Do people think before posting ignorance?

[Slyfox696]

This one goes out to WZ's writer Nick Paglino and his latest report...

WWE's showing of NBC's Saturday Night's Main Event this past Saturday drew a low 2.38 and a 0.7 within the adult 18-49 demographic. To say this rating is a disaster is an understatement. WWE and NBC did, however, very little in advertising the special and it obviously made an impact with the ratings.

What rating was Nick expecting them to get? A 10.3 like 20 years ago when there was only three channels? It was Saturday night, at 9 o'clock. Obviously, I'm sure the WWE would like to have had better, but this rating falls right in line with the SNME that the WWE has put on since it's rebirth.

I fail to see how this is a disaster. Maybe he's not aware of history, or the difference between cable and network ratings? Maybe he thinks he still lives in the Attitude Era? Maybe he thinks there are only 3 channels on TV these days?

Anyways, why do people post ignorance?

Oh yeah, and you can discuss the SNME rating here too.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

yea, thats incredibly fucking dumb.

um what?? I expected it to be a lot LOWER than that. thats right alongside SD! ratings, with little to no advertising, and no high profile matches or appearances going on (ala Hulk Hogan two years ago). I honestly has it pegged for a 1.5- 1.8

That dude is DUMB.

 

[klunderbunker]

How can this be viewed as a disaster? If I'm WWE, I'm happy the show got this high of a rating. On this forum, we follow wrestling and WWE in particular far closer than the average fan, and the day of the show, half of us had no idea when the show came on, how long it ran or anything at all about it. Three matches, one a squash, none of which were announced that I recall. It was a mystery show that wasn't even mentioned until 12 days before it aired. The featured part was a "celebrity" who was relevant in 1995. What did WWE expect? This is worse than SD's ratings, and that's what was expected.

 

[Shocky]

Pretty much a douchebag in my opinion. A 2.3 on Network TV, pretty much right on par with what Smackdown's been getting. So it didn't gain anyone, or lose anyone that watches on Friday Nights to Saturday Night, so it's obviously a disaster, okay.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

How is it dumb or ignorant for Nick to post this? It's neither. In fact, it's arrogant to assume so.

The rating was a disaster not because Nick says it was, but because the WWE and the Networks have a certain "break even" goal for the program. I again reference Al Snow and Bill DeMott explaining to me how much every 30 seconds of Monday Night Raw cost. NOW, increase that figure significantly for time on one of the biggest networks in the world (NBC) on Prime Time Saturday Night. In order to make purchases of advertising time worth it to investors, the ratings have to be FAR higher than a 2.38! WWE has every right to look at this as a total abortion!

And Nick is also accurate with the lack of advertising. WWE and NBC dropped the ball by not building matches. SNME is trying to attract young viewers based on the name vlue of a show most of them weren't even alive to see? Like hell! The marketing schematic is totally f'ed, and it's going to either 1) cost WWE the SNME deal with NBC, or 2) cost them both LOADS of cash in make good ad promises to the advertisers who will FLIP OUT when a sub-2.5 rating is released!

Nick's report was neither dumb nor ignorant. Sly and NorCal, head check time.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

Its not diasaster becuase they couldnt have been expecting anything better. and the WZ new staff seem to like to overblow things to make them seem much worse than they are.

FACE

 

[Shocky]

Gotta agree with Norcal. How can something be a disaster if most fans didn't know what time it was on and NBC did little to know advertising for it. Compared to some of the ratings the past few SNME have been getting with Hogan and Austin on the card, this isn't so bad.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Its not diasaster becuase they couldnt have been expecting anything better. and the WZ new staff seem to like to overblow things to make them seem much worse than they are.

Welcome to journalism! EVERYTHING is sensationalized, that is what draws people to read, and thus generate ad hits! What would you like it to read?

"Hey, the SNME rating was a 2.something, but it's no big deal."

Wow, I can't wait to go back to this site and read more of this riveting news.

You could have expected a 2.5 - 3.0 with some advertising power, I'd like to think. Also, did anyone really know the matches on the card before hand? And did the Khali / Yang match make the show feel like a generic TV spot?

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Interesting research I did from USAtoday.com:

Saturday night TV a long way from heyday
NEW YORK (AP) — The state of network television on Saturday nights has become so dire that ABC has essentially put a prime-time slot up for auction to anyone who has a compelling idea — as long as it's done very cheaply.
ABC has put the word out to Hollywood producers that a Saturday night home is available to a program that can be made for no more than $500,000 an episode, which is about a quarter of what the traditional comedy or drama costs.

