So much for that CM Punk will draw ratings thing...

[ZeroVX]

Not intending that at all. I'm being completely sincere when I've been saying there has been great discussion in this thread. I would love for that kind of discussion to continue.

Says the man who actually admitted to trolling Punk fans. You'll have to excuse me if I take this with about a metric ton of salt.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

I'd say from arguing with you incessantly for about 6 years now that I have a pretty good idea of who you are and why you make threads like these. And that's to gloat and stroke your own ego.

The gospel.

 

[Slyfox696]

The fact that you keep insisting that you made this thread to have a mature and meaningful discussion about CM Punk's ability as a draw is unbelievably amusing. You know damn well you made this thread to take a dig at CM Punk's fans (AKA the massive majority of this forum), point your finger and gloat and say "Nah nah nah, I told you so! Punk can't draw the big bucks!"

I'd say from arguing with you incessantly for about 6 years now that I have a pretty good idea of who you are and why you make threads like these. And that's to gloat and stroke your own ego.

I pointed out the truth when I started this thread. However, by the time you entered the thread with your following comment, there was already great discussion being had.

Oh look, Sly trolling CM Punk fans. By god I've never seen this before.

That was the first comment you made in this thread. It had nothing to do with the thread, nor did it even fit in with the discussion which was currently going on in the thread. But I ignored your comment, and continued on with the other discussion.

However, you weren't done. I guess because you were upset I didn't respond to your first post, which I considered to be an obvious trolling attempt, you then made your next post which was this:

I fucking love how whenever a rating drops even the slightest bit people who hate whoever the focus of the show is on at that time love to talk non-stop about how this proves that the guy they don't like sucks or can't draw ratings.

Well Slyfox, guess what? WWE ratings across the board have done nothing but decrease since John Cena came into the main event scene as the number one babyface. Where's the blame for that? Weird, I don't remember you ever having a problem with that. Ratings, PPV buyrates, and house show attendance have all been on a downward spiral since Cena became the top guy. Funny how you never had a problem with that, but RAW drops 200,000 viewers in one week and that conclusively proves that Punk isn't a draw? Get the fuck out of here with that absolute ridiculous nonsense.

Unless your name is The Rock or Stone Cold, no one is going to draw big ratings for the WWE anymore. Period, bottom line, end of story. That includes all of your favorite wrestlers Sly as well as mine.

And then your third post immediately after your second:

If you seriously think that the "masses" of WWE fans haven't been interested in this Cena/Punk program, you are absolutely positively full of steaming shit.

What did John Cena have to do with either Punk or the rating for this week? What did John Cena have to do with the fact that since Punk had his IWC regarded earth shattering promo which had so many on this forum saying how great he was going to be and how big of a name he was going to become in the business...what does John Cena have to do with the fact that since Punk gave his promo, there has been no noticeable change in ratings? Why mention Cena at all?

The reason you mentioned Cena, and I think we both know this, is because you know he's one of my favorite wrestlers. You were trying to get a rise out of me, simply because you disliked the fact you thought I was trying to put Punk and/or his fans down. Once again, I consider that an obvious trolling attempt.

By the way, let's go ahead and clear the air. Trolling has nothing to do with having a popular opinion. Trolling is an attempt by one person to elicit an emotional response, usually in the form of anger, of another person, including but not limited to, by hurling insults at them. In this, you most certainly have been trolling in my mind, for reasons I have pointed out.

So, X, now that I've explained to you exactly where I consider you to have been trolling, how about you drop the combative behavior? How about you quit trying to compose posts which are meant to put me down? I'll go ahead and ask you once more, to comment in a meaningful and respectful way.

Says the man who actually admitted to trolling Punk fans. You'll have to excuse me if I take this with about a metric ton of salt.

Fair enough, don't blame you. However, regardless of how you wish to view the first post in the thread, if you read through the thread, everything I have been saying about the quality of discussion, as well as the maturity level (once the Alt was kicked) has been mostly accurate, has it not?

 

[TSG]

It has been entertaining, I was on the edge of my seat like most others on this forum during the "main-event" Monday night. But I don't think the WWE "broke the rules", so to speak, to keep the status quo on ratings.

