a big deal, tbh, like some did. A 3.36 to 3.5 increase is an increase and it is a higher 3rd hour than they usually get (like we saw this week); but it's nothing spectacular. It was better than the usual, though, so I will give them that.
> 
> Agree about WM 33. Not too long ago this was going to be "the biggest WM of all time." .


The WWE should NEVER hype up any Wrestlemania as the biggest ever, they should just allow the event to speak for itself because then they set their fans up for often unreasonable expectations. You hype up Wrestlemania to the moon when you have an Andre/Hogan lined up, not before that. I remember them hyping up Wrestlemania 9 as the biggest ever and historically it goes down as a WOAT candidate lol


----------



## A-C-P

Empress said:


> I wonder now many people will blame Dean Ambrose/Bray Wyatt or just the bad product. As you pointed out last week, the third hour is crap. The product is mediocre overall, but three hours on a Monday Night really highlights that.
> 
> The WWE really blew their load on Shane's return.
> 
> *I see such a fuss being made by the WWE over WM 33 while WM 32 continues to go off the rails*. fpalm


Maybe due to the injuries and everything else they have completely given up on WM this year. They are just content on throwing Shane, The Rock in some capacity, Lesnar v Ambrose, and hopefully can slide a Reigns victory moment through without to much fuss, and let WM sell on its name alone this year and start to focus on next year.

I mean looking at it both Roadblock this upcoming weekend and the NXT Show WM weekend look like they are both going to be better shows than Mania itself this year.


----------



## Empress

*3/7 Raw TV Ratings – Raw dips, plus Third Hour Issues*

Monday’s Raw TV ratings were down slightly from last week, while third hour viewership continued to suffer.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking 2016

March 7: Raw scored a 2.59 rating, down slightly from a 2.63 rating last week.

Raw was right at the yearly average of a 2.57 rating through ten weeks.

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.551 million viewers, down five percent (about 175,000 viewers) from last week’s audience.

The following is the Hourly Break Down, with the standard third hour slide…

3.760 million first hour viewers
3.614 million second hour viewers
3.279 million third hour viewers (9% decline from 2H)

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Compared to last week, Raw was even in males 18-34, down slightly in males 18-49, and down sharply in adults 18-49.

Looking specifically at the third hour, the trend continued of general a18-49 viewers tuning out in droves after the second hour, while male viewership was stable. Raw continues to lose female and teen viewers in the third hour, diluting the overall number.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03...w-dips-from-last-week-plus-third-hour-issues/


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

@DAMN SKIPPY
and Reigns also has a hinderance that people fail to consider. he had to overcome a huge fan backlash that most wrestlers never come back from. To his credit (and that of the WWE) they at least turned it around to the point where he got a huge reaction in Philly a year later -- Reigns is presented as the top guy, sure, but so was Cena and he got booed out of the building. This is 2016 where people jump on bandwagons. The fact that Reigns still manages to get some positive reactions deserves a bit of credit IMO. Do I think hthat he's getting top guy reactions proportionate to his push? F^ck no, but the guy is over to a significant degree and he was getting top guy reactions months before the RR 2014 took place. He's in a bad position being the symbol of corporate stubborness and being stuck with the stigma of the guy being in the way of the other fan favorites. Dean Ambrose was never put in that position so the perception is very different from the offset[/QUOTE]

HEAVILY disagree. Made out to be a big deal how exactly? By who? By getting belittled on the mic by everybody from HHH to Stephanie to Paul Heyman? By getting laughed at and completely no sold by everyone he's face to face with as a threat? I'm sure you remember when Bryan was getting beaten up every week by the Authority in 2013, a lot of people on here was saying he was getting buried. It's similar to Ambrose's booking right now, except worse because there's one major difference. Bryan showed that even if they beat him down, it's only because they gang up on him. In a fair fight he could beat anybody. He could take Shield all by himself, win gauntlet matches the Authority put him in to punish him, and beat top guys like Cena and Orton clean. Unlike Ambrose, *he could actually get the job done*.

It wouldn't matter if they made Ambrose look like a loser, getting beaten up in fair fights every week since the Rumble if they actually let him win at Fastlane, showing that he could actually succeed if given the chance. Instead he used his finisher, resorted to using heel tactics like low-blows and using steel chairs, and still ended up losing to a single spear like a complete geek. That's not a guy being build up to be a main eventer/get the biggest reactions on the show. That's a guy made to look like just another jobber who can't hang with the actual main eventers in fair fights, the complete opposite of what you're saying. Ambrose proved he's just a guy who's all talk, and can't actually deliver on his promise. No fans have faith in a babyface like that, that's not how it works. Especially considering they've already seen this story with Ambrose a bunch of times already. Payback, Elimination Chamber, MITB '15, Survivor Series, and the Royal Rumble. There's only so many times you can fool the audience with false hope before they completely stop giving a shit, just like what's happened to Ziggler.

In Bryan's case, the Authority was wrong about him. And Bryan proved it by winning the ME of WM30. As far as Ambrose, he's just what they say he is. An irrelevant, non-factor/non threat to any main eventer in WWE, which has been proven over and over again.

They'll use Ambrose to put over HHH, for Reigns go over him at WM. They'll use Ambrose again to put over Lesnar, who'll eventually be used to put over Reigns at Summerslam. And I'm sure you'll still keep saying this is all just a masterplan to get Ambrose over as the top guy lol. Because they've actually been planning to have Ambrose get mega-over and become the FOTC this whole time, and they've just been pretending that Reigns is their golden boy to hide their true intentions.:lol


----------



## Peerless

Dat drop. Goodbye Ambrose's main event push :mj2


----------



## Empress

*Raw Ratings Overview – First 10 Weeks down big from 2015*

Through the first ten weeks of 2016, WWE Raw has averaged a 2.57 rating, which falls in the range of the mid-1990s as the Monday Night Wars was ramping up.

This year’s initial 10-week average is down 11.6 percent from a 2.91 average rating to begin 2015.

The difference is even more pronounced going back a few years on the Road to WrestleMania in the Three-Hour Raw Era…

Raw’s 10-Week Average at Year-Start

2016: 2.57 avg. rating / 3.623 million avg. live viewers (Year 4 down 1.0 million viewers from 2013)
2015: 2.91 avg. rating / 3.994 million avg. live viewers (Year 3)
2014: 3.21 avg. rating / 4.502 million avg. live viewers (Year 2)
2013: 3.35 avg. rating / 4.657 million avg. live viewers (first full year of three-hour Raws)

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/08/2016rawtvratingsstart/


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Did I seriously read in this thread that Ambrose isn't that much more over than Reigns?
Really? Really?

I mean, do people now wear earmuffs for Stephanie's promos, and just forget to take them off, so they're oblivious to what the fuck is going on?


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Did I seriously read in this thread that Ambrose isn't that much more over than Reigns?
> Really? Really?
> 
> I mean, do people now wear earmuffs for Stephanie's promos, and just forget to take them off, so they're oblivious to what the fuck is going on?


Yes. Neither of them is *consistently *more over than the other. And neither guy is actually the most over guy on the roster, either. That would be AJ Styles ATM.


----------



## Peerless

Ambrose's reactions don't surprise me. He isn't as over as he was last year because he's getting his ass kicked _every_ week. When he was at his most over, it was when he was kicking Rollins' ass every week. That doesn't only apply for Ambrose, but also Reigns and Lesnar.

Reigns was the most over guy in the Shield because he took down anything that was in his path. He was over after TLC because he destroyed HHH. Lesnar is the most over guy in WWE because he squashes everyone, yet at Fastlane, the fans wanted him to be put through a table. The reason for that is because fans cheer for wrestlers who kick ass, not wrestlers who get their ass kicked.

A wrestler might get over on his own, through his charisma or ring work, but ultimately it is his booking that matters most. I don't think some of you realize how awful Ambrose's booking is. It is right up there with the Wyatt family. Ambrose fails at everything he says he's going to do. It also doesn't help that none of the top guys take Ambrose seriously so why should the audience?


----------



## Saved_masses

A huge problem I think is the fact they aren't building to WM, they're building to this Roadblock on Saturday. past two weeks the only WM feud with any sort of build has been Shane vs Taker, whilst they've only just started the diva triple threat build and Lesnar vs Ambrose and HHH vs Reigns have been out on the back burner as Reigns and Lesnar have there time off.

It's so strange that with 3 Raws to go till Wrestlemania, 2/3 of the main events are non existent at this minute in time.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Love it how they recap the opening segment in the third hour for those MANY people tuning in to the third hour.


----------



## Chrome

Empress said:


> *Raw Ratings Overview – First 10 Weeks down big from 2015*
> 
> Through the first ten weeks of 2016, WWE Raw has averaged a 2.57 rating, which falls in the range of the mid-1990s as the Monday Night Wars was ramping up.
> 
> This year’s initial 10-week average is down 11.6 percent from a 2.91 average rating to begin 2015.
> 
> The difference is even more pronounced going back a few years on the Road to WrestleMania in the Three-Hour Raw Era…
> 
> Raw’s 10-Week Average at Year-Start
> 
> 2016: 2.57 avg. rating / 3.623 million avg. live viewers (Year 4 down 1.0 million viewers from 2013)
> 2015: 2.91 avg. rating / 3.994 million avg. live viewers (Year 3)
> 2014: 3.21 avg. rating / 4.502 million avg. live viewers (Year 2)
> 2013: 3.35 avg. rating / 4.657 million avg. live viewers (first full year of three-hour Raws)
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/08/2016rawtvratingsstart/


Damn, that's a big drop from '15. And '15 was already a big drop from '14. ac

That's a bad sign for years to come unless they start changing some shit up.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Saved_masses said:


> A huge problem I think is the fact they aren't building to WM, they're building to this Roadblock on Saturday. past two weeks the only WM feud with any sort of build has been Shane vs Taker, whilst they've only just started the diva triple threat build and Lesnar vs Ambrose and HHH vs Reigns have been out on the back burner as Reigns and Lesnar have there time off.
> 
> It's so strange that with 3 Raws to go till Wrestlemania, 2/3 of the main events are non existent at this minute in time.


Agree. Combine that with the fact that they've sucked out a lot of momentum from the Vince-Shane storyline with that absolutely atrocious segment last week, which was BY FAR the hottest storyline/feud they had going into WM, fans are naturally going to lose interest.


----------



## Blade Runner

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> @DAMN SKIPPY
> 
> 
> HEAVILY disagree. Made out to be a big deal how exactly? By who? By getting belittled on the mic by everybody from HHH to Stephanie to Paul Heyman? By getting laughed at and completely no sold by everyone he's face to face with as a threat? I'm sure you remember when Bryan was getting beaten up every week by the Authority in 2013, a lot of people on here was saying he was getting buried. It's similar to Ambrose's booking right now, except worse because there's one major difference. Bryan showed that even if they beat him down, it's only because they gang up on him. In a fair fight he could beat anybody. He could take Shield all by himself, win gauntlet matches the Authority put him in to punish him, and beat top guys like Cena and Orton clean. Unlike Ambrose, *he could actually get the job done*.
> 
> It wouldn't matter if they made Ambrose look like a loser, getting beaten up in fair fights every week since the Rumble if they actually let him win at Fastlane, showing that he could actually succeed if given the chance. Instead he used his finisher, resorted to using heel tactics like low-blows and using steel chairs, and still ended up losing to a single spear like a complete geek. That's not a guy being build up to be a main eventer/get the biggest reactions on the show. That's a guy made to look like just another jobber who can't hang with the actual main eventers in fair fights, the complete opposite of what you're saying. Ambrose proved he's just a guy who's all talk, and can't actually deliver on his promise. No fans have faith in a babyface like that, that's not how it works. Especially considering they've already seen this story with Ambrose a bunch of times already. Payback, Elimination Chamber, MITB '15, Survivor Series, and the Royal Rumble. There's only so many times you can fool the audience with false hope before they completely stop giving a shit, just like what's happened to Ziggler.
> 
> In Bryan's case, the Authority was wrong about him. And Bryan proved it by winning the ME of WM30. As far as Ambrose, he's just what they say he is. An irrelevant, non-factor/non threat to any main eventer in WWE, which has been proven over and over again.
> 
> They'll use Ambrose to put over HHH, for Reigns go over him at WM. They'll use Ambrose again to put over Lesnar, who'll eventually be used to put over Reigns at Summerslam. And I'm sure you'll still keep saying this is all just a masterplan to get Ambrose over as the top guy lol. Because they've actually been planning to have Ambrose get mega-over and become the FOTC this whole time, and they've just been pretending that Reigns is their golden boy to hide their true intentions.:lol


I call bullsh^t on the Fastlane thing. He was absolutely portrayed as a guy that can "hang". Reigns and Lesnar are portrayed as beasts that win in dominant fashion much more often than not -- the fact that Ambrose stayed in the match and had an intense back and forth with them is portraying him strong. Who gives a sh^t if he used a chair? He's not portrayed as a beast, he's portrayed as an unpredictable lunatic that will get aggressive by any means necessary. Granted, Reigns could've sold the shots better, but that's besides the point

You seem to be getting ahead of yourself by comparing this to Bryan. For starters, the Ambrose journey hasn't seen it's end-game yet, it hasn't even seen it's end-game as far as THIS story is concerned. We don't know for sure what's in the books for him. life doesn't end at Wrestlemania. Ambrose will have his high profile featured match with Lesnar, win or lose, and his journey will continue. You can't just completely write off a guy that main events RAW and PPV regularly, made it to the finals of the RR even if he ultimately puts over HHH on the RTWM. Point is, his stock is attempted to be raised and he's more heavily featured than most guys on the card

Just because he's not getting the BIGGEST push doesn't mean that his push isn't big -- Ambrose is a main eventer and is portrayed in a way where his occational losses don't affect him too much as long as he remains in the storyline frame, because the underdog story is endearing and he's been inches away from being on top. Slow burn booking works best. If they truly wanted to depush him, they'd give him the Ziggler purgatory of stagnation and no direction, or worse even -- the Sandow spot of non-existant


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

This Ambrose push is just to serve as an oppenent for H at Roadblock to make H look strong going into WM. Literally nothing is going to come of it. Then, Ambrose will do the job to Brock. I'd like to say I see big things for Ambrose in the future; but he's absolutely not getting a Bryan type big push or anything like it anytime soon; barring an unforeseen miracle.


----------



## LPPrince

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> When Reigns get crickets in his matches, there's about 10 pages of people pointing out the fact that he isn't over -- yesterday Wyatt/Ambrose got crickets and only 3-4 people pointed out the fact that the crowd was dead lol
> 
> :draper2


Gotta keep booking in mind. I'll give a highly exaggerated example-

The Rock and The Hurricane. If The Rock came out to crickets, his promos got no reaction, and there was hardly a pop for his matches, people would certainly point that out because he wasn't booked to be in a position where that was acceptable.

If The Hurricane came out to crickets, his promos got no reaction, and there was hardly a pop for his matches, people would just shrug and be like, "Its The Hurricane". He's not booked in such a role where it necessitates a big response.

Reigns is. Ambrose isn't. And I'm not trying to make excuses for Ambrose here;if he got put in Reigns' role and got the same reactions Reigns is getting I'd be shitting over it too. And Ambrose even in the role he has should not be getting shit on by fans;you always want a great response depending on your character.

TLDR;Reigns is in the spotlight and thats why fans are quick to point out if he doesn't deliver whereas Ambrose isn't so there's less attention drawn to a mediocre response.

I do think you have a point towards the fanbase though. Reigns is decisively less popular than Ambrose and Rollins so people will always be quicker to point out his failures as opposed to theirs.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> This Ambrose push is just to serve as an oppenent for H at Roadblock to make H look strong going into WM. Literally nothing is going to come of it. Then, Ambrose will do the job to Brock. I'd like to say I see big things for Ambrose in the future; but he's absolutely not getting a Bryan type big push or anything like it anytime soon; barring an unforeseen miracle.


I agree that his not-so-distant-future appears to be on the losing end especially in those two matches, but how they portray him in those matches is key. He can come out of it looking stronger even in defeat, and the manner can create even more sympathy behind his character -- his stock is undoubtably raised by being in a main program with Lesnar on the RTWM. I'd argue that it'd rub a LOT of people the wrong way if Dean defeated Lesnar, but coming within an INCH of defeating him can raise his stock big time IMO


----------



## Arkham258

Chrome said:


> Damn, that's a big drop from '15. And '15 was already a big drop from '14. ac
> 
> That's a bad sign for years to come unless they start changing some shit up.


It's going to be funny when ratings get so consistently low no one even bothers bumping this thread anymore. Then we'll know they're in TNA territory.


----------



## LPPrince

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I agree that his not-so-distant-future appears to be on the losing end especially in those two matches, but how they portray him in those matches is key. He can come out of it looking stronger even in defeat, and the manner can create even more sympathy behind his character -- his stock is undoubtably raised by being in a main program with Lesnar on the RTWM. I'd argue that it'd rub a LOT of people the wrong way if Dean defeated Lesnar, but coming within an INCH of defeating him can raise his stock big time IMO


Considering my booking idea of The Shield Triple Threat main eventing 33 with Dean going over, Dean looking strong in defeat now would be spectacular for the slow build up.


----------



## The_It_Factor

ShowStopper said:


> This Ambrose push is just to serve as an oppenent for H at Roadblock to make H look strong going into WM. Literally nothing is going to come of it. Then, Ambrose will do the job to Brock. I'd like to say I see big things for Ambrose in the future;* but he's absolutely not getting a Bryan type big push or anything like it anytime soon*; barring an unforeseen miracle.


In all fairness, why should he? He's certainly over, but not THAT over, and featuring him heavily/teasing a title run hasn't gained any viewers (can't imagine what people would be saying if it was Reigns in Ambrose's 3rd hour position this week). Before anyone responds, remember that most people who watch don't read the dirtsheets and know the "overall plan" beforehand like we do, so I don't think there are that many people saying, "well, I know they aren't going anywhere with Dean, so I'm going to tune out."


On a side note, the fact that each week on the RTWM draws less than the one before it is comical.

They need to end the 3+ hour programming before they do irreparable harm. NOBODY likes sitting through a 3.25 hour Raw each week. Even back when they were normally 2 hours and did 3 hour as a special edition, it was still tough... EVERY week is just brutal.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Peerless said:


> Dat drop. Goodbye Ambrose's main event push :mj2


What push was that again? Id need to see him win and not actually wind up on his arse every fucking week to actually believe any push was occurring ....


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> I agree that his not-so-distant-future appears to be on the losing end especially in those two matches, but how they portray him in those matches is key. He can come out of it looking stronger even in defeat, and the manner can create even more sympathy behind his character -- his stock is undoubtably raised by being in a main program with Lesnar on the RTWM. I'd argue that it'd rub a LOT of people the wrong way if Dean defeated Lesnar, but coming within an INCH of defeating him can raise his stock big time IMO


True; but that is kind of part of Deans' booking problem. He doesn't need anymore sympathy. He gets the snot kicked out of him the strong majority of the time. How much more sympathy does the poor bastard need? At some point; the character has to win. Now, I'm not suggesting he beat Brock; because we all know that isn't going to happen (even though it would be a HUGE win for him). So, the Brock match is going to have to be another L that the Ambrose character eats. Ditto for the H match at Roadblock. So, there's two more big losses in the span of the next 3 weeks. See where I'm going with this?

The guy needs some W's. He has more than enough sympathy to last him a lifetime due to his poor booking over the past year or so.


----------



## Blade Runner

LPPrince said:


> Gotta keep booking in mind. I'll give a highly exaggerated example-
> 
> The Rock and The Hurricane. If The Rock came out to crickets, his promos got no reaction, and there was hardly a pop for his matches, people would certainly point that out because he wasn't booked to be in a position where that was acceptable.
> 
> If The Hurricane came out to crickets, his promos got no reaction, and there was hardly a pop for his matches, people would just shrug and be like, "Its The Hurricane". He's not booked in such a role where it necessitates a big response.
> 
> Reigns is. Ambrose isn't. And I'm not trying to make excuses for Ambrose here;if he got put in Reigns' role and got the same reactions Reigns is getting I'd be shitting over it too. And Ambrose even in the role he has should not be getting shit on by fans;you always want a great response depending on your character.
> 
> But my point is that Ambrose can afford to not have the best performance and get away with it considering he isn't booked as Superstar #1 . Reigns on the other hand IS in that role, therefore he shouldn't be getting the reactions he's been getting.
> 
> TLDR;Reigns is in the spotlight and thats why fans are quick to point out if he doesn't deliver whereas Ambrose isn't so there's less attention drawn to a mediocre response.
> 
> I do think you have a point towards the fanbase though. Reigns is decisively less popular than Ambrose and Rollins so people will always be quicker to point out his failures as opposed to theirs.


Fair point and I definitely agree to an extent, but Ambrose is not Hurricane. Ambrose is in the main events, he IS portrayed as a top guy. Not THE toppest of top guys, but A top guy. That alone in theory should warrant him a great amount of fanfare that resonates in the audience. As far as Chicago goes, AJ blew his reactions out of the water and AJ is in a midcard feud --

Sure, Reigns is more often scrutinized because he's spotlighted, but I think it's more than fair to point out the same for guys that are being pushed slightly under his level especially when those wrestlers are key players in the main event storylines


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The_It_Factor said:


> In all fairness, why should he? He's certainly over, but not THAT over, and featuring him heavily/teasing a title run hasn't gained any viewers. Before anyone responds, remember that most people who watch don't read the dirtsheets and know the "overall plan" beforehand like we do, so I don't think there are that many people saying, "well, I know they aren't going anywhere with Dean, so I'm going to tune out."
> 
> 
> On a side note, the fact that each week on the RTWM draws less than the one before it is comical.
> 
> They need to end the 3+ hour programming before they do irreparable harm. NOBODY likes sitting through a 3.25 hour Raw each week. Even back when they were normally 2 hours and did 3 hour as a special edition, it was still tough... EVERY week is just brutal.


The part that you bolded wasn't suggesting to give him a Bryan like push. I just said it isn't happening. Not that it should.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Ambrose doesn't get criticised? Fuck me, selective vision occurring here.


----------



## LPPrince

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Fair point and I definitely agree to an extent, but Ambrose is not Hurricane. Ambrose is in the main events, he IS portrayed as a top guy. Not THE toppest of top guys, but A top guy. That alone in theory should warrant him a great amount of fanfare that resonates in the audience. As far as Chicago goes, AJ blew his reactions out of the water and AJ is in a midcard feud --
> 
> Sure, Riegns is more often scrutinised because he's spotlighted, but I think it's more than fair to point out the same for guys that are being pushed slightly under his level especially when those wrestlers are key players in the main event storylines


Well yeah, highly exaggerated. Just trying to stress the difference between how Reigns is booked and how Ambrose is booked.

Far as AJ goes, AJ Lee is awesome. Of course sh...

*pause*

AJ Styles is awesome and has the support of many. He's the newest televised act so he has that going for him on top of all the fans he has from around the world he's built up over the years. Dean's been around a while now. Lets see if AJ keeps up the same responses in three years.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> True; but that is kind of part of Deans' booking problem. He doesn't need anymore sympathy. He gets the snot kicked out of him the strong majority of the time. How much more sympathy does the poor bastard need? At some point; the character has to win. Now, I'm not suggesting he beat Brock; because we all know that isn't going to happen (even though it would be a HUGE win for him). So, the Brock match is going to have to be another L that the Ambrose character eats. Ditto for the H match at Roadblock. So, there's two more big losses in the span of the next 3 weeks. See where I'm going with this?
> 
> The guy needs some W's. He has more than enough sympathy to last him a lifetime due to his poor booking over the past year or so.


No I hear ya and there's validity to what you're saying, but the way I see it Spotlight > Losses in this scenario given the gravity of his opponents. Losing to the WWE champion and Lesnar isn't all that damaging if he puts on a good showing and plants the seed in people's mind that he HAD them beat if (x) or (Z) didn't happen. It's all in the way they book the match. Now if he started losing matches to Ryback with little rhyme or reason then i'd start calling WWE out on their piss-poor handling of him :lol


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> True; but that is kind of part of Deans' booking problem. * He doesn't need anymore sympathy. He gets the snot kicked out of him the strong majority of the time. How much more sympathy does the poor bastard need? * At some point; the character has to win. Now, I'm not suggesting he beat Brock; because we all know that isn't going to happen (even though it would be a HUGE win for him). So, the Brock match is going to have to be another L that the Ambrose character eats. Ditto for the H match at Roadblock. So, there's two more big losses in the span of the next 3 weeks. See where I'm going with this?
> 
> The guy needs some W's. He has more than enough sympathy to last him a lifetime due to his poor booking over the past year or so.


:clap :lol 

I'm surprised that so many seem to enjoy Ambrose being beat up each week and think that it's going somewhere. His wins are so far in between but the beatdowns are weekly. The bigger picture is that he's coming off like a loser, not an underdog. There's a fine difference. The WWE has gone overboard. 

As for the Bryan comparisons, I think making him Bryan 2.0 is what's hindering him. Ambrose was in the Shield, one of the most dominant forces in recent WWE. He shouldn't be booked like Eugene's little brother. Dean should be Dean, not picking up where Bryan's character left off.


----------



## Chrome

Arkham258 said:


> It's going to be funny when ratings get so consistently low no one even bothers bumping this thread anymore. Then we'll know they're in TNA territory.


Tbh, the thread was starting to get like that towards the end of '14. It really picked up steam again towards the 2nd half of '15 when ratings started getting REALLY bad and everyone just wanted to laugh at the WWE.


----------



## LPPrince

Chrome said:


> Tbh, the thread was starting to get like that towards the end of '14. It really picked up steam again towards the 2nd half of '15 when ratings started getting REALLY bad and everyone just wanted to laugh at the WWE.


I figured the only reason this thread still exists is to laugh at WWE's dwindling ratings.


----------



## rome94

The indy fans had a indy parade on RAW last night and the viewership still went down (Zayn, Ambrose, Shane, AJ, and no Reigns) it did worse then last week. WTF?


----------



## Starbuck

Shane/Taker was WWE's only chance of getting people to give a fuck about Mania and in the span of a week they completely killed it. Reigns vs HHH is dead on arrival. Nobody wants to see it. To make matters worse they've decided to tease not one but now two alternatives to it that based on fan reaction, people would rather see at Wrestlemania. There are 3 Raws left and the champion is more occupied with 2 people he wont face at Mania and one of which is supposed to be involved with someone else.... The same someone else now fighting the other guy who has taken a sudden and random interest in the title. 

Complete. Fucking. Shambles.

Don't even get me started on Shane vs Taker which is probably an even bigger mess if possible.

They had Shane vs HHH right in front of them, a genuine money match with real life blurred with fiction. No story in the history of wrestling writes itself more perfectly than Shane McMahon vs Triple H and Stephanie. Instead we're left with a clusterfuck of a HIAC match that one participant doesn't even know why the fuck he's fighting in it and a world title scene in the biggest mess I can ever recall in my 17 years watching this shit.

I'm in the very unfortunate position of having tickets, flights and hotel booked for Dallas and I don't even want to go. This is without question the fucking worst Wrestlemania build of all time. There aren't even enough words to describe how monumentally theyn have fucked this up. The idiocy and pigheaded insistence on crowning Roman Reigns is beyond measure at this point. And it isn't even his fault.

Not the love child of Rock and Austin could save this garbage storytelling. That is their biggest problem above all. Not Reigns, not Ambrose. The stories are fucking shit, they're insulting and often borderline nonexistent. Nobody knows why any of these matches are even happening. Good luck selling 100k seats on that.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

rome94 said:


> The indy fans had a indy parade on RAW last night and the viewership still went down (Zayn, Ambrose, Shane, AJ, and no Reigns) it did worse then last week. WTF?


They did the same ratings and even worse in November when Sheamus and Reigns were feuding for the title and had the lowest rated Raw of all time with no football competition with the first Raw in February, when there was no "Indy parade." Ratings have been much worse than last night. So, you were saying?


----------



## fabi1982

What I find really interesting is the fact that the same loss doesnt transform into the same ratings drop.

See 2014 to 2015:
508.000 viewers less, 0.3 in ratings less

See 2015 to 2016:
371.00 viewers less, 0.34 in ratings less

So even with losing just 73% of the loss the year before they lost more ratings points.



Empress said:


> 2016: 2.57 avg. rating / 3.623 million avg. live viewers (Year 4 down 1.0 million viewers from 2013)
> 2015: 2.91 avg. rating / 3.994 million avg. live viewers (Year 3)
> 2014: 3.21 avg. rating / 4.502 million avg. live viewers (Year 2)
> 2013: 3.35 avg. rating / 4.657 million avg. live viewers (first full year of three-hour Raws)


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

@DAMN SKIPPY 

How exactly was Ambrose portrayed strong, like at all, at Fastlane? At what point did he have an intense back and forth with Lesnar? I knew FL was Dean's last chance at proving people wrong, and show he isn't the irrelevant loser Heyman, HHH and Stephanie considers him. Especially after getting his ass handed to him every week in the buildup to FL. And he failed yet AGAIN in embarrassing fashion. Mind you, this is after he lost his last main event in 8 minutes to Reigns at SS, probably one of the shortest main events ever. To compare, a weakly booked champion like Seth lasted longer against Brock f'n Lesnar at Battleground. He's booked to look like he's far below Reigns and Lesnar's league. That's not 'looking strong'. Please explain to me how he could've been booked to look like any more of a geek in that match.

And lol @ 'occasional losses'. The guy's been in 7 main events, and has lost 6 of them, most being clean losses. He's suffering from the exact same issue as Bray Wyatt. A guy who keeps talking a big game, and always fails to put his money where his mouth is, so nobody takes him seriously anymore. Wyatt had all the momentum in 2014, and now he's become just another guy on the roster who the audience knows not to take seriously because of his repeated failings. His words are meaningless. Ambrose came off just as delusional as Wyatt does now when he told HHH he must've been afraid of him winning at FL, and HHH rightfully laughed him off. Not a single person on Earth takes him seriously as a threat to top guys like Reigns, Lesnar, HHH, etc.

And him being featured prominently on Raw doesn't mean shit if he's being featured to look like a loser all the time. Seth was featured a lot more as the Champion on Raw but it didn't matter because he was also made to look like a geek repeatedly. Jericho was the Champion going into Wm 18 and he was made to look like a joke the whole time during the build, so no one bought into him. Being featured heavily on wwe programming means jackshit. He's the biggest loser to touch the main event scene since The Miz at OTL '11. Think about what you are asking of this guy. You want him to repeatedly put over other wrestlers in main events, and somehow get FOTC level over while doing it, as opposed to the guys benefiting from beating him. I can't be the only one who sees how crazy that is. How over do you think Roman would be if he was booked like Dean the last 2 years, or even just the last 6 weeks from post-Rumble Raw onwards? And before you say Roman isn't supposed to be booked like an underdog loser, I'll point out that neither is Ambrose.

And if you don't think they wanted to cut off all his momentum like Ziggler, they wouldn't have booked him to lose to Wyatt, Harper, Seth (on SD), Kane, Sheamus and pretty much get squashed by Big Show within a month following MITB '15, left directionless with no mic time for ages, before finding his niche as a cheerleader/sidekick for Reigns the next few months so he can finally feel what it's like to be a winner for a change lol. I'm pretty sure that's not how you book someone you want to be FOTC level over. I don't even know why I'm in this pointless argument with you about this, when I have no interest in babyface Ambrose anymore. Any potential that character had to be big is already gone. Unlike 2014 Ambrose who was cool and badass, 2016 him is a delusional geek, and a complete failure as a main eventer. He's not worth anybody's time unless he turns heel, wins some big matches and actually gives people a reason to take him seriously.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Empress said:


> :clap :lol
> 
> I'm surprised that so many seem to enjoy Ambrose being beat up each week and think that it's going somewhere. His wins are so far in between but the beatdowns are weekly. The bigger picture is that he's coming off like a loser, not an underdog. There's a fine difference. The WWE has gone overboard.
> 
> As for the Bryan comparisons, I think making him Bryan 2.0 is what's hindering him. Ambrose was in the Shield, one of the most dominant forces in recent WWE. He shouldn't be booked like Eugene's little brother. Dean should be Dean, not picking up where Bryan's character left off.


"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to Empress again" :side:

We can disagree on everything, but I'm definitely a fan of the intelligent and unbiased posts you make. (Y) You and Showstopper explained more easily than I ever could what the problem with Dean's current booking is.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

RAW at this stage last year was averaging a 2.92 and this year is 2.569 so thats a 13% drop.

Bad but its generally the same as other networks. If they start declining by more than that, say 15%+, then they will start to worry. I predict a 2.44 rating on average this year.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TheShieldSuck said:


> RAW at this stage last year was averaging a 2.92 and this year is 2.569 so thats a 13% drop.
> 
> Bad but its generally the same as other networks. If they start declining by more than that, say 15%+, then they will start to worry. I predict a 2.44 rating on average this year.


Name other shows that have such a drop please.

I can't believe WWE should only freak out if Raw viewership drops to the tune of 20% a year.
That's not feasible for any network.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Name other shows that have such a drop please.
> 
> I can't believe WWE should only freak out if Raw viewership drops to the tune of 20% a year.
> That's not feasible for any network.


I think it was wrestlenomics. Basically the networks have reported double didget declines.


----------



## Blade Runner

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> @DAMN SKIPPY
> 
> How exactly was Ambrose portrayed strong, like at all, at Fastlane? At what point did he have an intense back and forth with Lesnar? I knew FL was Dean's last chance at proving people wrong, and show he isn't the irrelevant loser Heyman, HHH and Stephanie considers him. Especially after getting his ass handed to him every week in the buildup to FL. And he failed yet AGAIN in embarrassing fashion. Mind you, this is after he lost his last main event in 8 minutes to Reigns at SS, probably one of the shortest main events ever. To compare, a weakly booked champion like Seth lasted longer against Brock f'n Lesnar at Battleground. He's booked to look like he's far below Reigns and Lesnar's league. That's not 'looking strong'. Please explain to me how he could've been booked to look like any more of a geek in that match.
> 
> And lol @ 'occasional losses'. The guy's been in 7 main events, and has lost 6 of them, most being clean losses. He's suffering from the exact same issue as Bray Wyatt. A guy who keeps talking a big game, and always fails to put his money where his mouth is, so nobody takes him seriously anymore. Wyatt had all the momentum in 2014, and now he's become just another guy on the roster who the audience knows not to take seriously because of his repeated failings. His words are meaningless. Ambrose came off just as delusional as Wyatt does now when he told HHH he must've been afraid of him winning at FL, and HHH rightfully laughed him off. Not a single person on Earth takes him seriously as a threat to top guys like Reigns, Lesnar, HHH, etc.
> 
> And him being featured prominently on Raw doesn't mean shit if he's being featured to look like a loser all the time. Seth was featured a lot more as the Champion on Raw but it didn't matter because he was also made to look like a geek repeatedly. Jericho was the Champion going into Wm 18 and he was made to look like a joke the whole time during the build, so no one bought into him. Being featured heavily on wwe programming means jackshit. He's the biggest loser to touch the main event scene since The Miz at OTL '11. Think about what you are asking of this guy. You want him to repeatedly put over other wrestlers in main events, and somehow get FOTC level over while doing it, as opposed to the guys benefiting from beating him. I can't be the only one who sees how crazy that is. How over do you think Roman would be if he was booked like Dean the last 2 years, or even just the last 6 weeks from post-Rumble Raw onwards? And before you say Roman isn't supposed to be booked like an underdog loser, I'll point out that neither is Ambrose.
> 
> And if you don't think they wanted to cut off all his momentum like Ziggler, they wouldn't have booked him to lose to Wyatt, Harper, Seth (on SD), Kane, Sheamus and pretty much get squashed by Big Show within a month following MITB '15, left directionless with no mic time for ages, before finding his niche as a cheerleader/sidekick for Reigns the next few months so he can finally feel what it's like to be a winner for a change lol. I'm pretty sure that's not how you book someone you want to be FOTC level over. I don't even know why I'm in this pointless argument with you about this, when I have no interest in babyface Ambrose anymore. Any potential that character had to be big is already gone. Unlike 2014 Ambrose who was cool and badass, 2016 him is a delusional geek, and a complete failure as a main eventer. He's not worth anybody's time unless he turns heel, wins some big matches and actually gives people a reason to take him seriously.