"Because it's Saturday night, they're willing to try things that they wouldn't try at midweek," said Jeff Bader, ABC's head of scheduling.

Saturday has become the forgotten night for broadcasters, who aren't entirely sure what to do there anymore. They just know it's not worth spending much to seek an audience that clearly has other plans.

"It's the loneliest night of the week for network television and television in general," said Mitch Metcalf, NBC's executive vice president for scheduling.

Except for occasional specials, CBS's 48 Hours Mysteries is the only original Saturday night program on ABC, CBS and NBC this season. Fox has run COPS and America's Most Wanted on Saturday for years; the WB and UPN don't broadcast.

Viewers with long memories know it wasn't always this way. Gunsmoke,Perry Mason,Mission: Impossible,Love Boat,Fantasy Island,Golden Girls and Touched By an Angel are among the classic series shown on Saturdays.

You could make a strong argument that during the early 1970s, CBS on Saturday night had the single best night of prime-time TV ever: All in the Family,M-A-S-H,The Mary Tyler Moore Show,The Bob Newhart Show and The Carol Burnett Show.

Saturday night — date night — was never the most popular night for TV. But the decline in viewership caught momentum with the advent of cable television, particularly when HBO scheduled its showcase movies then. The popularity of home videos and DVDs gave viewers still more options, said David Poltrack, chief researcher at CBS.

Since 2000, Saturday night network TV viewership has dropped 39%, compared to 16% for the seven nights in total, according to Nielsen Media Research.

So far this season, the four networks combined an average 23.1 million viewers on Saturday, or less than a typical episode of CSI: Crime Scene Investigation or Desperate Housewives get on other nights.

Along with viewers, advertisers who are increasingly adept at targeting an audience are shying away from Saturdays, Metcalf said.

"They want to get their messages out before the weekend starts, before people make their purchasing decisions for the weekend," he said. "By Saturday, that ship has sailed."

Lately, it's a classic chicken-or-egg argument: Are the viewers fleeing because the networks aren't offering much, or are the networks abandoning Saturdays because they sense viewers' lack of interest?

Networks began dialing back early this decade. Saturday became "movie night," but even that rarely works because people are impatient watching movies clogged with commercials. With shows like "The District" and Hack, CBS bragged two years ago that it was the only network still in business on Saturday, but that didn't last.

Now it's mostly reruns.

"I'd like to think we all tried," said Kelly Kahl, head of CBS's scheduling department. "We held out probably a little longer. But the choices at some point just become overwhelming."

CBS wraps its reruns in a nice bow: two hours it calls "Crimetime Saturday." It airs episodes of procedural dramas like CSI: Crime Scene Investigation and gets about the same modest ratings as it did with original shows, and even does better among young viewers, Poltrack said. As a result, the network now makes a nice profit on a night where it used to lose money.

Besides movies and NASCAR races, NBC has found Saturday to be a comfortable home for its Law & Order franchise. This year it has taken a cue from HBO and is using the night to give viewers a second chance to catch its new series. A week ago, NBC ran three straight episodes of My Name is Earl, and has also showcased Surface.

"People's lives are so busy and there are so many new shows to watch," Metcalf said. "The key is to pick shows that are showing signs of growth, or that people are talking about and there are good reviews."

For the past few weeks, ABC has given fans of Lost a second chance to keep up with that story. It has also aired repeats of Invasion and Commander in Chief. A combination of movies and repeats will fill out the season, Bader said.

As the force behind Saturday's island of original programming, 48 Hours Mysteries executive producer Susan Zirinsky said she's happy to be scheduled there. How many times, she said, have you been home on a Saturday night and surfed aimlessly through the channels looking for something new?

"We're promising a fresh apple pie at 10 o'clock," she said.

She's also experimenting with new storytelling approaches. Often, the first five minutes of her show — which usually feature true-crime mysteries — don't feature reporters or any indication that it's a news program. The idea is to hook viewers on stories compatible with the dramas they've just been watching.

Experimentation, along the lines of what ABC is planning, might be the only other recourse on Saturday nights. Why can't the networks try out pilots of new shows, even ones executives have rejected, to see if something draws some interest?

ABC has set no boundaries for the suggestions it seeks: the shows could be reality, scripted, news, sports, whatever, Bader said.

"We use the summer to experiment," he said. "Well, Saturday can be our summer every week."