And that's my whole point. You could argue the semantics, the small stuff, and draw it out for posts upon posts like you guys have done in this thread. But I really don't see the point in it. I will keep my two cents on this short and simple, and I'm pretty sure you all can agree with me.

Has Punk boosted ratings? Nope, not in the slightest. But rating have been on a slow decrease since the early-mid 2000's and they haven't gone up for anything. The fact is, that this is just a short two-three month program it seems, and it may not be drawing anyone new in, but it's not driving any fans, casual or IWC, away. If anything it's gaining a bit of money because Punk's merch sales are through the roof, and nothing else has significantly dropped. Nothing has been hurt by it, and even though it's been pointed out before in this thread, I'll say it again - there really isn't anything that WWE can to boost ratings short term. This hasn't caused ratings to drop and like I and others said before, fans are going to watch if they're already watching, and ratings are generally going to stay the same as long as WWE has this negative stigma around it. But the fans that do watch, IWC and casual, are invested in this more than just about any other storyline in the past few years, so it's seems like it's a success.

The main thing here, though, is we can all agree the storyline is entertaining, it's not hurting anything, and WWE has found a new, reliable commodity in C.M. Punk. They have also created an interesting character with him that really hasn't been done before, which is hard to do in wrestling today. Overall, it seems like this all has been successful, and arguing over the semantics of it isn't proving anything. The main facts of it aren't going to change, and that is something that you really can't dispute.

 

[Coco]

The main thing here, though, is we can all agree the storyline is entertaining

Is it though? Sly's casual wife can't access the issues. Punk's promos are to casuals what Deadwood dialogue is to most people: They don't get a large amount of it, but perk up a little when cock sucking is being discussed. Yeah, that's the analogy I'm going to stick with. Why? Because I just really wanted to say "cock sucking."

 

[Slyfox696]

But rating have been on a slow decrease since the early-mid 2000's and they haven't gone up for anything.

This seems to be a popular opinion, but it's not really true. Business actually did go up, both ratings and PPV business from the time Cena arrived on Raw as a main-eventer until the Benoit double-murder suicide. Since that time, the WWE has never regained the audience they lost.

If you go back and look at the ratings for 2007, before the Benoit situation, Raw was averaging a 3.848, which rounds up to a 3.9. After Benoit, Raw averaged a 3.4.

Benoit, and the steroid scandal shortly after, put the WWE in the situation they currently are in. But before this, the WWE was doing very well in the ratings.

The fact is, that this is just a short two-three month program it seems, and it may not be drawing anyone new in, but it's not driving any fans, casual or IWC, away.

It isn't yet, but there are other possibilities of hurting the long term business of the WWE, which I mentioned earlier in the thread in a couple of different posts.

If anything it's gaining a bit of money because Punk's merch sales are through the roof

Aside from his one shirt which seems as if it is selling well, I'm not sure how accurate this statement is.

The main thing here, though, is we can all agree the storyline is entertaining, it's not hurting anything

Being entertaining and not hurting anything aren't necessarily the same. As an example, Bill Goldberg pinning Hollywood Hogan on Nitro was extremely entertaining...but think of all the money they lost out on by not putting it on PPV.

and WWE has found a new, reliable commodity in C.M. Punk. They have also created an interesting character with him that really hasn't been done before, which is hard to do in wrestling today. Overall, it seems like this all has been successful

The biggest success they can gain from it, assuming we don't see an explosion in the ratings in the near future, is Punk as a credible main-eventer. However, we'll have to see what Punk can do when he's forced to use the same material everyone else uses, to truly see how over Punk is.

I'm not saying he cannot do it, I'm just saying we'll have to wait and see.

 

[X]

I pointed out the truth when I started this thread. However, by the time you entered the thread with your following comment, there was already great discussion being had.