Ambrose had the most impressive showing at the Royal Rumble this year. He won a grueling LMS match in the opener, and he was the final 2 in the RR match itself -- that's not exactly the signs of a guy floundering and being made to look like a geek. He main evented Fastlane and lasted through the entire match while Lesnar was the one taken out from a table spot. That's the point i'm making -- Ambrose was certainly hanging in the match and displayed toughness. If you want a better example of him being made to look weak then use Survivor Series because THAT match was criminally short even for a match with two competitors having matches prior -- but that's a moot point because SS was then (November of 2015) and this is now

Main eventing RAW, Smackdown and PPVs does mean something, it means exposure. Tommy Dreamer never won in big-match situations in ECW but he was still perceived as a star because of how he was portrayed. Dean Ambrose is the same -- as long as he shows a drive and gets written into interesting storyline devices then he'll be alright. I'm not saying that it's cool to have him ALWAYS lose -- if he started losing fairly and decisively to the likes of Ryback and Miz at THIS stage in his career then it certainly wouldn't help him -- but, losing to HHH at Roadblock and Lesnar at Wrestlemania isn't so damaging in context because in both situations he's gaining by being in the same frame as the WWE champion AND the Conquerer (two performers that wouldn't waste their time with lesser individuals) and he gains even more if he can take them to their limit. It's obvious to me that Ambrose is on a momentum upswing right now compared to where he was several months ago and it can have an emotional payoff if they keep building to his title win down the line. These moments to me are absolutely crucial in building a strong emotional connection with the fans by being SO close but never getting the job done. As long as he's part of the big picture then his losses don't really mean sh^t -- once they start dialing him back and taking spotlight away from him THEN the losses will be more damaging because the quality of his feuds will be lessened

but anyway, I will take a wait & see approach with this because right now it's too early to tell. I'm not even a huge fan of Ambrose's face run myself -- to me he comes across as the Walt Disney version of Brian Pillman and I think he can definitely channel his energy in better ways to make it feel more authentic. I don't have any interest in seing him ME WM -- but then again I have even less interest in seing HHH in that position ether. TO me this RTWM sucks, but I just think that the booking of Ambrose's character as of 3/9/2016 is quite low on the totem pole of things that are wrong with the overall picture. If anything I think they're using him better than 98% of the roster right now. You can look at it however you want, that's your prerogative


----------



## sbzero546

I just want to know how those people who are always in the front row shell out $500.00+ every Monday Night and on Sunday


----------



## rome94

ShowStopper said:


> They did the same ratings and even worse in November when Sheamus and Reigns were feuding for the title and had the lowest rated Raw of all time with no football competition with the first Raw in February, when there was no "Indy parade." Ratings have been much worse than last night. So, you were saying?


Yeah you're right and guess what they did....they suddenly gave the belt to Reigns days later and drew back to over 4 million the night he won. This is Wrestlmania season and Ambrose "the most over guy in the company" shouldn't have viewership this low and it gets worse by the week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

rome94 said:


> Yeah you're right and guess what they did....they suddenly gave the belt to Reigns days later and drew back to over 4 million the night he won. This is Wrestlmania season and Ambrose "the most over guy in the company" shouldn't have viewership this low and it gets worse by the week.


They drew that when Reigns beat the snot out H. And what happened the very next week and there after? Oh yeah; the ratings fell back down again and we are now in the lowest rated RTWM EVER. 

The ratings this past week are the same ratings Reigns was getting when he was in the main event every week. Wake up. LOL if anyone thinks Reigns is still a TV draw. He's not; just like no one else is, either.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

rome94 said:


> Yeah you're right and guess what they did....they suddenly gave the belt to Reigns days later and drew back to over 4 million the night he won. This is Wrestlmania season and Ambrose "the most over guy in the company" shouldn't have viewership this low and it gets worse by the week.


The week after Reigns won the belt, ratings went to shit, son.
The 4 million didn't tune in, in a telepathic realization Reigns would win the belt that night.
A week's ratings always have to factor in events of the previous week. And it's a fact that not a single ass more watches Raw because of Reigns.


----------



## JBLoser

PerShowBuzzDaily, Total Divas got just 580,000 viewers.

So if you're keeping score at home:

Ep 1: 1.15M
Ep 2: 939K
Ep 3: 840K
Ep 4: 810K
Ep 5: 808K
Ep 6: 777K
Ep 7: 591K
Ep 8: 580K

Steady, steady decline.


----------



## Chrome

Probably time to pull the plug on that show tbh.


----------



## Empress

Thanks for the Total Divas update @JBLoser

I tried to watch Total Divas last night but the episode was all about Brie getting a scooter (fpalm), Nikki being mad about it and Paige breaking up with her boyfriend. I changed it after a half hour. I won't be surprised if E! cancels the show. If it's not canceled, they should bring in Dean Ambrose and Renee Young as the new couple.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

sbzero546 said:


> I just want to know how those people who are always in the front row shell out $500.00+ every Monday Night and on Sunday


They are different people :jericho2


----------



## Blade Runner

Honestly surprised that TD still gets viewers at all. "Reality" TV isn't even much of a thing anymore, and TD is a lowrent version of it. I would've expected the novelty to wear off after season 1


----------



## JBLoser

Five seasons is usually a fine run for reality shows, so maybe this'll be it for them.


----------



## Empress

I could see the WWE squeezing one more season from E! They renewed IAmCait which started high and flopped from that point. It returned to even lower ratings than what Total Divas is getting now.

But this season seems to be the worst so far, ratings and creative wise.


----------



## T'Challa

I'm kind of tried of my housewives shows these days. So if Total divas was out 5 years back would have been a watch.


----------



## Dell-O

Total Divas is done. DONE!


----------



## Empress

*WrestleMania 32 Already Breaks WWE Attendance Record?, How Many Fans Are Expected For The Event*

Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

Dave Meltzer reported in the latest issue of The Wrestling Observer Newsletter that WrestleMania 32 has already broken the WWE all-time attendance record. As of last Tuesday, 84,000 tickets have been sold and the event is almost sold out. Meltzer noted that the final number will be slightly over the 84,000 tickets already sold, unless the company opens up standing room tickets.

The current WWE attendance record was set by SummerSlam in 1992 at Wembley Stadium, which had 79,127 tickets sold for the show. The U.S. attendance record is approximately 78,000 for WrestleMania III, although the worked figure for that show is 93,173. With WWE usually exaggerating attendance figures by 10,000 - 13,000, Meltzer noted that it's very possible that WWE will announce the WrestleMania 32 attendance to be over 100,000.

Brian Fritz interviewed Vince McMahon for The Orlando Sentinel earlier this week and Fritz that the company was expecting 100,000 fans for this year's show. Fritz asked McMahon how much pressure he felt to keep making the event bigger each year.

"I can say, unequivocally, that it's a lot of pressure," McMahon admitted. "Every year you have to outdo yourself. This year was difficult because John Cena was not a part of it. We have to reach way down and try and come up with things you haven't done before and also hold back surprises that the audience does not know. They expect that from us."

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...ania-32-already-breaks-wwe-attendance-record/


----------



## Erik.

Wrestlemania is the draw.


----------



## The Renegade

Makes me wonder how many tickets they could have sold if people were actually excited about the RTW


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership this week(10/3) Vs last week(3/3) 
2.186M Vs 2.491M 
(-12.24%/-0.305M)

Note: Go-home SD to WWE Roadblock.*


----------



## The Renegade

I can't really explain the downturn in ratings. Smackdown has been putting on really good shows as of late. Much better than Raw.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The Renegade said:


> I can't really explain the downturn in ratings. Smackdown has been putting on really good shows as of late. Much better than Raw.


The company as a whole is on a downward trend, and a few good shows don't change that.
They need to put on great shows for months and longer in order to move upwards again.


----------



## Shenroe

Ouch. A (re)debuting Zayn feuding from the bat with Owens, Jericho heel turn explanation, a red hot Ambrose and nobody watched. What the fuck is going on in actuality?


----------



## The Tempest

The Renegade said:


> I can't really explain the downturn in ratings. Smackdown has been putting on really good shows as of late. Much better than Raw.


Maybe because what you're saying is completely false?


----------



## Empress

*3/10 WWE Smackdown Ratings – Hard fall to 2016 low-point*


Thursday’s Smackdown fell to the lowest TV rating of the year, while also drawing the fewest viewers of the year.


WWE Smackdown Ratings Tracking 2016

March 10: Smackdown scored a 1.64 rating, down seven percent from last week’s 1.76 rating.

Smackdown drew 2.186 million viewers, down 12 percent (about 300,000 viewers) from last week’s show.

It was the fewest viewers since December when Smackdown was on Syfy.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Smackdown fell among adults and males 18-49. But, males 18-34 upticked slightly.

Adults 18-49 was down 16 percent from last week to a year-low
Males 18-49 was down 14 percent from last week to a year-low
– Through the first ten weeks on USA, Smackdown has averaged a 1.78 rating and 2.517 million viewers.

Through the first ten weeks returning to Thursday nights last year on Syfy, Smackdown averaged a 1.90 rating and 2.637 million viewers.

– OVERALL: TNA Impact on Tuesday, Lucha Underground on Wednesday, and Smackdown on Thursday all fell to year-lows this week.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/11/march10smackdownratings/


*SmackDown rating lowest since the move to USA Network*
http://www.cagesideseats.com/wwe-sm...-lowest-since-move-to-usa-network-mar-10-2016


----------



## DoubtGin

Ouch.


----------



## Chrome

Not a good week for any wrestling shows this week.


----------



## bigdog40

sbzero546 said:


> I just want to know how those people who are always in the front row shell out $500.00+ every Monday Night and on Sunday





More than likely those people have thousands of dollars to shell out whereas, when normal people can only afford upper level seats and the lower level seats for most shows go quickly.


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter Ratings Up*

- Monday's RAW ranked #2 among series & specials for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind The Bachelor. RAW had a unique audience of 1.315 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is up from last week's 1.250 million. RAW had total impressions of 11.297 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is up from last week's 10.180 million impressions.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0315/608607/wwe-raw-twitter-ratings-up/


----------



## Erik.

Well you'd hope it was an improvement based on who they had booked. Will be interesting to see the numbers.

Lesnar/Ambrose was hour 1

The two other main events at Wrestlemania were in hour 3. HHH match with Ziggler was booked earlier in the show, we all knew Reigns was coming back and obviously Shane/Taker was promoted all night so definitely interested.


----------



## Empress

*3/14 Raw Social Media – improvement with Full House roster*

Monday’s Raw improved slightly in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings with a full house of The Undertaker, Brock Lesnar, and Shane McMahon advertised for the show.


Raw Twitter TV Ratings Tracking

– March 14: Raw generated a unique Twitter audience of 1.315 million, up five percent from last week.

Raw’s total impressions were 11.297 million, up 11 percent from last week.

The only down metric was unique authors, which was 37,000 compared to 38k last week. However, total tweets were 191,000, up from 186,000 last week.

Raw ranked #2 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing “The Bachelor” on ABC. Raw still has not ranked #1 this year.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #3 behind an NBA game featuring LeBron James and one NHL game.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/15/314-raw-social-media-improvement-full-house-roster/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.471M
H2-3.392M
H3-3.510M

Avg-3.457M*










*H2 vs H1 (-2.28%)
H3 Vs H2 (+3.48%)
H3 Vs H1 (+1.12%)

3/14 Vs 3/7
(-2.65%)
(-0.094M)

Note: 
Fallout from WWE Roadblock. 
Shane McMahon, The Undertaker & Brock Lesnar all advertised prior.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> H1-3.471M
> H2-3.392M
> H3-3.510M
> 
> Avg-3.


:lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

So, so bad.

Hour 2 being the lowest :ti


----------



## RatedR10

This is unheard of. Middle hour being the lowest? Third hour being the highest? A show three weeks away from WM with no competition that can't even average 3.5m? This is fucking horrible.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

What was in Hour 2?


----------



## Empress

It's quite rare that Hour 3 is the highest. It was stacked though. Ziggler/HHH, Reigns/HHH and Vince/Undertaker/Shane. 

I do appreciate that they switched up the format of the show.


----------



## Erik.

ShowStopper said:


> What was in Hour 2?


Ziggler/HHH promo.
Zayn vs. Miz.
Womans Tag Match.

Fans clearly turned off after realising Ambrose/Lesnar was all they were going to get in the first hour. Probably tuned in for third hour when realising Shane/Taker was main eventing.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Last year's numbers for 3/16/15:

Hour one: 3.88 million
Hour two: 3.96 million
Hour three: 3.91 million

:mj4


----------



## KO Bossy

I guess Ziggler vs Hunter and Taker/Shane being in hour 3 helped it to be the strongest. I'm a fair man, though, and I can't credit Roman at all with his boosting it up because he had a surprise return that wasn't promoted, so people weren't tuning in to see him since they had no idea he'd be there. 

Still, those numbers for a RTWM Raw...that's pretty pathetic.


----------



## Erik.

Empress said:


> It's quite rare that Hour 3 is the highest. It was stacked though. Ziggler/HHH, Reigns/HHH and Vince/Undertaker/Shane.
> 
> *I do appreciate that they switched up the format of the show.*


They certainly needed to.

They had Shane in the first segment a few weeks ago and lost 800k viewers. I guess their aim was to gain viewers in the last hour with Shane being in the main event and they did.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

They brought EVERYONE in that they could: Shane, Taker, Brock, even Reigns. And the highest viewed hour was a 3.5.

That is beyond a disaster for a few weeks out from WM.


----------



## Bushmaster

ShowStopper said:


> They brought EVERYONE in that they could: Shane, Taker, Brock, even Reigns. And the highest viewed hour was a 3.5.
> 
> That is beyond a disaster for a few weeks out from WM.


Wait for the YouTube views before you call it a disaster brother :woah


----------



## KO Bossy

Empress said:


> It's quite rare that Hour 3 is the highest. It was stacked though. Ziggler/HHH, Reigns/HHH and Vince/Undertaker/Shane.
> 
> I do appreciate that they switched up the format of the show.


Yeah, but nobody was tuning in to see Reigns/Hunter because he returned out of nowhere with no build. How can people tune in to see something when they don't even know its happening? There was no promotion or advertisement, he showed up for a surprise. The only people who saw it were the ones who were already watching Ziggler/Hunter.

I'm not trying to discredit the guy, I just don't know how anyone can credit Roman for the third hour. That goes for anyone doing a surprise return in that position.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KO Bossy said:


> Yeah, but nobody was tuning in to see Reigns/Hunter because he returned out of nowhere with no build. How can people tune in to see something when they don't even know its happening? There was no promotion or advertisement, he showed up for a surprise. The only people who saw it were the ones who were already watching Ziggler/Hunter.
> 
> I'm not trying to discredit the guy, I just don't know how anyone can credit Roman for the third hour. That goes for anyone doing a surprise return in that position.


Getting credit for a 3.5 is a joke anyway. 3.5 in hour 3, 3 weeks away from Mania?!?!?! That is AWFUL.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> They certainly needed to.
> 
> They had Shane in the first segment a few weeks ago and lost 800k viewers. I guess their aim was to gain viewers in the last hour with Shane being in the main event and they did.


I hope this rating doesn't reflect poorly on New Day. I was happily surprised that the show didn't open with a 30 minute promo. Personally, I loved the LON beatdown and New Day face turn. 

I'm glad Roman/HHH was in the highest hour. That beatdown needed to be seen by maximum viewers. It was my favorite part of the show, followed by Ambrose. Dean came across very credible last night. I enjoyed him very much.

I liked RAW. I was hoping for a stronger number.


@KO Bossy
I believe Roman was advertised. PW Insider said he'd be there and I think most of us expected him. Either way, I'm just glad the HHH/Roman confrontation was in the highest hour. The more eyeballs, the better. And since Youtube views were mentioned, it's already crossed 1 million.


----------



## Wynter

:ha these muthafuckin numbers. 

They tried to stack the house for a rating. Even brought in Foley as an incentive. 

Then got a ratings bump in 2nd and 3rd that added up to an average number anyway. Lol..


Decent numbers are Raws success now days except for occasional one week spikes :lol 

Amazing how they cooled down several feuds through stupidity. Only feud with real heat is Brock and Dean. 

They cooled off Trips vs Roman Hella quick after tlc. 

Bray vs Brock died a quick death. 

Shane vs Taker/Vince has cooled down and cant raise the rating because booking has been poor. 

No other program is all that hot even if guys like New Day are over. 

Jericho vs AJ may be a fun match up, but it's not some mega hot angle. 

Owens is part of a random multi man match. 

Kalisto vs fucking Ryback unk2

This is our Mania lead ups :drake1 

Matches will deliver at Mania of course, but it's a shame the build up is so shit and meaningless.

Either way, Vince deserved this. Everyone is getting injured and road to Mania numbers are shit. Just seems perfect considering this is supposed to be the biggest Mania ever! 

Even Trips, as over as he is now, can't spike numbers as champ because he's always been there. So it's no different. 

Just blah. They can't even get cheap ratings spikes anymore smh.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

You can tell certain folks are shell-shocked in here. :lol They don't even know what to say. They were expecting a much better number. Thread so quiet.

:mj4


----------



## Bret Hart

They are pretty pathetic but it's 2016 not 2006.


----------



## Erik.

Vince and the WWE have no one to blame but themselves.

This is what happens when you decide to cater towards the internet fans as opposed to the casuals. This will be the numbers unless there is some sort of shake up, which Vince probably doesn't have the balls to do.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I thought Roman was going to usher in a new era of greatness.

I thought he was the next Rock.

I thought the WWE was in a great state.

I thought WWE's stock dropping a dollar over the last 5 days was just an anomaly.

:>

xD

Kappa

:O


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

.. and yet they are smashing the attendance record this WM and generating record revenue with every passing year. No wonder, the correlation between T.V ratings and the general interest in the product is at an all time low. It's a near useless parameter now.


----------



## Saved_masses

can it be counted as a after ppv Raw? They built Roadblock the past few weeks rather that WM itself, I guess now it's out the way people wanted to tune in to see the proper Mania build. Stacking the whole show and third hour especially helped the overall average of the show and at least keeping people interested. A fresh match up in HHH vs Ziggler definitely helped too. Not trying to say Ziggler is a draw at all, but a fresh match up with HHH wrestling on raw for the first time in years was interesting to see. And the first face between Shane and Undertaker was advertised.

However after all the positives, the numbers are still so low for WM season, and will people be interested next week after seeing what they're going to now get at WM? time will tell.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

TV ratings don't matter. I'm sure WWE feels that way when they only made $25 million in revenue last year; and they happen to get paid $32 million by USA Network for that third hour of Raw. Do that math. Won't take long. But I'm sure when the current USA deal runs out and they are at the negotiating table; all of those other parameters will matter to USA Network.


----------



## Empress

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> .. and yet they are smashing the attendance record this WM and generating record revenue with every passing year. No wonder, the correlation between T.V ratings and the general interest in the product is at an all time low. It's a near useless parameter now.


Yeah, Vince pretty much said that ratings are becoming irrelevant to him. He looks at Youtube/social media. WM 32 is almost sold out and 3-3.5 million viewers each week seems to be fine by him. I think we stress out over the ratings more than he does IMO.


----------



## Erik.

Empress said:


> Yeah, Vince pretty much said that ratings are becoming irrelevant to him. He looks at Youtube/social media. WM 32 is almost sold out and 3-3.5 million viewers each week seems to be fine by him. I think we stress out over the ratings more than he does IMO.


I think he was using that as a defence to be honest and a way of diverting the question away from ratings. If you don't care about ratings, you won't be putting ALL the talent on one show to try and generate eyes to your product. 

If you lose 800,000 viewers in one show, you begin to worry.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm sure USA Network is beyond thrilled to hear Vince lie through his teeth in re: ratings. I wonder if he would've said the same thing if they were still averaging 5 million per week like they did a few years ago.


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> TV ratings don't matter. I'm sure WWE feels that way when they only made $25 million in revenue last year; and they happen to get paid $32 million by USA Network for that third hour of Raw. Do that math. Won't take long. But I'm sure when the current USA deal runs out and they are the negotiating table; all of those other parameters will matter to USA Network.


Hmm idk. They have a long ways until the deal ends. Can't predict how ratings go by time that happens. Plus, Raw is still one of the highest drawing shows on that particular network. (don't know if they're the highest.) So for USA , Raw is acceptable in their lineup. 

They don't have many shows on there that draws eyes.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> Hmm idk. They have a long ways until the deal ends. Can't predict how ratings go by time that happens. Plus, Raw is still one of the highest drawing shows on that particular network. (don't know if they're the highest.) So for USA , Raw is acceptable in their lineup.
> 
> They don't have many shows on there that draws eyes.


WWE ratings have been sliding for a few years now. It'd take a major shakeup for them to all of a sudden increase. USA will probably keep Raw; but that's not the issue. The issue is that WWE's negotiating power decreases more and more that Raw ratings decrease or stay where they are. Less negotiating power; less money USA pays WWE. Big problem.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> I think he was using that as a defence to be honest and a way of diverting the question away from ratings. If you don't care about ratings, you won't be putting ALL the talent on one show to try and generate eyes to your product.
> 
> If you lose 800,000 viewers in one show, you begin to worry.


That's a very valid point. I do think there was a part of Vince that was bullshitting, but it's 2016. There's more than one way to digest WWE programming beyond just siting in front of your TV. They're getting low ratings but WM 32 is about to sell out, people are still attending their shows and WWE is making money. Vince seems like one of those rich people who is afraid to rock the boat. He's just maintaining, not growing.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Empress said:


> It's quite rare that Hour 3 is the highest. It was stacked though. Ziggler/HHH, Reigns/HHH and Vince/Undertaker/Shane.
> 
> I do appreciate that they switched up the format of the show.


You know when I originally saw Roman throw that bin I thought it looked pretty good, now I've watched that replay in your sig, ,I see hhh barely got hit and sort of deflects it with his shin and thigh. *shrugs* that makes me sad.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SnapOrTap said:


> I thought Roman was going to usher in a new era of greatness.
> 
> I thought he was the next Rock.
> 
> I thought the WWE was in a great state.
> 
> I thought WWE's stock dropping a dollar over the last 5 days was just an anomaly.
> 
> :>
> 
> xD
> 
> Kappa
> 
> :O


Ratings don't matter anymore, bro. Especially a few weeks from WM. They just don't matter. Ditto for crowd reactions. Also mean zero. Nothing really matters anymore, I guess. :lol


----------



## Wynter

Erik. said:


> I think he was using that as a defence to be honest and a way of diverting the question away from ratings. If you don't care about ratings, you won't be putting ALL the talent on one show to try and generate eyes to your product.
> 
> If you lose 800,000 viewers in one show, you begin to worry.


Oops, didn't mean to quote.



ShowStopper said:


> WWE ratings have been sliding for a few years now. It'd take a major shakeup for them to all of a sudden increase. USA will probably keep Raw; but that's not the issue. The issue is that WWE's negotiating power decreases more and more that Raw ratings decrease or stay where they are. Less negotiating power; less money USA pays WWE. Big problem.


That could be true,but Raw ratings would have to be dog shit bad I think. And there has to a correlation of Raw viewership messing with USA pocket. Mr Robot was critically acclaimed and was USA most popular TV show in a while. Even then, I think the finale was like 2.8 million. Most of the draw was outside the USA with multiple digital outlets like streaming, on demand, iTunes etc.


----------



## Marrakesh

Youtube views. That's where all the money is right? 

Not the $200m they are making per year from their current TV deals which were directly responsible for the reported 'record revenues' when the rights fees escalated this year. 

:ha Youtube views is were it's at. :ti 

How's those attendances? Steadily declining. 

How's the subscriber count? Barely moved in a year. 

Name an active wrestler who's actually culturally relevant in 2016. 

There is none.

It's all good though. YOUTUBE. :vince3


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> Oops, didn't mean to quote.
> 
> 
> 
> That could be true,but Raw ratings would have to be dog shit bad I think. And there has to a correlation of Raw viewership messing with USA pocket. Mr Robot was critically acclaimed and was USA most popular TV show in a while. Even then, I think the finale was like 2.8 million. Most of the draw was outside the USA with mulitokr digital outlets like streaming, on demand, iTunes etc.


Okey dokey. Will keep this in mind with future Champions, as well. Ratings don't matter anymore. Gotta make a mental note to myself that crowd reactions don't matter anymore, either. I wonder what's next. :hmm:


----------



## Empress

*3/14 Raw TV Ratings – Full House Raw produces drop & increase*

If there ever was a mixed bag Raw TV rating, it was Monday’s Raw with a full house roster of The Undertaker, Brock Lesnar, and Shane McMahon advertised for the same show. The Raw TV rating fell from last week, but third hour viewership increased from the second hour.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

March 14: Raw scored a 2.51 rating, down from a 2.59 rating last week. The ratings have dropped precipitously since Shane McMahon’s return on the post-Fast Lane episode.

Feb. 22: 2.73 rating
Feb. 29: 2.63 rating
Mar. 7: 2.59 rating
Mar. 14: 2.51 rating

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.457 million viewers, down three percent (about 90,000 viewers) from last week’s show.

The bright spot was the third hour increased from the second hour for only the second time this year.

First Hour: 3.471 million viewers (down about 300,000 viewers from last week)
Second Hour: 3.392 million viewers (down about 220,000 viewers from last week)
Third Hour: 3.510 million viewers (up about 230,000 viewers from last week)

The combination of (a) soft viewership during the first two hours and (b) Triple H vs. Dolph Ziggler and a show-closing Undertaker-McMahon Family angle in the third hour seemed to help reverse the trend of third hour declines.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Raw was essentially even with last week’s show in the key demos.

Adults 18-49 was up very slightly, males 18-49 was down very slightly, and males 18-34 was essentially even. M18-34 has drawn virtually the same rating three weeks in a row.

– One year ago this week, Raw scored a 2.73 rating and averaged 3.915 million viewers. It was the lowest-rated Raw of WM31 Season, which was still two-tenths of a rating higher than this week’s Raw.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/15/314-raw-tv-ratings-full-house-raw-produces-drop-increase/


----------



## dougfisher_05

And the bleeding continues... During the rtwm even. The great ratings decline continues...


----------



## Empress

Why do some of you look down on Youtube/social media as if it has no place in 2016? Vince McMahon and the WWE are not the only ones who use it as a metric. By this time next year, Twitter ratings will officially factor into TV viewership.


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> Okey dokey. Will keep this in mind with future Champions, as well. Ratings don't matter anymore. Gotta make a mental note to myself that crowd reactions don't matter anymore, either. I wonder what's next. :hmm:


What does that have to do with our conversation?? :drake1

We are talking about ratings and if they will affect USA and Vince pockets later on. 

But ok, we will talk about your "future champions" when it's actually relevant to the convo :lol :hmm:


----------



## Kabraxal

Empress said:


> Why do some of you look down on Youtube/social media as if it has no place in 2016? Vince McMahon and the WWE are not the only ones who use it as a metric. By this time next year, Twitter ratings will officially factor into TV viewership.


Because youtube and twitter mean nothing in reality... People can tag on twotter without watching and most youtube views are either rewatches or one offs where it gains no new viewers or network subscribers.

Subscriptions, attendance, and viewers are what matters. Real succesful shows don't go "but but youtube! Twitter!!!".


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> What does that have to do with our conversation?? :drake1
> 
> We are talking about ratings and if they will affect USA and Vince pockets later on.
> 
> But ok, we will talk about your "future champions" when it's actually relevant to the convo :lol :hmm:



It already has hit Vince's wallet. WWE's recent TV deal was a good deal lower than what Vince was hoping it would be. I'd say the fact that the ratings are even lower than they were at the time of that negotiation would tell us it will. Hell, it has already affected Vince's wallet.


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> It already has hit Vince's wallet. WWE's recent TV deal was a good deal lower than what Vince was hoping it would be. I'd say the fact that the ratings are even lower than they were at the time of that negotiation would tell us it will. Hell, it has already affected Vince's wallet.


And that's the answer you should have given instead of making sly jokes. It really wasn't that hard to keep the conversation going as we were doing. We were having a legit discussion about how this might affect WWE and USA. It was an interesting topic to discuss.

At least, I thought we were having a mature conversation :shrug:


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> And that's the answer you should have given instead of making sly jokes. It really wasn't that hard to keep the conversation going as we were doing. We were having a legit discussion about how this might affect WWE and USA. It was an interesting topic to discuss.
> 
> At least, I thought we were having a mature conversation :shrug:


It wasn't a joke. All the way up until a 2-3 months ago, ratings very much mattered in here. Now, 2-3 months later, AND during WWE's most important time of year, the ratings suddenly...don't matter?

It's quite odd, to say the least, even you have to admit.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Youtube doesn't bring them the 20 million dollar deal from USA.

Youtube probably doesn't even generate 50% of that income either. 

Overrated. Is it important? Yes, but not as important as the tv deal.


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> Because youtube and twitter mean nothing in reality... People can tag on twotter without watching and most youtube views are either rewatches or one offs where it gains no new viewers or network subscribers.
> 
> Subscriptions, attendance, and viewers are what matters. Real succesful shows don't go "but but youtube! Twitter!!!".


In the article that I linked to, it stated how social media is being incorporated to gauge interest/viewership. As it relates to the USA Network, I'd like to cite Mr. Robot. Digital media increased their viewership. 

Many successful entities do highlight their strengths in social media. It's not low hanging fruit. It's also not everything but many people in this thread act as if it's blasphemy to bring it up and that views can't be translated into currency.

The WWE just celebrated a YouTube milestone. Obviously, they have no issue using it as a metric.


----------



## Wynter

ShowStopper said:


> It wasn't a joke. All the way up until a 2-3 months ago, ratings very much mattered in here. Now, 2-3 months later, AND during WWE's most important time of year, the ratings suddenly...don't matter?
> 
> It's quite odd, to say the least, even you have to admit.


They do matter to a certain extent. That's why I laughed at how dog shit the numbers are for Mania season. Still, WWE is making a lot of money regardless. Making more than the previous year if I'm recalling correctly. Vince really won't give a shit until it's some drastic money hit. Fans are still shelling out money in places like merch, PPVs, Raws etc. 

This build has been horrible, but people are still willing to pay and help WWE break record attendance for a Mania. It picked up in sells as the shitty build went on and the ratings continued to be mediocre. 

It's definitely not a black and white situation. WWE is in a very weird area of profit, losses etc.


----------



## SnapOrTap

I actually think their Youtube hurts their product even more.

Like, I'm not going to sit through 3 hours of dogshit.

3 months later, hey, let me check out this clip of the mainevent on Youtube.

Fuck, they're still shit.

Now I'm going to generalize that to the rest of the product and continue not watching. 

That might be a contributing factor to the lack of interest in the product right now.


----------



## Marrakesh

SnapOrTap said:


> Youtube doesn't bring them the 20 million dollar deal from USA.
> 
> Youtube probably doesn't even generate 50% of that income either.
> 
> Overrated. Is it important? Yes, but not as important as the tv deal.


Their USA deal is for $160m a year and their International deals take them to $200m. 

I seen someone else say they have a $20m dollar deal and I don't know were that is coming from. 

Unless that was just a typo :lol


----------



## Daemon_Rising

SnapOrTap said:


> Youtube doesn't bring them the 20 million dollar deal from USA.
> 
> Youtube probably doesn't even generate 50% of that income either.
> 
> Overrated. Is it important? Yes, but not as important as the tv deal.


Agreed, but you mean 200 million, right?

Okay wow, just looked at those ratings. They lost viewers on average from last week? 3 weeks before Mania they lost viewers? Usually they at least maintain then we get a spike a few weeks before.

So much argument for and against the importance of ratings...not gonna go into that right now, but purely looking at the TV numbers they look bad. Even if this is just an indicator of WWE's approval ratings, it's bad numbers at this point on the RTWM.


----------



## Wynter

SnapOrTap said:


> I actually think their Youtube hurts their product even more.
> 
> Like, I'm not going to sit through 3 hours of dogshit.
> 
> 3 months later, hey, let me check out this clip of the mainevent on Youtube.
> 
> Fuck, they're still shit.
> 
> Now I'm going to generalize that to the rest of the product and continue not watching.
> 
> That might be a contributing factor to the lack of interest in the product right now.


Word, a lot of people would rather digest highlights than sit through a Raw. They go and look at whatever segments sound enjoyable and then move on. Can't say how much it affects viewership on TV, but I'm sure there is some affect. Too many alternatives to watch later than to sit through bullshit. There has to be a really hot angle to draw people in live now days. 

It's why let's say, Dean and a Brock segment can get over 4 million views on YouTube but Raw averages 3.3 million or some shit. It's a weird dichotomy.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Last Marauder said:


> They do matter to a certain extent. That's why I laughed at how dog shit the numbers are for Mania season. Still, WWE is making a lot of money regardless. Making more than the previous year if I'm recalling correctly. Vince really won't give a shit until it's some drastic money hit. Fans are still shelling out money in places like merch, PPVs, Raws etc.
> 
> This build has been horrible, but people are still willing to pay and help WWE break record attendance for a Mania. It picked up in sells as the shitty build went on and the ratings continued to be mediocre.
> 
> It's definitely not a black and white situation. WWE is in a very weird area of profit, losses etc.


Of course they make money. If you're a wrestling fan in America, you have little to no alternative. The fact that WWE has no wrestling competition in this country illustrates how bad the numbers are even moreso. With little to no competition; WWE should be doing great numbers. And three weeks out from their biggest show of the year, they are in the mid to low 3's; the same numbers WWE did in the Summer and Fall of last year that they got killed for. The numbers leading up to Mania are disgraceful for a WM they dubbed as "the biggest ever" in late 2015. Them selling merch or whatever doesn't cover up for bad ratings and overall attendance. USA will have even more of a field day with WWE than they did last negotiation.

You guys were killing WWE for these very same numbers last Summer and Fall. But doing these number 3 weeks out from WM with EVERYONE on the show is no big deal. :lol


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*WWE Raw rating for the March 14 edition*

Monday’s WWE Raw scored a *2.51 rating*, down from the *2.59 rating* the show drew last week. Raw averaged *3.457 million* viewers, down from the *3.551 million* average from last week. Powell’s POV: Viewership numbers were down from last week, but WWE has to be pleased that the third hour drew the most viewers of the three hours for a change. The third hour typically is the worst and brings the overall number down. The *March 16, 2015* edition of Raw delivered a *2.73 rating* with *3.919 million* viewers.

*http://prowrestling.net/site/2016/03/15/wwe-raw-rating-for-the-march-14-edition/*


----------



## Empress

*WWE's WrestleMania 32 expected to shatter pro wrestling's live gate record*



> According to Wrestlenomics guru Brandon Howard, WrestleMania 32 is expected to shatter pro wrestling's live gate record. He conservatively estimates that this years WrestleMania should garner at least $17.6 million in ticket sales, $5 million more than last year's show in Santa Clara.


Rest of the article: 
http://www.cagesideseats.com/2016/3...d-to-shatter-attendance-and-live-gate-records


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

SnapOrTap said:


> Youtube doesn't bring them the 20 million dollar deal from USA.
> 
> Youtube probably doesn't even generate 50% of that income either.
> 
> Overrated. Is it important? Yes, but not as important as the tv deal.


Exactly. When Vince is negotiating with USA and they ask him why ratings are in the toilet and why they have trouble selling out the weekly shows; he's not going to be able to bring up Youtube views.