There is little or no competition on a Saturday Night. The Yankees played a day game, and the Mets were just about done, so the hefty New York Market was available. A little elbow grease and the show could have done much better numbers, but now Vince and the NBC people are going to have to feild calls from furious advertisers regarding the lack of ROI (return on investment) they received.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

OK. so. we have...

2.5 to 3.0 with advertising and star power.


which there was none. so. 2.38 is absolutely reasonable. AKA not a DIASASTER

 

[Shocky]

IC, those are pretty lofty goals, considering that the best the WWE has pulled since it's return to the network is a 2.9, and that was the first show. Sure a 2.3 isn't hugely impressive, but it's right on par with the core audience. It didn't get any new viewers sure, that's a problem, but the core audience that watched Friday followed it to Saturday. Plus the demographic breakdown is supposedly what the WWE is trying to shoot for anyway.

.7 for the adults seems pretty respectable. It's a saturday night, who stays into watch wrestling on Saturdays? Probably the same people that stay in to watch on Fridays. Saturday is a terrible night for television, in fact its the worst night of the week, so ad revenue is going to be lower anyways naturally. Advertisers and Channels know this fact, that's why "garbage" programming gets put on Saturdays, because it's just filler.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

So now you all agree that the ratings would have been stronger with proper build-up and advertising?

 

[klunderbunker]

I've said that since the show was announced.

 

[Shocky]

So now you all agree that the ratings would have been stronger with proper build-up and advertising?

I don't think it would have been such a huge difference. The first two new SNME had Austin and Hogan, and they managed to pull a 2.9 and 2.6 respectfully, not a home run. Those SNME were advertised to hell and back and built up hugely, those I would consider failures, especially considering the names they brought in to hype the show.

 

[Moon Knight]

How is it dumb or ignorant for Nick to post this? It's neither. In fact, it's arrogant to assume so.

The rating was a disaster not because Nick says it was, but because the WWE and the Networks have a certain "break even" goal for the program. I again reference Al Snow and Bill DeMott explaining to me how much every 30 seconds of Monday Night Raw cost. NOW, increase that figure significantly for time on one of the biggest networks in the world (NBC) on Prime Time Saturday Night. In order to make purchases of advertising time worth it to investors, the ratings have to be FAR higher than a 2.38! WWE has every right to look at this as a total abortion!

And Nick is also accurate with the lack of advertising. WWE and NBC dropped the ball by not building matches. SNME is trying to attract young viewers based on the name vlue of a show most of them weren't even alive to see? Like hell! The marketing schematic is totally f'ed, and it's going to either 1) cost WWE the SNME deal with NBC, or 2) cost them both LOADS of cash in make good ad promises to the advertisers who will FLIP OUT when a sub-2.5 rating is released!

Nick's report was neither dumb nor ignorant. Sly and NorCal, head check time.

Checkmate! Well done Irish that pretty much ends this debate right there.

The breakeven point is the key point here, it costs both money to make this but it costs NBC more money. NBC paid WWE for this already and NBC looks at advertiser money to make back what they lost so they have a breakeven point for them to make back that money and at best come out square, I can promise you this is WELL below it.

This is bad for WWE; mainly because Vince wants this show to continue because it's on a major network, this rating seals it's fate for being cancelled, which it should have been 2 years ago. Vince now has to accept the fact that he will no longer have a show on a major network and only has himself to blame.


BTW, I would like to mention SD gets sub 3.0 ratings because it gets preempted all the time, even 3 weeks in a row in the New York area and will be this Friday in the LA area. How can SD maintain 3.0 or higher ratings when it keeps getting preempted in major markets all the time? Bound to have an effect.

 

[klunderbunker]

Part of the problem for me was that they knew this show wouldn't do anything if advertised so they didn't waste the time or money on advertising. This show's card was nothing better than a bad Raw or SD. They knew they couldn't get good ratings on a regular wrestling timeslot, so why bother trying in prime time? Just look at the card. Other than maybe Hardy/Edge, would you want to watch this? No titles, no major match, no major angles beign pushed, just a one hour filler show. Partially, i think a strong advertising campaign could've made things even worse. A lot of people could've watched to see what was going to be on the show. I know that after knowing what was happening, I wasn't going to miss seeing it at all.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I don't think it would have been such a huge difference. The first two new SNME had Austin and Hogan, and they managed to pull a 2.9 and 2.6 respectfully, not a home run. Those SNME were advertised to hell and back and built up hugely, those I would consider failures, especially considering the names they brought in to hype the show.