"Great" discussion? What I saw was you basically dancing around Punk fans, wagging your finger and saying "Nanny nanny boo boo". Oh you do it in a far more subtle way then just coming out and saying something like that, but it's one of your trademark attributes and it's exactly what you're doing here, again. What possible meaningful discussion could be had based off of a grand total of two RAW Nielsen ratings? To say the sample size is too small to come to a conclusive judgment here (like you have) would be a gross understatement.

I, on the other hand, am not one for subtlety as we all know. If I think someone is being a prick, I'll say just that. If I think someone is trolling, I'll say just that. Not like I was even the first person in the thread to say this either.

However, you weren't done. I guess because you were upset I didn't respond to your first post, which I considered to be an obvious trolling attempt, you then made your next post which was this:

I wasn't upset that you didn't acknowledge my first post, I was simply commenting on the thread's relevant topic.

What did John Cena have to do with either Punk or the rating for this week? What did John Cena have to do with the fact that since Punk had his IWC regarded earth shattering promo which had so many on this forum saying how great he was going to be and how big of a name he was going to become in the business...what does John Cena have to do with the fact that since Punk gave his promo, there has been no noticeable change in ratings? Why mention Cena at all?

The reason you mentioned Cena, and I think we both know this, is because you know he's one of my favorite wrestlers. You were trying to get a rise out of me, simply because you disliked the fact you thought I was trying to put Punk and/or his fans down. Once again, I consider that an obvious trolling attempt.

You're partially correct in that I did choose John Cena because he's one of your favorite wrestlers. The other main reason I brought him up though was to point out the fact that business as a whole has gone down under Cena's reign, and you've never made a peep about it. If you're going to jump on Punk for a grand total of two god damn weeks worth of ratings, then you sure as shit better call out Cena and Batista and the rest of the top stars of the last decade, because business all went down under them. And yet...they were still pushed, and are still considered draws. Why? Because measuring someone as a draw is alot more than whether you drop or gain 200,000 viewers on one damn week worth of TV. Just like it isn't Cena or Batista's fault that business went down, it isn't Punk's fault that the rating is down. There are other extenuating circumstances, as I mentioned before. That's my entire point here.

By the way, let's go ahead and clear the air. Trolling has nothing to do with having a popular opinion. Trolling is an attempt by one person to elicit an emotional response, usually in the form of anger, of another person, including but not limited to, by hurling insults at them. In this, you most certainly have been trolling in my mind, for reasons I have pointed out.

You call it trolling, I call it raising the point that you only bring up ratings and other shit like this as proof that someone "can't draw" when it's about wrestlers you don't like, and never about wrestlers you do. Which would seem to be pretty hypocritical in my opinion.

So, X, now that I've explained to you exactly where I consider you to have been trolling, how about you drop the combative behavior? How about you quit trying to compose posts which are meant to put me down? I'll go ahead and ask you once more, to comment in a meaningful and respectful way.

I've made several "meaningful and respectful" posts in this thread. I throw in a few curse words but it's nowhere near as disrespectful as the subtle way you like to tell everyone their stupid and that you're smarter than them. Which, again, would seem to be the real point of this thread.

 

[gurvinder372]

So, the success criteria for Punk's promo and this hugely entertaining angle is number of people/threads/posts on this forum, and not the TV ratings??
-- When Rock came back on Raw we suddenly saw the ratings going up, which could be seen as one of the success criterion for Rock's comeback, apart from number of posts on this site.
-- during the nexus angle, Cena got a huge fan-following on facebook, and he is now in top 10 athletes on facebook with around 10 million fans. TV ratings were regularly at 3.3 to 3.5

I am not sure if Punk has got that much fan following on twitter or facebook or anywhere else. So, how have we concluded that punk has reached that level, where could be a draw on his own?

I guess there is a confusion here. Its not about how talented punk is on the mic and in the ring. Almost everyone has agreed to it. Its about whether or not punk's promo and this angle as a whole has resulted in more people getting drawn to WWE.

 

[Slyfox696]

Is it though? Sly's casual wife can't access the issues. Punk's promos are to casuals what Deadwood dialogue is to most people: They don't get a large amount of it, but perk up a little when cock sucking is being discussed. Yeah, that's the analogy I'm going to stick with. Why?