----------



## Erik.

Empress said:


> *WWE's WrestleMania 32 expected to shatter pro wrestling's live gate record*
> 
> 
> 
> Rest of the article:
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/2016/3...d-to-shatter-attendance-and-live-gate-records


Wrestlemania is quite literally the Superbowl. You don't even have to be watching the current product and you'll tune in because it's Wrestlemania! - They do a FANTASTIC job of marketing Wrestlemania, that is the WWEs strong point.


----------



## fabi1982

10:00 PM	3,510	1.4
9:00 PM	3,392	1.3
8:00 PM	3,471	1.2


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Exactly. When Vince is negotiating with USA and they ask him why ratings are in the toilet and why they have trouble selling out the weekly shows; he's not going to be able to bring up Youtube views.


How did you arrive to the conclusion that ratings are in the toilet, when in fact it's a dynamic parameter which is a factor of the times?

You really think while negotiating their last deal, Vince would have been facing statements like "*So Mr McMahon, as you see your product's viewership is down 66% from 14 years ago and has been constantly falling since our last deal was conceived, in view of these developments our network can't offer you any more money than 75% of the last deal"*?

And then they sign on the dotted line sealing a record breaking deal. The ratings and their standard would always change with the times. WWE is not the party to be concerned here, it is already commanding a healthy 1.25 million subscribers in the network despite it still being in a globally nascent phase. It's the TV networks who have to examine this unilateral shift towards other platforms like the Internet and try to decipher the pace at which it is happening. WWE has already self sufficed itself with the network and is moving towards sustainable profits without TV itself in the foreseeable future.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> How did you arrive to the conclusion that ratings are in the toilet, when in fact it's a dynamic parameter which is a factor of the times?
> 
> You really think while negotiating their last deal, Vince would have been facing statements like "*So Mr McMahon, as you see your product's viewership is down 66% from 14 years ago and has been constantly falling since our last deal was conceived, in view of these developments our network can't offer you any more money than 75% of the last deal"*?
> 
> And then they sign on the dotted line sealing a record breaking deal. The ratings and their standard would always change with the times. WWE is not the party to be concerned here, it is already commanding a healthy 1.25 million subscribers in the network despite it still being in a globally nascent phase. It's the TV networks who have to examine this unilateral shift towards other platforms like the Internet and try to decipher the pace at which it is happening. WWE has already self sufficed itself with the network and is moving towards sustainable profits without TV itself in the foreseeable future.


Being that WWE get well under what they thought they would get; and this is when they were averaging alittle over 5 million viewers per week; and now they are now averaging well under that; yeah; it's fair to say their new deal will once again be less than what they are hoping for; unless ratings eventually begin to go up by the time this current deal ends. You may not care for ratings; but USA Network does, and so does Vince, even if he will only put ratings over when WWE is raking them in.


----------



## Erik.

Another thing I don't understand is why, when they are on a prime time television slot, are they even catering their main show towards kids. 

I have no problem having kids content, the likes of Superstars, Main Event etc for kids as this is shown on Saturdays or whenever they are shown but Raw is going up against the likes of Better Call Saul, Walking Dead etc. at the same time (correct me if I am wrong and use other shows as examples) but if they want viewers then they are targeting the wrong demographic. Why are kids even awake this late at night, on a Monday night? I've watched shows at the same time Raw is on and you hear a lot of profanity, most are damn PG shows ffs. Do they even know what PG stands for?

The excuse of them being a public traded company just doesn't wash with me and certain things they can't do due to sponsors etc. - do they just say to their sponsors during Wrestlemania "oh, we're on the road to Wrestlemania so we're going to start being a bit more aggressive, seeing a bit more blood on screen" - I think it's just a pathetic excuse. There is ALOT worse on television but WWE just continue to insult intelligence with lazy booking, poor story telling and lack of seriousness within the writing just makes it hard for wrestling or even "sports entertainment" fans to stick around. 

I'd be embarrassed to watch an episode of Raw with any of my friends who don't WATCH wrestling so how can they expect to get new viewers in? The only ones watching are the hardcore internet wrestling fans that probably only watch because they love the product and WANT it to improve. It goes back to what I was saying when I said they started ruining the product and driving away the viewers when they catered towards the internet fans. The internet fans are the ones who will WATCH regardless. It's the casual fans that they needed to cater to and they haven't, which has seen them leave and fail to come back.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Being that WWE get well under what they thought they would get; and this is when they were averaging alittle over 5 million viewers per week; and now they are now averaging well under that; yeah; it's fair to say their new deal will once again be less than what they are hoping for; unless ratings eventually begin to go up by the time this current deal ends. You may not care for ratings; but USA Network does, and so does Vince, even if he will only put ratings over when WWE is raking them in.


WWE didn't get well under what they were hoping for, far from it. It's simple business manoeuvring. No organization puts a realistic cap on what it's worth, that's like a public admission of their ceiling. No one in the WWE in their right mind would have been hoping for an unrealistic 400% increment from last time, that just doesn't happen. Whether they finally got what they had discussed and hoped for behind closed doors, is still behind closed doors.

USA network might care for the ratings but they're also well equipped to judge what standard of ratings are the norm these days to classify it as satisfactory, it has always been this way. Hence, the fact that WWE gets incremental TV deals every time despite the fact that ratings have been falling since 2000.


----------



## SnapOrTap

Marrakesh said:


> Their USA deal is for $160m a year and their International deals take them to $200m.
> 
> I seen someone else say they have a $20m dollar deal and I don't know were that is coming from.
> 
> Unless that was just a typo :lol


Yea meant 200 M.

My 0 key =_=


----------



## SnapOrTap

*2.51 Demo*

:yum:

:yum:

:yum:

:yum:

Almost below 1.0

Slowly yet surely.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> WWE didn't get well under what they were hoping for, far from it. It's simple business manoeuvring. No organization puts a realistic cap on what it's worth, that's like a public admission of their ceiling. No one in the WWE in their right mind would have been hoping for an unrealistic 400% increment from last time, that just doesn't happen. Whether they finally got what they had discussed and hoped for behind closed doors, is still behind closed doors.
> 
> USA network might care for the ratings but they're also well equipped to judge what standard or ratings are the norm these days to classify it as satisfactory, it has always been this way. Hence, the fact that WWE gets incremental TV deals every time despite the fact that ratings have been falling since 2000.


Um, yeah, they did. Vince lost a ton over it;



> WWE seemed to start a firestorm when they signed their TV deal with NBC Universal. WWE’s stock plummeted, and the start of at least four known investigations began. WWE went from having their highest stock of all time to a low end stock that many didn’t see coming. The owner of the company, Vince McMahon, was said to have lost $350 million over the ordeal. He is no longer a billionaire, but he still has $750 million. Fundraiser anyone?
> 
> The TV deal was lower than what WWE wanted, and many expected more. However, it’s not as if the WWE went into negotiations asking for a low ball price. In fact, they did just the opposite and THAT seems to be why they got such a low deal. Reports have surfaced claiming that WWE had drawn interest from at least one major sports channel.
> 
> When WWE told them about the price they wanted, the network immediately backed off. It’s said that in negotiations, WWE went in talking high from the word “go,” and thus lost out on a better deal than what they ended up getting. According to sources, it is said that there is a perception within the TV industry that WWE is “cheap programming” that will help a station with ratings.
> 
> Whether cheap or not, WWE is a proven ratings draw. All of their TV properties combine for an average rating of a 2.0 or higher. WWE RAW alone gets an average 3.0 on Monday nights, the premium night for TV. On top of that, RAW grossed over a billion dollars for NBC Universal’s USA Network the last two years.
> 
> That being said, WWE pulls in ratings on top of money. So while they can be called cheap by anyone, they have been around the TV scene for 20 years now and have done well the entire time. That being said, clearly the WWE is worth a good investment. The issue the WWE ran into was trying to present that for the money they wanted. That is why NBCU went up from their last contract with the WWE, but they didn’t go up a massive amount.
> 
> NBC Universal most likely felt that they would be the only place the WWE could get a deal after potentially hearing about how negotiations were going with other networks and then they ended up offering them a TV deal to keep them. The deal was a business move. Many may ask, why didn’t WWE decline and just wait it out? If NBCU was the only place offering money to the WWE, it was at least something. So the WWE took it instead of having nowhere to go.
> 
> The idea going in was that the WWE would attempt to stay with NBCU, but they would listen to outside offers to see if there was a bigger interest somewhere else. The problem with the whole thing was that WWE sort of shot themselves in the foot during negotiations and ended up with the deal they did.



Another article: http://mmapayout.com/2014/05/wwe-renews-with-nbc-universal/

And another: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-wwe-stock-falls-tv-deals-20140516-story.html

Their stock went down after announcing the new TV deal. It was still a decent deal; but not what they were hoping for. And this was when they were averaging 5 million viewers per week. Yikes.


----------



## CJohn3:16

At least the 3rd hour was the biggest this week. It has HHH/Reigns and Vince/Shane/Taker and it still barely passed the 3.5 million people.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

I can't fucking wait for Raw ratings once WM season is over.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

ShowStopper said:


> Um, yeah, they did. Vince lost a ton over it;
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Another article: http://mmapayout.com/2014/05/wwe-renews-with-nbc-universal/
> 
> And another: http://www.latimes.com/entertainmen...-wwe-stock-falls-tv-deals-20140516-story.html
> 
> Their stock went down after announcing the new TV deal. It was still a decent deal; but not what they were hoping for. And this was when they were averaging 5 million viewers per week. Yikes.


Stock? You do realize that the WWE was trading in at as high as $ 30.94, solely on the back of the network announcement and the initial run, right? It had to come down eventually from it's heavily inflated worth anyway. The stock had inflated 100%+ from the starting of the year due to their recent developments on the network front and was understandably not sustainable.


Going by your line of reasoning, the stock atm is $17.77, up 48% from the same time 5 years ago. So, they must be doing much better than 5 years back, right? The fact remains that studying stock with a myopic view is the most unreliable thing to do as the parameter is heavily volatile. Stocks would always show impulsive behaviour on both sides of the spectrum only to subside to a stable range. Stock Exchanges have fallen even after some exceptional Union budgets were presented. The parameter is that unreliable.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Ok, you guys are right. Nothing matters anymore. Ratings, crowd reactions, TV deals, stock. I give. You win. Nothing matters. :hb

Anyway, this has been a great day. WWE getting the same ratings they were getting in September and October going up against the NFL. They are now getting the same ratings during the Road to WM. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao


----------



## Marv95

Empress said:


> *WWE's WrestleMania 32 expected to shatter pro wrestling's live gate record*
> 
> 
> 
> Rest of the article:
> http://www.cagesideseats.com/2016/3...d-to-shatter-attendance-and-live-gate-records


Great. They can legit draw 110,000 paying customers. But they better hope the show delivers. Because if it doesn't, on top of them getting autumn-type ratings during the RTWM with their big stars promoted, they're gonna start slowly feeling some pain.


----------



## RatedR10

Empress said:


> Yeah, Vince pretty much said that ratings are becoming irrelevant to him. He looks at Youtube/social media. WM 32 is almost sold out and 3-3.5 million viewers each week seems to be fine by him. I think we stress out over the ratings more than he does IMO.


Vince is defending shitty ratings. Ratings absolutely matter. You think networks give a rats ass about their social media presence? They look at the ratings. NBC Universal will have the negotiating power to get a better deal because of how shitty WWE's ratings are. If WWE had good ratings they'd be looking at a lot more money and have the power when it comes negotiation time.


----------



## Empress

RatedR10 said:


> Vince is defending shitty ratings. Ratings absolutely matter. *You think networks give a rats ass about their social media presence? They look at the ratings. *NBC Universal will have the negotiating power to get a better deal because of how shitty WWE's ratings are. If WWE had good ratings they'd be looking at a lot more money and have the power when it comes negotiation time.


Networks do very much care about social media. That's not even a personal opinion. It's what I know for a fact. I really don't get this dismissal that so many have towards it. TV ratings just aren't the only slice of the pie anymore. Not in 2016. Not for the past 5 years or more.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

*Roman's return INCREASES third hour ratings for the first time in forever and they're trying to downplay it while simultaneously ignoring Dean's series of shitty ratings over the course of the last month. How typical. Here's a reminder that last week's main event LOST 500,000 viewers. Try not to spam bullshit about Ambrose immediately saving the show when the focus is put on him. Thanks.*



Empress said:


> Networks do very much care about social media. That's not even a personal opinion. It's what I know for a fact. I really don't get this dismissal that so many have towards it. TV ratings just aren't the only slice of the pie anymore. Not in 2016. Not for the past 5 years or more.


*Right. Almost every popular show uses hashtags and updates social media frequently. It's become a staple in modern programming. You've got to be really desperate to deny the power of social media and pretend it's a WWE exclusive thing. The NBA does it with #Shaqtin a Fool, and it's no coincidence that it's one of their most popular segments. *


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> I can't fucking wait for Raw ratings once WM season is over.


And people thought September's ratings were so bad, with NFL competition. Well, guess what? They're drawing the same ratings now, in March, during the Road to WM that they were drawing in September WITH NFL competition. :lmao

It's been a glorious Road to WM.

:drose

Now, all of a sudden, ratings don't matter; in WWE's most important time of year, just a mere few weeks from their biggest show of the year. But the ratings mattered in the Summer, Fall, and Winter? Get out with that awful logic. It won't be and isn't accepted. If ratings mattered in those seasons; they matter even more so now given that WM is here. unkout

BTW, imagine how bad Hour 3 would've been without an ADVERTISED appearance of Shane. Yikes.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> BTW, imagine how bad Hour 3 would've been without an ADVERTISED appearance of Shane. Yikes.


*You mean just like he was advertised last week when ratings decreased all night? Whoops. Another desperate attempt to deflect credit from Reigns. You seem to only reference Twitter ratings when they benefit you. Reigns trended all night after his appearance. His segment has over 1.7 million views in less than 24 hours:














There are only so many facts you can try to deny before your agenda becomes apparent.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *You mean just like he was advertised last week when ratings decreased all night? Whoops. Another desperate attempt to deflect credit from Reigns.*


So, people tuned in to see Reigns; in a specific hour mind you; even though they literally had no idea he was going to be on the show?! This is a new low. 

It probably helped that a Taker/Shane appearance pretty much guaranteed some type of confrontation between the two.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> So, people tuned in to see Reigns; in a specific hour mind you; even though they literally had no idea he was going to be on the show?!
> 
> It probably helped that a Taker/Shane appearance pretty much guaranteed some type of confrontation between the two.


*
He was rumored to come back all day. There wasn't a single dirtsheet report about Shane's return, yet that didn't stop you and others in here from trying to give him all of the credit for the ratings boost. *


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Youtube views don't equal TV ratings. If they did, WWE's ratings would be at least alittle better than they are.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Youtube views don't equal TV ratings. If they did, WWE's ratings would be at least alittle better than they are.


*Except he increased 3rd hour ratings. Reigns yet again continued his streak of having the most watched segment on Youtube, despite us being told that anyone could be put into his position and pull the same numbers. They were, and they didn't. Ambrose failed all month. Reigns trended on Twitter all night after his appearance. The 3rd hour ratings boost(which never happens) being concurrent with the Youtube views and Twitter trends proves that fans are interested in Reigns. These are facts. They cannot be disputed. *


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> He was rumored to come back all day. There wasn't a single dirtsheet report about Shane's return, yet that didn't stop you and others in here from trying to give him all of the credit for the ratings boost. *


Shane hadn't been on TV for 6-7 YEARS. Hours before Raw started; rumors were running rampant that something HUGE would take place. Shane's segment was the first of the show and lasted over 30 minutes easily allowing word to get out at what was going on. If people want to give the semi success of that show's rating to something else; go right ahead. No hair off my sac.

If we're going to say people didn't tune in to see Shane and Taker's appearance last night because the ratings last week weren't good; then we can say the same about plenty of Reigns' past appearances which also haven't drawn time and time and time and time again. The fact that we're even talking about a 3.5 in hour 3, three weeks from Mania as if it's anything other than HORRIBLE is lulzy in and of itself.

It don't mean nothing until those views translate into ratings. Which we were told they would.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Youtube views don't equal TV ratings. If they did, WWE's ratings would be at least alittle better than they are.




YouTube, at the moment, is its own metric. But it used for streaming and chart placement on the music charts. The time is coming. Twitter impressions will be included in the official ratings next year. No one has stated that TV ratings do not actually matter. They just don't have the same relevance as they did 10-15 years ago. Methodology will always change to gauge consumption.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Legit BOSS said:


> You mean just like he was advertised last week when ratings decreased all night? Whoops. Another desperate attempt to deflect credit from Reigns. You seem to only reference Twitter ratings when they benefit you. Reigns trended all night after his appearance. His segment has over 1.7 million views in less than 24 hours:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *There are only so many facts you can try to deny before your agenda becomes apparent*.


Indeed, dude, indeed.

Twitter ratings ... :ha
Does it say how many of those Twitter people laughed their ass off because of his boos?

Was Reigns advertised for the show in THAT segment? If not, you can take Reigns' fictitious credit, shine it up, turn it sideways, and, you know the rest.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> YouTube, at the moment, is its own metric. But it used for streaming and chart placement on the music charts. The time is coming. Twitter impressions will be included in the official ratings next year. No one has stated that TV ratings do not actually matter. They just don't have the same relevance as they did 10-15 years ago.


They have a ton of relevancy when Vince is trying to get $100-$200 million dollars from USA Network when the current contract ends.


----------



## KO Bossy

To play devil's advocate, I like how "rumors" suddenly mean "guaranteed appearance". Like all the times in 2011 when the dirt sheets said that Sting was so close to signing with WWE, or how he'd be facing Taker in 2012 at WM28. Rumors are just rumors. They aren't a promoted, advertised billing of someone. Not one time did WWE say he would be there all night. Its a coincidence he was in the same hour that did the best.

Not to mention that all of these dirt sheet rumors...casual fans don't read the Observer, PW Torch, or anything like that. We, members of the IWC, do. The casuals, who make up 90% of the viewing audience, are ignorant of these and as such, wouldn't have heard any of the rumors to begin with.

I think the biggest draws last night were Hunter actually wrestling on Raw and an Undertaker appearance, which were both in the 3rd hour.

Regardless, as ShowStopper said, this number isn't exactly something to be celebrated. Neither were any of the shows where Dean was the main focus.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Indeed, dude, indeed.
> 
> Twitter ratings ... :ha


http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...k-and-twitter-in-new-ratings-system.html?_r=1
*
Thanks @Empress. That sure is embarrassing for the vast majority of this thread who spent the entire year downplaying social media. Now they are OFFICIALLY equal to TV ratings. Charlamagne needs to give the biggest hee haw to a couple of hundred people today.*


----------



## Empress

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> He was rumored to come back all day. There wasn't a single dirtsheet report about Shane's return, yet that didn't stop you and others in here from trying to give him all of the credit for the ratings boost. *


That is a good point. Shane came back unannounced and he got credit (myself included) for the rating. Why not Reigns? I think all the performers in the third hour this week should get their due. It's not often that it rises.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It's nowhere near as humiliating as promising that Reigns will propel Raw's ratings into the stratosphere once the focus is on him; and then not drawing anymore in March than they did in the Fall.

The hypocrisy is INSANE. The same people KILLED WWE for getting these ratings in the Fall, but it's perfectly fine in the Road to WM.

Laughable.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> They have a ton of relevancy when Vince is trying to get $100-$200 million dollars from USA Network when the current contract ends.


They could have some currency. Their social media activity wouldn't be a game changer but it's good to have. A lot of shows have avoided being canceled on the strength of social media. Scandal was spared the axe in its first season due to it. 

Again, no one is saying TV ratings are obsolete. They are important. Just not as much as they used to be.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> It's nowhere near as humiliating as promising that Reigns will propel Raw's ratings into the stratosphere once the focus is on him; and then not drawing anymore in March than they did in the Fall.


*Oh really? Find one post of me saying Reigns would bring back AE ratings. I said they'd increase, and they did. Rollins is still the record holder for all time low ratings. You can continue to use football as a crutch all you want. Facts are facts.
*


> The hypocrisy is INSANE. The same people KILLED WWE for getting these ratings in the Fall, but it's perfectly fine in the Road to WM.
> 
> Laughable.


*
No, I definitely blamed Seth's 40 minutes of screentime for killing the show. Get it right.*


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> They could have some currency. Their social media activity wouldn't be a game changer but it's good to have. A lot of shows have avoided being canceled on the strength of social media. Scandal was spared the axe in its first season due to it.
> 
> Again, no one is saying TV ratings are obsolete. They are important. Just not as much as they used to be.


I have no problem with saying Social Media has a place and IS a factor. But people here are trying to re-write history and use the social media as a tool to deflect past statements that they have made. 

People said Reigns would draw big TV ratings when he gets his push. NOT Youtube Views. There is a HUGE difference there. Getting Youtube views does not erase the fact that Reigns hasn't drawn TV ratings and especially not heading into WM like some said he would. The Youtube views does not bail them out of past statements. They said he would be a TV draw; not a Youtube views draw. :lol


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Legit BOSS said:


> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/b...k-and-twitter-in-new-ratings-system.html?_r=1
> *
> Thanks @Empress. That sure is embarrassing for the vast majority of this thread who spent the entire year downplaying social media. Now they are OFFICIALLY equal to TV ratings. Charlamagne needs to give the biggest hee haw to a couple of hundred people today.*


Well, good luck then negotiating a contract as big as the current one using Twitter as leverage, which doesn't pertain to USA at all.
Not a single advertiser will invest more because a million people chatter about the company's biggest hope for a good future being shit on.


----------



## KO Bossy

So now talking about a show equates to sitting down and actually watching it?

Here's the thing. Cable companies monitor shows and their ratings so they can know how to properly charge companies who wish to air commercials during that time slot. The Superbowl does insane ratings, so the privilege of airing a commercial during it costs way more than, say, during a MASH rerun at 2am. That money is then turned around and given to the shows that air to either make more content or as their cut for pulling in bigger viewership. 

From what I gather, you pay twitter potentially enormous amounts of money for advertising and...aside from getting people talking about a topic, that's it. A lot of people talking doesn't generate you any money. A lot of people watching your TV show does. And from the ratings we've seen, all these people talking about WWE are then turning around and not watching Raw or Smackdown, for a grand total of zero dollars brought in by the company.

So again, why do twitter ratings matter exactly?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

ShowStopper said:


> It's nowhere near as humiliating as promising that Reigns will propel Raw's ratings into the stratosphere once the focus is on him; and then not drawing anymore in March than they did in the Fall.
> 
> The hypocrisy is INSANE. The same people KILLED WWE for getting these ratings in the Fall, but it's perfectly fine in the Road to WM.
> 
> Laughable.


Rollins is killing the company, put it on Reigns!

:ha :ha


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Oh really? Find one post of me saying Reigns would bring back AE ratings. I said they'd increase, and they did. Rollins is still the record holder for all time low ratings. You can continue to use football as a crutch all you want. Facts are facts.
> *
> 
> *
> No, I definitely blamed Seth's 40 minutes of screentime for killing the show. Get it right.*


You're wrong, though. WWE did its lowest number EVER w/o NFL during the first Raw of February this year. Here is the article:

http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841

You also seemingly have forgotten the month of November, as in, right after Rollins left Raw. For two seperate episodes of Raw that month; Hour 3 finished with UNDER 3 Million viewers. What was the main event storyline that month? Sheamus/Reigns.

So, you're wrong with both statements. Ratings immediately got even worse literally the first episode and month Rollins left. FACTS. Get it right.


----------



## KO Bossy

Wait, ROLLINS is the record holder for all time low ratings? Doesn't Roman hold the record for lowest ever Raw rating both head to head and unopposed against MNF, as well as biggest ever viewer drop off over the course of a show?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

ShowStopper said:


> I have no problem with saying Social Media has a place and IS a factor. But people here are trying to re-write history and use the social media as a tool to deflect past statements that they have made.
> 
> People said Reigns would draw big TV ratings when he gets his push. NOT Youtube Views. There is a HUGE difference there. Getting Youtube views does not erase the fact that Reigns hasn't drawn TV ratings and especially not heading into WM like some said he would. The Youtube views does not bail them out of past statements. They said he would be a TV draw; not a Youtube views draw. :lol


Not to mention getting Youtube views is not as hard. And people also watch YouTube videos for reasons other than being a fan of what's in the vid. Personally, I watched clips from last Raw to see if it improved, and I hated it. I might watch YouTube, but I wouldn't dream about sitting through this for three hours.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> *I have no problem with saying Social Media has a place and IS a factor. * But people here are trying to re-write history and use the social media as a tool to deflect past statements that they have made.
> 
> People said Reigns would draw big TV ratings when he gets his push. NOT Youtube Views. There is a HUGE difference there. Getting Youtube views does not erase the fact that Reigns hasn't drawn TV ratings and especially not heading into WM like some said he would. The Youtube views does not bail them out of past statements. They said he would be a TV draw; not a Youtube views draw. :lol


That was my only fight in this. I'm careful not to make statements that I can't support. 

Although, Reigns did help bring in 4 million viewers after his title win. If you book a character right, the ratings will come. But that's true for the overall product.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> You're wrong, though. WWE did its lowest number EVER w/o NFL during the first Raw of February this year. Here is the article:
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841
> 
> You also seemingly have forgotten the month of November, as in, right after Rollins left Raw. For two seperate episodes of Raw that month; Hour 3 finished with UNDER 3 Million viewers. What was the main event storyline that month? Sheamus/Reigns.
> 
> So, you're wrong with both statements. Ratings immediately got even worse literally the first episode and month Rollins left. FACTS. Get it right.


*
You mean when Sheamus was champ? Whoops. What happened the night after TLC though? The night Roman won the belt and kept it? Largest increase since The Rock in 2011? I think you left that part out. So congratulations: Rollins is second to Sheamus in mediocre champions. What an impressive accolade :clap.*


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

ShowStopper said:


> You're wrong, though. WWE did its lowest number EVER w/o NFL during the first Raw of February this year. Here is the article:
> 
> http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/ratings-drop-non-football-record-low-raw-206841
> 
> You also seemingly have forgotten the month of November, as in, right after Rollins left Raw. For two seperate episodes of Raw that month; Hour 3 finished with UNDER 3 Million viewers. What was the main event storyline that month? Sheamus/Reigns.
> 
> So, you're wrong with both statements. Ratings immediately got even worse literally the first episode and month Rollins left. FACTS. Get it right.


No, you have it all wrong, that was obviously Sheamus' fault.

I'm just waiting for the usual suspects to credit the post-WM Raw rating on Reigns.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> You mean when Sheamus was champ? Whoops. What happened the night after TLC though? The night Roman won the belt and kept it? Largest increase since The Rock in 2011? I think you left that part out. So congratulations: Rollins is second to Sheamus in mediocre champions. What an impressive accolade.*


Ok, cool. Sheamus was Champ during that month and HHH was Champ last night and in Hour 3, as well. Guess H gets all of the credit for last night, then.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> Ok, cool. Sheamus was Champ during that month and HHH was Champ last night and in Hour 3, as well. Guess H gets all of the credit for last night, then.


*Way to redirect your baseless argument. You claimed Reigns fans were wrong in saying a valid championship reign by him would pique interest much greater than Rollins. We weren't. It did. It created a gigantic spike and lead to two months of Reigns being cheered on the east coast. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Reigns was presented properly for a short period, and then went back to corny jokes and smiling. We don't book him. We've always said he will post results when presented properly, and he always does. You can try to deny it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Just as a side note, the Reigns return Youtube video was on the main page of their Youtube channel for a good portion of today (not sure exactly how long, but at least since this morning and I assume up until they uploaded the top 10 moments from Raw which is now their top video), and that can accrue views like crazy with the traffic that channel gets. And that is on top of what the Reigns return would get normally, but the number is hardly comparable to any of the others which weren't put in the featured video slot.

Anyway, 3rd hour had nothing to do with Reigns. It had both Taker/Vince/Shane advertised from the get-go, and the HHH/Ziggler match which was HHH's first Raw match in forever and had Ziggler's WM chance on the line. Reigns was a non-factor, as he has always been since he was put in the main event scene back in late October/early November (besides the one week where he won the title, but that's an anomaly at this point).


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Way to redirect your baseless argument. You claimed Reigns fans were wrong in saying a valid championship reign by him would pique interest much greater than Rollins. We weren't. It did. It created a gigantic spike and lead to two months of Reigns being cheered on the east coast. We have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. Reigns was presented properly for a short period, and then went back to corny jokes and smiling. We don't book him. We've always said he will post results when presented properly, and he always does. You can try to deny it all you want, but the numbers don't lie.*


More deflections. Woohoo.

So, you want to credit Fastlane for being the reason the Raw with Shane's debut did well, but credit the ONE Raw where Reigns supposedly drew well going all to him, but not the overall PPV fallout itself. Fine. Go right ahead. 

It still gets outweighed by this:



KO Bossy said:


> Wait, ROLLINS is the record holder for all time low ratings? Doesn't Roman hold the record for lowest ever Raw rating both head to head and unopposed against MNF, as well as biggest ever viewer drop off over the course of a show?


GREAT point. The BIGGEST 3rd hour fall of ALL TIME. Not a big deal, though. I'm sure the Youtube views were through the roof that night.

I just love that Rollins wasn't part o*f November, this RTWM which is the lowest rated EVER, or the biggest 3rd hour fall of ALL TIME*. Reigns is racking up those accolades. All this from a guy that has barely even taken a clean pin in two years. Great use of resources, Vince!

:heyman6


----------



## Empress

Roman Reigns always has high Youtube views. And @Legit BOSS is right. There would no shortage of blame if he were featured in an hour that dropped. He's even being blamed for Sheamus' reign and those lackluster numbers. An asterik doesn't always have to be placed next to his name.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> Roman Reigns always has high Youtube views. And @Legit BOSS is right. There would no shortage of blame if he were featured in an hour that dropped. He's even being blamed for Sheamus' reign and those lackluster numbers. An asterik doesn't always have to be placed next to his name.


He's being blamed for Sheamus's reign because he's giving Reigns credit for last night (who isn't Champion) but blaming Sheamus for November *because* he was Champion. Big inconsistency right there.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Legit BOSS said:


> *
> You mean when Sheamus was champ? Whoops. What happened the night after TLC though? The night Roman won the belt and kept it? Largest increase since The Rock in 2011? I think you left that part out. So congratulations: Rollins is second to Sheamus in mediocre champions. What an impressive accolade :clap.*


That's utter BS.
Sheamus won the title the night before, and NOBODY thought Reigns would win it immediately the night after TLC (partially because nobody thought they would be stupid enough to hotshot Reigns' title win planned for Wrestlemania, that already had little fire to begin with). Reigns won it in the final segment, and again you're saying the audience is full of psychics, who foresaw Reigns winning the belt, and tuned in.

Unless they are advertised beforehand, events happening ON the show rarely influence ratings significantly, they do however influence next week's rating. Had Reigns won the title at TLC, you'd of course say Raw's rating was because of that. You don't say however that the ratings popped because Sheamus won. That wouldn't fit your agenda.

And you conveniently ignore ratings went RIGHT back down again. The truth is that people tuned in because Sheamus cashing in sounded interesting, which it turned out not to be. It has nothing to do with EITHER participant.


----------



## Chrome

I don't really care if it can't draw flies to shit, I just want an Ambrose title run at some point. :mj2


----------



## KO Bossy

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Not to mention getting Youtube views is not as hard. And people also watch YouTube videos for reasons other than being a fan of what's in the vid. Personally, I watched clips from last Raw to see if it improved, and I hated it. I might watch YouTube, but I wouldn't dream about sitting through this for three hours.


YouTube views actually make you some money. That's how YouTubers make a living, channels with a lot of subscribers and activity get more ads in their videos, and the channel owners make more cash. Twitter makes you nothing.

By the way, WWE has just hit over 10 million YouTube subscribers. PewDiePie has over 40 million. So way to go WWE, a Swedish guy who makes videos of himself screaming while he plays scary video games is over 4 times as popular as you. Congratulations on achieving such irrelevance. Oh and before anyone says anything, they created their YouTube in 2007, and PewDiePie in 2010. 4 times the subscribers in 3 less years.

I love that Reigns marks won't let December 14th go. One night. And that suddenly justifies everything. As Ric Flair said after dropping the title to Savage at WM8, "you did it once, now...DO IT AGAIN". And he hasn't. The current Roman "trend" is failure. If anything, that single night of success is the fluke. Instead, people act like these weeks of bad ratings, all time lows and awful TV are what's out of the norm and Roman being a success standard. Its true, Seth drew shit as champion. But why is he in the conversation? We're talking about Roman. Again, one night where the ratings didn't tank and where he got a desired reaction. Its been almost 2 years since MiTB 2014 where he started going out on his own and was getting this singles push. That's over 100 episodes of Raw. One out of over 100. Literally below 1%. Why is this cause for celebration and attempts at rubbing it in the faces of detractors? There's nothing to be elated about, this stat is embarrassing.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Chrome said:


> I don't really care if it can't draw flies to shit, *I just want an Ambrose title run at some point.* :mj2


Me too


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> He's being blamed for Sheamus's reign because he's giving Reigns credit for last night (who isn't Champion) but blaming Sheamus for November *because* he was Champion. Big inconsistency right there.


I think BBR is giving Roman credit (but not all) for the third hour in the same manner that Shane got his due for his unexpected return. But I don't see anyone calling Shane's high rating return an "anomaly". They didn't maintain. It's an excuse that only seems reserved for Reigns. Last week, I could've needled Ambrose who lost 500,000 viewers during his main event and Smackdown crashed to similar record lows. I didn't. 

When the show is booked solid, the ratings come. I honestly believe that. 



Chrome said:


> I don't really care if it can't draw flies to shit, I just want an Ambrose title run at some point. :mj2


I predict Summerslam.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> He's being blamed for Sheamus's reign because he's giving Reigns credit for last night (who isn't Champion) but blaming Sheamus for November *because* he was Champion. Big inconsistency right there.


*Maybe because common sense would suggest that the 3rd hour was dedicated to Roman's return to RAW after a month's absence, and 1.7 million views in less than 24 hours supports that. Trying to dismiss Youtube views when they've been a valid and profitable metric of measuring interest for over half a decade is the only laughable thing being discussed at the moment. Since you're so desperate to give Shane and Undertaker credit, lets go ahead and put that to rest with simple math. 1.7>1.4*


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Empress said:


> I think BBR is giving Roman credit (but not all) for the third hour in the same manner that Shane got his due for his unexpected return. *But I don't see anyone calling Shane's high rating return an "anomaly".* They didn't maintain. It's an excuse that only seems reserved for Reigns. Last week, I could've needled Ambrose who lose 500,000 viewers during his main event and Smackdown crashed to similar record lows.


Shane's high rating was an anomaly.

We all good?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Maybe because common sense would suggest that the 3rd hour was dedicated to Roman's return to RAW after a month's absence, and 1.7 million views in less than 24 hours supports that. Trying to dismiss Youtube views when they've been a valid and profitable metric of measuring interest for over half a decade is the only laughable thing being discussed at the moment. Since you're so desperate to give Shane and Undertaker credit, lets go ahead and put that to rest with simple math. 1.7>1.4*


Reigns was gone for 2 weeks. Last night's hour 3 was BUILT on for Shane/Taker. Shane and Taker were advertised BEFORE and DURING the show multiple times. It even went on last; while Reigns/H went on at the top of the hour. So, for some reason, WWE felt compelled to save Shane and Taker for last. Not Reigns and H.

You want to give Reigns and H credit for a 3.5 Hour 3? Go right ahead. That number is PATHETIC for 3 weeks out from Mania.

I've always said Social Media is a factor. I have no problem saying that. But it's not making them the money that a possible TV deal with a Cable Network would yield; which is possibly HUNDREDS of Millions of dollars. That's all.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Empress said:


> When the show is booked solid, the ratings come. I honestly believe that.