Thank you for those stats, Shocky, it helps prove my point.

Everyone in the room with a Marketing Degree please stand. <IC25 stands.>

Ok, a 2.9 and a 2.6. Now, from an advertising revenue point of view, NBC and their sales staff had to sell the ad space differently because SMNE is a special event. So, they had to be on the phone with advertisers offering them commerical space in the 9:00 pm - 11:00 pm time slot on a Saturday Night. The advertiser asks why, since Saturday Night is usually dead. NBC shows them the very stats Shocky posted - 2.9 and 2.6, also on Saturday Nights.

Do you honestly think that NBC's ad sales personell went to these advertisers and said "We expect this upcming show to be 11% worse than the last show. We'd like you to buy this ad space." Hell no! They call and say "this show has done a 2.9 and a 2.6 the last two times it has aired. We expect at least a 2.5, we will promise a 2.4." That's worse case. And those sales come with "make good guarantees" where, if the show doesn't reach the promised audience, the network has to either a) pay them for a pro-rated difference, or b) give them free or discounted advertising space in another slot. Neither makes NBC happy.

Furthermore, the .3 decline each of the last 3 shows makes it harder and harder for NBC to sell the ad space for future shows. In addition, if they make less money on the show, they will designate less money to advertising it, putting more pressure on WWE to do it. Eventually the show will no longer exist.

 

[Moon Knight]

Thank you for those stats, Shocky, it helps prove my point.

Everyone in the room with a Marketing Degree please stand. <IC25 stands.>

I am half way thru my bachelors in business management....I have to do a few marketing and accounting classes.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

I am half way thru my bachelors in business management....I have to do a few marketing and accounting classes.

Dammit, come stand with me up here.

 

[Moon Knight]

Dammit, come stand with me up here.

WOOT! *MK stands beside Irish*

 

[Shocky]

If I can dig them up, I'll find the other SNME ratings since it's been brought back up on air, plus I'll try to find what saturday night shows on networks average in the ratings. I still stand though that a show with little to no advertising by either NBC or the WWE with a 12 day notice getting a 2.3 with no belts on the line isn't bad when the two biggest names in the history of the company managed to pull in only a half a million more viewers. I still think if NBC was so worried about it, they would have flooded the network with promos.

Like I said, I'll try to dig up some average saturday night ratings to see how well SNME compares to regularly scheduled shows.

 

[Shocky]

March 18, 2006 2.9
July 15, 2006 2.6
June 9, 2007 2.2
August 18, 2007 2.5

Those are the ratings for SNME since it's return, I can't remember if there was one earlier this year or not however. So that 2.3 is par for the course as far as recent outings with this show goes. Sure,it's not impressive when you look at it, but in the context of no promos by WWE or NBC for it, the relatively weak ratings on Saturday Night for the Four Major Networks, (ABC averages a 2.8), I can't see how this is a disaster. It's exceptionally average for SNME, which in itself is a sad state, but that's a different convo.

If there is anyone that should be pissed it should be NBC officials for not pulling the plug before hand. Again, I stand by the first two shows being promod to hell and back with the returns of Austin and Hogan failing to get a 3.0 at least as a let down. this show with no advertising, with a proven recent history of failings in the ratings drawing it's average is fair. While poor what did anyone expect?

 

[Slyfox696]

How is it dumb or ignorant for Nick to post this? It's neither. In fact, it's arrogant to assume so.

The rating was a disaster not because Nick says it was, but because the WWE and the Networks have a certain "break even" goal for the program. I again reference Al Snow and Bill DeMott explaining to me how much every 30 seconds of Monday Night Raw cost. NOW, increase that figure significantly for time on one of the biggest networks in the world (NBC) on Prime Time Saturday Night. In order to make purchases of advertising time worth it to investors, the ratings have to be FAR higher than a 2.38! WWE has every right to look at this as a total abortion!

1. I don't think the WWE looks at this as removing a fetus. I don't believe abortion is the word you are looking for. Possibly abhorrence?

2. I don't believe that the WWE gets advertising money. I know they don't make advertising money on USA Network, and I imagine they don't on NBC either. Thus, the advertising revenue is all on NBC, and they haven't seemed to upset with the ratings the WWE has been getting, since they keep having them back.

And Nick is also accurate with the lack of advertising. WWE and NBC dropped the ball by not building matches.

It's hard to build matches when you still have 5 hours of programming to do AFTER you tape the show.