And honestly, my wife is simply anecdotal evidence, and not really the audience the WWE is going after. But it is evidence, and I don't think she is alone in that thinking.

Because I just really wanted to say "cock sucking."

Careful, you'll get KB all hot and bothered.

 

[Thriller Ant]

-- When Rock came back on Raw we suddenly saw the ratings going up, which could be seen as one of the success criterion for Rock's comeback, apart from number of posts on this site.

That was WrestleMania season. The ratings always go up that time of year

 

[Coco]

San Francisco. Cock suckah!

 

[gurvinder372]

That was WrestleMania season. The ratings always go up that time of year

But still there was a more than noticeable surge in ratings. We can't just take the credit away from Rock and give it to wrestlemania season. Rock's presence and his comeback made a significant difference to it.

 

[TSG]

This seems to be a popular opinion, but it's not really true. Business actually did go up, both ratings and PPV business from the time Cena arrived on Raw as a main-eventer until the Benoit double-murder suicide. Since that time, the WWE has never regained the audience they lost.

Yes, this is true, but if you compare the ratings from 2007-now to what they were in 2003-2006, they've gone down, and if you compare the ones from 2003-2006 to the ones in 2001-2002, they went down. It might not be a serious decline, but it's there and it is gradually happening. That definitely cannot be denied.

It isn't yet, but there are other possibilities of hurting the long term business of the WWE, which I mentioned earlier in the thread in a couple of different posts.

This is true, but we can discuss that when, you know, it actually happens. Fortunately, it hasn't happened yet, so there is no need to discuss it. And since there are no signs of it happening any time soon, and trust me, there isn't, then it's not even a worry at the slightest. No more than the gradual ratings decline I pointed out is.

Aside from his one shirt which seems as if it is selling well, I'm not sure how accurate this statement is.

But that one shirt is still selling very well, which means more profit. Simple math.

Being entertaining and not hurting anything aren't necessarily the same. As an example, Bill Goldberg pinning Hollywood Hogan on Nitro was extremely entertaining...but think of all the money they lost out on by not putting it on PPV.

You cannot honestly be comparing that to the storyline now. I can get where you're coming from, yeah - entertaining doesn't always mean not hurting. But WWE hasn't done anything stupid like putting a PPV-caliber main event that can sell out an arena and draw huge numbers in four days on TV instead of hyping it for a month. They have simply put out a quality build for a feud that hasn't hurt any ratings that has emotionally invested internet and casual fans alike more than any other recently. There is a huge difference there.

Once again, I think you're looking ahead and seeing what you want to see, instead of what is actually happening. None of this has happened and nothing points to it being likely to happen.

The biggest success they can gain from it, assuming we don't see an explosion in the ratings in the near future, is Punk as a credible main-eventer. However, we'll have to see what Punk can do when he's forced to use the same material everyone else uses, to truly see how over Punk is

.

I personally think Punk can do it, because he did it on Smackdown in 2009 and 2010, and that is really the only other shot he had. He has proved he is entertaining on the mic when given a shot, they just have to realize he doesn't need a script or to be guided through. He is one of the few special talents, like Cena and Jericho, that can go out there and cut a great promo without being told exactly what to do. I'm not sure if WWE realizes this just because they have so many talents that cannot do it in today's product.

But, once again, that's getting into small stuff that isn't relevant to this debate. That's a subject for a different topic, but I am sure I could go on forever about that one too.

I'm not saying he cannot do it, I'm just saying we'll have to wait and see.

I think he can do it, but I have always been a Punk supporter, so that's nothing new coming from me. I think it all depends on how WWE books him, but once again, different topic, different day.

 

[Slyfox696]

"Great" discussion? What I saw was you basically dancing around Punk fans, wagging your finger and saying "Nanny nanny boo boo".

Completely untrue. Go back and read the thread.

We were discussing the psychology of the IWC wrestling audience, KB "stated the obvious" by pointing out casuals care more about fighting than talking, Coco and I were discussing the level of honesty the WWE had with its audience, and whether or not more real life situations should be brought onto television, Brain related his story of the guy in the bar who calls Punk Phil, Zero and KB talked about how meaningful it is for Punk to be airing behind the scenes dirty laundry, Coco asked how I would boost ratings and I told him how which included some things he liked...and without continuing to look through the thread, I'm sure there are more examples.