Missed this when I first quoted you, but this is the most truthful thing said in the last few pages. It's so true though, that it's boring. Hence, we get what we get in this thread. >


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

One more thing; if you don't want to give Shane credit for Hour 1 of his return; I guess that's fine; since we didn't know for sure what was going to happen; just that *something* was going to happen.

But look at Hour 2 of that Raw. It did 4.055 million viewers. Hour 2 you CAN give Shane credit for. And his return was so big; that he was on in the first segment of Hour 1; but it actually leaked into Hour 2 as well. That's pretty impressive.


----------



## KO Bossy

1. The third hour wasn't dedicated to Reigns. How can you dedicate something to someone who isn't even advertised? He showed up, beat down Hunter and that's that. It wasn't even the main event. That's not dedication, that's "just another Raw segment." And don't start about "dirt sheer rumors". 90% of the viewing audience doesn't read them, and a rumor isn't a confirmation. 

2. Gone for a month? He missed 2 Raws-Feb. 29 and March 7.

3. The Smackdown 41 man battle royal from October of 2013 has 41 million views. So I guess Randy Orton, the winner, is the biggest draw in the company, despite not being around for months and absolutely dwarfing Reigns (whose big title win has 11 million views, which is 1/4 the number).


----------



## Empress

Shane McMahon absolutely deserves credit for the spike in ratings when he returned. I honestly didn't think creative would screw over a McMahon too and it would just go downhill from there. I really thought viewership would increase or at least hold steady during RTW because of Shane. Guess not.


----------



## KO Bossy

Empress said:


> I think BBR is giving Roman credit (but not all) for the third hour in the same manner that Shane got his due for his unexpected return. But I don't see anyone calling Shane's high rating return an "anomaly". They didn't maintain. It's an excuse that only seems reserved for Reigns. Last week, I could've needled Ambrose who lost 500,000 viewers during his main event and Smackdown crashed to similar record lows. I didn't.
> 
> When the show is booked solid, the ratings come. I honestly believe that.


I called Shane's return rating an anomaly like...the day after it happened. I believe my exact words were "he got a return spike, that's it. Its not going to last". Sure enough, it didn't.


----------



## FITZ

They should just go back to giving up in the 3rd hour. Had they put all the good stuff in the first 2 hours I bet they would have had more people watching the big segments.


----------



## Randy Lahey

People don't realize how awful those ratings are. WWE is pulling numbers right now on RTWM that would be considered below average during football season.


----------



## Randy Lahey

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> .. and yet they are smashing the attendance record this WM and generating record revenue with every passing year. No wonder, the correlation between T.V ratings and the general interest in the product is at an all time low. It's a near useless parameter now.


Record revenue? WWE is losing money. They lost money last quarter. And they are far less valuable of company today, than they were a few years ago based on stock price.

There are many measures that suggest WWE is unhealthy. Very unhealthy. A sagging stock price, terrible TV ratings, and high costs (associated with the Network).

WWE will live and die with Network subscribers. But they have to have their current product be popular to sustain Network subscribers long term. Many people subscribed to watch the nostalgia and old episodes. Once that is over, how many are going to non-renew because the current WWE sucks?

This company is a disaster right now.


----------



## Reysdon

> WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking
> 
> March 14: Raw scored a 2.51 rating, down from a 2.59 rating last week. The ratings have dropped precipitously since Shane McMahon’s return on the post-Fast Lane episode.
> 
> Feb. 22: 2.73 rating
> Feb. 29: 2.63 rating
> Mar. 7: 2.59 rating
> Mar. 14: 2.51 rating
> 
> 
> – Raw’s three hours averaged 3.457 million viewers, down three percent (about 90,000 viewers) from last week’s show.
> 
> The bright spot was the third hour increased from the second hour for only the second time this year.
> 
> First Hour: 3.471 million viewers (down about 300,000 viewers from last week)
> Second Hour: 3.392 million viewers (down about 220,000 viewers from last week)
> Third Hour: 3.510 million viewers (up about 230,000 viewers from last week)
> The combination of (a) soft viewership during the first two hours and (b) Triple H vs. Dolph Ziggler and a show-closing Undertaker-McMahon Family angle in the third hour seemed to help reverse the trend of third hour declines.
> 
> – DEMOGRAPHICS: Raw was essentially even with last week’s show


This is most likely down Roman/Triple H drawing really well at 10:00 slot. Very impressive considering Better Call Saul is back taking chunk of RAW viewers. Undertaker/Shane was in the overrun with no competition.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Randy Lahey said:


> People don't realize how awful those ratings are. WWE is pulling numbers right now on RTWM that would be considered below average during football season.


Yep. The fact that some are celebrating a 3.5 in March, but bashed it in September is pretty ironic, too.


----------



## Reysdon

KO Bossy said:


> 1. The third hour wasn't dedicated to Reigns. How can you dedicate something to someone who isn't even advertised? He showed up, beat down Hunter and that's that. It wasn't even the main event. That's not dedication, that's "just another Raw segment." And don't start about "dirt sheer rumors". 90% of the viewing audience doesn't read them, and a rumor isn't a confirmation.


Triple H match with Ziggler, Reigns return and beatdown all went well past 15 minutes, enabling big gain of audience for the third hour. 




> 3. The Smackdown 41 man battle royal from October of 2013 has 41 million views. So I guess Randy Orton, the winner, is the biggest draw in the company, despite not being around for months and absolutely dwarfing Reigns (whose big title win has 11 million views, which is 1/4 the number).


That's viewership overtime, over years. Not the same as hot rising youtube content. 

Its like comparing Funny Wrestling thread or the Official DVD match thread stickied on top in the general wrestling section to the RAW discussion thread two nights ago. Now which one would you consider hot? DVD thread with 660 pages over span of months, maybe years or the RAW thread which blows up to 220 pages within hours?


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Reysdon said:


> Triple H match with Ziggler, Reigns return and beatdown all went well past 15 minutes, enabling big gain of audience for the third hour.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's viewership overtime, over years. Not the same as hot rising youtube content.
> 
> Its like comparing Funny Wrestling thread or the Official DVD match thread stickied on top in the general wrestling section to the RAW discussion thread two nights ago. Now which one would you consider hot? DVD thread with 660 pages over span of months, maybe years or the RAW thread which blows up to 220 pages within hours?


You seem to know alot about threads on here for just joining this month.


----------



## Reysdon

Randy Lahey said:


> Record revenue? WWE is losing money. *They lost money last quarter. * And they are far less valuable of company today, than they were a few years ago based on stock price.
> 
> There are many measures that suggest WWE is unhealthy. Very unhealthy. A sagging stock price, terrible TV ratings, and high costs (associated with the Network).
> 
> WWE will live and die with Network subscribers. But they have to have their current product be popular to sustain Network subscribers long term. Many people subscribed to watch the nostalgia and old episodes. Once that is over, how many are going to non-renew because the current WWE sucks?
> 
> This company is a disaster right now.





WWE did not lost money last quarter. I found this from PWtorch.


http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/11/wweq42015bizbreakdown/



> WWE Fourth Quarter 2015 Business Break Down
> 
> *– Total Revenue: $166.2 million, up 18 percent from $140.5 million in Q4-2014.
> 
> 
> Adjusted Business Profit was $11.1 million, doubling $5.1 million in Q4-2014 during the Network ramp-up phase.
> 
> – Domestic Revenue: $115.4 million (70 percent of the total), up 7.5 percent from $107.3 million in Q4-2014.
> 
> – International Revenue: $50.8 million (30 percent of the total), up 53 percent from $33.2 million in Q4-2014. This was mainly driven by the accessibility of WWE Network and “escalation of TV Rights Fees.”*
> 
> Individual Business Segments
> 
> *Media Division*
> 
> *– Total Revenue of $106.6 million (64 percent of total), up 19 percent from $89.5 million in Q4-2014.*
> 
> Television Revenue was $55.6 million, up 10 percent from $50.5 million in Q4-2014 due the escalation of new TV deals.
> 
> Network Revenue was $37.2 million, up 60 percent from Q4-2014 during the ramp-up period.
> 
> Within the Network segment, PPV Revenue was $3.6 million. WWE counts both items within the Network segment for a total of $40.8 million.
> 
> Home Entertainment was only $2.6 million, down 67 percent from $7.8 million in Q4-2014. WWE was hit hard by a “decline in effective prices” to only $8.34 per unit sold.
> 
> Digital Media was $7.6 million, up 90 percent from $4.0 million in Q4-2014. The interesting thing is last year’s Digital Media segment lost revenue from people buying fewer PPVs on their website due to the Network switch-over. WWE said the number increased this year “primarily due to higher advertising revenues.”
> 
> – Profit was $41.0 million (38 percent profit margin), an improvement on $29.8 million (33 percent margin) in Q4-2014.
> 
> TV Profit was $23.3 million, an improvement on $18.9 million in Q4-2014.
> Network Profit was $15.0 million, an improvement on $6.8 million in Q4-2014.
> 
> Home Entertainment Profit was minimal at $0.6 million compared to $4.6 million in Q4-2014.
> 
> Digital Media Profit was $2.1 million, compared to a net loss of $0.5 million in Q4-2014.
> 
> *Live Events Division*
> 
> *– Total Revenue of $32.9 million (20 percent of total), up 22 percent from $26.9 percent in Q4-2014.*
> 
> WWE noted higher average domestic ticket prices and higher attendance at international shows helped boost the revenue segment. The first NXT U.K. Tour helped internationally.
> 
> North American Live Event Revenue was $18.5 million, up 21 percent from Q4-2014. This was “driven by a 13 percent increase in the average effective ticket price.”The avg. ticket price was $51.59
> 
> Average attendance was 6,300, an increase of 9 percent “in part due to the mix in venues.”
> 
> Int’l Live Event Revenue was $14.3 million, up 24 percent from Q4-2014.
> Excluding the NXT tour, the avg. ticket price was $57.16, down 19 percent from Q4-2014, which “reflected changes in territory mix and unfavorable changes in foreign exchange rates.”
> 
> Average attendance was 7,800, up 31 percent from Q4-2014.
> 
> – Total Profit was $7.3 million, an improvement on $4.6 million in Q4-2014. The profit margin was 22 percent, compared to 17 percent in Q4-2014.
> 
> *Consumer Products Division*
> 
> *– Total Revenue of $24.0 million (14 percent of total), up 18 percent from $20.4 million in Q4-2014.*
> 
> Licensing Revenue was $9.6 million, up slightly from $9.1 million in Q4-2014.
> Within the segment is WWE’s action figure business. WWE cited a survey from NPD Retail Group that “WWE maintained its strong position in the toy market with the third highest selling action figure property in the U.S.”
> 
> Venue Merchandise Revenue was $4.4 million, up from $3.6 million in Q4-2014. This was due to more big spenders in the audience at WWE shows, as per capita revenue increased six percent.
> 
> WWE Shop Revenue was $10.0 million, up 30 percent from last holiday season’s $7.7 million.
> 
> The number of orders increased 24 percent to 214,000 Spending increased, too. Revenue per order was $46.43, up three percent. WWE credited “enhanced product assortment and expanded distribution through Amazon.”
> 
> – Profit was $7.9 million, an improvement on $7.0 million in Q4-2014. The profit margin was 33 percent, slightly down from 34 percent in Q4-2014.
> 
> *WWE Studios Division*
> 
> *– WWE Studios Revenue was $1.8 million, down from $2.9 million in Q4-2014.*
> 
> WWE reported a net loss of $0.2 million, compared to $0.4 million in Q4-2014. WWE has not reported a net gain since the first quarter of 2014.
> 
> Other Segments
> 
> – WWE recorded $0.9 million in Corporate/Other Revenue to round out their total.
> 
> The related expenses were $25.0 million in Corporate Support and $27.1 million in Business Sport, for a total Corporate Expense of $52.0 million, an increase of 39 percent.
> 
> WWE attributed most of the increase to a $7.1 million impairment charge related to abandoning their media center project.
> 
> COMPARISON OF CHANGES
> 
> – In the Fourth Quarter 2015, WWE became even more top-heavy, as TV Revenue, WWE Network, and Live Events produced $129.3 million revenue (78 percent) of the total.
> 
> In the Fourth Quarter 2014, the top three segments produced $104.6 million (74 percent of the total).
> 
> – In Q4-2015, TV Rights and WWE Network alone produced $96.4 million (58 percent of total revenue in the quarter).
> 
> In Q4-2014, TV Rights & Network alone produced $77.7 million (55 percent of total revenue in the quarter).
> 
> – The ancillary business segments made up 22 percent of revenue in Q4-2015, versus 26 percent in Q4-2014.












As you can see, except for WWE studios, everything was profitable. 

WWE has been trading between 15~20 bucks a share since around 2005. Only time it went up to $30 was when Network was announced. 

Tv ratings are down across the board, three long hours of RAW is a possible reason. RAW is still the highest rated show on USA. 

WWE is far from Disaster.




ShowStopper said:


> You seem to know alot about threads on here for just joining this month.


I browse this forum in free time, DVD thread and Funny wrestling threads two of my favourite threads to read and pass time.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

KO Bossy said:


> 1. The third hour wasn't dedicated to Reigns. How can you dedicate something to someone who isn't even advertised? He showed up, beat down Hunter and that's that. It wasn't even the main event. That's not dedication, that's "just another Raw segment." And don't start about "dirt sheer rumors". 90% of the viewing audience doesn't read them, and a rumor isn't a confirmation.
> 
> 2. Gone for a month? He missed 2 Raws-Feb. 29 and March 7.
> 
> 3. The Smackdown 41 man battle royal from October of 2013 has 41 million views. So I guess Randy Orton, the winner, is the biggest draw in the company, despite not being around for months and absolutely dwarfing Reigns (whose big title win has 11 million views, which is 1/4 the number).


Well said. Completely killed it.


----------



## 3MB4Life

KO Bossy said:


> By the way, WWE has just hit over 10 million YouTube subscribers. PewDiePie has over 40 million. So way to go WWE, a Swedish guy who makes videos of himself screaming while he plays scary video games is over 4 times as popular as you. Congratulations on achieving such irrelevance. Oh and before anyone says anything, they created their YouTube in 2007, and PewDiePie in 2010. 4 times the subscribers in 3 less years.


jacksepticeye and Felix vs The New Day for the tag titles in a FNAF playoff. Book it, think of those buyrates.


----------



## THREE AIN'T ENOUGH

Legit BOSS said:


> *Except he increased 3rd hour ratings. Reigns yet again continued his streak of having the most watched segment on Youtube, despite us being told that anyone could be put into his position and pull the same numbers. They were, and they didn't. Ambrose failed all month. Reigns trended on Twitter all night after his appearance. The 3rd hour ratings boost(which never happens) being concurrent with the Youtube views and Twitter trends proves that fans are interested in Reigns. These are facts. They cannot be disputed. *


Alright, time for me to debunk some more bullshit. Love when I get to do this lol.


Reigns* never* had a streak in the first place. The last time he was on Raw, the night after Fastlane, his segment got 2.9m views.








This is not only less than half of what Shane's return segment got, which currently has 6.4m views....









It's even less than what the Lesnar-Ambrose segment got that week, which got 3.2m views.






And that is despite HHH-Reigns being the top storyline heading into this year's Wrestlemania. :lol

So yeah, think before you post stuff like this, because not everybody will fall for it. :agree:


----------



## Deadman's Hand

*You know what's really hilarious & sad about these ratings? Normally, the RTWM is the peak of WWE's ratings. This is the best the ratings are probably going to be for the year. 

Can you imagine what the ratings will be like after Mania? :lol*


----------



## Fissiks

Empress said:


> Roman Reigns always has high Youtube views. And @Legit BOSS is right. There would no shortage of blame if he were featured in an hour that dropped. He's even being blamed for Sheamus' reign and those lackluster numbers. An asterik doesn't always have to be placed next to his name.


his high youtube count is mostly attributed by the fact that people go solely to shit on him, the WWE, and his fans on the comment section. It's a bit sad but yeah


----------



## Reotor

Deadman's Hand said:


> *You know what's really hilarious & sad about these ratings? Normally, the RTWM is the peak of WWE's ratings. This is the best the ratings are probably going to be for the year.
> 
> Can you imagine what the ratings will be like after Mania? :lol*


Cant wait for NFL season:lel


----------



## Wildcat410

Deadman's Hand said:


> *You know what's really hilarious & sad about these ratings? Normally, the RTWM is the peak of WWE's ratings. This is the best the ratings are probably going to be for the year.
> 
> Can you imagine what the ratings will be like after Mania? :lol*


Can you imagine what the numbers are going to be like when Monday Night Football starts up in less than six months? 

And heaven help Raw if they do a Presidential debate on monday again like they did in 2012. They will be doing a 1 something that week for sure.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Reysdon said:


> WWE did not lost money last quarter. I found this from PWtorch.
> 
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/02/11/wweq42015bizbreakdown/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As you can see, except for WWE studios, everything was profitable.
> 
> WWE has been trading between 15~20 bucks a share since around 2005. Only time it went up to $30 was when Network was announced.
> 
> Tv ratings are down across the board, three long hours of RAW is a possible reason. RAW is still the highest rated show on USA.
> 
> WWE is far from Disaster.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I browse this forum in free time, DVD thread and Funny wrestling threads two of my favourite threads to read and pass time.


Revenue figures only tell part of a story, I prefer looking at bottom line IE Operating Income and Profit.

The story the majority of those Revenue statistics don't tell is the WWE's costs, which are also on a massive 9 figure scale.

Also when it comes down to it, the best opinions to trust are those of the WWE board and the investors. Vinny Mac on record stating he believes WWE's TV deals should be worth closer to $400m-$600m and he's not happy with the overall $200m package. Even though that accounts for 30% of WWE's total revenue. And investors are on record questioning dwindling ratings and how that might affect future Television Rights packages

This whole ratings game is just a speculative thread, the anticipation really is what WWE's next TV deal might be, how mad Vince is gonna get, and how WWE will react.

We all want them to react by delivering a better on screen product, the TV ratings as a whole is just another expression of disappointment at WWE's creative direction and people's desire for change.

FYI, the chart you have quoted is for Revenue, not Profit. You say:

"As you can see, except for WWE studios, everything was profitable." But like I said, those are not profit figures. 

*If WWE were making $140m profit per Q, they would be making $560m profit per year.*

WWE actually make around $23m profit per year. Which is around 20 times less than you are suggesting. Most of the figures you quote are fine, but analysing them is the important part.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> So yeah, think before you post stuff like this, because not everybody will fall for it. :agree:


*Yet you ignore 2 straight months of @Empress being no sold as she posted Reigns having the highest viewed segments on Youtube. Yet you ignore that Ambrose's high of the last few months is 3.4 mil, while Reigns has done 6-11 mil on several occasions. So yeah, think before you post stuff like this. *


----------



## TheShieldSuck

It will be interesting to see show attendance post ER 2016.


----------



## Chrome

Wildcat410 said:


> Can you imagine what the numbers are going to be like when Monday Night Football starts up in less than six months?
> 
> And heaven help Raw if they do a Presidential debate on monday again like they did in 2012. They will be doing a 1 something that week for sure.


And IIRC, that Raw episode drew a 2.49, and everybody was shitting on Punk and stuff. Fast forward 3 and 1/2 years later, and with no real competition and on the RTWM, they drew a 0.02 better than that Raw. Really staggering how far the ratings have fallen in just a few years.


----------



## Empress

Fissiks said:


> his high youtube count is mostly attributed by the fact that people go solely to shit on him, the WWE, and his fans on the comment section. It's a bit sad but yeah


By that logic, people also buys his shirts just to burn them because it's beyond reason that he actually has fans who want to watch videos featuring him. They follow him on Twitter/Facebook just to harass him. As I stated, there's always a knee jerk reaction to place any asterik next to Roman Reigns' name. I was no sold for months but when his online popularity couldn't be ignored, then it became a problem. It's a good thing I know how to back up my claims.


----------



## Erik.

Can't we all just agree that the ratings are down because the product as a whole is very poor and we're not basing this off any one superstar.

The show still had the likes of Lesnar, Undertaker, HHH, Shane and Vince who are all veterans in the wrestling game and have all been around when wrestling was great and ratings were high. Are all very watchable and know exactly what they're doing in their roles, have crowd support (whether good or bad) and are known by almost every wrestling fan old or new. Yet they still couldn't bring viewers in.


----------



## Eva MaRIHyse

Its funny seeing the statement "such and such will save WWE and skyrocket the ratings still being made. Rollins was meant to be the guy to do that, we heard it for so long, HHH, Lesnar, Orton, Cena, etc. supposedly killed the ratings then the belt was put on Seth and he tanked the ratings hard. They've dropped for Sheamus, for Reigns, for Ambrose since then because of the position WWE has put itself and its fans in.


----------



## Cliffy

Triple H is such a failure

Lol at those numbers

Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Cliffy said:


> Triple H is such a failure
> 
> Lol at those numbers
> 
> Sent from my LG-D855 using Tapatalk


He never really was.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

THREE AIN'T ENOUGH said:


> Alright, time for me to debunk some more bullshit. Love when I get to do this lol.
> 
> 
> Reigns* never* had a streak in the first place. The last time he was on Raw, the night after Fastlane, his segment got 2.9m views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is not only less than half of what Shane's return segment got, which currently has 6.4m views....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's even less than what the Lesnar-Ambrose segment got that week, which got 3.2m views.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And that is despite HHH-Reigns being the top storyline heading into this year's Wrestlemania. :lol
> 
> So yeah, think before you post stuff like this, because not everybody will fall for it. :agree:



You should've been here from 2012-2015. No talk of Youtube views back then. They were posted here and there, but no one ever commented on them until recently. They are a factor; but TV ratings are still much more important just due to the cable deal alone.

People don't get it: *Youtube is not going to pay WWE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS LIKE A CABLE TV DEAL WILL!!!* What is so hard to understand about that?? USA pays WWE $32 Million for the 3rd hour of Raw ALONE. Is Youtube paying WWE anything like that?!?! That's why FUCKING Youtube views are NOT SHIT compared to TV Ratings and why everyone is laughing at this shit.

fpalm fpalm fpalm fpalm


----------



## Bushmaster

Wildcat410 said:


> Can you imagine what the numbers are going to be like when Monday Night Football starts up in less than six months?
> 
> And heaven help Raw if they do a Presidential debate on monday again like they did in 2012. They will be doing a 1 something that week for sure.


Vince will be happy as long as they continue to get them YouTube views. I do wonder if YouTube views will be an excuse for the rest of the year :hmm:


----------



## Empress

*WWE Total Divas Viewership Up This Week*

This week's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 650,000 viewers and ranked #40 for the night on cable.

This is up from last week's episode, which drew 580,000 viewers and ranked #50 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 591,000 viewers and the week before that drew 777,000.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0316/608647/wwe-total-divas-viewership-up-this-week/


----------



## Reotor

Total Divas rating is up? 
I was hoping it will continue to drop, that's disappointing.


----------



## frenchguy

Raw after WM will be live in France ! Usually, we had a 2 weeks delay.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

It would be live on my PC screen stream every Monday if I thought it was worth staying up for.

But considering WWE seems to edit Reigns segments immediately after the show now to edit them boos, it might be worth watching live the Raw after WM.


----------



## Empress

*SmackDown - Twitter
*

- After not ranking last week, this week's WWE SmackDown ranked #5 among non-sporting events for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind Grey's Anatomy, How to Get Away with Murder, Scandal and American Idol. SmackDown had a unique audience of 431,000, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from the 833,000 on March 3rd, when the show also ranked #5 . SmackDown had total impressions of 1.766 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This was down from March 3rd's 2.679 million.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0318/608708/wrestlemania-32-coverage-news/


----------



## Empress

*Report of Stephanie McMahon on Rachel Ray: Talks Her Character, Increase in Female Viewership*

Credit Mike Johnson and Pwinsider.com

WWE’s Stephanie McMahon appeared on The Rachel Ray Show this morning, promoting Wrestlemania and WWE in general.

After a clip of McMahon with Dean Ambrose was played to set up her appearance, McMahon was quick to point out that she was really playing a villainous character on WWE programming. She told a story about making the announcement for Connor’s Cure working with the V Foundation in Pittsburgh and later that night, she was playing the villain on Raw. She said the audience for the most part realizes the difference, just as moviegoers do.

Ray said that WWE programming has seen a rise of 30-40% in female viewership since Stephanie has gotten involved. McMahon said she couldn’t take all the credit for that as they have “an incredible team” and praised “Total Divas” and the hard work of the female competitors in the company.

McMahon also promoted Wrestlemania 32, noting the company is hoping to break their all-time attendance record.

http://411mania.com/wrestling/repor...-her-character-increase-in-female-viewership/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership
this week(3/17) Vs last week(3/10) 

2.260M Vs 2.186M
+3.39%
+0.074M*


----------



## rome94

ShowStopper said:


> You should've been here from 2012-2015. No talk of Youtube views back then. They were posted here and there, but no one ever commented on them until recently. They are a factor; but TV ratings are still much more important just due to the cable deal alone.
> 
> People don't get it: *Youtube is not going to pay WWE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS LIKE A CABLE TV DEAL WILL!!!* What is so hard to understand about that?? USA pays WWE $32 Million for the 3rd hour of Raw ALONE. Is Youtube paying WWE anything like that?!?! That's why FUCKING Youtube views are NOT SHIT compared to TV Ratings and why everyone is laughing at this shit.
> 
> fpalm fpalm fpalm fpalm


You gotta see this lol http://www.forbes.com/sites/maddieb...highest-paid-youtube-stars-2015/#4525ffc5542c 

There's a video link in there to but some youtubers get paid $12-2 million in pretax money...so there money on youtube. I don't know how the full system works but I think having a huge subs count matters...Youtube is just as important a the rating cause of Ads.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

There are single people Youtubers who have more subscribers than WWE does. How sad is that? When Youtube starts paying WWE $32 million for just one hour of content; let me know. Alot of people watch on the internet because the product isn't enough for them sit in front of the TV every Monday night for 3 hours; like it used to be. That's another thing that some don't get. If the product was so good; Raw would be appointment television like it once was and every WWE fan would be parked in front of their TV. It used to be that way; and to this day anytime something huge happens (Shane, Rock) they at least still get in the 4 millions. I completely believe if they started putting some real effort into the product every week and a 70 year old man didn't have final say; that they might get 4 million every week. That's what compelling storylines and characters can do when they are written and presented that way; NOT once in awhile, but consistently.


----------



## Empress

*3/17 WWE Smackdown Ratings – Thursday’s show rebounds, but remains below average*

WWE Smackdown rebounded from a year-low TV rating, but remained a stair-step below the early-year ratings.


WWE Smackdown Ratings Tracking 2016

March 17: Smackdown scored a 1.71 rating, rebounding from a year-low 1.64 rating last week.

Smackdown drew 2.260 million viewers, up about 75,000 viewers (3.4 percent) from last week.

The show is still down from the 1.8-ratings range of earlier this year. In mid-February, the show ranged in the mid-1.7s.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Smackdown improved in males and adults 18-49, but was down in males 18-34.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03...ings-thursdays-show-rebounds-remains-average/


----------



## Erik.

AJ/Owens feud :mark:


----------



## RatedR10

Stephanie McMahon said female viewership is up 30-40% since she's been involved on the Rachael Ray show apparently.

:ti


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

RatedR10 said:


> Stephanie McMahon said female viewership is up 30-40% since she's been involved on the Rachael Ray show apparently.
> 
> :ti


Ratings don't matter though, right?

:heyman6

And isn't this a lie? Recently, we've been reading and it's been posted in here that female viewers are tuning out. :lol


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Welcome to Wrrrrrrrrrrrrestlemania 32 (% drop off)!!!!!


----------



## LilOlMe

From Meltzer's column. Something to take note of. Ratings may get an artificial bump due to this:


> An interesting note is that the Dish Network is apparently dropping USA from its basic package and moving it to a higher paid tier. This could mildly hurt the audience for Raw, but also could slightly increase the rating. The Raw audience is largely a loyal weekly audience and those who regularly watch will either pay the extra for USA and still watch, or drop Dish. There is the small audience that flips the channels and if they have Dish and suddenly come upon wrestling, that audience won’t be there. At the same time, what will happen is the number of homes that gets the USA Network will decrease because Dish subscribers that don’t care about USA will no longer be in the total, so you’re getting a small artificial ratings boost out of it theoretically starting next week.


----------



## Empress

*Carry on – Raw will be available on Dish Network*

There will not be a service interruption for Dish Network subscribers as part of a carriage dispute with NBC Universal.

NBCU started a marketing campaign last week warning Dish customers about potentially losing WWE Raw and other NBCU programming, including having Michael Cole read a message during Monday’s Raw.

However, after a week of back-and-forth, including Dish filing suit to prevent NBCU from making disparaging remarks, Dish decided to keep NBCU channels on the air.

On Friday, Dish notified the FCC that it will seek arbitration to resolve a programming contract dispute with NBCU.

While the legal process unfolds, Dish will keep NBCU channels active during a “cooling off” process.

“Dish is committed to reaching a new distribution agreement with NBCUniversal and to not disrupt customers in the process,” Dish said in a statement. “This 10-day cooling off period is an opportunity for continued negotiations while guaranteeing that NBCU cannot black out its networks to Dish customers.”

Before Dish made the decision on Friday, WWE mobilized its wrestlers and executives to spread a marketing message to “stop the drop.” Included was WWE CEO Vince McMahon tweeting about the situation, along with wrestlers presenting their own form of the same message on Twitter.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/19/carry-raw-will-available-dish-network/


----------



## RatedR10

Ryder vs. Sin Cara vs. Stardust is WWE's way of showing they absolutely do not care about this third hour anymore, right?


----------



## LaMelo

Strowman is going to kill the ratings.


----------



## Empress

Vince's appearance may save the third hour. That main event was pure garbage. I dodged a bullet not getting tickets to yesterday's show.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Vince's appearance doesn't save anything anymore. That horse was dead quick.


----------



## Empress

*3/21 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – Raw falls to year-low*

Monday’s Raw generated year-low social media activity two weeks away from WrestleMania.


WWE Raw Social Media Tracking

March 21: Raw scored a year-low in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings on Monday night.

– Raw’s unique audience was 1.221 million, down seven percent from last week to a year-low.

Total impressions were 9.022 million, down 20 percent from last week.

– The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 34,000, down from 37,000 last week.

The total number of tweets was 158,000, down from 191k last week.

– Raw ranked #4 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing CNN’s presidential debate, the season premiere of “Dancing with the Stars” on ABC, and “Love & Hip Hop” on VH1.

If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #2 behind Linsanity exploding in San Antonio-Charlotte NBA basketball.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/22/321-raw-twitter-tv-ratings-fall-year-low/


----------



## Marrakesh

Empress said:


> *3/21 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – Raw falls to year-low*
> 
> Monday’s Raw generated year-low social media activity two weeks away from WrestleMania.
> 
> 
> WWE Raw Social Media Tracking
> 
> March 21: Raw scored a year-low in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings on Monday night.
> 
> – Raw’s unique audience was 1.221 million, down seven percent from last week to a year-low.
> 
> Total impressions were 9.022 million, down 20 percent from last week.
> 
> – The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 34,000, down from 37,000 last week.
> 
> The total number of tweets was 158,000, down from 191k last week.
> 
> – Raw ranked #4 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing CNN’s presidential debate, the season premiere of “Dancing with the Stars” on ABC, and “Love & Hip Hop” on VH1.
> 
> If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #2 behind Linsanity exploding in San Antonio-Charlotte NBA basketball.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/22/321-raw-twitter-tv-ratings-fall-year-low/


Social media activity in particular the Twitter TV ratings are usually a pretty good indicator of how they did in the TV ratings nowadays, right? 

I can't imagine that last night fared very well at all. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the last hour could have done sub 3 million.


----------



## Empress

Marrakesh said:


> *Social media activity in particular the Twitter TV ratings are usually a pretty good indicator of how they did in the TV ratings nowadays, right? *
> 
> I can't imagine that last night fared very well at all. It wouldn't be a stretch to assume that the last hour could have done sub 3 million.


Yes. I've noticed that when social media activity is up, there's an uptick in the ratings. When one metric falls, so does the other.

The most recent example was when Smackdown had their record low Twitter rating two weeks ago and the rating bombed as well.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> *3/21 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – Raw falls to year-low*
> 
> Monday’s Raw generated year-low social media activity two weeks away from WrestleMania.
> 
> 
> WWE Raw Social Media Tracking
> 
> March 21: Raw scored a year-low in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings on Monday night.
> 
> – Raw’s unique audience was 1.221 million, down seven percent from last week to a year-low.
> 
> Total impressions were 9.022 million, down 20 percent from last week.
> 
> – The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 34,000, down from 37,000 last week.
> 
> The total number of tweets was 158,000, down from 191k last week.
> 
> – Raw ranked #4 among series & specials on Monday night, trailing CNN’s presidential debate, the season premiere of “Dancing with the Stars” on ABC, and “Love & Hip Hop” on VH1.
> 
> If compared to one-off sports programming, Raw would have ranked #2 behind Linsanity exploding in San Antonio-Charlotte NBA basketball.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/22/321-raw-twitter-tv-ratings-fall-year-low/












The lack of interest in WWE 2 weeks before their "biggest Wrestlemania of all time" is alarming. This feels like the build to a very weak Night of Champions PPV in mid September. Awful


----------



## J-B

I never really keep up with ratings and what they draw every week but looking at these numbers it genuinely makes me angry how arrogant Vince and co are when it comes to their product. Nothing is ever their fault, is it? Shit ratings every week? Oh, pffft, well uhhh we live in the age of social media dammit! :vince3


----------



## RatedR10

Social media ratings are a good indicator of where viewership will lie. It proved to be a good one during the Fall. 

I expect a low 3rd hour for sure. Like... 3.02-3.15.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-3.466M
H2-3.416M
H3-3.317M

Avg-3.399M*










*H2 vs H1 (-1.44%/-0.050M) 
H3 Vs H2 (-2.89%/-0.099M)
H3 Vs H1 (-4.29%/-0.149M)

3/21 Vs 3/14
(-1.68%/-0.058M)*


----------



## Empress

Thank you @JonnyAceLaryngitis


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

More failure. That weak ass Hour 1. Yikes.

TFW Hour 1 and Hour 2 are pretty much equal. Yowza. Not exactly a hot opening hour, to say the least.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> Thank you @JonnyAceLaryngitis


You are welcome anytime Empress. :grin2: Even though lately am the harbinger of bad news week after week. :frown2:


----------



## Peerless

Regarding the main event and the 3rd hour, Bryan's retirement speech had the highest viewership, but the 3rd-hour viewership had a 300k drop-off. So why is it unlikely that the 3rd-hour drop occurs from all the filler before the main event? I'm not saying that the main event regularly draws the highest viewership, but I feel like it's unfair for those wrestling in the main event to take all the blame.


----------



## Empress

*
How Was Last Night's WWE RAW Viewership With Braun Strowman Vs. Dean Ambrose In The Main Event?*

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, featuring Dean Ambrose vs. Braun Strowman in the main event, drew 3.399 million viewers. This is down from last week's 3.457 million viewers for a show loaded with many top WrestleMania 32 stars.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 3.466 million viewers, the second hour drew 3.416 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.317 million viewers.

On cable, RAW was #2 for the night in viewership, behind The O'Reilly Factor, and #2 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind Love & Hip-Hop.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/201...ht-wwe-raw-viewership-with-braun-strowman-vs/


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter Ratings, News On WWE's Social Media Team, WWE And Connor's Cure Awarded, Stock*

- Monday's RAW ranked #4 among series & specials for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings, behind Love & Hip-Hop, Dancing with the Stars and CNN's The Final Five Candidates. RAW had a unique audience of 1.221 million, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week's 1.315 million. RAW had total impressions of 9.022 million, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is down from last week's 11.297 million impressions.