Meaning they taped SNME before Raw, ECW and Smackdown. It's kind of hard to do a whole lot of build when you have five hours of programming to do AFTER you tape a show.

SNME is trying to attract young viewers based on the name vlue of a show most of them weren't even alive to see? Like hell! The marketing schematic is totally f'ed, and it's going to either 1) cost WWE the SNME deal with NBC, or 2) cost them both LOADS of cash in make good ad promises to the advertisers who will FLIP OUT when a sub-2.5 rating is released!

Great point IC...if it had any validity to it.

The WWE has been doing similar ratings for years now, and NBC keeps giving them that spot. The funny part of that is how you hurt your own argument later in the thread. And since I'm taking the stance that the WWE doesn't make any money off advertising (since NBC Networks owns USA network), I really don't think the WWE worries about what the advertisers will do when they see a sub 2.5

Furthermore, take a gander at these links:

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/07/2...y-july-26-elitexc-mma-on-cbs-had-no-kick/4547

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2008/08/0...s-start-selling-saturday-night-bandwidth/4584

If you look on there, you'll notice that the SNME actually did just as good ratings as the Law and Order NBC put on the previous week in the 18-49 category, and did BETTER ratings than The Office did at the 8 o'clock hour, both in terms of total viewers and the 18-49 demographic while going up against Fox's Saturday night ratings juggernaut in America's Most Wanted.

So, let's add this up. WWE doesn't get advertising revenue, did a rating similar to their other network ratings (on both CW and NBC), and did a better rating than NBC did in the hour before.

Yeah, I bet the WWE and NBC isn't exactly seeing the rating as disastrous.

Nick's report was neither dumb nor ignorant. Sly and NorCal, head check time.

My head check came out fine.

How's yours after this post of mine?

Interesting research I did from USAtoday.com:



There is little or no competition on a Saturday Night. The Yankees played a day game, and the Mets were just about done, so the hefty New York Market was available. A little elbow grease and the show could have done much better numbers, but now Vince and the NBC people are going to have to feild calls from furious advertisers regarding the lack of ROI (return on investment) they received.

The funny part about this is how it hurts your overall argument. You post an argument showing that TV viewing on a Saturday is awful, and then harass the WWE for doing a rating they always do on network TV.

If anything, that should show that the WWE did well. If trends show that viewership goes down on Saturday, and the WWE holds steady, then they beat the trend.



EDIT: No marketing degree needed for common sense.

 

[IrishCanadian25]

Sly, this is another case of you using smoke and mirrors to try to dissect an argument that you may not have a great solution for.

You don't think that NBC's advertising revenue is tied to how much the WWE gets paid for the event, or for that matter IF the WWE gets to do the event at all? That's naive. Perhaps WWE does not have direct ad revenue from NBC - we won't know - but it's not all too uncommon for the service provider (WWE in this case) to have additional cash considerations for higher ratings, because it puts the network (NBC) in a more advantageous negotiating position.

Just because SNME does better than NBC usually does in that time slot means dick. Law and Order is a regular event - they pay a flat rate for the rights and air the show. SNME is a special event, and you'd damn well better believe that NBC pays A LOT more money for one episode of SNME than it does for one episode of Law and Order. It goes back to my point about NBC's break even.

And your argument about WWE doing similar numbers for years is puss as well. This is the 2nd lowest number in two years for SNME. And for you to say that WWE isn't concerned about what the advertisers will do when they see a sub-2.5 is naive. They damn sure do care, because it calls into question whether NBC will pay WWE for another SNME in the future, or if they will air it but pay the WWE LESS MONEY FOR IT. The ONLY damn reason WWE has a network on which to air SNME is because NBC expects it will draw ad revenue, so they pay more for the special event.

The only argument you made in that post that carries ANY water at all is the fact that Raw, SD, and ECW occured AFTER the taping of SNME. Very true, but it proves my point. Tape early and miss the build up? Be prepared for lower ratings. Hell, do the show live then.

Also, Sly, the only thing I truly wanted to dissent from you on was your unwavering decision to bash Nick for posting the ratings and calling it disastrous. Calling him ignorant, and then NorCal jumping on his as well - to be honest, it was silly. It is absolutely feasible that WWE and NBC had specific expectations for that show, and for a 2.3 rating to be disastrous. There was nothing wrong with that report whatsoever.

 

[Slyfox696]

Sly, this is another case of you using smoke and mirrors to try to dissect an argument that you may not have a great solution for.