There most certainly was very good discussion being had.

I, on the other hand, am not one for subtlety as we all know.

I don't think there's a soul who will dispute this.

You're partially correct in that I did choose John Cena because he's one of your favorite wrestlers.

Thank you for being honest.

The other main reason I brought him up though was to point out the fact that business as a whole has gone down under Cena's reign, and you've never made a peep about it.

Because there's nothing to suggest Cena is the reason for the sharp ratings decline which began in the summer of 2007. The much more obvious reason was the Benoit and steroid scandals, so I don't see a need to discuss Cena's involvement in ratings that went down over a 6 month span after all the negative publicity the Benoit scandal created.

And business as a whole hasn't gone down under Cena's reign. Since Cena became champion in 2005, revenue has increased every year except 2009, merchandise sales went from $79.8 million in fiscal 2005 (which I believe for the WWE meant from April of 2004 to April 2005, they changed to a January to December financial policy in 2007), to its peak of $135.7 million in 2008, and is currently at $97.4 for 2010, and profit has grown from $39.1 million in fiscal 2005 (right before Cena became champion) to $53.5 million in 2010.

So, no, business hasn't gone down under Cena, it very much has went up.

My two sources are from my Financial Information in the General Wrestling forum, and the following link:

https://materials.proxyvote.com/Approved/98156Q/20110304/AR_82759/HTML2/wwe-ar2010_0023.htm

Yes, this is true, but if you compare the ratings from 2007-now to what they were in 2003-2006, they've gone down, and if you compare the ones from 2003-2006 to the ones in 2001-2002, they went down. It might not be a serious decline, but it's there and it is gradually happening. That definitely cannot be denied.

Right, and 2007 is when Benoit killed his wife and child. The WWE has not rebounded from that.

This is true, but we can discuss that when, you know, it actually happens. Fortunately, it hasn't happened yet, so there is no need to discuss it.

I disagree. If someone had done that for Eric Bischoff and Time Warner, no telling how the landscape of professional wrestling might have changed.

Obviously, Vince isn't reading these boards, but that doesn't make the discussion less relevant.

But that one shirt is still selling very well, which means more profit. Simple math.

Indeed, but for a company which brought in over $97 million in profit in 2010, one shirt probably isn't going to show a noticeable difference in revenue.

You cannot honestly be comparing that to the storyline now.

I'm not comparing it, I'm just showing how just because something is entertaining it doesn't mean it cannot hurt your business.

I personally think Punk can do it, because he did it on Smackdown in 2009 and 2010, and that is really the only other shot he had.

Did he though? If he had done it then, would there be such a buzz about him now?

 

[TSG]

Right, and 2007 is when Benoit killed his wife and child. The WWE has not rebounded from that.

Oh, I'm not going to argue that. But the main point I was making is that ratings have been declining gradually. It wasn't just the Benoit thing, because if you look at ratings in 2006, and go back and compare them to 2001, they were lower. Just like if you look at the ratings today, and compare them to the ones from 2006, they are lower. I won't argue Benoit and steroids didn't help them go down, they did, but they were very gradually going down anyway. It's simply that pro wrestling has been in a slump for a while. Nothing is going to boost those ratings immediately. Nothing boosted them in 2002, nothing boosted them when they were about .1 lower 2004, nothing boosted them when they went down in 2007, and nothing is going to boost them now, at least not immediately. Regardless of whether Benoit had anything to do with them going down more in 2007 (and he did, I'm sure), and regardless of whether they were gradually going down before that (they were), they aren't going to suffer any immediate boost because of C.M. Punk. Which relegates back to the point I was making, the rating aren't going to be brought up significantly because of Punk, but they aren't dropping significantly either, so it's really not hurting anything. At all.

I disagree. If someone had done that for Eric Bischoff and Time Warner, no telling how the landscape of professional wrestling might have changed.