- WWE stock was down 1.29% today, closing at $17.62 per share. Today's high was $17.87 and the low was $17.55.

- Winners for the 2016 Shorty Awards have been announced and Connor's Cure, produced by WWE, was one of the winners in the "Best Social Good" campaign. WWE also received a "Gold Honor" in the "Best of Entertainment" category after being nominated in more than 5 social media related categories. It's worth noting that WWE touted the award for Connor's Cure but did not acknowledge their own "Gold Honor" mention.

The Shorty Awards website said WWE's 11-man Social Media team, with members based in Stamford, CT, New York City, Mexico, Germany and Dubai, is an integral part of a 48-person team of editors, designers, producers, photographers, and one Hall of Famer (presumably Howard Finkel), that creates content for WWE's website, the WWE App and their various social media pages.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0322/608847/wwe-raw-twitter-ratings/


----------



## The True Believer

Any responses from this point on will draw a line in the sand as to who should be taken seriously whenever they try to use the "I'm not saying it's all his fault but..." To disguise their lowkey baiting.

You may proceed.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

It's scary that 3.2-3.5 million has been the norm for this Road to WM. This is what they deserve, though.


----------



## Hurin

They broke the streak of third hour ratings drops this week.










Fascinating :^)


----------



## DoubtGin

Horrible numbers.

What were the numbers two weeks before WM 31?


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Yikes, people don't even tune in now to see where the show is heading.

Basically 2 hours consistent, then tune out for horrible third hours.

That huge spike in interest following Reigns' return ... fpalm


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> It's scary that 3.2-3.5 million has been the norm for this Road to WM. This is what they deserve, though.


The show was trash. With that said, they should've put a bit more effort since they were going up against the new season of Dancing with the Stars. Yes, it's cheesy but a lot of people like it. They got 12 million viewers apparently. It's down from last year's 13 million but 12 million is still a lot of people and dwarfs 3-3.5 million.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> The show was trash. With that said, they should've put a bit more effort since they were going up against the new season of Dancing with the Stars. Yes, it's cheesy but a lot of people like it. They got 12 million viewers apparently. It's down from last year's 13 million but 12 million is still a lot of people and dwarfs 3-3.5 million.


Yeah, I know; my mom and fiance both watch Dancing with the Stars; so I know all about it being on last night. :lol

It was a trash Raw; I agree. I'm not even just talking about last night. The norm for Raw during this Road to WM has been in this range; minus the Shane Raw, which is what they were drawing in Summer and Fall 2015. I myself am even surprised they haven't gotten a consistent bump for WM season. That is scary.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

DoubtGin said:


> Horrible numbers.
> 
> What were the numbers two weeks before WM 31?


In the mid 2.7s to 2.8s for ratings compared to the sub 2.5s now and an average of half a million viewers more.

I'm actually looking forward to the RAW after WM32 more than WM32 itself, not from just the ratings standpoint. Because that seems to be the only event(dare i say) which has been better than the norm since 2012. The crowd, new feuds, returns, turns, debuts, etc. Hopefully there is no pointless prolonging of current feuds that are already lukewarm.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Is this how it works now? Everytime a show does a bad number and it can't be deflected from their top dog in some form or fashion, we're just gonna say "well, that was just a trash show"?

As if we didn't have trash shows for over a year now. 
Before that, it was bad, with the odd bright spot here and there, but since the end of 2014, it has been pure, relentless, unfiltered garbage.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Is this how it works now? Everytime a show does a bad number and it can't be deflected from their top dog in some form or fashion, we're just gonna say "well, that was just a trash show"?
> 
> As if we didn't have trash shows for over a year now.


Rollins officially has nothing to hold his head in shame about anymore since they drew in the Summer and Fall (against the NFL) what they're drawing NOW in the Road to WM and are even outdrawing them at times, too.










The archives of this thread in Summer and Fall 2015 look absolutely HILARIOUS now.


----------



## Badbadrobot

You're forgetting Rollins was booked horribly


----------



## Empress

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Is this how it works now? Everytime a show does a bad number and it can't be deflected from their top dog in some form or fashion, we're just gonna say "well, that was just a trash show"?
> 
> As if we didn't have trash shows for over a year now.
> Before that, it was bad, with the odd bright spot here and there, but since the end of 2014, it has been pure, relentless, unfiltered garbage.



I'm not one of these people who comes into this thread to trash Roman Reigns and only Roman Reigns. I stated the show was a trash show which it was. I didn't go out of my way to bash Dean Ambrose, Braun Strowman or blame anyone else for why the ratings are bad this particular week. I happen to believe the fault lies with creative. My posts can be checked. I don't cherry pick when the talents get blamed as others are wont to do.


----------



## Empress

*3/21 Raw TV Ratings – Raw declines fourth straight week*

Monday’s WWE Raw continued a five-week TV Ratings decline since Fast Lane in February.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

March 21: Raw scored a 2.44 rating, down three percent from a 2.51 rating last week.

The overall TV rating has steadily dropped each week since the Raw after Fast Lane…

Feb. 22: 2.73 rating (post-Fast Lane/Shane return)
Feb. 29: 2.63 rating
Mar. 7: 2.59 rating
Mar. 14: 2.51 rating
Mar. 21: 2.44 rating

Overall for the year, Raw is averaging a 2.55 rating through 12 weeks, down 12 percent from a 12-week ratings average of 2.91 to start 2015.

– Monday’s three hours averaged 3.399 million viewers, down two percent (about 60,000 viewers) from last week’s show. Hourly Break Down:

First Hour: 3.466 million viewers (nearly the same as last week
Second Hour: 3.416 million viewers (up slightly from last week)
Third Hour: 3.317 million viewers (down 200,000 viewers from last week)

The big difference between this week and last week was a decline in third hour viewership. Last week’s third hour included Triple H vs. Dolph Ziggler and Vince-Shane-Undertaker in the final segment. This week’s third hour was centered on Vince McMahon making a WM32 announcement and a cold Dean Ambrose vs. Braun Strowman match.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: The key demographics are perhaps the most concerning of all two weeks before WrestleMania.

Raw fell off the board in males 18-34. M18-34 declined two-tenths of a rating to easily the lowest TV rating of the year.

Raw also lost one-tenth of a rating in adults 18-49 to the lowest a18-49 rating of the year.

Males 18-49 fell one-tenth, as well, and tied for the lowest m18-49 rating of the year.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/22/march21rawtvratings/


----------



## Peerless

I expected a larger 3rd hour drop tbh.


----------



## #BadNewsSanta

Numbers just keep going down. No help from Reigns return last week, no help in an Ambrose/Strowman main event, no help from the part-timers, no help from anyone. This is really sad that this the second to last Raw before Mania. I wonder how next week and more importantly, the post-Wrestlemania show does. The latter has gotten some super high viewerships the last couple of years.


----------



## KO Bossy

I'm expecting better numbers for next week, since its the go home show and EVERYBODY is scheduled (Brock, Lesnar, Shane, etc). 

But seriously, these numbers are pathetic.


Terry Funk cameo was cool, although if we're being technical, a branding iron would have been more appropriate than a chainsaw. John Pollock said it best on Review a Raw-just light the branding iron on fire and tease using it, it'll get a big pop because its fire. They're gonna do what with a chainsaw? Saw the announcer's table in half? Because nobody is taking a chainsaw shot, it just isn't happening. At least with a branding iron on fire, you get the visual and pop.

Paul Heyman on commentary for the main event makes me sorely miss those 8-9 months where he and JR did commentary in 2001, and what we have to compare them to now.

AJ vs Owens was quite great. And at least it was in the first hour, where most people got to see it.

Still, the numbers held pretty steady this week, meaning the people who are watching are the ones usually watching and not Hollywood people just tuning in to see, say, the Rock, and once he's gone they never tune in again. The hardest of the hardcore, these people are.


----------



## Saved_masses

Comparing it to last this raw done quite well considering there was no Brock or Shane or Taker, and the whole show was just awful. However of course it's still awful for WM season.

I still don't think next week will be good either. Maybe a small increase but it wouldn't surprise me if the viewership doesn't touch 3.6m average. There would of been interest by now.

Also interested to see how this weeks discussion turns into an argument about YouTube views :lol


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The closer they get to Wrestlemania, the lower ratings get, amazing 

I just went to look at the ratings 2014, and I suggest anyone claiming Bryan injured after WM XXX did not affect anything to do the same.
Before WM XXX, Raw did on average a 3.2. Then in the next four weeks, they did two 3.3, one 3.0, and one practically 3.0.
It was then that people realized they were doing absolutely nothing with Bryan, then the injury on top, and when he was out, ratings were consistently about 0.2 below 3.0 or lower.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> Rollins officially has nothing to hold his head in shame about anymore since they drew in the Summer and Fall (against the NFL) what they're drawing NOW in the Road to WM and are even outdrawing them at times, too.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The archives of this thread in Summer and Fall 2015 look absolutely HILARIOUS now.


You really need to chill out with Rollins and ratings. Even when nobody is talking about Rollins you're talking about Rollins. Chill dude. Just chill. 



> Feb. 22: 2.73 rating (post-Fast Lane/Shane return)
> Feb. 29: 2.63 rating
> Mar. 7: 2.59 rating
> Mar. 14: 2.51 rating
> Mar. 21: 2.44 rating


I don't want to point fingers here but the match with the biggest hype is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting all the bells and whistles is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting video packages and comments from legends is Shane vs Taker. Hey guess what, maybe trying to present a 46 year old pretend MMA fighter as a serious threat TO THE UNDERTAKER isn't a very smart idea? The viewers aren't fucking idiots and there's only so much you can insult someone's intelligence before they tell you to fuck off. I don't even blame Shane or Taker. The build for this match is so atrocious it goes beyond comprehension. But it's without a doubt the biggest match on the card so yeah, I'm giving it the brunt of the blame. 

Before anybody says Reigns, he is a complete non-factor. This HHH program was dead in the water the night he got cheered like a hero for beating the shit out of Roman. This is why they've gone balls to the wall with Shane and Taker and it's absolutely NOT working because the story is fucking shit. 

I think they're finally at the point where they have exhausted the legends and have exhausted any hail mary's in their back pocket. That shit just doesn't fly any more. The only thing that is going to work is consistent and enjoyable storytelling. But they seem intent on destroying that too.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> You really need to chill out with Rollins and ratings. Even when nobody is talking about Rollins you're talking about Rollins. Chill dude. Just chill.
> 
> 
> 
> I don't want to point fingers here but the match with the biggest hype is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting all the bells and whistles is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting video packages and comments from legends is Shane vs Taker. Hey guess what, maybe trying to present a 46 year old pretend MMA fighter as a serious threat TO THE UNDERTAKER isn't a very smart idea? The viewers aren't fucking idiots and there's only so much you can insult someone's intelligence before they tell you to fuck off. I don't even blame Shane or Taker. The build for this match is so atrocious it goes beyond comprehension. But it's without a doubt the biggest match on the card so yeah, I'm giving it the brunt of the blame.
> 
> Before anybody says Reigns, he is a complete non-factor. This HHH program was dead in the water the night he got cheered like a hero for beating the shit out of Roman. This is why they've gone balls to the wall with Shane and Taker and it's absolutely NOT working because the story is fucking shit.
> 
> I think they're finally at the point where they have exhausted the legends and have exhausted any hail mary's in their back pocket. That shit just doesn't fly any more. The only thing that is going to work is consistent and enjoyable storytelling. But they seem intent on destroying that too.


It was a relevant point. When was the last time a Summer/Fall did the same as a Road to WM? People should have 'just chilled' considering it was Summer and Fall and NFL competition, but they did not. So, I don't see why I should, tbh.

Oh, and just for shits and giggles; even when WWE does focus on H/Reigns; it does shit ratings, too. Doesn't matter which of these two terrible 'stories' they focus on during this Road to WM; the fans don't give a shit about either story and aren't buying either of them. They both take the brunt of the blame.


----------



## Empress

*RAW RATINGS STAGNANT AS THE ROAD TO WRESTLEMANIA MARCHES ON*


Less than two weeks before the “biggest WrestleMania of all time”, RAW’s ratings continue to stagnate. The show started weak but the audience remained remarkably consistent throughout the 3 hour broadcast, with a main event of Dean Ambrose facing Braun Strowman.

The average viewership was 3.4 million viewers, down about 2% from last week. It was down 19% from the same week last year but that’s not a fair comparison as it was the go-home show to Mania, which was held a week earlier in 2015. Comparing to the week prior to the go-home show last year, Monday’s show was down 13% as RAW continues to be down about 10% year over year.

After last week’s show saw the third hour as the highest rated of the show, things returned to normal this week as Hour 3 was down slightly from the previous 2 hours, which were almost identical.

RAW was just underneath The O’Reilly Factor as the most watched show on cable for the night as the FOX News show did 3,423,000 viewers. In the 18-49 ratings, RAW’s 3 hours were #2 ,3 and 4 on the night behind VH1’s Love and Hip Hop.

Here are viewership numbers for all 3 hours:

Hour 1 – 3,466,000

Hour 2 – 3,416,000

Hour 3 – 3,317,000

http://www.f4wonline.com/wwe-news/r...-209781?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


----------



## Saved_masses

Starbuck said:


> I don't want to point fingers here but the match with the biggest hype is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting all the bells and whistles is Shane vs. Taker. The match that is getting video packages and comments from legends is Shane vs Taker. Hey guess what, maybe trying to present a 46 year old pretend MMA fighter as a serious threat TO THE UNDERTAKER isn't a very smart idea? The viewers aren't fucking idiots and there's only so much you can insult someone's intelligence before they tell you to fuck off. I don't even blame Shane or Taker. The build for this match is so atrocious it goes beyond comprehension. But it's without a doubt the biggest match on the card so yeah, I'm giving it the brunt of the blame.
> 
> Before anybody says Reigns, he is a complete non-factor. This HHH program was dead in the water the night he got cheered like a hero for beating the shit out of Roman. This is why they've gone balls to the wall with Shane and Taker and it's absolutely NOT working because the story is fucking shit.
> 
> I think they're finally at the point where they have exhausted the legends and have exhausted any hail mary's in their back pocket. That shit just doesn't fly any more. The only thing that is going to work is consistent and enjoyable storytelling. But they seem intent on destroying that too.


I agree that Shane vs Taker is the program that should take the most blame, it's been the one program with continual build since Fastlane. However I think it was unfortunate that Cena was unfit to take the place of Shane and now he has to compete himself.

I do though think Reigns vs HHH is a factor. It is the main event after all and I don't believe they've put this Shane vs Taker match in because they knew this match was gonna bomb. 

And whilst Lesnar vs Ambrose seems to be the match with the most interest from fans, well on here anyways, it is still a factor as Lesnar isn't here every week to keep the story flowing and Ambrose in the middle has been stuck in filler with HHH and The Wyatt's instead of having promos with Heyman at least.

Everything just isn't working, the only match with any good build is AJ vs Y2J but even that has been seen 4 times already.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> It was a relevant point. When was the last time a Summer/Fall did the same as a Road to WM? People should have 'just chilled' considering it was Summer and Fall and NFL competition, but they did not. So, I don't see why I should, tbh.
> 
> Oh, and just for shits and giggles; even when WWE does focus on H/Reigns; it does shit ratings, too. Doesn't matter which of these two terrible 'stories' they focus on during this Road to WM; the fans don't give a shit about either story and aren't buying either of them. They both take the brunt of the blame.


You should because nobody was talking about Rollins and this has absolutely nothing to do with him. He's not even on the card and even if he was he wouldn't make a difference. The show is rotten to the core. It's nobodies fault. Besides, you should know by now that whoever is in the top spot gets blamed for ratings so I don't know why you keep harping on about Rollins getting the same treatment as everybody else before him and everybody who will come after. 

Of course it does shit. It's a fucking dead program or did you not see where I said that in my last post? But I can't fault Reigns here when it's been all about Shane since the Raw after Fast Lane. Reigns wasn't even on TV for a few weeks so HHH/Reigns as a program didn't even exist. How can they be blamed for something when it wasn't even happening at the time? It has been all Shane McMahon, all Vince McMahon and all Undertaker from Fast Lane on. Hell, you can barely even blame Taker since he can't be fucked to show up for longer than 5 minutes either. But ultimately it is his story and the prospect of him fighting Shane that WWE is pushing as the main draw for Wrestlemania 32, not Roman Reigns, and so far it is failing miserably.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> You should because nobody was talking about Rollins and this has absolutely nothing to do with him. He's not even on the card and even if he was he wouldn't make a difference. The show is rotten to the core. It's nobodies fault. Besides, you should know by now that whoever is in the top spot gets blamed for ratings so I don't know why you keep harping on about Rollins getting the same treatment as everybody else before him and everybody who will come after.


I know he wouldn't make a difference. Where did I say that he would? You completely missed my point. The Summer/Fall season doing just as well as the Road to WM is a relevant point here. It's scary bad that this is the case. I don't even think that that has ever happened before? Crazy. Maybe you weren't here in the Summer/Fall, but it was ridicuous in here and giving people a taste of their own medicine during the only time of year that SHOULD draw is perfectly fine.



> Of course it does shit. It's a fucking dead program or did you not see where I said that in my last post? But I can't fault Reigns here when it's been all about Shane since the Raw after Fast Lane. Reigns wasn't even on TV for a few weeks so HHH/Reigns as a program didn't even exist. How can they be blamed for something when it wasn't even happening at the time? It has been all Shane McMahon, all Vince McMahon and all Undertaker from Fast Lane on. Hell, you can barely even blame Taker since he can't be fucked to show up for longer than 5 minutes either. But ultimately it is his story and the prospect of him fighting Shane that WWE is pushing as the main draw for Wrestlemania 32, not Roman Reigns, and so far it is failing miserably.


Shane and Taker have missed a bunch of Raw's, too. I never said it was on just Reigns or just H. So, it doesn't mean much that H/Reigns hasn't gotten a build every week because neither has Shane/Taker. BOTH matches are to blame equally. They've both failed MISERABLY in hooking in any new viewers and even alot of the casuals considering these numbers are pretty much just the die-hards watching. You can't shift blame away from a World Title match at WM. It deserves the same amount of blame as Shane/Taker. WWE has had MONTHS to write H/Reigns in a quality manner and they didn't even come close. This match absolutely gets a big part of the blame.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> I know he wouldn't make a difference. Where did I say that he would? You completely missed my point. The Summer/Fall season doing just as well as the Road to WM is a relevant point here. It's scary bad that this is the case. I don't even think that that has ever happened before?  Crazy. Maybe you weren't here in the Summer/Fall, but it was ridicuous in here and giving people a taste of their own medicine during the only time of year that SHOULD draw is perfectly fine.


Your point is to prove to everybody that Rollins is just as bad of a draw as everybody else? Is that it? Because that's all I see from you. It's not scary bad when ratings have been trending downwards for months, years even. That's why it's called a trend. If it's trending down and nothing changes there's only one direction it will continue to go and it isn't up. That's not crazy, it's logic. 

Maybe I wasn't here in the Summer/Fall? Lol. You do realize I made the last ratings thread, right? I was the mod when the ratings thread was created because Punk marks needed a place to cry and fight with Rock marks. Punk was the start...then it was Bryan...then it was The Shield...then it was Sheamus...then it was Rollins...now it's Roman...whoever gets pushed next will get the same treatment. You're not giving anybody a taste of their own medicine, you're just making yourself out to be a petty mark tbh. 



ShowStopper said:


> Shane and Taker have missed a bunch of Raw's, too. I never said it was on just Reigns or just H. So, it doesn't mean much that H/Reigns hasn't gotten a build every week because neither has Shane/Taker. BOTH matches are to blame equally. They've both failed MISERABLY in hooking in any new viewers and even alot of the casuals considering these numbers are pretty much just the die-hards watching. You can't shift blame away from a World Title match at WM. It deserves the same amount of blame as Shane/Taker. WWE has had MONTHS to write H/Reigns in a quality manner and they didn't even come close. This match absolutely gets a big part of the blame.


Shane and Taker have missed Raw's but at no point was that feud ever completely abandoned. For a 3 week stretch HHH and Reigns weren't even having a feud. Reigns was off TV and HHH was feuding with Ambrose. How the fuck can Reigns vs. HHH, as a feud, be expected to draw when it isn't even happening? That's primarily the reason its doing so shit now that it IS happening. Same for Ambrose and Lesnar for that matter. If you want to lay the blame at a program that wasn't even featured on TV, that isn't being promoted as the main event of the show, that doesn't have any stipulations, that doesn't have any bells or whistles, that isn't receiving promo packages with legends talking about the match and that is forcing a victory that nobody wants to see then you go right ahead. HHH vs. Roman is barely above Ambrose vs. Lesnar in terms of importance and the only reason it is is because it's for the title. The biggest attraction on this card is the HIAC. It's getting more hype than the other 2 matches combined therefore yeah, it gets the brunt of the blame.


----------



## 5 Star Giulia ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

ShowStopper said:


> WWE has had MONTHS to write H/Reigns in a quality manner and they didn't even come close. This match absolutely gets a big part of the blame.


*Nah, since you had a mountain of excuses last week when Roman's hour was the highest rated, you don't get to blame him for any drops, especially when he was once again in the highest rated hour, and it was Ambrose's main event that flopped.*


----------



## Hurin

Starbuck said:


> I think they're finally at the point where they have exhausted the legends and have exhausted any hail mary's in their back pocket. That shit just doesn't fly any more. The only thing that is going to work is consistent and enjoyable storytelling. But they seem intent on destroying that too.


GOOD.

Let the numbers crash further until they literally have no legends to cash in on. Then they'd be forced to actually try stuff with people that aren't tired nostalgia acts. It's cliche to say but NXT has some basic fucking booking principles that are apparently waaaay too difficult for Vince, the writers, booking committee... too difficult for SOMEONE on the main roster to comprehend, and it is killing this product. For every thing that is booked sensibly, there's three that are ass backwards.

The old farts are a crutch that WWE needs to lose before it can learn to walk again.

EDIT: It's also hilarious to watch Reigns marks scrabble to shit on Ambrose trying to carry Strowman when Reigns' segments flopped just as hard if not harder.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> Your point is to prove to everybody that Rollins is just as bad of a draw as everybody else? Is that it? Because that's all I see from you. It's not scary bad when ratings have been trending downwards for months, years even. That's why it's called a trend. If it's trending down and nothing changes there's only one direction it will continue to go and it isn't up. That's not crazy, it's logic.
> Maybe I wasn't here in the Summer/Fall? Lol. You do realize I made the last ratings thread, right? I was the mod when the ratings thread was created because Punk marks needed a place to cry and fight with Rock marks. Punk was the start...then it was Bryan...then it was The Shield...then it was Sheamus...then it was Rollins...now it's Roman...whoever gets pushed next will get the same treatment. You're not giving anybody a taste of their own medicine, you're just making yourself out to be a petty mark tbh.


 
In a word; yes. He's just as bad of a draw as everyone else is right now; no better and no worse. That is my point. You may have started the thread, but you must not have been following along on a weekly basis. 

The thing that you're missing is that others said as soon as Rollins is gone and the focus is on others that the ratings will increase, the quality of the show will be alot better, and heels will all of a sudden be booked to be legit threats. NONE of which has happened. Ratings were just one part of it. So yeah, you must've been MIA or just not reading every post from that time period.

It is literally impossible to look at posts from back then and not get a huge, gigantic kick out of the ratings not getting a lick better for WM season. Alot of people find it funny. You might not and that's fine; but that doesn't make us marks. Just the opposite, actually.





> Shane and Taker have missed Raw's but at no point was that feud ever completely abandoned. For a 3 week stretch HHH and Reigns weren't even having a feud. Reigns was off TV and HHH was feuding with Ambrose. How the fuck can Reigns vs. HHH, as a feud, be expected to draw when it isn't even happening? That's primarily the reason its doing so shit now that it IS happening. Same for Ambrose and Lesnar for that matter. If you want to lay the blame at a program that wasn't even featured on TV, that isn't being promoted as the main event of the show, that doesn't have any stipulations, that doesn't have any bells or whistles, that isn't receiving promo packages with legends talking about the match and that is forcing a victory that nobody wants to see then you go right ahead. HHH vs. Roman is barely above Ambrose vs. Lesnar in terms of importance and the only reason it is is because it's for the title. The biggest attraction on this card is the HIAC. It's getting more hype than the other 2 matches combined therefore yeah, it gets the brunt of the blame.


Oh, please. You're just trying to shift blame from H. No one actually believes this crap. Everyone has known since the Rumble that H/Reigns is the title match at WM. They've had 3 months to build it up properly and completely and utterly failed. No one cared that H is/was the Champion, either. Another huge, gigantic fail that literally no one gave a shit about, either. Reigns' comeback last week and beating up H backstage and the Reigns/Steph promo and Reigns beating up H backstage last night is more than Shane and Taker have even been in the same arena together. They've been in the same arena together a grand total of ONCE since the match got announced. Yeah, so much hype there..


----------



## Starbuck

Hurin said:


> GOOD.
> 
> Let the numbers crash further until they literally have no legends to cash in on. Then they'd be forced to actually try stuff with people that aren't tired nostalgia acts. It's cliche to say but NXT has some basic fucking booking principles that are apparently waaaay too difficult for Vince, the writers, booking committee... too difficult for SOMEONE on the main roster to comprehend, and it is killing this product. For every thing that is booked sensibly, there's three that are ass backwards.
> 
> The old farts are a crutch that WWE needs to lose before it can learn to walk again.
> 
> EDIT: It's also hilarious to watch Reigns marks scrabble to shit on Ambrose trying to carry Strowman when Reigns' segments flopped just as hard if not harder.


They don't have any more legends to cash in on. This is it. Sure, they'll probably get a marginal spike when Cena, Orton, Rollins come back and there's a bit more meat on the bones for the roster but the problem isn't with the wrestlers, it's the stories. They're shit. They are so fucking shit. They're insulting. They're stupid. They don't make sense. THEY are turning people away. WWE could have the 2000 roster in 2016 and they'd be drawing the same ratings because they couldn't write their way out of a paperbag at this point. 

Strowman is cancer. The Rock couldn't draw with this oaf never mind his cuz or Ambrose.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Legit BOSS said:


> *Nah, since you had a mountain of excuses last week when Roman's hour was the highest rated, you don't get to blame him for any drops, especially when he was once again in the highest rated hour, and it was Ambrose's main event that flopped.*


No one is blaming Reigns on his own. Just the feuds/build themselves. The whole show flopped from Hour 1 to Hour 3.

There were no 'mountains of excuses' last week. Only that Reigns wasn't advertised and Shane/Taker was.


----------



## Empress

Hurin said:


> GOOD.
> 
> Let the numbers crash further until they literally have no legends to cash in on. Then they'd be forced to actually try stuff with people that aren't tired nostalgia acts. It's cliche to say but NXT has some basic fucking booking principles that are apparently waaaay too difficult for Vince, the writers, booking committee... too difficult for SOMEONE on the main roster to comprehend, and it is killing this product. For every thing that is booked sensibly, there's three that are ass backwards.
> 
> The old farts are a crutch that WWE needs to lose before it can learn to walk again.
> 
> EDIT: It's also hilarious to watch Reigns marks scrabble to shit on Ambrose trying to carry Strowman when Reigns' segments flopped just as hard if not harder.


I agree with the first part of your post. The WWE should be developing and properly pushing their current crop of talents. The legends have done their parts and the well is running dry. 

As for your second part, a lot of people in this thread crap on Reigns. If there's a drop in the ratings, he gets the entire blame and there's no allowance for bad booking. But if it's Ambrose or someone else who is liked, their poor numbers are excused. For the record, I don't think there's much Dean or Braun could've done to save their main event. The talents are doing the best with the nonsense they're getting. 

Fortunately, they've been booking Roman better these past two weeks. A lot of damage has been done, but at least they are making some effort. I also liked the Dean stuff with the chainsaw. Hopefully, they can get consistently good and back on track across the board with the entire roster.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> In a word; yes. He's just as bad of a draw as everyone else is right now; no better and no worse. That is my point. You may have started the thread, but you must not have been following along on a weekly basis.
> 
> The thing that you're missing is that others said as soon as Rollins is gone and the focus is on others that the ratings will increase, the quality of the show will be alot better, and heels will all of a sudden be booked to be legit threats. NONE of which has happened. Ratings were just one part of it. So yeah, you must've been MIA or just not reading every post from that time period.
> 
> It is literally impossible to look at posts from back then and not get a huge, gigantic kick out of the ratings not getting a lick better for WM season. Alot of people find it funny. You might not and that's fine; but that doesn't make us marks. Just the opposite, actually.


You really think Rollins is the only one to ever be shit on don't you? I don't even like CM Punk but he got DE-STROYED for 2 years straight in this thread and it was 10x worse than anything ever said about Seth Rollins. It was so bad that this thread was created in order to contain the hate. The thing you're missing is that this stuff gets said about everybody. Rollins isn't special. They said the same thing about everybody before him and they'll say the same thing about everybody after. If you get such a kick out of that then go back to 2008 and look at the comments made about Jeff Hardy during his push. Then go to 2009 and look at Orton. Then go to 2010 and look at Nexus or Sheamus....2011 and look at Punk...2013 look at Bryan....2014 look at The Shield....2015 look at your boy Rollins and 2016 so far it has been Reigns. You'll probably have a right old time laughing at all that if you find the Rollins comments funny.



ShowStopper said:


> Oh, please. You're just trying to shift blame from H. No one actually believes this crap. Everyone has known since the Rumble that H/Reigns is the title match at WM. They've had 3 months to build it up properly and completely and utterly failed. No one cared that H is/was the Champion, either. Another huge, gigantic fail that literally no one gave a shit about, either. Reigns' comeback last week and beating up H backstage and the Reigns/Steph promo and Reigns beating up H backstage last night is more than Shane and Taker have even been in the same arena together. They've been in the same arena together a grand total of ONCE since the match got announced. Yeah, so much hype there..


Are you trying to prove my point for me or...because I don't know what you want to accomplish by saying the exact same thing that I've been saying. WWE have had 3 months to build Roman vs. HHH and they haven't. Yes. That is why there is no heat and the feud is shit. Actually let's go further than that, Roman beat up HHH and HHH disappeared off TV for over a month. HHH then won the Rumble and disappeared off TV until Fast Lane. Then HHH beat up Roman and Roman disappeared for a few weeks while HHH had an actual and legit proper program with somebody else. 

In the interim, Shane returned and his match with Taker was announced right away. Every week since there have been in-ring promos, video packages featuring Shane, now video packages with the legends putting it over, stipulations added and more promotion than every other match on the card. Are you denying that all of the above promotion and hype for the Shane and Taker match isn't actually promotion and hype? 

This isn't about shifting blame from HHH lol. His feud is a piece of shit that isn't drawing. BOTH of us have already went through all the reasons why. It would be different if it was the feud with the packages and all the stips and the promotion and the hype and it was still doing shit but it isn't. That feud would be what? That's right, Shane vs. Taker. Do you understand what hype and promotion is? It doesn't mean standing in a ring together at the same time. If that's the case then no Wrestlemania main event for the last 4 years has had any hype because none of the part timers were in the ring at the same time every week.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> You really think Rollins is the only one to ever be shit on don't you? I don't even like CM Punk but he got DE-STROYED for 2 years straight in this thread and it was 10x worse than anything ever said about Seth Rollins. It was so bad that this thread was created in order to contain the hate. The thing you're missing is that this stuff gets said about everybody. Rollins isn't special. They said the same thing about everybody before him and they'll say the same thing about everybody after. If you get such a kick out of that then go back to 2008 and look at the comments made about Jeff Hardy during his push. Then go to 2009 and look at Orton. Then go to 2010 and look at Nexus or Sheamus....2011 and look at Punk...2013 look at Bryan....2014 look at The Shield....2015 look at your boy Rollins and 2016 so far it has been Reigns. You'll probably have a right old time laughing at all that if you find the Rollins comments funny.


I've been here since late 2012, so I've seen the comments in these threads dating back to those days. Yes, I am fully aware that alot of comments have been made about all of these guys in that spot. I get it. It isn't breaking news to me. It doesn't change the fact that alot of in mid to late 2015 was hilarious looking back on it now. Some made it seem like once someone else is the top guy that everything about the show would improve and that hasn't happened. That's all I'm getting a kick out of. I don't know why this bothers you so much. You can just as easily skip over my post if you don't like me getting a kick out of some of the things said then. :shrug 





> Are you trying to prove my point for me or...because I don't know what you want to accomplish by saying the exact same thing that I've been saying. WWE have had 3 months to build Roman vs. HHH and they haven't. Yes. That is why there is no heat and the feud is shit. Actually let's go further than that, Roman beat up HHH and HHH disappeared off TV for over a month. HHH then won the Rumble and disappeared off TV until Fast Lane. Then HHH beat up Roman and Roman disappeared for a few weeks while HHH had an actual and legit proper program with somebody else.
> 
> In the interim, Shane returned and his match with Taker was announced right away. Every week since there have been in-ring promos, video packages featuring Shane, now video packages with the legends putting it over, stipulations added and more promotion than every other match on the card. Are you denying that all of the above promotion and hype for the Shane and Taker match isn't actually promotion and hype?
> 
> This isn't about shifting blame from HHH lol. His feud is a piece of shit that isn't drawing. BOTH of us have already went through all the reasons why. It would be different if it was the feud with the packages and all the stips and the promotion and the hype and it was still doing shit but it isn't. That feud would be what? That's right, Shane vs. Taker. Do you understand what hype and promotion is? It doesn't mean standing in a ring together at the same time. If that's the case then no Wrestlemania main event for the last 4 years has had any hype because none of the part timers were in the ring at the same time every week.


So, we're talking about the WWE promotional videos that is supposed to make this HUGE difference between the two matches? Like...is this for real? There was a long video recap of what Reigns did to HHH last week at the start of last night's show; who cares? There just couple minute long video packages to FILL IN for the fact that Shane and Taker are barely ever there. I mean; they have to fill in time for the feud SOMEHOW when both guys aren't there. My stance from the start is both feuds deserve equal blame. That doesn't even mean I'm blaming any of the four participants individually; because I'm NOT. It's more the builds for both of the matches more than anything else. But I honestly don't see some video package making a huge deal one way or the other. Either way; when the match starts those video packages are going to be the last thing on anyone's mind. H/Reigns doesn't get or need any stips because it's for the WORLD TITLE. Shane/Taker only being on the same show once from when this match was announced a month ago has hurt it and is completely ridiculous. They don't have to be at the same Raw every week. But certainly more than what they've had so far would've helped the feud. At least H/Reigns have had more than one interaction with eachother. That's much better than any lame ass 2 minute WWE "hype recap video." If you don't think so; we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.


----------



## Hurin

Glad to hear we agreed on the legends bit btw.



Empress said:


> As for your second part, a lot of people in this thread crap on Reigns. If there's a drop in the ratings, he gets the entire blame and there's no allowance for bad booking. But if it's Ambrose or someone else who is liked, their poor numbers are excused. For the record, I don't think there's much Dean or Braun could've done to save their main event. The talents are doing the best with the nonsense they're getting.
> 
> Fortunately, they've been booking Roman better these past two weeks. A lot of damage has been done, but at least they are making some effort. I also liked the Dean stuff with the chainsaw. Hopefully, they can get consistently good and back on track across the board with the entire roster.


I'm sure that a lot of people do make excuses for their favorites while subsequently hurling mud at others that can be blamed for poor ratings. Just the way arguing works on the Internet. My point was about people loudly booing Reigns several times last night in addition to chanting this is boring for Ambrose's match. As far as the live reaction goes I think Ambrose had only slightly more of an excuse given the end of a bad show and a poor 'dance partner', but that's neither here nor there really.

