Guess the #Raw1000 Rating

[Poop Master Flex]

3.54

 

[shattered dreams]

He said Raw rating not penis size you fools.

 

[Owen 3:16 says I just stole your Slammy!!]

3.77 rating.

 

[This Is My Name Thank You]

Higher than TNA's.

 

[Manof1,004Holds]

3.72

 

[Y-2-Jay]

Probably a 3.2/3 but the ratings from 9-11 will be 3.67.

 

[AndThat'sTheBottomLine]

3.99

 

[Mr Mikey Mike]

Early numbers say 3.84 much higher than my prediction of 3.69.

 

[Nev]

Amazing it took slightly over 6 million viewers to hit a 3.84. 6 million Not too long ago over 6 million viewers was a guaranteed 4.0+ rating.

Goes to show the raw ratings today despite being seemingly stagnant, are more impressive than what you're lead to believe soemtimes. Consistently number 1 every monday nights

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Amazing it took slightly over 6 million viewers to hit a 3.84. 6 million Not too long ago over 6 million viewers was a guaranteed 4.0+ rating.

Goes to show the raw ratings today despite being seemingly stagnant, are more impressive than what you're lead to believe soemtimes. Consistently number 1 every monday nights

That just means more people watch TV in general, ratings are seriously not complicated

 

[JGlass]

That just means more people watch TV in general, ratings are seriously not complicated

I think that's what he's getting at. He's saying the ratings are lower, but that's just because more people are watching TV.

Don't you have some Nickelback songs to listen to?

 

[Bryan Is A God]

4.2.. I believe they got over a 4 in the rating.

 

[MrHashasheen]

@JGlass: Sometimes I wish they had a flat number to describe the ratings. 1 million is 1.0, 2 million is 2.0 and so on and so forth. Would make all the internet fans who constantly gripe about Smackdown, Impact Wrestling and Raw ratings shut up probably.

 

[Slyfox696]

@JGlass: Sometimes I wish they had a flat number to describe the ratings. 1 million is 1.0, 2 million is 2.0 and so on and so forth. Would make all the internet fans who constantly gripe about Smackdown, Impact Wrestling and Raw ratings shut up probably.

Well, a rating is a percentage. If you want to just use total viewers, you can. There's no need to make 1.0 correlate to 1 million, you just say 1 million.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

I think that's what he's getting at. He's saying the ratings are lower, but that's just because more people are watching TV.

Don't you have some Nickelback songs to listen to?

Goes to show the raw ratings today despite being seemingly stagnant, are more impressive than what you're lead to believe soemtimes.

It doesn't have to do with more people watching TV, but people that already watch TV shows from 9-11 (now 8-11) that aren't watching RAW. Bringing in people who watch other shows during RAW's time slot will have a significantly higher effect than people who usually didn't watch television at that time, and now turn on their set to watch RAW.

It's just fractions. Adding one to the numerator yields a greater effect than adding one to the numerator and the denominator.

 

[Nev]

That just means more people watch TV in general, ratings are seriously not complicated

You misinterpreted my post.

By saying I'm amazed that it took 6 million viewers to hit a 3.8 doesn't mean I don't understand how ratings work nor did I mean I believe television ratings are too complicated it leaves me in awe and amazment. I'm well aware ratings are based on a percentage

I was illustrating the point of how times are different today than even 5 years ago. More programs, possibly increase/better opposing competition on monday nights, more people watching TV, more people owning cable, among other potential factors; make it very difficult for RAW to hit as of high ratings as it used too thus making the ratings seemingly stagnant to some every week (and others believe its in decline compared to other years). But as long as its dominating monday nights every week, its doing its job. If anything the point I was trying to make shows I understand how ratings work, but I guess stating I'm "amazed" at the rating made you believe I was totally confused and perplexed about how the system works. I don't support the idea RAW ratings have been stagnant or in decline over the years, I was arguing against that when I made my point.

It doesn't have to do with more people watching TV

Now I'm confused. Didn't you simply state in your previous post that it "just means more people watch TV in general"?

but people that already watch TV shows from 9-11 (now 8-11) that aren't watching RAW. Bringing in people who watch other shows during RAW's time slot will have a significantly higher effect than people who usually didn't watch television at that time, and now turn on their set to watch RAW.

So what you're saying is that RAW experienced a higher rating not because more or less outside viewers tuning into RAW (outside viewers meaning like for instance casual viewers) rather because the base of people that are already watching TV on monday nights at a consistent rate, just tuned over to raw. Like you said, there was no increase in the demoninator -- just a shift in the numerator while the demoninator stayed constant.

If I followed you correctly, I'm not sure if we can even know that is true (it could very well be). You really threw me off by saying the rating has nothing to do with increase in total viewership, as I'm not sure if whether or not you believe that means the rating is impressive/unimpressive. I was comparing todays rating cto what you would usually score with 6 million viewers based upon the old times of cable. Its in response to what you would read anywhere in the IWC like "Raw scored a 3.2 rating the night following a PPV? Shame, its not what it used too be". I don't think you're really arguing against my point but just making a completely separate proposition. Or in other words, the point I initially made has little to do with nor refutes the point you're trying to make in this post.

 

[JGlass]

It doesn't have to do with more people watching TV, but people that already watch TV shows from 9-11 (now 8-11) that aren't watching RAW. Bringing in people who watch other shows during RAW's time slot will have a significantly higher effect than people who usually didn't watch television at that time, and now turn on their set to watch RAW.

It's just fractions. Adding one to the numerator yields a greater effect than adding one to the numerator and the denominator.

It does have to do with the fact that more people are watching TV. You're right that it's about fractions, but ratings determine what percentage of all television viewers were watching your show at the time it aired.

So in 2000 Raw could have gotten a 3.8 rating regularly, but there were fewer television viewers at that time. Fastforward to 2012, and the US population has increased by over 20 million, and there are even more folks watching television. If 5 million viewers could garner a 3.8 in 2000, they might only be able to account for a 3.4 in 2012 because more people are watching TV.

So to put it in numbers... let's say there were 19 million people watching television on Monday night in 2000 and and WWF Raw received a 3.8 rating. That means 5 million people tuned in to watch Raw.

In 2012 there were 23 million people watching TV on Monday night. WWE Raw gets a 3.4 rating, which means. That means there were almost 7 million people that tuned into watch Raw.

These are, of course, just random numbers. The number of people who watch TV in either time period could be higher or lower. I'm just explaining why the amount of total television viewers does matter.