This has no relevance what-so-ever to what I'm trying to discuss about Punk and the fact that he isn't hurting anything at all. Like, none. I think you're trying to bring this stuff in to get me off-topic, or maybe you just have it on your mind for some reason. Either way, what happened in WCW has no relevance to this. I do get how you're trying to make it have relevance, but it doesn't.

Indeed, but for a company which brought in over $97 million in profit in 2010, one shirt probably isn't going to show a noticeable difference in revenue.

It isn't hurting anything either. It's probably not even a blip on the WWE's money-making radar, but at least it's not hurting anything either. Which was my point to begin with.

I'm not comparing it, I'm just showing how just because something is entertaining it doesn't mean it cannot hurt your business.

I 100% agree, and your example was a good one of it. But the simple fact is there is a huge difference between the two, and what hurt WCW with that decision is in no way hurting WWE, because the same mistake isn't being made. All I'm saying that is until ratings significantly drop (and I'm talking more than just the slump pro wrestling in general has been in recently, I mean drop into the mid-low 2's and there is a noticeable and significant decrease in viewership because of Punk and his angles) and you can prove that Punk is losing money and hurting viewership and business, then you cannot prove my main point wrong, and that is that Punk is entertaining the fans, casual and IWC alike, more than they have been entertained in awhile, and is not hurting anything in the meantime. When RAW starts drawing 2.5 ratings due to Punk, and they are losing money because Punk is in the main event of a pay-per--view, I'll concede defeat. Until then, you have no valid way of proving me wrong.

Did he though? If he had done it then, would there be such a buzz about him now?

If you really don't think Punk was over as a heel feuding with Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy in 2009-2010, you must not know your wrestling very well. Honestly you can't even argue it didn't draw main event, because Hardy and Punk were main eventing Smackdown and drawing the regular numbers.

There is buzz about it now because they are actually marketing Punk and the storyline outside of the E, with stuff like the interviews he does and the whole Comic-Con thing. That and the fact that ESPN picked up on it because it seemed legitimate (to casual fans) at the time it began and WWE usually doesn't deviate from the norm and do worked shoots like that, so it seemed big. For about a week's period wrestling was cool to more some mainstream media sites because it broke taboo. It's not the type of thing that translates into a ratings boost, but for awhile it doesn't get media attention.

The main reason there is buzz about him now though, is the fact that WWE is actually pushing this is a major storyline on the main show, where as Punk and Hardy was overshadowed by two storylines on RAW and only main evented Summerslam because of the gimmick match, and when he feuded with Mysterio it was a mid-caard program. Punk has put on great storylines before, they just never got buzz because they weren't pushed as the major storyline in the company like it is now.

Once again, whether Punk has potential or not isn't really relevant to the debate of whether or not he is hurting anything now, because it's clear that, regardless or whether or not he does good after this feud, during this feud now he is doing good and that is all that matters.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I have things to add. However, reading through all of this, I feel like a professional organizer on an episode of Hoarders... where would I begin??

Fuck it.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

So, the success criteria for Punk's promo and this hugely entertaining angle is number of people/threads/posts on this forum, and not the TV ratings??
-- When Rock came back on Raw we suddenly saw the ratings going up, which could be seen as one of the success criterion for Rock's comeback, apart from number of posts on this site.
-- during the nexus angle, Cena got a huge fan-following on facebook, and he is now in top 10 athletes on facebook with around 10 million fans. TV ratings were regularly at 3.3 to 3.5

WWE has been having similar ratings during WM season since 2008, sometimes even a bit higher. 3.3 is not that high a rating actually. WWE got a 3.3 last week. Actually this ties in with what everyone else has been saying in the defense of Punk, that nothing could get the WWE a huge ratings boost and so it would be meaningless to except it out of Punk.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

Did he though? If he had done it then, would there be such a buzz about him now?

Punk drew pretty well in 2009 with Hardy. Their TLC match at SummerSlam even main evented over a Cena/ Orton match. Of course, since then he has been booked as shit. He has been booked to lose feud after feud since then when he could have easily won at least two of those feuds. Apart from that his feuds have mostly been given a midcard or an upper midcard billing which has caused the casual fans to forget about him almost completely. The reason why there is a buz about Punk is that most of his fans are treating this as his resurgence rather than his first ever big impact.