And I rarely enter this thread anyways because it just isn't relevant to my interests. My personal mindset has usually been "as a wrestling fan, why should I care about something drawing either well or not as well instead of caring if it's entertaining or not?". The biggest wrestling promotion in the world sure as shit isn't the one with the best shows right now, not even close. Whenever I post it's what I think will benefit my own enjoyment, and why I think the audience at large would enjoy it as well.

I mean, in terms of entertainment value for me, right now WWE can't touch Dragon Gate and a whole slew of other promotions anyways. But I look at their roster and I *know* that they could. That's by far the worst part about these awful shows with flagging ratings to match.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Seriously, how can anyone care about Reigns vs Haitch when nobody even knows what it's about?
Nobody is sure how it started, or why it started. If it's Reigns beating H to a pulp after TLC for no fucking reason, then I'm pretty sure Reigns is the heel and pretty kayfabe stupid, and got his comeuppance at the Rumble. Feud over. 
Strangely, it goes on.

In this feud, the face is doing heel moves, the heel is getting baby face pops, nobody knows what it's about except making Reigns champion, one of the contestants has the aura of a parboiled potato, and articulates himself like he is chewing one, the other contestant is absent from Raw for weeks, then the first contestant is absent from Raw for weeks, Ambrose is feuding Haitch to hype a nonsensically placed, superfluous Network special, and make fans even more bored of Reigns, and people wonder why this fails like a triplet abortion?


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> I've been here since late 2012, so I've seen the comments in these threads dating back to those days. Yes, I am fully aware that alot of comments have been made about all of these guys in that spot. I get it. It isn't breaking news to me. It doesn't change the fact that alot of in mid to late 2015 was hilarious looking back on it now. Some made it seem like once someone else is the top guy that everything about the show would improve and that hasn't happened. That's all I'm getting a kick out of. I don't know why this bothers you so much. You can just as easily skip over my post if you don't like me getting a kick out of some of the things said then. :shrug


No offense but you got a weird sense of humor if you find that stuff 'hilarious'. More to the point though, you don't need to constantly bring up Rollins all the time like he's the only person to ever be shit on over ratings. It's tiresome. 



ShowStopper said:


> So, we're talking about the WWE promotional videos that is supposed to make this HUGE difference between the two matches? Like...is this for real? There was a long video recap of what Reigns did to HHH last week at the start of last night's show; who cares? There just couple minute long video packages to FILL IN for the fact that Shane and Taker are barely ever there. I mean; they have to fill in time for the feud SOMEHOW when both guys aren't there. My stance from the start is both feuds deserve equal blame. That doesn't even mean I'm blaming any of the four participants individually; because I'm NOT. It's more the builds for both of the matches more than anything else. But I honestly don't see some video package making a huge deal one way or the other. Either way; when the match starts those video packages are going to be the last thing on anyone's mind. H/Reigns doesn't get or need any stips because it's for the WORLD TITLE. Shane/Taker only being on the same show once from when this match was announced a month ago has hurt it and is completely ridiculous. They don't have to be at the same Raw every week. But certainly more than what they've had so far would've helped the feud. At least H/Reigns have had more than one interaction with eachother. That's much better than any lame ass 2 minute WWE "hype recap video." If you don't think so; we can agree to disagree. Nothing wrong with that.


You're talking yourself in circles. I also don't think you fully understand what you're talking about so yeah, we can leave it at that. 

Needless to say, Shane/Taker is leading the charge for a very uninspired and nonsensical Wrestlemania across the board.


----------



## Badbadrobot

Look the simple truth is vinces grip on reality is tenuous and he controls raw. Raw is going down the shitter, because he's too reactionary, doesn't invest in coherent logical stories and can see passed his pet projects. Until he goes, the ratings will continue to fall.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> No offense but you got a weird sense of humor if you find that stuff 'hilarious'. More to the point though, you don't need to constantly bring up Rollins all the time like he's the only person to ever be shit on over ratings. It's tiresome.


Again, you clearly were not around or didn't read the thread in that time. Feel free to ignore my posts on Rollins; or don't. They're not stopping. 





> You're talking yourself in circles. I also don't think you fully understand what you're talking about so yeah, we can leave it at that.
> 
> Needless to say, Shane/Taker is leading the charge for a very uninspired and nonsensical Wrestlemania across the board.



I don't blame you for this response at all. When your main point in one feud being booked more importantly than the other is because of the hype videos they have fill in the time when the two participants are not around; I'd bow out, as well.

The fact that you're the one who started the ridiculous 'debate' over which feud is more responsible for this shit Road to WM says it all, anyway. Literally no one had even talked about this until your post. Says alot. Clear as day why, as well.


----------



## TheShieldSuck

All 3 hrs are basically the same meaning that 3.3/3.4m is the hardcores.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Forget running out of part timer stars. They're soon running out of revenue to pay those part timers.

The Rock is a bigger name than ALL of WWE.


----------



## Randy Lahey

Empress said:


> *3/21 Raw TV Ratings – Raw declines fourth straight week*
> 
> Monday’s WWE Raw continued a five-week TV Ratings decline since Fast Lane in February.
> 
> WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking
> 
> March 21: Raw scored a 2.44 rating, down three percent from a 2.51 rating last week.
> 
> The overall TV rating has steadily dropped each week since the Raw after Fast Lane…
> 
> Feb. 22: 2.73 rating (post-Fast Lane/Shane return)
> Feb. 29: 2.63 rating
> Mar. 7: 2.59 rating
> Mar. 14: 2.51 rating
> Mar. 21: 2.44 rating
> 
> Overall for the year, Raw is averaging a 2.55 rating through 12 weeks, down 12 percent from a 12-week ratings average of 2.91 to start 2015.
> 
> – Monday’s three hours averaged 3.399 million viewers, down two percent (about 60,000 viewers) from last week’s show. Hourly Break Down:
> 
> First Hour: 3.466 million viewers (nearly the same as last week
> Second Hour: 3.416 million viewers (up slightly from last week)
> Third Hour: 3.317 million viewers (down 200,000 viewers from last week)
> 
> The big difference between this week and last week was a decline in third hour viewership. Last week’s third hour included Triple H vs. Dolph Ziggler and Vince-Shane-Undertaker in the final segment. This week’s third hour was centered on Vince McMahon making a WM32 announcement and a cold Dean Ambrose vs. Braun Strowman match.
> 
> – DEMOGRAPHICS: The key demographics are perhaps the most concerning of all two weeks before WrestleMania.
> 
> Raw fell off the board in males 18-34. M18-34 declined two-tenths of a rating to easily the lowest TV rating of the year.
> 
> Raw also lost one-tenth of a rating in adults 18-49 to the lowest a18-49 rating of the year.
> 
> Males 18-49 fell one-tenth, as well, and tied for the lowest m18-49 rating of the year.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/22/march21rawtvratings/


So last year in 2015, they were averaging a 2.91 during their peak TV season RTWM. Then in the fall going against football, they averaged about a 2.30. So that was a drop of about 20%.

If the same trends holds for this year, they will be averaging around 2.0 in the Fall. And if they are doing a few shows in the 1.80s (because that 2.30 number from last year was an AVERAGE - quite a few shows were well below that) USA will cancel them or non-renew them when their contract is up. You cant be paying the amount they are paying for a live TV show, and get that type of return.

People don't realize how terrible the RTWM rating really are, because they aren't looking down the line to what it really means.


----------



## wrestling10101

I don't think cancelling is likely a renegotiated contract is likely though, also the lower the rating the less people to sell the network to and the less ppl who will come to house shows and then it becomes a vicious circle ... Vince your time is up!


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Randy Lahey said:


> People don't realize how terrible the RTWM rating really are, because they aren't looking down the line to what it really means.


Exactly, and people are not looking at years gone by comparisons.

That's why there is so much hostility in this thread. Whoever is the focal point at the time (Bryan/Rollins/Triple H/Sheamus/Reigns) gets focus placed onto them for the ratings, whereas the important thing to note is the product and presentation, as a whole.

As a whole, WWE are going down an irreversible path towards WOAT ratings. I predicted these for 2017, based on the ratings trends of the last 12 years. However, it looks like WWE may be getting WOAT Raw ratings later this year.

When those ratings turn into a terrible TV deal, loss of revenue will occur. When WWE make some major business announcements off the back of this, there will be no point blaming Reigns or Rollins etc etc. It's the WWE as a whole.

Not only are WWE not retaining an audience: They are actively turning audiences away

None of this negates the unmitigated success that will be WM32. But WrestleMania, believe it or not, is more than just finances. WrestleMania has always been an advertisement for your product. Just look at WM15. WM15 is largely considered a big clusterfuck, with weird matches that didn't quite make sense. But it worked as an advert to the casuals.

The same can not/will not be said about WM32. WM32 may bring in profits short term, but is likely to turn fans away in the long term.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Wanna bet if the go home show to the alleged biggest Wrestlemania of all time will break the 3.0?

Frankly, I don't think so.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Wanna bet if the go home show to the alleged biggest Wrestlemania of all time will break the 3.0?
> 
> Frankly, I don't think so.


Last years go-home only got a 3.03, so I very much doubt this year will break 3.0.

Question is, will the post-Mania Raw break 3.0?

They usually get a 20% ish ratings spike. They will get very close to 3.0 post-Mania, but they're running a fine line between perhaps not making this.


----------



## CementMixerPunk

SIGN KURT ANGLE


----------



## Empress

*How Did This Week's WWE Total Divas Do?*

This week's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network, featuring an appearance by Dean Ambrose, drew 663,000 viewers and ranked #33 for the night on cable.

This is up from last week's episode, which drew 650,000 viewers and ranked #40 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 580,000 viewers and the week before that drew 591,000.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0323/608885/how-did-this-week-wwe-total-divas-do/


----------



## J-B

Ambrose drawing dem numbers :ambrose


----------



## Erik.

Bitches love the titty master.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Daemon_Rising said:


> Last years go-home only got a 3.03, so I very much doubt this year will break 3.0.
> 
> Question is, will the post-Mania Raw break 3.0?
> 
> They usually get a 20% ish ratings spike. They will get very close to 3.0 post-Mania, but they're running a fine line between perhaps not making this.


Raw after WM will be a guaranteed good number (good in relation to the 2.16-2.4 fiascos) because people will want to see what Shane does with Raw.

I'm looking forward to the jubilation of those Reigns smarks claiming it's all Reigns' accomplishment.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Raw after WM will be a guaranteed good number (good in relation to the 2.16-2.4 fiascos) because people will want to see what Shane does with Raw.
> 
> I'm looking forward to the jubilation of those Reigns smarks claiming it's all Reigns' accomplishment.


I don't see how anyone could claim the ratings boost will be anything other than the yearly ratings boost which has been happening for 20 years.

It always spikes between 15%-25% from the go-home.

This is why I say 20% as an average. It's going to spike again, and it's not going to be because of Reigns.

Similarly, Raw is going to get below 2.0's within the next 18 months, and that won't be Reigns fault either.


----------



## bigdog40

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> S*eriously, how can anyone care about Reigns vs Haitch when nobody even knows what it's about?*
> Nobody is sure how it started, or why it started. If it's Reigns beating H to a pulp after TLC for no fucking reason, then I'm pretty sure Reigns is the heel and pretty kayfabe stupid, and got his comeuppance at the Rumble. Feud over.
> Strangely, it goes on.
> 
> In this feud, the face is doing heel moves, the heel is getting baby face pops, nobody knows what it's about except making Reigns champion, one of the contestants has the aura of a parboiled potato, and articulates himself like he is chewing one, the other contestant is absent from Raw for weeks, then the first contestant is absent from Raw for weeks, Ambrose is feuding Haitch to hype a nonsensically placed, superfluous Network special, and make fans even more bored of Reigns, and people wonder why this fails like a triplet abortion?






it's for the title, but there isn't that much of a story with it, other than what happened at Survivor Series and TLC


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

bigdog40 said:


> it's for the title, but there isn't that much of a story with it, other than what happened at Survivor Series and TLC


I don't know why Reigns attacked Triple H in the first place.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*SmackDown viewership 
this week(3/24) Vs last week(3/17) 

2.501M Vs 2.260M 
(+0.241M/+10.66%)

Note: Brock Lesnar advertised.*


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Just visited the WWE Youtube page and something really astonishing is happening here. 

Let's have a look at two of the most viewed Smackdown videos thus far:



















Now let's put some things into perspective here.

*Roman Reigns, on his own here in a random mid card match with the other half of the feud no where close in sight is drawing in almost as much as a main event segment consisting of a Heyman Promo+Lesnar+Wyatts+Ambrose!* Just astonishing. Especially considering the fact that the next best video is as many as almost 300,000 views behind.










Reigns once again cementing himself as one of the most reliable global draws in the company.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Kinda surprised to see a segment with Dean and the Wyatts to be head and shoulders above everything else in the Youtube view game. Good for those guys, at least they got something they can hang their hats on. Nearly a million views for a bunch of guys not in the World Title scene. That's impressive.


----------



## Chloe

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Just visited the WWE Youtube page and something really astonishing is happening here.
> 
> Let's have a look at two of the most viewed Smackdown videos thus far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's put some things into perspective here.
> 
> *Roman Reigns, on his own here in a random mid card match with the other half of the feud no where close in sight is drawing in almost as much as a main event segment consisting of a Heyman Promo+Lesnar+Wyatts+Ambrose!* Just astonishing. Especially considering the fact that the next best video is as many as almost 300,000 views behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Reigns once again cementing himself as one of the most reliable global draws in the company.*


Lel. No.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Just visited the WWE Youtube page and something really astonishing is happening here.
> 
> Let's have a look at two of the most viewed Smackdown videos thus far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's put some things into perspective here.
> 
> *Roman Reigns, on his own here in a random mid card match with the other half of the feud no where close in sight is drawing in almost as much as a main event segment consisting of a Heyman Promo+Lesnar+Wyatts+Ambrose!* Just astonishing. Especially considering the fact that the next best video is as many as almost 300,000 views behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reigns once again cementing himself as one of the most reliable global draws in the company.


Jesus you're embarrassing.

To put things further into perspective:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=haW4IP5vZ3s

Seems to be thrice the global draw Roman Reigns is.

:ti


----------



## Empress

*How Was Last Night's WWE SmackDown Viewership With Brock Lesnar's Return?*

Last night's WWE SmackDown, featuring Brock Lesnar's return to the show, drew 2.501 million viewers, according to Showbuzz Daily. This is up from last week's 2.260 million viewers.

SmackDown ranked #4 for the night in viewers, behind two airings of the NCAA on TBS and The O'Reilly Factor.

SmackDown ranked #4 for the night in the 18-49 demographic, behind 3 NCAA games.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/201...t-wwe-smackdown-viewership-with-brock-lesnar/


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Jesus you're embarrassing.
> 
> To put things further into perspective:
> 
> https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=haW4IP5vZ3s
> 
> Seems to be thrice the global draw Roman Reigns is.
> 
> :ti


What's so embarrassing about pointing out facts? Also, the fact that you had to bring in a completely irrelevant video to try to "counter" my post is much much more embarrassing to be honest.


----------



## Erik.

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> What's so embarrassing about pointing out facts? Also, the fact that you had to bring in a completely irrelevant video to try to "counter" my post is much much more embarrassing to be honest.


Wait, so 600k went on YouTube to watch a guy who's been booked head and shoulders above everyone else for the past 2 years, in his second consecutive world title Wrestlemania main event and future 3 time World Champion as of next week.

and 200k more preferred watching a stable who aren't even on the Wrestlemania card and arguably the most over face on the roster.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Erik. said:


> Wait, so 600k went on YouTube to watch a guy who's been booked head and shoulders above everyone else for the past 2 years, in his second consecutive world title Wrestlemania main event and future 3 time World Champion as of next week.
> 
> and 200k more preferred watching a stable who aren't even on the Wrestlemania card and arguably the most over face on the roster.


That's a pretty myopic view of things to be honest.

Firstly, Dean Ambrose has main evented more PPVs and been accorded as much screen time if not more than Reigns in the last year or so. There's no excuse for Ambrose to not be drawing.

Secondly, it's a segment consisting of Lesnar+Ambrose+Heyman+Wyatts * in the main event of the show.* while the Reigns segment is in a random mid card spot where * the other half of the WM spot, Triple H isn't even featured.*. The fact that the guy still pulls in almost as many views as the main event just testifies his global popularity in a very reliable sense.


----------



## Erik.

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> That's a pretty myopic view of things to be honest.
> 
> Firstly, Dean Ambrose has main evented more PPVs and been accorded as much screen time if not more than Reigns in the last year or so. There's no excuse for Ambrose to not be drawing.
> 
> Secondly, it's a segment consisting of Lesnar+Ambrose+Heyman+Wyatts * in the main event of the show.* while the Reigns segment is in a random mid card spot where * the other half of the WM spot, Triple H isn't even featured.*. The fact that the guy still pulls in almost as many views as the main event just testifies his global popularity in a very reliable sense.


With his position and the way he is portrayed. Reigns should be outdrawing EVERYONE on that roster. Don't give me the midcard/main event part of the show bullshit. 

The views prove that MORE people cared about the guys in the last segment. Or we can just leave it at that because YouTube views mean absolute sweet fuck all.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> With his position and the way he is portrayed. Reigns should be outdrawing EVERYONE on that roster. Don't give me the midcard/main event part of the show bullshit.
> 
> The views prove that MORE people cared about the guys in the last segment. Or we can just leave it at that because *YouTube views mean absolute sweet fuck all.*


They are important. It's only on this board and in this particular thread where YouTube is looked down upon. Most brands rely on the views and the streaming, especially in music.

As for this Reigns vs. Ambrose debate, Reigns holds his own. I actually monitor the views from week to week. He's consistent and Brock/Dean have proven to maintain interest. I'm not surprised by either clip doing well.


----------



## Erik.

Empress said:


> They are important. It's only on this board and in this particular thread where YouTube is looked down upon. Most brands rely on the views and the streaming, especially in music.
> 
> As for this Reigns vs. Ambrose debate, Reigns holds his own. I actually monitor the views from week to week. He's consistent and Brock/Dean have proven to maintain interest. I'm not surprised by either clip doing well.


Do you reckon that is why they tend to put all the best content on YouTube instead of actually showing it on the live shows?


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Erik. said:


> With his position and the way he is portrayed. Reigns should be outdrawing EVERYONE on that roster. *Don't give me the midcard/main event part of the show bullshit. *


Because you can't counter it? Hilarious how often things become bullshit when you can't offer a coherent counter. And btw what's Reigns position anyway? Ambrose has main evented more PPVs and is fighting Lesnar at WM, the guy who has immortalized himself on this stage. That's hardly a standing much less than Reigns seeing how he has held singles titles for 400 days more than Reigns and was running around with the belt in summer last year for just about as much time Reigns has held it.



Erik. said:


> The views prove that MORE people cared about the guys in the last segment. Or we can just leave it at that because YouTube views mean absolute sweet fuck all.


This only proves that it took Lesnar+Ambrose+Heyman's promo+Wyatts in the main event slot to beat a solo Reigns in a random mid card match with his WM competitor nowhere in sight.


----------



## Empress

Erik. said:


> Do you reckon that is why they tend to put all the best content on YouTube instead of actually showing it on the live shows?


Yes. I posted an article a few weeks ago about the WWE trying to bring more traffic to their channel. I know people think it's silly, but there is a vested interest to draw more traffic online to their official site and Youtube channel. I was speaking with someone a few months ago. He told me flat out that the content didn't matter. He just wanted traffic, specifically to Facebook because that's where most of their advertising money was coming from. 

Ultimately, it doesn't matter if Reigns, Ambrose or Bray gets more views. That's just bragging rights. The WWE will monetize the views/traffic as one entity. 

I don't want to bash any of the performers. I just wanted to share why YouTube matters since some treat it so dismissively.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Just visited the WWE Youtube page and something really astonishing is happening here.
> 
> Let's have a look at two of the most viewed Smackdown videos thus far:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Now let's put some things into perspective here.
> 
> *Roman Reigns, on his own here in a random mid card match with the other half of the feud no where close in sight is drawing in almost as much as a main event segment consisting of a Heyman Promo+Lesnar+Wyatts+Ambrose!* Just astonishing. Especially considering the fact that the next best video is as many as almost 300,000 views behind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reigns once again cementing himself as one of the most reliable global draws in the company.


You really deserve to be banned at this point. Even if it's just for sheer stupidity. 

Anyways, not surprised the rating went up when you consider that last week's Smackdown actually did a good job of promoting a potential confrontation between Ambrose and Lesnar for this week. 

It's a real shame that they managed to create such a shit segment when they had 300k more eyeballs on it from the week before on TV AND the potential for a huge online hit had they actually produced what the fans were looking for. 

We've seen Lesnar layout Ambrose countless times and they have been teasing Ambrose assaulting Lesnar with his new selection of weapons. If You tak your head out of your ass for just a few seconds then surely anyone could see that to hype this match, Dean Ambrose and Wrestlemania itself then there was a perfect opportunity for a money shot to close Smackdown with Ambrose standing over a bloodied Lesnar. 

Fans are wondering how Lesnar will react on Raw, Ambrose actually made good on all of his talk and the word spreads that WWE are actually booking something interesting and potentially must see for Wrestlemania. 

No? Wyatts and and an F5? Fuck off. :ti


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

I'm just curious why the people who claimed the sky was falling in the Summer and Fall when they were drawing exactly what they are drawing right now; aren't proclaiming the same thing since they are drawing the Summer/Fall numbers now during the build to the BIGGEST SHOW OF THE YEAR.

Interesting, isn't it? It's gotten so quiet in here re: ratings.

Anyway, we've been over this a million times. When youtube starts paying WWE **Hundreds of Millions of dollars** like USA Network does and *$32 Million* alone for just *1 hour* of content; then they'll start being on the same level as TV ratings.


----------



## Empress

*3/24 WWE Smackdown TV Ratings – slight Brock bump, larger viewership bump*


Thursday’s Smackdown featuring a lightly-promoted appearance by Brock Lesnar produced a small bump in the TV rating and a big bump in overall viewership.


WWE Smackdown TV Ratings Tracking

March 24: Thursday’s Smackdown scored a 1.75 rating, up slightly from a 1.71 rating last week.

Smackdown drew 2.501 million viewers, up 11 percent (about 240,000 viewers) from last week’s show.

It was the most viewers in seven weeks going back to February 4.

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Smackdown produced a slight increase in males 18-34 and bigger increases among 18-49 viewers.

Males 18-49 and adults 18-49 both increased about one-tenth of a rating to three-week highs.

– Overall, Smackdown is still well behind the same period in 2015 on Syfy and the show has not returned to the mid-1.8 range from earlier this year kicking off the USA Network era.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03...ngs-slight-brock-bump-larger-viewership-bump/


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

You really don't need to micro analyze the second digit behind the dot in ratings.

You can't say Brock draws because there is a 0.04 increase. 
It should be summed up as a 1.7, which is ridiculous at WM season.

Anyway, the problem isn't the ratings before Wrestlemania, it's the ratings after Wrestlemania. If they don't deliver a hot as firecrackers storyline for spring and summer, they're in a fucking shithole.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

Using youtube ratings when talking who is a better draw. :heyman6

A lot of people go to Roman's video's to hate on him in the comments or look at the comments bashing him or because most of the big stuff that happens revolves around Roman.



CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> hardly a standing much less than Reigns seeing how he has held singles titles for 400 days more than Reigns.


Yes because holding a title that was completely irrelevant for 351 days in the US title means he is near Reigns level.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> You really deserve to be banned at this point. Even if it's just for sheer stupidity.


Really? Then what about this little piece of intellect right here:



Marrakesh said:


> Are you being serious? What planet are you on?


2 posts later:


Marrakesh said:


> Maybe you are right


:cena


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

TheGeneticFreak said:


> Using youtube ratings when talking who is a better draw. :heyman6
> 
> A lot of people go to Roman's video's to hate on him in the comments or look at the comments bashing him or because most of the big stuff that happens revolves around Roman.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes because holding a title that was completely irrelevant for 351 days in the US title means he is near Reigns level.


So, why does that U.S title reign not matter? The moment he won it, he separated himself as the first among equals in the Shield by having a singles title, and he won it days after he wrestled The Undertaker himself. Plus, he was the only one of the three in the Shield accorded the opportunities of wrestling 1 on 1 PPV matches when the other two were handicapped in that regard. And now it should be totally neglected? Doesn't make much sense to me.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

Empress said:


> I don't want to bash any of the performers. I just wanted to share why YouTube matters since some treat it so dismissively.


I'm just interested to know *why* it matters. I've never heard any solid figures bounded around for WWE's youtube advertising profits. So everything is just pure speculation. Like this speculation for example:

Take youtube. Youtube pay on averge 3/4ths of a cent per advert viewed.

So a short WWE video is likely to only have one advert. A medium length one is likely to have 1 to 2 adverts. On average WWE proabably make around 1 cent per view?

So a single video with, for example, 1 million views, could bring in $10,000. Doesn't sound like a lot, but if they have 2,000 video's upoaded per year, with an average of 1million views per video, that's $20 million a year.

It's not to be sniffed at, but it's not on the level of a $200 million TV deal.

Anyway, am I anyway near close to making an educated guess as to what this revenue stream could be worth? Because like I say I'm just speculating.


----------



## Kenno

*Roman and Drawing ability:
*
If Reigns draws, its because of his "strong" booking!

If Reigns did not, its because he failed to connect with fanbase! 

Convenient. 


Similarly, *Ambrose and overness:*

Ambrose gets good crowd reaction - Look how over my man is, despite bad booking!

Ambrose gets bad crowd reaction - Look how bad booking killed my poor man!


Again, Very Convenient.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Except Reigns never drew, and Ambrose at least gets consistently good reactions.


----------



## Empress

Daemon_Rising said:


> I'm just interested to know *why* it matters. I've never heard any solid figures bounded around for WWE's youtube advertising profits. So everything is just pure speculation. Like this speculation for example:
> 
> Take youtube. Youtube pay on averge 3/4ths of a cent per advert viewed.
> 
> So a short WWE video is likely to only have one advert. A medium length one is likely to have 1 to 2 adverts. On average WWE proabably make around 1 cent per view?
> 
> So a single video with, for example, 1 million views, could bring in $10,000. Doesn't sound like a lot, but if they have 2,000 video's upoaded per year, with an average of 1million views per video, that's $20 million a year.
> 
> It's not to be sniffed at, but it's not on the level of a $200 million TV deal.
> 
> Anyway, am I anyway near close to making an educated guess as to what this revenue stream could be worth? Because like I say I'm just speculating.


It matters primarily due to profit. Visibility and exposure/social media is another factor. I posted some of this stuff consistently and it was no sold. It only became a problem once Roman Reigns became the focus. And then some posters actually started to insist that you can't make money from Youtube. fpalm 

$20 million, if we're using your most figure, is a lot. It still does pale in comparison to $200 million TV deal but it's just simply another piece of the pie. For some brands, that number is in reverse. The music industry now counts streaming (of which YouTube is a parameter), as its biggest source of revenue. Artists are able to secure #1 singles based on the amount of times their videos are viewed. 

As for the TV ratings, I'm sure that the WWE will get a boost next year once Twitter/Facebook is officially added to the overall count. They can also emphasize Nielsen's Live Plus and Live-Plus-Three.


----------



## DoubtGin

> - As noted, this week's WWE SmackDown with Brock Lesnar's return to the show drew 2.501 million viewers, up from last week's 2.260 million viewers. The final rating for the show was a 1.75, up from last week's 1.71 rating.


.


----------



## Starbuck

ShowStopper said:


> Again, you clearly were not around or didn't read the thread in that time. Feel free to ignore my posts on Rollins; or don't. They're not stopping.


They're not stopping? Lol. It's a bit sad that you have to bring him up when he isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. My guess is still that you're doing it because you think he is being slighted when most if not everybody else discussed in here has received the exact same treatment. But then again it's so super funny to you so maybe not. I don't know. 



ShowStopper said:


> I don't blame you for this response at all. When your main point in one feud being booked more importantly than the other is because of the hype videos they have fill in the time when the two participants are not around; I'd bow out, as well.
> 
> The fact that you're the one who started the ridiculous 'debate' over which feud is more responsible for this shit Road to WM says it all, anyway. Literally no one had even talked about this until your post. Says alot. Clear as day why, as well.


My main points were you bringing up Rollins all the time for no reason and Shane/Taker bombing as the main attraction of Mania along with everything else. Those were my points. And honestly, if I thought there was room for an actual debate I'd stick around but I think it's quite clear I'd have more luck banging my head against a brick wall than waste my time going in circles with you so yeah, I'll bow out and save us both the trouble.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Starbuck said:


> They're not stopping? Lol. It's a bit sad that you have to bring him up when he isn't even relevant to the discussion at hand. My guess is still that you're doing it because you think he is being slighted when most if not everybody else discussed in here has received the exact same treatment. But then again it's so super funny to you so maybe not. I don't know.


The funny thing is it's literally not difficult to understand at all. When people make proclamations that everything will be better once something different happens, and it falls flat on it's face during the hottest time of year (Road to WM), it's a tad funny. That's all. Geez.





> My main points were you bringing up Rollins all the time for no reason and Shane/Taker bombing as the main attraction of Mania along with everything else. Those were my points. And honestly, if I thought there was room for an actual debate I'd stick around but I think it's quite clear I'd have more luck banging my head against a brick wall than waste my time going in circles with you so yeah, I'll bow out and save us both the trouble.


Already cleared up the Rollins thing, again, above. Whether you choose to understand a simple concept is completely up to you.

If you want to nitpick which match is more responsible for this Road to WM bombing; go right ahead. They're both *very *much responsible. Literally no one else on this thread has even cared to debate this topic (same for the rest of the board), which says alot right there.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Daemon_Rising said:


> I'm just interested to know *why* it matters. I've never heard any solid figures bounded around for WWE's youtube advertising profits. So everything is just pure speculation. Like this speculation for example:
> 
> Take youtube. Youtube pay on averge 3/4ths of a cent per advert viewed.
> 
> So a short WWE video is likely to only have one advert. A medium length one is likely to have 1 to 2 adverts. On average WWE proabably make around 1 cent per view?
> 
> So a single video with, for example, 1 million views, could bring in $10,000. Doesn't sound like a lot, but if they have 2,000 video's upoaded per year, with an average of 1million views per video, that's $20 million a year.
> 
> It's not to be sniffed at, but it's not on the level of a $200 million TV deal.
> 
> Anyway, am I anyway near close to making an educated guess as to what this revenue stream could be worth? Because like I say I'm just speculating.


Well said. It only started being use as a crutch to explain why *this has been the lowest rated Road to WM of all time.*


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> Well said. It only started being use as a crutch to explain why *this has been the lowest rated Road to WM of all time.*


I don't need to use it as a crutch for any of the underwhelming ratings. My interest in social media is not new.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> I don't need to use it as a crutch for any of the underwhelming ratings. My interest in social media is not new.


I'm just saying it was never used as a positive or a negative in here until recently. They were always posted; but they were barely ever discussed in a positive or negative light. Now, one segment of the fanbase tries to push them as a huge deal literally out of nowhere. That's fine, and they are a factor, but a much smaller one into relation of other metrics and in terms of how much money it could make them in comparison to other aspects of the business.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

YouTube isn't exposure.
Late night shows are exposure. Sport channels are exposure. Promoting in a town is exposure. Ads are exposure. 

Putting videos on a site that you have to intentionally search for is not exposure, it's using fan interest to generate more revenue.


----------



## Empress

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> YouTube isn't exposure.
> Late night shows are exposure. Sport channels are exposure. Promoting in a town is exposure. Ads are exposure.
> 
> Putting videos on a site that you have to intentionally search for is not exposure, it's using fan interest to generate more revenue.


How is not exposure? Especially in today's climate of clips going viral and brands relying on views for profit and visibility? For every content that is put on the WWE Youtube channel, that's exposure. It's been recognized. Just as recently as days ago at the SShorty Awards. 

The WWE surpassed the NBA to become the #1 sports channel on Youtube which would render the argument that their channel is not exposure moot. 

But to each their own.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Really? Then what about this little piece of intellect right here:
> 
> 
> 
> 2 posts later:
> 
> 
> :cena


Eh? 

If I've ever said 'maybe you are right' to you then it's almost certainly been out of politeness considering I never want to come across as condescending to anyone I'm discussing a topic with unless they show themselves to be a buffoon. 

That or maybe you did say something of worth once :lol (I don't recall it) and I factored it into my response because I'm actually capable of that. 

I like to evolve my opinions beyond their starting point if new information presents itself. 

I know, I know, what did I just say? This concept is completely alien to you. No matter how many people tear apart your atrocious opinions you are always right. I was hoping you were a troll but I think you might just be sad enough to believe the bullshit you spew. 

I presume this exchange you've quoted (With no context, there's a surprise :ti) took place when discussing WWE's financial reports back when you seemed like a reasonably intelligent poster, even if I didn't agree with most of your opinions. 

When it comes to discussing wrestling you've proven yourself to be of absolutely no worth whatsoever and whatever intelligence you do posses clearly isn't related to the ability to construct valid arguments or viewpoints. 

End of discussion on this. The only reason for this post is to highlight the kind of poster you are. If no one wants to take my word for it. Go look up his laughable attempt at a debate thread that was made the other day. Every single one of his main arguments flawed and torn apart instantly by myself and others. 

Too many threads are now being clogged up by people taking the time to engage in conversation with you. You are now the official plague of this forum. 

Return the thread to ratings. This is simply a warning to all the insightful posters who work within the realms of logic to avoid this imbecile.


----------



## Bushmaster

Can a mod change the title to YouTube Views instead of ratings? Is it possible?


----------



## LaMelo

Brock will bring the ratings this week!


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Marrakesh said:


> Return the thread to ratings.


You don't need to write 1000 words to try to prove that you weren't exposed in 2 posts in a straightforward argument pal, that too by your own admission :lol. Your arguments on the "wrestling" side of things aren't that different either, except the fact that now you prefer to be yet another shoot and scoot guy instead of addressing any topic at hand.

The quoted statement here alone shows your level of understanding of any subject in general, no offense. This is not a ratings exclusive thread, people can discuss whatever they deem fit of being a worthy parameter to judge the drawing aspect of performers, reading the thread title won't hurt you know. Don't try to be a pseudo moderator #3048385 dictating who should post what.


----------



## LaMelo

There is no need to change the thread title.


----------



## Marrakesh

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> You don't need to write 1000 words to try to prove that you weren't exposed in 2 posts in a straightforward argument pal, that too by your own admission :lol. Your arguments on the "wrestling" side of things aren't that different either, except the fact that now you prefer to be yet another shoot and scoot guy instead of addressing any topic at hand.
> 
> The quoted statement here alone shows your level of understanding of any subject in general, no offense. This is not a ratings exclusive thread, people can discuss whatever they deem fit of being a worthy parameter to judge the drawing aspect of performers, reading the thread title won't hurt you know. Don't try to be a pseudo moderator #3048385 dictating who should post what.


I don't even know what to say to this. It's not the first time you've been completely unable to understand a simple sentence and how it relates to a topic. It's occurred multiple times and at first I thought it was stubbornness but it seems you don't actually understand the sentences themselves and are only able to interpret them in a literal sense. Much like the statistics you have used as evidence in your previous thread actually. 

I'm actually serious when I say this btw, Apologies for the insults. Your posts frustrate me but it's very likely at this point it is only because you aren't able to grasp what others or myself have been saying. I'll take your word that you are not a troll and I can only assume based on your posts that you don't comprehend much beyond your own world view. 

Consider this a misunderstanding. I don't think we are working with the same set of tools.


----------



## Empress

*3/28 Raw Social Media – Raw ranks #1 for first time this year leading into WM32
*


For the first time this year, WWE Raw took the #1 spot in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings on Monday night.


Raw Social Media Tracking

March 28: Raw leading into WrestleMania generated a unique Twitter audience of 2.822 million, up 131 percent from last week’s sleepy show.