My argument is that the SNME rating is not disastrous, and my support for it is every other rating that SNME and NBC has done in the past few years at the same time slot.

What's smoke and mirrors about that? I always thought that "disastrous" indicated a failing, and not a maintaining of the status quo of ratings.

You don't think that NBC's advertising revenue is tied to how much the WWE gets paid for the event, or for that matter IF the WWE gets to do the event at all?

Sure it is. Just like it has been since 2006. And NBC keeps ordering more episodes every year.

Perhaps WWE does not have direct ad revenue from NBC - we won't know -

I feel quite confident they don't get direct ad revenue.

but it's not all too uncommon for the service provider (WWE in this case) to have additional cash considerations for higher ratings, because it puts the network (NBC) in a more advantageous negotiating position.

I agree. What does that have to do with the WWE doing a consistent rating and a rating that falls in line with NBC's other Saturday night shows?

Just because SNME does better than NBC usually does in that time slot means dick.

Uhh, what? So, qualifying a rating as disastrous has nothing to do with the other ratings in that time slot?

Law and Order is a regular event - they pay a flat rate for the rights and air the show. SNME is a special event, and you'd damn well better believe that NBC pays A LOT more money for one episode of SNME than it does for one episode of Law and Order. It goes back to my point about NBC's break even.

Actually, I doubt that.

I imagine that NBC pays more for Law and Order than for SNME, and I say that for three reasons.

1. Law and Order is a MUCH bigger show than the WWE. It has spawned multiple spin-offs, and has been on TV since the mid 90s.
2. Vince McMahon loves to be on Network TV.
3. The NBC deals are probably negotiated into the WWE's TV deal with NBC Universal, parent company of USA Network. I imagine (and this is just presumption) that NBC doesn't pay any extra for the SNME and SNME is just an additional show in the WWE's contract with USA Network.

And your argument about WWE doing similar numbers for years is puss as well. This is the 2nd lowest number in two years for SNME.

LOL, you're kidding right? Talk about smoke and mirrors.

July 15, 2006 2.6
June 9, 2007 2.2
August 18, 2007 2.5
August 2, 2008 2.4 (rounded up from 2.38)

Yeah, I guess technically it's the second lowest. But, then again, last week's Raw rating was the lowest in the last 5 weeks. I guess that was disastrous as well, right?

Come on IC25. No one is saying that the WWE is so overjoyed with these ratings that they are pulling out the cigars, but to say that a 2.4 rating is "disastrous" is simply ridiculous, especially when you compare the factors around them.

And for you to say that WWE isn't concerned about what the advertisers will do when they see a sub-2.5 is naive. They damn sure do care, because it calls into question whether NBC will pay WWE for another SNME in the future, or if they will air it but pay the WWE LESS MONEY FOR IT. The ONLY damn reason WWE has a network on which to air SNME is because NBC expects it will draw ad revenue, so they pay more for the special event.

I've already addressed this.

The only argument you made in that post that carries ANY water at all is the fact that Raw, SD, and ECW occured AFTER the taping of SNME. Very true, but it proves my point. Tape early and miss the build up? Be prepared for lower ratings. Hell, do the show live then.

If they do the show live, then they miss out on the MUCH more lucrative house show circuit, PLUS incur additional costs for running another live show.

The WWE would have to pull a 4.0 rating to justify that. At least, that's my humble opinion.

Also, Sly, the only thing I truly wanted to dissent from you on was your unwavering decision to bash Nick for posting the ratings and calling it disastrous. Calling him ignorant, and then NorCal jumping on his as well - to be honest, it was silly.

But, it WAS ignorant. Because it wasn't a disastrous rating, it was actually quite standard and normal for that time slot on that day...and for that show.

That's ignorant. I did 5 minutes worth of research and proved that the rating was right in line with other SNME and right in line with NBC's Saturday night lineup. 5 minutes.

It was ignorant.

It is absolutely feasible that WWE and NBC had specific expectations for that show, and for a 2.3 rating to be disastrous. There was nothing wrong with that report whatsoever.

So, you think that both the WWE and NBC network expected the SNME to make an incredible jump in ratings, despite ALL evidence to the contrary?

What kind of idiots do you think WWE and NBC have working for them? If I had done the same 5 minutes of research before the show started, I could have given you the same general rating area that the show wound up falling in. I would have probably said in the 2.4-2.6 range. And I would have been right.

Are you telling me that two large companies, whose very job it is to monitor such things, are going to take completely unrealistic expectations for the show?

Come on IC25, you know it was ignorant.