 

[The Bearded One]

I'm not sure if this is relevant to the discussion or not, but I've had several friends start watching wrestling over the past few weeks who either haven't watched since the nWo days, or haven't ever watched. Why did they tune in? Because they heard about the CM Punk stuff in other media. They watched and are now hooked.

 

[Nate DaMac]

You cannot honestly be comparing that to the storyline now. I can get where you're coming from, yeah - entertaining doesn't always mean not hurting. But WWE hasn't done anything stupid like putting a PPV-caliber main event that can sell out an arena and draw huge numbers in four days on TV instead of hyping it for a month. They have simply put out a quality build for a feud that hasn't hurt any ratings that has emotionally invested internet and casual fans alike more than any other recently. There is a huge difference there.

They did give away Cena/Mysterio on TV. Not that it's anywhere near the Goldberg/Hogan level, but they definitely could have made some bread off of that one.

 

[shattered dreams]

Looks like he is a draw in Canada.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

Looks like he is a draw in Canada.

Canada loves quality wrestling.

 

[Slyfox696]

Oh, I'm not going to argue that. But the main point I was making is that ratings have been declining gradually. It wasn't just the Benoit thing, because if you look at ratings in 2006, and go back and compare them to 2001, they were lower. Just like if you look at the ratings today, and compare them to the ones from 2006, they are lower. I won't argue Benoit and steroids didn't help them go down, they did, but they were very gradually going down anyway.

I'm not sure where you're getting confused, but it seems as if you are.

Average Raw ratings:

2001 - 4.7
2002 - 4.0
2003 - 3.8
2004 - 3.7
2005 - 3.8
2006 - 3.9
Pre-Benoit 2007 - 3.9
Post-Benoit 2007 - 3.4
2008 - 3.3
2009 - 3.6
2010 - 3.3

What you see there is no gradual decline, but rather two instances of very sharp decline. The first was the transition out of the Attitude Era (with Rock and Austin becoming more scarce), and the second was the Benoit murder. Ignoring the two drastic downturn, Raw's ratings have been fairly steady over the last 10 years.

This has no relevance what-so-ever to what I'm trying to discuss about Punk and the fact that he isn't hurting anything at all.

It very much has relevance. If you hurt your long-term business for an immediate return on short term revenue, then it does hurt your business. I've already explained, on a couple of different occasions, how the current Punk storyline could affect the company down the road.

It isn't hurting anything either. It's probably not even a blip on the WWE's money-making radar, but at least it's not hurting anything either. Which was my point to begin with.

I think you've forgotten what we're talking about here.

You said Punk's merchandise was selling well, which means more profit, I pointed out Punk's shirt, while indeed seems to be selling well judging from people in the audience, probably isn't adding a large percentage to the WWE's profits, which you just agreed with. Your point wasn't actually that selling his shirt isn't hurting anything.

I've never said selling shirts will hurt the business, but if you examine what caused this sudden interest in Punk shirts, then you can definitely see where potential problems might pop up down the road.

I 100% agree, and your example was a good one of it. But the simple fact is there is a huge difference between the two, and what hurt WCW with that decision is in no way hurting WWE, because the same mistake isn't being made. All I'm saying that is until ratings significantly drop (and I'm talking more than just the slump pro wrestling in general has been in recently, I mean drop into the mid-low 2's and there is a noticeable and significant decrease in viewership because of Punk and his angles) and you can prove that Punk is losing money and hurting viewership and business, then you cannot prove my main point wrong, and that is that Punk is entertaining the fans, casual and IWC alike, more than they have been entertained in awhile, and is not hurting anything in the meantime. When RAW starts drawing 2.5 ratings due to Punk, and they are losing money because Punk is in the main event of a pay-per--view, I'll concede defeat. Until then, you have no valid way of proving me wrong.

I know what you're saying, but I think my example has misguided you on what I'm saying.