It was the second-largest unique audience of the year behind Daniel Bryan’s Retirement Raw in February, which WWE coincidentally spotlighted after Raw on WWE Network.

Raw’s total impressions were 15.299 million, up 70 percent from last week.

The number of unique authors tweeting about Raw was 52,000, up 53 percent from last week.

Total tweets were 213,000, up 35 percent from last week.

– Raw ranked #1 among series & specials on Monday night, topping “Dancing with the Stars” on ABC. Raw also topped all one-time sports programming.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/29/happened-raw-went-off-air-brooklyn/


----------



## Erik.

When I woke up this morning, I did see a lot of people talking about Shane McMahon and his elbow drop, a lot of shares on Facebook and retweets on Twitter from people I didn't even know watched wrestling so I have no doubt that would have got viewers in. 

I can see a big third hour drop though.


----------



## Marrakesh

I would love to see the fifteen minute breakdowns for this Raw. It would be very interesting. Maybe if enough people tweet Meltzer he'll release them :lol He's done it before.


----------



## RatedR10

This show, after the first half hour or so, deserves negative viewership. It's not even possible, but they deserve it.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

So, are there ratings today? Usually they're posted by now.


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> So, are there ratings today? Usually they're posted by now.


They are apparently delayed until 5:30 from what I read. I'm sure Johnny will post them as soon as they're available.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*Cable data for Monday 3.28.2016 delayed by Nielsen.
New delivery time: Wednesday morning.
Check back after 6:30 AM PT / 9:30 AM ET.*

*EDIT: Showbuzzdaily and tvbythenumbers glitched with their usually timely updates today. Sorry y'all. :frown2:*


----------



## KO Bossy

That's weird, I see ratings for almost every other show last night...wonder what the hold up is? I get it, Monday was Easter Monday, but some being available and others not is odd.


----------



## Empress

*World Wrestling Entertainment Primed To Navigate The Future Of TV; PacCrest Says Buy It Now*

Read more: http://www.benzinga.com/analyst-rat...ment-primed-to-navigate-the-fut#ixzz44KpQm7CY

*3/29 WWE Stock Track – WWE sends heel faction to NYSE opening, firm initiates WWE stock coverage*
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03...se-opening-firm-initiates-wwe-stock-coverage/


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/714799938178310144

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/714821004980273152


----------



## DoubtGin

This week's RAW, featuring the final build for Wrestlemania 32, did 3.770 million viewers overall. This is above last week's 3.40 million viewers. The 3/23/15 edition of RAW one week before Wrestlemania 31 did 4.187 million viewers overall.

Below is the hourly breakdown:

8PM: 3.823M viewers
9PM: 3.852M viewers
10PM: 3.637M viewers

source: nodq


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

I'm surprised only 200k switched off at the third hour after how bad it got.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Wow, those numbers are beyond sad for WM go home Raw. Compare to last year's go home Raw to WM:

*Last year: (3/23/15)

Hour one: 4.17 million
Hour two: 4.34 million
Hour three: 4.04 million
*
*This year:

8PM: 3.823M viewers 
9PM: 3.852M viewers 
10PM: 3.637M viewers
*
All 3 hours for last year's Raw went over 4 million viewers. This year's go home Raw didn't hit 4 million for even just one of the three hours. Yikes.


----------



## Blade Runner

TheGeneticFreak said:


> I'm surprised only 200k switched off at the third hour after how bad it got.


They were probably expecting a major surprise. Wasn't there rumblings online about Rock appearing in the final segment?


----------



## Empress

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> They were probably expecting a major surprise. Wasn't there rumblings online about Rock appearing in the final segment?


I thought either he or Cena would show up.

At least RAW got a spike in viewers They're not great in the grand scheme of things but better than what they have been in recent weeks. 

I wonder what the post Mania bump will be.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> They were probably expecting a major surprise. Wasn't there rumblings online about Rock appearing in the final segment?


Yeah, I know I predicted in the Raw thread when they went to commercial before the last segment that I thought Rock would appear. Boy, was I wrong. :lol Anyway, terrible numbers for the last Raw before WM.


----------



## Blade Runner

Empress said:


> I thought either he or Cena would show up.


Cena was apparently in the building that night so it would've been entirely possible for him to show up. Something tells me he was there to discuss his involvement in Wrestlemania and I'm 99% certain that he'll make an appearance on Sunday



ShowStopper said:


> Yeah, I know I predicted in the Raw thread when they went to commercial before the last segment that I thought Rock would appear. Boy, was I wrong. :lol Anyway, terrible numbers for the last Raw before WM.


Yeah I think you're the source that I first read about it from :lol -- thought it was a rumor that was making the rounds because others were discussing it too


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

Yeah they mentioned Cena a couple of times so I thought he might show up since he was in the area doing some talk show and he teased it in twitter I guess he was just being a good company man.


----------



## Empress

*3/28 Raw TV Ratings – Raw rebounds 10 percent heading into WM32*

Monday’s Raw drew the highest TV rating since the night after the Royal Rumble for the final Raw leading into WrestleMania.


WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

March 28: Raw scored a 2.66 rating, up nine percent from a season-low 2.44 rating last week.

The TV rating reversed a four-week downward trend that started after the Fast Lane PPV in February.

Raw was essentially tied with Daniel Bryan’s retirement Raw (2.65 rating) for highest since the post-Royal Rumble Raw.

WWE now has a chance to draw a 3.0 rating or above next week for post-Mania Raw. Raw has not reached that point since post-Mania Raw last year.

– Raw’s three hours averaged 3.771 million viewers, up about 370,000 viewers (11 percent) from last week’s show. Hourly Break Down:

First Hour: 3.823 million viewers
Second Hour: 3.852 million viewers (slight increase)
Third Hour: 3.638 million viewers (5.6 percent decline)

– Demographics: Raw got big one-week boosts in adults 18-49, males 18-34, and males 18-49. The show essentially returned to the levels of post-Fast Lane Raw after the four-week decline period.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/29/328-raw-tv-ratings-raw-rebounds-10-percent-heading-wm32/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

2.6

Wow. They can't even get closer to a 3 for the last Raw before 'Mania.

@A-C-P was right. This is In Your House: RockBottom for WWE. :lol 

Scary.



> Demographics: Raw got big one-week boosts in adults 18-49, males 18-34, and males 18-49. The show essentially returned to the levels of post-Fast Lane Raw after the four-week decline period.



But only kids watch Raw. :lol


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> @A-C-P was right. *This is In Your House: RockBottom for WWE*. :lol


That was me :cudi @A-C-P called it In Your House: Everyone is injured so to hell with creativity -- or something like that loool


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> That was me :cudi @A-C-P called it In Your House: Everyone is injured so to hell with creativity -- or something like that loool


Oh. My bad. Please accept my apology.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> Oh. My bad. Please accept my apology.


I'll consider it :krillin2


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

DoubtGin said:


> This week's RAW, featuring the final build for Wrestlemania 32, did 3.770 million viewers overall. This is above last week's 3.40 million viewers. The 3/23/15 edition of RAW one week before Wrestlemania 31 did 4.187 million viewers overall.
> 
> Below is the hourly breakdown:
> 
> 8PM: 3.823M viewers
> 9PM: 3.852M viewers
> 10PM: 3.637M viewers
> 
> source: nodq





Empress said:


> *3/28 Raw TV Ratings – Raw rebounds 10 percent heading into WM32*
> 
> Monday’s Raw drew the highest TV rating since the night after the Royal Rumble for the final Raw leading into WrestleMania.
> 
> 
> WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking
> 
> March 28: Raw scored a 2.66 rating, up nine percent from a season-low 2.44 rating last week.
> 
> The TV rating reversed a four-week downward trend that started after the Fast Lane PPV in February.
> 
> Raw was essentially tied with Daniel Bryan’s retirement Raw (2.65 rating) for highest since the post-Royal Rumble Raw.
> 
> WWE now has a chance to draw a 3.0 rating or above next week for post-Mania Raw. Raw has not reached that point since post-Mania Raw last year.
> 
> – Raw’s three hours averaged 3.771 million viewers, up about 370,000 viewers (11 percent) from last week’s show. Hourly Break Down:
> 
> First Hour: 3.823 million viewers
> Second Hour: 3.852 million viewers (slight increase)
> Third Hour: 3.638 million viewers (5.6 percent decline)
> 
> – Demographics: Raw got big one-week boosts in adults 18-49, males 18-34, and males 18-49. The show essentially returned to the levels of post-Fast Lane Raw after the four-week decline period.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/03/29/328-raw-tv-ratings-raw-rebounds-10-percent-heading-wm32/


Wow, Showbuzzdaily is still showing ratings as still being delayed by Nielsen until 9:30AM ET. And neither did tvbythenumbers show any viewership numbers when I last checked. Not sure whats with both of them today. 

Anyway thanks DoubtGin and Empress for updating ASAP. I thought I had to wait much longer. :grin2:

Looks like they narrowly nudged two of the three highest RAW ratings in recent memory barring the RR fallout RAW-the RAW after TLC and the Daniel Bryan farewell RAW.

But man that last hour was weak and I expected a larger drop. And Eva Marie? Seriously? fpalm



Empress said:


> They are apparently delayed until 5:30 from what I read. I'm sure Johnny will post them as soon as they're available.


P.S. : Thanks for the shoutout Empress. Hopefully I'll post the ratings next week for what could potentially be the biggest RAW of the year(in terms of ratings) in time. :smile2:


----------



## Empress

I thought something happened to you when the ratings weren't posted by 3:30. I'm glad you're alright @JonnyAceLaryngitis  

Depending on how WM 32, I think next week's rating could be their strongest in quite some time. As for this week's number, it's a good thing they reversed their weeks long slide for the go home show.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> Wow, Showbuzzdaily is still showing ratings as still being delayed by Nielsen until 9:30AM ET. And neither did tvbythenumbers show any viewership numbers when I last checked. Not sure whats with both of them today.
> 
> Anyway thanks DoubtGin and Empress for updating ASAP. I thought I had to wait much longer. :grin2:
> 
> *Looks like they narrowly nudged two of the three highest RAW ratings in recent memory barring the RR fallout RAW-the RAW after TLC and the Daniel Bryan farewell RAW.*


Thanks for those interesting stats.

How sad is it that the Raw after the freaking December PPV, and hell, even the other 2 you mentioned, did better than the Raw before 'Mania? Amazing how far they've fallen. Horrendous numbers for the go-home Raw to 'Mania. I thought they might get to 4 million viewers for at least 1 of the 3 hours. And that was the number they had to hit for last night's number to even be slightly good. But they failed again. Officially the lowest rated Road to WM ever.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

If they can't even crack 4 million on the go home show I can't wait until the NFL competition comes back, whoever is the champ I'm going to feel sorry for, as no one in the roster can save this shit product.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> I thought something happened to you when the ratings weren't posted by 3:30. I'm glad you're alright @JonnyAceLaryngitis
> 
> Depending on how WM 32, I think next week's rating could be their strongest in quite some time. As for this week's number, it's a good thing they reversed their weeks long slide for the go home show.


Could be the strongest in quite some time, but last year they didnt go against the NCAA game, so the ratings may drop a chunk year-to-year unless something seismic occurs in terms of storyline.

Grateful for your concern Empress. It was just those primary stats sites glitching. Finally after more than 3 months I get to see the ratings here first instead of posting them. :wink2: I am keeping well for now thank you. :smile2: Although I have seen better days with my health. :frown2:



ShowStopper said:


> Thanks for those interesting stats.
> 
> How sad is it that the Raw after the freaking December PPV, and hell, even the other 2 you mentioned, did better than the Raw before 'Mania? Amazing how far they've fallen. Horrendous numbers for the go-home Raw to 'Mania. I thought they might get to 4 million viewers for at least 1 of the 3 hours. And that was the number they had to hit for last night's number to even be slightly good. But they failed again. Officially the lowest rated Road to WM ever.


You're welcome ShowStopper. Interesting, but troubling stats. Currently, we are comparing what we are told are above average numbers now-a-days, with what used to be holiday numbers for RAW barely 2 years back. I wonder when they are going sub 2.0. :frown2:

Hopefully the roster returns full force, and they get more careful with talent injuries. And who can forget that RAW ticket site listing the night after Extreme Rules as- 'Monday Night RAW Vs WWE'. We all can hope right?. :smile2:


----------



## KO Bossy

2.6 for a WM go home Raw....have they EVER done one that low before? Turns out, this rating is only slightly better than the WM13 go home Raw, which was a 2.4. And WWE, at the time, had the excuse that WCW was pummeling them, what with the nWo storyline being at its height and this Raw being the same night as the fallout from Uncensored 1997, where they had Rodman come in to be in the nWo's corner and had Sting end the PPV cleaning house with a bat. Not to mention that Austin's match with Bret that turned him babyface and put him on his way to becoming the gigantic draw that he would become hadn't happened yet. Shawn was faking his injury to get out of jobbing to Bret, so he wasn't on the show. So at least its somewhat understandable. 

This 2.6 was achieved with zero competition and absolutely no excuses. They had Shane, Hunter, Brock, Heyman, Taker and the entire rest of the roster. They trotted out all the big guns and gave Roman 3 segments, including 2 where he got the better of Hunter and a huge Taker/Shane brawl. And they got a 2.6. Embarrassing.


----------



## Marrakesh

Wish we had the 15 minute breakdowns (including the overrun) for this and then we'd be able to come to a much better conclusion as to what was actually drawing the TV audience and what wasn't. 

The numbers are pretty useless without it tbh. This was the Mania go home though and all the feuds were in place so it would be really interesting to see the breakdowns.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> Thanks for those interesting stats.
> 
> How sad is it that the Raw after the freaking December PPV, and hell, even the other 2 you mentioned, did better than the Raw before 'Mania? Amazing how far they've fallen.


Actually ShowStopper, the declines don't seem to be year-to-year anymore. They seem to be month-to-month. It is that precipitous.



KO Bossy said:


> This 2.6 was achieved with zero competition and absolutely no excuses. They had Shane, Hunter, Brock, Heyman, Taker and the entire rest of the roster. They trotted out all the big guns and gave Roman 3 segments, including 2 where he got the better of Hunter and a huge Taker/Shane brawl. And they got a 2.6. Embarrassing.


I was wondering as to why they didnt have Dean brawl with Brock, seeing as the crowd would have roared for it as their match is the most brawl worthy of the card. Instead they went ahead with the Roman HHH brawl we have seen many times before. Even last year they thought it was OK to go with a show ender consisting of an impish tug-of-war of the title between Roman and Brock, BROCK of all people, a superstar marketed as a beast and who has limited appearances. And if they were trying to save the best for WM and therefore didnt book the brawl, they still teased us with one of Shane's signature moves for his bout and Taker's signature sit up selling. Just befuddling as to how the characters and gimmicks are accorded inequally random booking precedences.


----------



## Blade Runner

KO Bossy said:


> 2.6 for a WM go home Raw....have they EVER done one that low before? Turns out, this rating is only slightly better than the WM13 go home Raw, which was a 2.4..


To be completely fair, the WWE couldn't even sell out an 18 000 seat arena for Wrestlemania 13 while this one will fill close to 100 000 people -- The company is in much better shape now than it was back then, and back then live television was pretty much the only way to catch an episode of RAW while now there's various different devices and services to catch it online and at whatever time you want. Some people prefer watching the Hulu version of RAW because they tend to cut out most of the filler crap on the show and stick only to the main segments


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

@KO Bossy

Knocked it out of the park. Especially with WCW not only existing back then, but being on fucking fire at that point in time. Makes these numbers even more sad. No excuses.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> @KO Bossy
> 
> Knocked it out of the park. Especially with WCW not only existing back then, but being on fucking fire at that point in time. Makes these numbers even more sad. *No excuses*.


By saying that you're not taking into consideration the other factors that differentiated television back in the late 90s and television now. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare numbers from 20 years ago when then there was only one way to consume RAW -- also while WCW was breathing down their necks, the television market was far less saturated. Today there's TONS more stuff to consume on a Monday night both online and on television, not to mention on demand-type networks that people spend their time on now. In the 90s it was far more enticing to watch an episode of RAW just for the fact that your options were far more limited than they are now

Also the WWE have expanded massively in the international market since going public over a decade ago, a stat that doesn't really factor into the Nielson week-to-week focus group

:draper2


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> By saying that you're not taking into consideration the other factors that differentiated television back in the late 90s and television now. I don't think it's entirely fair to compare numbers from 20 years ago when then there was only one way to consume RAW -- also while WCW was breathing down their necks, the television market was far less saturated. Today there's TONS more stuff to consume on a Monday night both online and on television, not to mention on demand-type networks that people spend their time on now. In the 90s it was far more enticing to watch an episode of RAW just for the fact that your options were far more limited than they are now
> 
> Also the WWE have expanded massively in the international market since going public over a decade ago, a stat that doesn't really factor into the Nielson week-to-week focus group
> 
> :draper2


Dude. Last year's Raw after Mania they did OVER 5 Million viewers for ALL 3 Hours. :lol And this was last year. They were getting in the 4 millions during last year's Road to WM. Forget about 20 years ago, they're low as hell compared to the last couple of years.

The Hulu's and Youtubes of the world just show that Raw isn't appointment television anymore. If it was still so good, people would be watching Raw live as it happened; or at least ALOT more of them would be. This just shows that people are like, "Meh. I'll just watch a couple of segments of who I like and skip Raw live." That's not a good thing.

As for just the live TV reasoning; yes there are more channels now; but some act like there was no such thing as cable tv back then :lol And besides, WWF not only having direct competition with another LEGIT wrestling company back then, but also a red-hot legit wrestling company cancels out the majority of that argument. If WWE was going up against a legit wrestling promotion head to head today; they would be getting their shit wrecked on a weekly basis. So yeah, this is the Road to WM. Make the people WANT to view your show LIVE. It is possible. There are other shows out there that do HUGE ratings still. And if this is their ceiling for the year considering it was the Road to WM; they are in huge trouble, especially when NFL starts again. Sorry, gotta agree with KO Bossy completely here.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> Dude. Last year's Raw after Mania they did OVER 5 Million viewers for ALL 3 Hours. :lol And this was last year. They were getting in the 4 millions during last year's Road to WM. Forget about 20 years ago, they're low as hell compared to the last couple of years.
> 
> The Hulu's and Youtubes of the world just show that Raw isn't appointment television anymore. If it was still so good, people would be watching Raw live as it happened; or at least ALOT more of them would be. This just shows that people are like, "Meh. I'll just watch a couple of segments of who I like and skip Raw live." That's not a good thing.
> 
> As for just the live TV reasoning; yes there are more channels now; but some act like there was no such thing as cable tv back then :lol And besides, WWF not only having direct competition with another LEGIT wrestling company back then, but also a red-hot legit wrestling company cancels out the majority of that argument. If WWE was going up against a legit wrestling promotion head to head today; they would be getting their shit wrecked on a weekly basis. So yeah, this is the Road to WM. Make the people WANT to view your show LIVE. It is possible. There are other shows out there that do HUGE ratings still. And if this is their ceiling for the year considering it was the Road to WM; they are in huge trouble, especially when NFL starts again. Sorry, gotta agree with KO Bossy completely here.


Well I see what you're saying in the first paragraph, but that wasn't really the point that I was making. Comparing this year's numbers to last year's is completely reasonable considering the metric and landscape of television being similar -- The criteria to gauge 20 years ago is different because the landscape was different both from a cultural and technological standpoint. It's like trying to compare the Box Office landscape from 20 years ago to the one we have now

I have to agree and disagree on the second paragraph -- yes, if the show was more interesting then more people would be watching, but at the same time our culture is now more prone to hold off on content and watch it on their own time. Back in the 90s I was DYING to find something to entertain myself with, now there's just too much of it -- I have countless tv shows on the backburner that I love watching. I only caught up on the last half of Walking Dead S6 last week :lol

WCW while it did take viewers away from RAW, it also helped expand the market and create awareness and buzz around pro wrestling -- but again, my point is more about the landscape as a whole than specific shows opposing RAW on cable TV -- personally speaking, being Canadian it didn't even affect me because WCW aired on Wednesdays and that gave me the opportunity to watch both shows

Could the WWE be putting on better programming? F^ck yes. Could they be doing better in the ratings? Of course, but I'm arguing that it's only fair to compare Nielson trends with recent years rather than those of 20 years ago for a multitude of reasons


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Well I see what you're saying in the first paragraph, but that wasn't really the point that I was making. Comparing this year's numbers to last year's is completely reasonable considering the metric and landscape of television being similar -- The criteria to gauge 20 years ago is different because the landscape was different both from a cultural and technological standpoint It's like trying to compare the Box Office landscape from 20 years ago to the one we have now
> 
> I have to agree and disagree on the second paragraph -- yes, if the show was more interesting then more people would be watching, but at the same time our culture is now more prone to hold off on content and watch it on their own time. Back in the 90s I was DYING to find something to entertain myself with, now there's just too much of it -- I have countless tv shows on the backburner that I love watching. I only caught up on the last few episodes of Walking Dead last week :lol
> 
> WCW while it did take viewers away from RAW, it also helped expand the market and create awareness and buzz around pro wrestling -- but again, my point is more about the landscape as a whole than specific shows opposing RAW on cable TV -- personally speaking, being Canadian it didn't even affect me because WCW aired on Wednesdays and that gave me the opportunity to watch both shows
> 
> COuld the WWE be putting on better programming? F^ck yes. COuld they be doing better in the ratings? Of course, but I'm just arguing that it's only fair to compare Nielson trends with recent years rather than those of 20 years ago for a multitude of reasons


No problem at all. Agree to disagree on that. If there were no shows on TV right now doing really good numbers; I'd be more inclined to agree. But as long as there are still some shows out there doing big numbers; I'll always believe there's no reason why Raw can't do better than a measly 3 or so million every week, especially during the Road to WM. Alot of people became fans by becoming intrigued by a particular Road to WM, thus gaining WWE a new viewer. That hasn't happened in the least this year. But anyway, agree to disagree. No biggie.


----------



## Blade Runner

ShowStopper said:


> No problem at all. Agree to disagree on that. If there were no shows on TV right now doing really good numbers; I'd be more inclined to agree. But as long as there are still some shows out there doing big numbers; I'll always believe there's no reason why Raw can't do better than a measly 3 or so million every week, especially during the Road to WM. Alot of people became fans by becoming intrigued by a particular Road to WM, thus gaining WWE a new viewer. That hasn't happened in the least this year. But anyway, agree to disagree. No biggie.


Sure thing. Like I said tho, I definitely agree with you about RAW having the potential to do better -- it certainly can. Just saying that there's too many factors that differentiate television 20 years ago from television now which makes it a complicated thing to compare. Is all --


----------



## RatedR10

This Fall is going to see consistent hours of 2-million viewers. This is just... crazy.


----------



## Randy Lahey

I doubt Raw pulls over a 3.0 next week. They'll be going against the NCAA championship game.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Randy Lahey said:


> I doubt Raw pulls over a 3.0 next week. They'll be going against the NCAA championship game.


Maybe, but two years ago the post-Mania Raw pulled a 3.70 rating (5.15M viewers) against the NCAA championship game.

In other words, I expect a pretty big number. It's the biggest Raw of the year _by far_.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

2.6?

I thought they wouldn't crack the 3.0, but this is ridiculous.

Shane-O-Mania!
Reigns-A-Mania!

:ha


----------



## Marrakesh

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Maybe, but two years ago the post-Mania Raw pulled a 3.70 rating (5.15M viewers) against the NCAA championship game.
> 
> In other words, I expect a pretty big number. It's the biggest Raw of the year _by far_.


It really depends on what they do with the finish at Mania. 

WM 30 ended with Bryan winning his championship. Tons of people tuned in to see the fallout from that and last year we had Rollins 'steal' the belt and Brock's rampage which maintained viewers close to 6 mill (if my memory is right) for the first two hours which Brock was featured in. 

Obviously there is the potential for a similar number this year IF Reigns turns on The Rock and Shane goes over Taker somehow. 

They would actually be looking at a huge number if they booked those two matches in a way that will provide huge talking points and cliffhangers for the fans. 

If Taker wins and Reigns goes over as a babyface (or w/e he's supposed to be right now) then they've lost their minds and I don't think there will be a huge bump at all. 

Samoa Joe, Bullet Club, Enzo/Cass or even a Rollins return aren't going to pop a huge rating if there are no decent storylines in place for this show. 

I'm assuming something big has to happen to close this years show and unlike all the ridiculous 'Will Cena turn heel' stuff that pops up every time he headlines, Reigns actually HAS to. 

Likewise I think Shane HAS to win the match with Taker (who they can just bring back anyway if Shane is in charge of Raw further demonstrating how stupid that stipulation is :lol ) 

The fans are screaming at WWE to get rid of the authority and put Shane in as the new GM and they have buried Roman Reigns mercilessly. 

They have some really easy booking decisions to make and virtually no one would trust them to do the right thing.


----------



## Daemon_Rising

They will not reach 3.0 for post-Mania Raw. They barely scraped that last year.


----------



## A-C-P

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> That was me :cudi @A-C-P called it In Your House: Everyone is injured so to hell with creativity -- or something like that loool


WWE In Your House: Everyone is Injured and We Are Creatively Bankrupt.

Your's was easier to type out :lol


----------



## Empress

*Another Drop For WWE Total Divas Viewership*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

This week's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 563,000 viewers and ranked #34 for the night on cable.

This is down from last week's episode, which drew 663,000 viewers and ranked #33 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 650,000 viewers and the week before that drew 580,000.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0330/609154/another-drop-for-wwe-total-divas-viewership/


----------



## Restomaniac

Empress said:


> *Another Drop For WWE Total Divas Viewership*
> 
> Source: Showbuzz Daily
> 
> This week's WWE Total Divas episode on the E! network drew 563,000 viewers and ranked #34 for the night on cable.
> 
> This is down from last week's episode, which drew 663,000 viewers and ranked #33 for the night on cable. The week before that drew 650,000 viewers and the week before that drew 580,000.
> 
> http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0330/609154/another-drop-for-wwe-total-divas-viewership/


I imagine this alongside the Bellas either retiring or being physically no longer capable and the new change to the women's title means that the show is fucked.


----------



## Wildcat410

Given Nikki and Brie's status, now seems like a time to jump off the Total Divas train. Unless of course they end up largely remaking the show around other people (Paige? Mandy?)


----------



## A-C-P

Wildcat410 said:


> Given Nikki and Brie's status, now seems like a time to jump off the Total Divas train. Unless of course they end up largely remaking the show around other people (Paige? Mandy?)


Like any "reality" show TD was going to have "shelf life", and it looks like they are reaching the end of that "shelf life"


----------



## Empress

I like Total Divas but the show has run its course from a creative standpoint. They could squeeze another season, but it's winding down.

I also don't see Sasha, Becky, Charlotte and Bayley signing on to do Total Divas to replace the Bellas if they leave. Not that I'd want them to. The show is on the downside. They should get exposure in other ways.


----------



## Restomaniac

Wildcat410 said:


> Given Nikki and Brie's status, now seems like a time to jump off the Total Divas train. Unless of course they end up largely remaking the show around other people (Paige? Mandy?)


The biggest hint is them dumping the term 'diva' in the women's title scene next Monday.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

I don't see the point in Eva Marie having a contract if Total diva doesn't exist though she is one of the worst parts of it anyway.


----------



## A-C-P

TheGeneticFreak said:


> I don't see the point in Eva Marie having a contract if Total diva doesn't exist though she is one of the worst parts of it anyway.


Why do you think they are putting so much effort into Eva on NXT now :eva2


----------



## Erik.

Considering the shows they've been putting out and how downhill the show went after the first 45 minutes. I think those are good numbers.

From a Road to Wrestlemania standpoint on a go home show. Dreadful


----------



## Empress

I'm not an Eva fan, but I think she's signed with Brad Slater who is a big time agent. He also reps The Rock. There are some big plans for her. Her scenes on Total Diva are awkward but they have to find a way to make her work. Somewhere.


----------



## Restomaniac

Empress said:


> I'm not an Eva fan, but I think she's signed with Brad Slater who is a big time agent. He also reps The Rock. There are some big plans for her. Her scenes on Total Diva are awkward but they have to find a way to make her work. Somewhere.


Eva Marie reminds me of Jordan (Katie Price) in the UK. Katie Price was an attractive girl but decided that she was going to be as fake as she could and court the gutter press and sell herself to anybody even to the lowest common denominator in a scheme to get famous and rich. 

I think if Eva Marie didn't look and come off as being as fake as she does in everything she does she wouldn't get anywhere near the stick she gets. However Jordan (Katie Price) proves that being fake doesn't stop you getting rich.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

Empress said:


> I'm not an Eva fan, but I think she's signed with Brad Slater who is a big time agent. He also reps The Rock. There are some big plans for her. Her scenes on Total Diva are awkward but they have to find a way to make her work. Somewhere.


Yeah she is making a lot of money because of that agent they're was report before that only Nikki was making more money than her when she was on the main roster I don't know if it was true or not but I don't know why they are paying her so much, her only quality is being hot which can be easily found.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

It's beyond me how anyone can watch trash like Total Divas.

And once the Divas Division is renamed, is it still Total Divas? Or Total Women?


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> It's beyond me how anyone can watch trash like Total Divas.
> 
> And once the Divas Division is renamed, is it still Total Divas? Or Total Women?


I watch it for TJ, somehow the best characters in a show called total *divas* are the men.


----------



## Empress

@Restomaniac and @TheGeneticFreak

Maybe they can repackage Eva as a heel on the main roster. She and Stephanie got so many boo's at RAW. Not even Charlotte could get that kind of heat. I get why she's not liked, but I wouldn't turn down a push and lots of money. 

As for Total Divas, my favorite characters are Tyson, Bryan and Nikki. If the show is picked up for another season, they should add Renee and Dean as the new couple. I'd watch more regularly if Dean and Renee were featured.


----------



## Restomaniac

Empress said:


> @Restomaniac and @TheGeneticFreak
> 
> Maybe they can repackage Eva as a heel on the main roster. She and Stephanie got so many boo's at RAW. Not even Charlotte could get that kind of heat. I get why she's not liked, but I wouldn't turn down a push and lots of money.
> 
> As for Total Divas, my favorite characters are Tyson, Bryan and Nikki. If the show is picked up for another season, they should add Renee and Dean as the new couple. I'd watch more regularly if Dean and Renee were featured.


TBH they really need to take a look at how she is being booked in NXT. She is there as nothing more than a heat magnet. They even went so far as to use corporate getting involved and supply their own ref, etc to make everyone think they were actually going to put the belt on her. The heat was thermo-nuclear.


----------



## ArcticArsenal

Empress said:


> @Restomaniac and @TheGeneticFreak
> 
> Maybe they can repackage Eva as a heel on the main roster. She and Stephanie got so many boo's at RAW. Not even Charlotte could get that kind of heat. I get why she's not liked, but I wouldn't turn down a push and lots of money.
> 
> As for Total Divas, my favorite characters are Tyson, Bryan and Nikki. If the show is picked up for another season, they should add Renee and Dean as the new couple. I'd watch more regularly if Dean and Renee were featured.


I'm not a big fan of her but imagine sticking a big bullying Diva beside her, have her win the Diva title and have her go on long ass title reign, with her cheating and having her bodyguard help her cheat to win everytime. Then have Eva cut promo's on the crowd about how awesome she is, slagging off the fans and how she will never lose the title. Then whoever beats her (I would love it to be Bayley) it should be at WM, they would become the number 1 diva In the company. Damn Eva would be the most hated heel on the roster.


----------



## Y.2.J

Anyone know the numbers of last year's go home show before WM?

3.8m 1st hour, 3.8m 2nd hour, 3.6m 3rd hour doesn't seem so bad to me...

For a go home show maybe...but the sky isn't falling...just yet.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Avada Kedavra said:


> Anyone know the numbers of last year's go home show before WM?
> 
> 3.8m 1st hour, 3.8m 2nd hour, 3.6m 3rd hour doesn't seem so bad to me...
> 
> For a go home show maybe...but the sky isn't falling...just yet.


Last year: (3/23/15)

Hour one: 4.17 million
Hour two: 4.34 million
Hour three: 4.04 million


:lol


----------



## Reotor

ShowStopper said:


> Last year: (3/23/15)
> 
> Hour one: 4.17 million
> Hour two: 4.34 million
> Hour three: 4.04 million
> 
> 
> :lol


I truly hope this trend continue.
WWE deserve FAR WORSE rating than they get.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

They're closing in on losing 3/4 of a million viewers a year. Astonishing.


----------



## Reotor

TheGeneticFreak said:


> I watch it for TJ, somehow the best characters in a show called total *divas* are the men.


Well "Diva" is mostly a derogatory term so it actually make sense.


----------



## Empress

*Total Divas Speculation On Lana And Renee Young*

- There's a lot of speculation on Lana and Renee Young being added to the WWE Total Divas cast after they were seen filming with E! cameras in Dallas this week. It could just be them filming appearances for the show but with the recent ratings issues, producers could be looking at ways to bring more interest to the show.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...al-divas-speculation-on-lana-and-renee-young/


----------



## Empress

*Did The Live WrestleMania 32 Hype Help This Week's WWE SmackDown Viewership?*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Last night's WWE SmackDown, featuring just three matches and live WrestleMania 32 hype from Dallas, drew 2.328 million viewers. This is down from last week's show with Brock Lesnar, which drew 2.501 million viewers.

SmackDown ranked #2 for the night in viewers, behind The O'Reilly Factor, and #3 in the 18-49 demographic behind the NBA and 60 Days In.

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news...lemania-32-hype-help-this-week-wwe-smackdown/


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

Global Hype-O-meter for the big three at WM:




























Reigns-HHH with a pretty healthy lead at the moment. The match has definitely caught the fancy of the larger worldwide audience.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Smackdown having lower ratings than the previous week for the go home show to WM. I know it was mostly a show hyping WM, but geez, come on. At least have the same amount of viewers you had the previous week; which isn't even asking for alot considering what that number was. Yowza.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

CycLoNe_AttAcK_ said:


> Global Hype-O-meter for the big three at WM:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reigns-HHH with a pretty healthy lead at the moment. The match has definitely caught the fancy of the larger worldwide audience.


Can you just stop with your youtube views I see you didn't post the week where Ambrose had higher views and all he was doing was walking with a wagon? I dislike Ambrose as well and of course Reigns should get more views he is slapped onto everything he is on all promotional stuff I looked at one wrestling related thing on my college computer and my facebook told me to like Roman Reigns.


----------



## CycLoNe_AttAcK_

TheGeneticFreak said:


> Can you just stop with your youtube views I see you didn't post the week where Ambrose had higher views and all he was doing was walking with a wagon? I dislike Ambrose as well and of course Reigns should get more views he is slapped onto everything he is on all promotional stuff I looked at one wrestling related thing on my college computer and my facebook told me to like Roman Reigns.


Whose stopping you from doing the same, whenever you wish? Also, Reigns isn't any more slapped than what Ambrose is. Ambrose has main evented 7 PPVs to Reigns' 5. Ambrose is facing Lesnar this WM, a guy who immortalized himself on this stage 2 years ago and is one of the most elite performers in the company.

Also, the current status for these two videos you posted is as follows:

HHH-Reigns: 2,223,624 views

Lesnar-Ambrose: 2,025,218 views. A healthy difference of 10%+.

The point about the 3 videos I posted was of the overall interest in the build up leading up to the match, as the videos are a coalescence of everything that has taken place in these feuds.


----------



## Marrakesh

TheGeneticFreak said:


> Can you just stop with your youtube views I see you didn't post the week where Ambrose had higher views and all he was doing was walking with a wagon? I dislike Ambrose as well and of course Reigns should get more views he is slapped onto everything he is on all promotional stuff I looked at one wrestling related thing on my college computer and my facebook told me to like Roman Reigns.