Let's say tomorrow, I de-mod Phoenix and put him in Prison. One week later, I de-mod Brain and put him in Prison. A month from now I de-mod D-Man and put him in Prison. Then I de-mod xfear and put him in Prison.

When I do these actions, people are going to notice, correct? There's going to be interest, tons of posts, many arguments, etc. And as I keep de-modding and imprisoning posters which are more and more active and liked around the forum, the more people are going to be interested in it, correct?

Now, what if after I imprison Xfear, I throw Myriad in the Prison? How much interest is that going to gain? What if I de-mod and throw Jack-Hammer in the Prison, are people going to try and burn me an effigy? No, of course not, because at this point, they're used to these tactics, and I've run out of beloved posters to throw in Prison.

Now apply that same concept to what Punk is doing. Punk is bringing to light all sorts of dirtsheet rumors, news and gossip. And it's very entertaining. Each week, Punk does something else to capture the attention of the Internet fan, to get them interested. But how long can that last? How much more can he say which will shock us and cause us to drop what we're doing to hear what he's saying? How long before we start to roll our eyes and talk about how we've already seen this before? And, at that point, how many people decide "nevermind, I'm going to watch TNA"?

This is a very real situation, a situation we saw with the nWo in WCW. WCW literally had so many swerves, so many "oh my God" moments, that they could no longer continue shocking the casual viewer. Then they died.

I'm not saying Punk has reached that level yet, and there's still a ways to go. But don't say his current character cannot hurt the promotion, because history has already shown it possible.

If you really don't think Punk was over as a heel feuding with Rey Mysterio and Jeff Hardy in 2009-2010, you must not know your wrestling very well. Honestly you can't even argue it didn't draw main event, because Hardy and Punk were main eventing Smackdown and drawing the regular numbers.

There is buzz about it now because they are actually marketing Punk and the storyline outside of the E, with stuff like the interviews he does and the whole Comic-Con thing.

You mean like Miz and Cena have been doing for a while now?

The fact is Punk WASN'T as over as you seem to be claiming him to be, otherwise this mainstream stuff would have come earlier, and people wouldn't be abuzz the way they are now.

The main reason there is buzz about him now though, is the fact that WWE is actually pushing this is a major storyline on the main show, where as Punk and Hardy was overshadowed by two storylines on RAW and only main evented Summerslam because of the gimmick match, and when he feuded with Mysterio it was a mid-caard program.

Which I would argue makes it pretty clear Punk has never been a successful main-eventer.

 

[DirtyJosé]

With this talk of the ratings and why they are the way they are and have been, I've a legitimate question:

Would it not be fairer to make the assessment that this thread/OP makes based not off ratings but SummerSlam buyrates instead? I believe we've long since left the era of "ratings matter" and that instead a show of healthier interest is not whether Punk can draw ratings to Raw, but instead whether he can draw buys for the PPV.

Also, factor in merch sales. His new shirt isn't anywhere close to "Austin 3:16", let alone Cena's gear, but the demand has been remarkably high. I'm inclined to believe that's the kind of performance McMahon is more influenced by.

 

[Slyfox696]

With this talk of the ratings and why they are the way they are and have been, I've a legitimate question:

Would it not be fairer to make the assessment that this thread/OP makes based not off ratings but SummerSlam buyrates instead? I believe we've long since left the era of "ratings matter" and that instead a show of healthier interest is not whether Punk can draw ratings to Raw, but instead whether he can draw buys for the PPV.

I have a feeling Summerslam is not going to do well in buyrates at all, but not because of Cena or Punk, but rather the global economic crises we've been in over the last week or two.

Summerslam could surprise me with buyrates, but I'll be surprised if they do significantly better than last year's Summerslam.

Also, factor in merch sales. His new shirt isn't anywhere close to "Austin 3:16", let alone Cena's gear, but the demand has been remarkably high. I'm inclined to believe that's the kind of performance McMahon is more influenced by.

Punk's shirt does seem to be doing well enough if you look in the crowd, but if people are only buying them at live events, they're probably not selling very many overall. It will take time to see how well his merch moves over time.