The views aren't in context. 

It's the WWE championship match and therefore the main event on paper. This match has been slaughtered all over social media now for the past few weeks due to the poor build and the backlash against Reigns. 

It's views are not necessarily indicative of hype. The video itself has 10x the amount of dislikes as the other two matches. Views also do not take into account real life story that is playing out which is overshadowing this match. 

Will WWE really put Reigns over? Will he turn heel? Why is Roman Reigns main eventing Wrestlemania for the second year in a row despite being no better off than last year? Is The Rock going to be involved in this match? etc etc

There is definitely an interest there and maybe it is the most anticipated match on the card worldwide (for a lot of the wrong reasons) but only a fool would try to claim that the majority of WWE's fans are going into this match 'hyped' to see a babyface Roman Reigns win the title. 

Around 85,000 people in Dallas (from all over the US and the rest of the world) are going to beg to differ. Pretty large sample of fans across all demographics if you ask me.


----------



## Fissiks

yeah i think it's just time for the Mods to put down Garfield, he isn't even trying anymore.


----------



## Marrakesh

After that pile of shite I want to be the first to predict that tomorrows Raw number isn't going to be much different to the past few weeks. 

What exactly would fans be tuning in for? More Reigns vs The Authority?


----------



## Russoite

Unless they produce some serious fuckery in tonights RAW I fear for WWE.


----------



## Wonderllama

Can't wait for those big RAW ratings courtesy of Roman Reigns

:vince$


----------



## Empress

*WWE® Network Reaches Record 1.82 Million Subscribers*

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wwe-network-reaches-record-1-190000801.html

*WrestleMania® Sets All-Time Attendance Record*
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/wrestlemania-sets-time-attendance-record-031200189.html

*WWE Network Subscriber Count – how many people subscribed during WrestleMania Week?*
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04...unt-many-people-subscribed-wrestlemania-week/

*4/4 WWE Stock Track – Wild reaction to Network subscriber count, stock falls four percent post-WM32, CNBC covers “good news/bad news”*
http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04...cent-post-wm32-cnbc-covers-good-newsbad-news/


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Like that is magic, that subscribers increase because of major new launches like Germany, and people subscribing for their free month.

With the WWE Network now covering a huge part of the world, it's actually embarrassing that this so-called global brand has not even 2 million subscribers worldwide.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

Raw-Is-Botchamania said:


> Like that is magic, that subscribers increase because of major new launches like Germany, and people subscribing for their free month.
> 
> With the WWE Network now covering a huge part of the world, it's actually embarrassing that this so-called global brand has not even 2 million subscribers worldwide.


Meltzer confirmed on his radio show this morning that the "1.82 million" network number "includes freebies". It's *not* the number of paid subscribers.


----------



## skarvika

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Meltzer confirmed on his radio show this morning that the "1.82 million" network number "includes freebies". It's *not* the number of paid subscribers.


Paid subscriber numbers are actually dropping.


> But while WWE Network grew its total reach, to a record 1.82 million worldwide as of Monday, total paying subscribers in the U.S. actually declined 1% to 1.109 million compared with 1.123 million as of March 30, 2015, following last year’s “WrestleMania.”


http://variety.com/2016/digital/news/wwe-network-us-paid-subs-decline-wreslemania-1201745033/


----------



## Marrakesh

They have 1.45m paid subscribers and you can be sure that a lot of those simply paid the $10 for Mania this week having already had their free trials. 

There will be a ton of people worldwide who used to buy Mania with their PPV providers who instead got it on the network for $30-50 cheaper. 

These fans do not tend to stay with WWE year round as evidenced by the history of Mania's buyrates compared to every other PPV so a full time subscription is probably unlikely for most of these extra customers. 

Then you have the 300k+ free trials who are getting April for free. It's nice to get Wrestlemania for free but how many of these people will use the option to cancel before the end of the month? A sizeable portion of them is likely. 

WWE's paid subscriber number at the end of 2015 was 1.23m. 

It will be interesting when WWE post their second quarter numbers (at the end of June) to see how many of these _potential_ subscribers they actually retain over from Mania. 

They've launched in 7 more countries in the past 4 months too. India, Japan, Thailand, Philippines, Germany, Austria and Switzerland. 

Growth of some sort was expected this year but these numbers are just fluffed up by all the freebies. WWE are nowhere near 2 million paid subscribers and It has to be relatively unlikely that by the end of June their total paid number is going to be all that much higher than their end of 2015 number. Wrestlemania has always done exceptionally well but WWE have always failed to keep most of those customers on board for the rest of the year.


----------



## Empress

*4/4 Raw Twitter TV Ratings – Post-Mania Raw builds on last week, but short of D-Bryan Retirement
*
WWE Raw Social Media Tracking


March 4: Post-WrestleMania Raw built on last week’s momentum to rank #1 in Nielsen’s Twitter TV Ratings among series & specials on Monday night.

However, post-Mania Raw did not have enough juice to top the #1 socially-active Raw of the year – Daniel Bryan’s retirement show.

Nielsen’s new metrics indicate Raw generated 316,000 tweets from 56,000 unique authors, ranking #1 in series & specials ahead of “Love & Hip Hop: Atlanta.”

The NCAA Title game won the night with 1.824 million tweets from 787,000 authors.

By comparison, Daniel Bryan Retirement Raw in February generated 343,000 tweets from 83,000 unique authors, topping post-Mania Raw in both categories.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04...aw-builds-last-week-short-d-bryan-retirement/


----------



## Marrakesh

Can't see a huge bump for this Raw. Last years first hour nearly did 6 million. I think they'll be lucky to break 4 this year.


----------



## Empress

*WWE RAW Twitter Ratings, WWE Nominated For Awards*

- Monday's post-WrestleMania 32 WWE RAW ranked #1 among series & specials for the night in Nielsen's Twitter TV ratings. It looks like Nielsen has re-configured how they get their numbers or there's a glitch this week as RAW had a unique audience of 56,000, which represents the number of Twitter accounts that commented on the show. This is down from last week's 2.822 million and much lower than usual. RAW had total impressions of 316,000, which represents the number of times tweets about the show were seen. This is down from last week's 15.299 million impressions but as noted, it looks like Nielsen has changed things.

- The WWE Network and the WWE App have been nominated in the 2016 Webby Awards. Fans can vote below:


__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717372610955313152
http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0405/609467/wwe-raw-twitter-ratings/


----------



## D.M.N.

WrestleMania Kick Off (USA Network) - 1.322 million

http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/articl...-cable-originals-network-finals-4-3-2016.html


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

*H1-4.287M
H2-4.178M
H3-3.816M

Avg-4.094M
*









*H2 vs H1 (-2.54%/-0.109M) 
H3 Vs H2 (-8.66%/-0.362M)
H3 Vs H1 (-10.99%/-0.471M)

4/4 Vs 3/28
(+8.57%/+0.323M)*

*YtY comparison-

4.093M Vs 5.363M
(-23.68%/-1.270M)*


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

The Webbys?



:ha


----------



## Empress

*Top AT&T Stadium Attendance Records*

- As noted, WWE announced that they set an attendance record of 101,763 fans for WrestleMania 32 this past Sunday (Dave Meltzer reported that the actual attendance was 97,769). The 101,763 number would put WrestleMania 32 as the fifth largest event held at the stadium. Below are the top four:

1. 108,731: NBA All-Star Game, February 14, 2010
2. 105,121: Dallas Cowboys vs. N.Y. Giants, September 20, 2009
3. 104,793: George Strait Concert, June 7, 2014
4. 103,219: Super Bowl XLV, February 6, 2011

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0405/609469/triple-h-wwe-tv-return/


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> *H1-4.287M
> H2-4.178M
> H3-3.816M
> 
> Avg-4.094M
> *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *H2 vs H1 (-2.54%/-0.109M)
> H3 Vs H2 (-8.66%/-0.362M)
> H3 Vs H1 (-10.99%/-0.471M)
> 
> 4/4 Vs 3/28
> (+8.57%/+0.323M)*
> 
> *YtY comparison-
> 
> 4.093M Vs 5.363M
> (-23.68%/-1.270M)*


The lowest viewership and rating for a post WM RAW in 19 years. (Since WM13)


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

NCAA took its toll but the demo was pretty good. The game was great, I can't speak for RAW.


----------



## Empress

*How Was WWE RAW Viewership For The Biggest Episode Of The Year With WrestleMania 32 Fallout?*

Source: Showbuzz Daily

Monday's episode of WWE RAW, the biggest show of the year with the WrestleMania 32 fallout, drew 4.094 million viewers. This is up from last week's 3.764 million viewers for the go-home episode.

For this week's show, the first hour drew 4.287 million viewers, the second hour drew 4.178 million viewers and the final hour drew 3.816 million viewers.

RAW was #4 on cable for the night in viewership, behind the NCAA championship, post-show and tipoff on TBS. They were also #4 in the 18-49 demographic.

The post-WrestleMania 31 RAW last year drew 5.364 million viewers.

http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/201...ewership-for-the-biggest-episode-of-the-year/


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

2014 Raw after WM 30:

Hour One: 5.31 million viewers
Hour Two: 5.09 million viewers
Hour Three: 5.03 million viewers

2015 Raw after WM 31:


Hour 1: 5.2
Hour 2: 5.5
Hour 3: 5.2

This year:

Hour 1: 4.2
Hour 2: 4.1
Hour 3: 3.8


Getting lower and lower every year. First time they've hit under 4 million in the third hour (in the last 3 years), too.


----------



## The Boy Wonder

Not a good rating. Does anyone know the last time a post WM RAW fell on the same day as the NCAA finals?


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

This is lower than when a returning HHH won the title post RR RAW with 4.098M and this may or may not crack a 3.0R. Looks like the absence of the NCAA game last year helped last year's viewership and rating more than expected.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

The Boy Wonder said:


> Not a good rating. Does anyone know the last time a post WM RAW fell on the same day as the NCAA finals?


After WM 30, when Bryan won it:

Hour One: 5.31 million viewers

Hour Two: 5.09 million viewers

Hour Three: 5.03 million viewers


----------



## Empress

ShowStopper said:


> 2014 Raw after WM 30:
> 
> Hour One: 5.31 million viewers
> Hour Two: 5.09 million viewers
> Hour Three: 5.03 million viewers
> 
> 2015 Raw after WM 31:
> 
> 
> Hour 1: 4.17
> Hour 2: 4.34
> Hour 3: 4.04
> 
> This year:
> 
> Hour 1: 4.2
> Hour 2: 4.1
> Hour 3: 3.8
> 
> 
> Getting lower and lower every year. First time they've hit under 4 million in the third hour (in the last 3 years), too.


Was the NCAA on last year opposing RAW? I don't follow college basketball.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

ShowStopper said:


> 2014 Raw after WM 30:
> 
> Hour One: 5.31 million viewers
> Hour Two: 5.09 million viewers
> Hour Three: 5.03 million viewers
> 
> 2015 Raw after WM 31:
> 
> 
> Hour 1: 4.17
> Hour 2: 4.34
> Hour 3: 4.04
> 
> This year:
> 
> Hour 1: 4.2
> Hour 2: 4.1
> Hour 3: 3.8
> 
> 
> Getting lower and lower every year. First time they've hit under 4 million in the third hour (in the last 3 years), too.


The Barbarians are at the gates of The Roman Empire.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Empress said:


> Was the NCAA on last year opposing RAW? I don't follow college basketball.


No. In 2014 after WM 30 it did, though.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> Was the NCAA on last year opposing RAW? I don't follow college basketball.


It didnt and my guess is thats what inflated the viewership and rating even higher last year.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> It didnt and my guess is thats what inflated the rating even higher last year.


It did in 2014 though and look at the numbers for that one; all 3 hours over 5 million. That was pretty good.


----------



## SHIVV-EAUX-EMME-GEEE

Empress said:


> Was the NCAA on last year opposing RAW? I don't follow college basketball.


No. It just coincided this year. The NCAA game is always on a Monday, but post-Mania doesn't always compete with it.


----------



## Empress

Thank you @ShowStopper and @JonnyAceLaryngitis

I expected each hour to get 4 million viewers at the very least. But I guess college basketball took some of their audience.


----------



## dougfisher_05

ShowStopper said:


> After WM 30, when Bryan won it:
> 
> Hour One: 5.31 million viewers
> 
> Hour Two: 5.09 million viewers
> 
> Hour Three: 5.03 million viewers


Damn the bleed in just two years time has been crazy. They really are driving so many people away that by the time they are done all that will be left is the most hardcore fans.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> It did in 2014 though and look at the numbers for that one; all 3 hours over 5 million. That was pretty good.


Yeah because there were 2 major conclusions to 2 major storylines coming out of it. And they were enough to fend off the NCAA's adverse effect on viewership a bit. Thats why I consider the post WM 30 RAW's viewership and rating superior to the WM31 one.


----------



## Blade Runner

Honestly not a bad number at all, but it could've been much higher if they ended Wrestlemania with some newsworthy buzz. Shane winning could've done that for them seing as the landscape of WWE would've changed in a kayfabe sense


----------



## The Boy Wonder

That was an impressive rating, but to be honest there was more attention on Taker's streak ending than any hype surrounding the NCAA Championship. 

WWE made a big mistake not doing anything shocking at this year's WM, unlike the last two.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> Yeah because there were 2 major conclusions to 2 major storylines coming out of it. And they were enough to fend off the NCAA's adverse effect on viewership a bit. Thats why I consider the post WM 30 RAW's viewership and rating superior to the WM31 one.


People shit on the top storylines of that Mania alot, but compared to this year it wasn't that bad. Last year the build to WM was terrible; but the show itself surprisingly turned out to be pretty decent/good; I think that explains that one. Anyway; there is a clear trend of them decreasing every year now, and that's not a coincidence, basketball or not. Remember, they used to compete with and beat Monday Night Football..


----------



## Kabraxal

Even WM can't give a real bump to the ratings... The third hour practically dropped to the go home show level. People just don't like what the WWE is shovelking.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

ShowStopper said:


> People shit on the top storylines of that Mania alot, but compared to this year it wasn't that bad. Last year the build to WM was terrible; but the show itself surprisingly turned out to be pretty decent/good; I think that explains that one. Anyway; there is a clear trend of them decreasing every year now, and that's not a coincidence, basketball or not. Remember, they used to compete with and beat Monday Night Football..


They tried to derail Bryan's push, when that didnt work, they tried delaying it and finally gave in and made him win there. So that possibly ensured a lot of viewers turned in or at the least-not turn out soon. And the Shield's face turn also must have prevented more viewers from turning out sooner.

But the streak ending could have been the major deal there. Like what you said, the earlier 2 WMs had a case of bad to mediocre build up and good closure but this year it was a case of bad build up with a bad closure.


----------



## Blade Runner

Kabraxal said:


> Even WM can't give a real bump to the ratings... The third hour practically dropped to the go home show level. People just don't like what the WWE is shovelking.


The show was dying a slow death by the 3rd hour. I don't know why they don't keep a storyline going throughout the show to keep people at least a little bit interested. Shane was the GM and they barely did anything with it. It's all disjointed segments about feuds that people care little about so it's no wonder that the viewers fall into a coma by the end of it


----------



## Punkholic

For anyone interested, here is a comparison of the post-WM Raw viewership in the last three years:

2014:
Hour 1: 5,313,000
Hour 2: 5,094,000
Hour 3: 5,032,000
Average: 5,145,000

2015:
Hour 1: 5,227,000
Hour 2: 5,597,000
Hour 3: 5,267,000
Average: 5,364,000

2016:
Hour 1: 4,287,000
Hour 2: 4,178,000
Hour 3: 3,816,000
Average: 4,094,000


----------



## Empress

Kabraxal said:


> Even WM can't give a real bump to the ratings... The third hour practically dropped to the go home show level. People just don't like what the WWE is shovelking.


The show did lose some steam around the third hour. I'm glad I kept watching though. That main event was great. 

But the show did need some more shockers. I liked it for the most part.


----------



## Marrakesh

Atrocious number. No surprise though, called it a few posts ago when I said they'd be lucky to break 4m this year. 

There was nothing to tune in for. Reigns wins the title for the third time in four months in a feud hardly anybody cared about, Ambrose was jobbed out in 12 minutes and Shane McMahon lost his match for 'control of Monday night Raw' despite the fact that WWE actually acknowledged how bad the shows were in this storyline :lol 

:shrug The ratings in the next few weeks should be interesting. I see record low numbers on the horizon.


----------



## Punkholic

To expand this:

Wrestlemania 29 fallout RAW - 4.61 million (against NCAA)

Wrestlemania 30 fallout RAW - 5.14 million

Wrestlemania 31 fallout RAW - 5.364 million

WrestleMania 32 fallout RAW - 4.094 million (against NCAA)


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Punkholic said:


> To expand this:
> 
> Wrestlemania 29 fallout RAW - 4.61 million (against NCAA)
> 
> Wrestlemania 30 fallout RAW - 5.14 million
> 
> Wrestlemania 31 fallout RAW - 5.364 million
> 
> WrestleMania 32 fallout RAW - 4.094 million (against NCAA)


WM30 RAW also went against the NCAA.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

I'm glad they done bad numbers WM32 felt like a giant fuck you straight from Vince.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

I wonder if the returns of Cena, Rollins and Orton are put off for several weeks more. Reports state that Cesaro was a last minute replacement for an injured Zayn earlier on the show. Then again there were also reports that Owens was to retain the IC title and was rewritten at the last minute. It seems there arent even that many rehearsals anymore due to the sheer frequency of rewrites of late.


----------



## bullshitter

I thought raw was good, but wm was hugely disappointing, it was all about how it looked and NOT what it meant. They'll probably blame this on Shane and AJ. And it's simply wms fault.


----------



## RatedR10

I can't wait to see the number next week. :lmao


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

An engrossing 1st time feud that doesnt appear like a transitional one can do wonders and stem some of Reigns's backlash and if he does some tweenerish antics it will be even better. They teased this feud at the RR earlier this year too. Let's see what the coming weeks reveal. We have all seen Reigns can work great matches if he is in the ring with a great worker like Bryan. Hopefully AJ isnt another transitional opponent like Bryan from Fastlane or Sheamus from Survivor Series/TLC for Reigns to mow through until early or mid summer. Because that was Orton's spot the same time last year.


----------



## jcmmnx

This is what happens when you set up no interesting storylines coming out of the biggest show of the year. Fuck off with Part Time Mania already.


----------



## Empress

*4/4 Raw TV Ratings – did post-Mania Raw return to 3.0 rating?*

WWE has now gone one full year without reaching the 3.0 TV Rating mark. The last time remains last year’s post-WM31 Raw episode.

WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking

April 4: Monday’s Raw the night after WrestleMania 32 scored a 2.93 rating, falling short of the 3.0 ratings mark for the biggest Raw of the year.

Last year’s post-Mania Raw scored a 3.68 rating, representing a 21 percent year-to-year decline.

Within the 2016 ratings, Raw was up from a 2.66 rating last week, which was up from a 2.44 rating two weeks ago. Last week’s jump made it seem possible for Raw to get back to a 3.0 after WrestleMania.

Post-Mania Raw tied with the post-Royal Rumble Raw for the highest rating of the year – both registered 2.93 ratings. Viewership was nearly identical, too.

– Post-Mania Raw’s three hours averaged 4.093 million viewers, up 8.6 percent from last week’s Raw. But, the third hour dropped by the same percentage from the second hour.

– Post-Rumble Raw averaged 4.098 million viewers, very slightly edging post-Mania Raw.

4/4 Raw Hourly Break Down

4.287 million First Hour Viewers
4.178 million Second Hour Viewers
3.816 million Third Hour Viewers

The third hour appeared to be hurt by the NCAA Title game going down to the wire on TBS. For the first time, the game aired on cable, drawing 14 million viewers.

1/25 Post-Rumble Raw Break Down

4.140 million First Hour Viewers (less than post-WM32 Raw)
4.183 million Second Hour Viewers (very similar to post-WM32)
3.972 million Third Hour Viewers (more than post-WM32 Raw)

– DEMOGRAPHICS: Post-Mania Raw drew its highest demographic ratings of the year, slightly edging out post-Mania Raw.

Males 18-34 jumped to a 1.99 rating from a 1.48 rating last week, males 18-49 jumped to a 2.05 rating from a 1.68, and adults 18-49 increased to a 1.55 from a 1.35 last week.

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04/05/44-raw-tv-ratings-post-mania-raw-return-3-0-rating/


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

TheGeneticFreak said:


> I'm glad they done bad numbers WM32 felt like a giant fuck you straight from Vince.


That's because it was.
"All hope is gone" is straight up fan trolling.

Disgusting.

They lost almost 1.5 million viewers compared to last year. And last year wasn't even that great.

2.6 for Wrestlemania go-home.
2.9 for Wrestlemania fallout.

Jesus H. Fucking Christ.


----------



## scrapethattoast

DAMN SKIPPY said:


> Honestly not a bad number at all, but it could've been much higher if they ended Wrestlemania with some newsworthy buzz. Shane winning could've done that for them seing as the landscape of WWE would've changed in a kayfabe sense


How is it not a bad number when they lost over a million viewers compared to last years post WrestleMania RAW? Ok they had competition but it's still a terrible rating.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Good, just wait til football starts to see a real LOW number

Fuck them


----------



## Mr. I

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> I wonder if the returns of Cena, Rollins and Orton are put off for several weeks more. Reports state that Cesaro was a last minute replacement for an injured Zayn earlier on the show. Then again there were also reports that Owens was to retain the IC title and was rewritten at the last minute. It seems there arent even that many rehearsals anymore due to the sheer frequency of rewrites of late.


No report anywhere said Cesaro was a replacement for an injured Zayn.
Zayn isn't even injured, that's just a storyline.

Unless you thought Cesaro, who's been out since November, just happened to be there in his ring gear.


----------



## Blade Runner

scrapethattoast said:


> How is it not a bad number when they lost over a million viewers compared to last years post WrestleMania RAW? Ok they had competition but it's still a terrible rating.


It's still a fairly good number. Last year's number was better but it doesn't make this one bad. They had competition and no real hook from the Wrestlemania fallout -- last year they had Rollins cash-in which had people buzzing like crazy, and there wasn't a big game going head-to-head against them


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Empress said:


> *4/4 Raw TV Ratings – did post-Mania Raw return to 3.0 rating?*
> 
> WWE has now gone one full year without reaching the 3.0 TV Rating mark. The last time remains last year’s post-WM31 Raw episode.
> 
> WWE Raw TV Ratings Tracking
> 
> April 4: Monday’s Raw the night after WrestleMania 32 scored a 2.93 rating, falling short of the 3.0 ratings mark for the biggest Raw of the year.
> 
> Last year’s post-Mania Raw scored a 3.68 rating, representing a 21 percent year-to-year decline.
> 
> Within the 2016 ratings, Raw was up from a 2.66 rating last week, which was up from a 2.44 rating two weeks ago. Last week’s jump made it seem possible for Raw to get back to a 3.0 after WrestleMania.
> 
> Post-Mania Raw tied with the post-Royal Rumble Raw for the highest rating of the year – both registered 2.93 ratings. Viewership was nearly identical, too.
> 
> – Post-Mania Raw’s three hours averaged 4.093 million viewers, up 8.6 percent from last week’s Raw. But, the third hour dropped by the same percentage from the second hour.
> 
> – Post-Rumble Raw averaged 4.098 million viewers, very slightly edging post-Mania Raw.
> 
> 4/4 Raw Hourly Break Down
> 
> 4.287 million First Hour Viewers
> 4.178 million Second Hour Viewers
> 3.816 million Third Hour Viewers
> 
> The third hour appeared to be hurt by the NCAA Title game going down to the wire on TBS. For the first time, the game aired on cable, drawing 14 million viewers.
> 
> 1/25 Post-Rumble Raw Break Down
> 
> 4.140 million First Hour Viewers (less than post-WM32 Raw)
> 4.183 million Second Hour Viewers (very similar to post-WM32)
> 3.972 million Third Hour Viewers (more than post-WM32 Raw)
> 
> – DEMOGRAPHICS: Post-Mania Raw drew its highest demographic ratings of the year, slightly edging out post-Mania Raw.
> 
> Males 18-34 jumped to a 1.99 rating from a 1.48 rating last week, males 18-49 jumped to a 2.05 rating from a 1.68, and adults 18-49 increased to a 1.55 from a 1.35 last week.
> 
> http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04/05/44-raw-tv-ratings-post-mania-raw-return-3-0-rating/


If this didnt hit a 3.0R, we may very well not see a 3.0R for some time. Last year the RAW after the WM RAW drew a 2.81R, if RAW drops similarly, it would be a 2.3R-2.4R next week. 

However, last year's RAW did have more starpower like Brock(having his seemingly unstoppable reign end), Rollins(cash in euphoria and a 1st time WM cash in and 1st time title holder), Cena(reclaiming the poster boyish title and drawing in his usual fanbase), Orton(his relatively smaller fanbase)etc. This years RAW was already thinning on starpower and shock booking or as a lead in for fallout from the same.


----------



## JonnyAceLaryngitis

Ithil said:


> No report anywhere said Cesaro was a replacement for an injured Zayn.
> Zayn isn't even injured, that's just a storyline.
> 
> Unless you thought Cesaro, who's been out since November, just happened to be there in his ring gear.


Actually there were reports from several sites stating everything from the injury being legit, being a work to being legit and also worked in. We can never know the extent of the truth or gauge the veracity of the same. But what we can see is that WWE seems to be placing back up options on the spur of the moment ranging from rewrites stemming from injury to their own last minute booking decisions.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

They didn't hit a 3.0 rating.

:lmao :lmao :lmao

Terrible rating no matter how you slice it.


----------



## Russoite

I am genuinely shocked by the rating was expecting atleast a 3.4

Its really bad.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

Not a bad rating?????

The last time they did 4.X million for WM Fallout was 3 years ago, and that had the terrible Cena/Rock II at the end, AND competition, and it still did 600.000 viewers better than this year!

By the way, who predicted them not hitting a 3.0?

This guy


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

I expected a pretty big number. I'm shocked they didn't crack a 3.0 rating. The post-Mania Raw two years ago that went against a much bigger NCAA Championship game did a 3.7.

But I guess after seeing Vince give them the middle finger, the fans returned the favor.


----------



## Mr. I

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> Actually there were reports from several sites stating everything from the injury being legit, being a work to being legit and also worked in. We can never know the extent of the truth or gauge the veracity of the same. But what we can see is that WWE seems to be placing back up options on the spur of the moment ranging from rewrites stemming from injury to their own last minute booking decisions.


Link them.


----------



## Russoite

Soul Man Danny B said:


> Meltzer confirmed on his radio show this morning that the "1.82 million" network number "includes freebies". It's *not* the number of paid subscribers.


Probably. I borrowed someone elses debit card just to bypass the one time free promotion. 

Remember thouhh you have to remember to cancel. That is why WWE is doing this. They think people will forget.


----------



## Born of Osiris

Oh my GOD that is hilariously pathetic :lmao


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

Oh, we're still doing the "basketball/football/award shows/poltical event" excuse to cover up the shittyness that is WWE in 2016.

Shit is shit and the fans have finally realized that. Mania, in many ways for many people, was a fuck you from WWE for all the hijacking nonsense fans pulled for two straight Manias back in 2014. Favorites like New Day, Styles, Sasha, Becky, Ambrose, Shane all lost at Mania with one of the most hated babyfaces of the modern era in Roman Reigns standing tall as the new WWE World champion for a THIRD TIME.

They deserve this. All of this. That's what you get for thinking putting bandaids (Cesaro, Enzo/Cass, AJ's win) over bullet holes would make everything good again. You couldn't even break a 3.0 for a post-Mania RAW. Absolutely pathetic and inexcusable.

2016 may end up being even worse than 2015, if you could even imagine that. I also predict RAW will get a 1.9 or lower rating this year. It's long overdue, honestly. Especially when August/September comes crashing down with football. WWE is about to have a rude awakening and I have no sympathy for them. At all.


----------



## TheLooseCanon

JonnyAceLaryngitis said:


> The lowest viewership and rating for a post WM RAW in 19 years. (Since WM13)


The Roman Empire draws as champ!


----------



## JTB33b

Wow even with the shitty product lately I was expecting the ratings to be higher than that with it being a post WM raw. Though it was Baseball opening night(I don't count the 3 games Sunday as opening day/night).


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

Lowest viewed Raw after Mania since WM 13, 1997.

EDIT: Ninja'd. Oh well. Either way, YIKES.


----------



## Randy Lahey

If January to March is considered "Road to Wrestlemania", then April to December should be considered "Road to Cancellation". WWE is dead in its current format.


----------



## Raw-Is-Botchamania

WINNING DA BASED GAWD said:


> Oh, we're still doing the "basketball/football/award shows/poltical event" excuse to cover up the shittyness that is WWE in 2016.
> 
> Shit is shit and the fans have finally realized that. Mania, in many ways for many people, was a fuck you from WWE for all the hijacking nonsense fans pulled for two straight Manias back in 2014. Favorites like New Day, Styles, Sasha, Becky, Ambrose, Shane all lost at Mania with one of the most hated babyfaces of the modern era in Roman Reigns standing tall as the new WWE World champion for a THIRD TIME.
> 
> They deserve this. All of this. That's what you get for thinking putting bandaids (Cesaro, Enzo/Cass, AJ's win) over bullet holes would make everything good again. You couldn't even break a 3.0 for a post-Mania RAW. Absolutely pathetic and inexcusable.
> 
> 2016 may end up being even worse than 2015, if you could even imagine that. I also predict RAW will get a 1.9 or lower rating this year. It's long overdue, honestly. Especially when August/September comes crashing down with football. WWE is about to have a rude awakening and I have no sympathy for them. At all.


PLEASE tell me the name of your avatar girl! I need positive associations with this board.


----------



## Sincere

Execute a scorched earth strategy over all of WWE's main roster booking/creative department. 
Have Vince declared mentally incompetent, committed, and institutionalized. 
Hire some people who are actually talented, creative, and give a fuck. 
???
Profit.


----------



## TheGeneticFreak

I really shouldn't be surprised the whole Shane story was them admitting that their own product was bad and if Shane won the product would be good but they had him lose why should people turn into a product they themselves said were bad.


----------



## Mr. WrestleMania

*SETH ROLLINS TO BE IN WWE STUDIOS MOVIE WITH WESLEY SNIPES*



> *WWE SENT US THE FOLLOWING TODAY*
> 
> EREBUS PICTURES, WWE® STUDIOS AND THE GENE SIMMONS COMPANY ANNOUNCE WESLEY SNIPES, ANNE HECHE, DAVE ANNABLE AND WWE SUPERSTAR SETH ROLLINS® TO STAR IN JOHN STOCKWELL'S THRILLER "TEMPLE"
> Principal Photography to start April 6th
> 
> Los Angeles, CA (April 5, 2016) - Erebus Pictures, the genre specialty label formed by Multi Media Magnate and KISS co-founder Gene Simmons and WWE Studios, announced today that Wesley Snipes (The Expendables 3), Anne Heche (Wild Card), Dave Annable (Brothers and Sisters) and WWE Superstar Seth Rollins are on board to star in the John Stockwell directed thriller TEMPLE. Filming will commence on Wednesday, April 6th. Snipes will also serve as a producer on TEMPLE along with Simmons and WWE Studios President Michael Luisi.
> 
> TEMPLE, written by Matt Savelloni (Exile to Babylon), and directed by John Stockwell (In The Blood), follows a team of trained operatives consisting of Snipes, Heche, Annable and Rollins, who find themselves trapped inside an isolated military compound after its artificial intelligence is suddenly shut down—and then begin to experience strange and horrific phenomena.
> 
> "Gene and I are thrilled to have such a stellar cast on board for our first Erebus picture." said Michael Luisi, President WWE Studios. "We also look forward to extending our relationship with John Stockwell."
> 
> "I could not be more pleased that we are launching our first film for Erebus pictures and have John on board to direct." said Gene Simmons. "I am really looking forward to working with this fantastic cast as well as Michael and the whole team at WWE."
> 
> "It's exciting to find myself in a genre I have always wanted to explore." said Wesley Snipes "We are looking forward to a great brand collaboration with Erebus, WWE and Gene."
> 
> As previously announced, Gene Simmons partnered with WWE Studios to launch Erebus Pictures to produce elevated genre films. Erebus Pictures plans to use WWE's extensive platforms from weekly TV shows, including WWE's flagship programs, Monday Night Raw® and SmackDown®, digital, social media and WWE Network, to market the film.
> 
> Bradley Buchanan handled negotiations on behalf of WWE Studios.


Seth in movies with Wesley Snipes while Raw ratings are tanking the night after 'Mania. Justice is served.

:rollins

http://www.wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/2016/0405/609479/wwe-studios-announces-movie-with-seth-rollins/


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

TheGeneticFreak said:


> *why should people turn into a product they themselves said were bad*.


I remember this storyline! It's what TNA ran into the ground two years ago with Dixie Carter... right around the time I stopped watching *and right before they started circling the drain*.


----------



## Sincere

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717568719359049729


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

I can't stress how much WWE fucked this up, man. :ti


----------



## squarebox

I don't get it though. If ratings really meant as much as we think they do, then why do people continue to attend shows, PPVs and all the rest of it? There doesn't seem to be a decline in attendances does there? WM set an attendance record, did it not? What am I missing here? People are still turning up to shows and buying plenty of merch, sadly the ratings only seem to play a very small part in all of this.


----------



## LIL' WINNING FOOT

Because WrestleMania sells itself. There are very few actual stars that will actually draw people to the event (Rock, Austin, Lesnar, Cena) but the event itself is how WWE is able to make huge profit (well, relatively speaking) for themselves and for the city they are apart of that weekend.

Don't be fooled, though. Attendance have been inconsistent and down. Ratings are going at all time lows. Interest and buzz (sans Mania season and even now that is debatable) for the company is lukewarm to nonexistent. It's a shitty product. People just watch out of habit or because nothing else of interest is on. Not because they truly want to.


----------



## Reotor

Sincere said:


> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717568719359049729


wow what a huuuge drop compared to last year post wrestlemania.
And a HUGE warning sign to Vince that his booking decisions are the worst and killed what little wind they had in their sails.


----------



## Soul Man Danny B

__ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717071227920248832WWE is obviously hoping a ton of people forget to cancel to make up for all the free Mania's.


----------



## amhlilhaus

Reotor said:


> Sincere said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> __ https://twitter.com/i/web/status/717568719359049729
> 
> 
> 
> wow what a huuuge drop compared to last year post wrestlemania.
> And a HUGE warning sign to Vince that his booking decisions are the worst and killed what little wind they had in their sails.
Click to expand...

You guys still dont get it: vince doesnt care. Wwe is his baby. He books the show on what he wants to see, and he wants reigns as champ winning everything. The fact his brand is strong enough to be profitable just enables him to keep on keeping on. If the company ever starts truly losing money (some debate on this, as they used some cash reserves to prop up their dividend) they are completely fucked.

I proposition that wwe is scrapimg the very bottom of their fan base. For all the talk of being global, wwe is still a us company. Overseas revenue alone would not come close to keeping them in business. If their hardcore us fans quit, they wont come back and wwe wont recover from it. Ratings are indications the base is eroding. Sure some watch online, some catch up in condensed form but they lost a million viewers the last year alone. Most of those just stopped watching.

Its a warning, but vince is jerking it to romans picture so hes too busy to notice


----------



## Dark_Raiden

To be fair, WM30 had fall out from Batista (who has proven to pop ratings to 5 million on his return), and WM31 the Streak ended. 

Also can't draw with the likes of AJ, Owens, Zayn, Cesaro, Jericho in the main event.


----------



## Bushmaster

Wow, the ratings were that bad. Just assumed they'd get a great rating because it's Raw after Mania. 

Guess those who watched Mania for free decided not to tune in.


----------

