I've Had Enough With 'Ratings' Talk

[SmarksAreIgnorant]

Its mostly the overeaction whenever a show drops a few viewers, or gains a few viewers. IWC seems to be so simple minded, they automatically come to conclussions on why this is and come to unfair judgements like "oh look at this rating, this wrestler will never be a draw!" then go back to complain how they want the attitude era back or wish Scotty 2 Hotty would come out of retirement or some dead guy would still be alive now, fuck off. And it isn't helped by wrestling sites such as _________ making it out to be huge news. Ratings mean shit other than a general consensus. It doesn't mean the WWE should stop in their tracks in building up this new guy just because his segment lost 5 viewers.

 

[kokoBawesome]

I'm with you as far as segment by segment ratings. I really don't care if some random tag match had a 0.3 percent ratings drop, but on some level I do care how the ratings are overall. I don't always check week by week, but I guess I'm usually curious with if the ratings jump for a big show, like when the Rock comes back or the Raw after a PPV.

I really don't know how much stock the WWE puts into segment by segment ratings either. I'm sure they care more about it than any fan ever could, but I imagine what matters most to them is crowd reaction and merchandise sales.

...so was there a question you wanted to ask us or is this just a rant?

 

[closet_fan]

i agree with the OP 100 percent.

unfortunately, vince doesn't see it that way. if there is a dip from one show to the next, he rewrites months worth of storylines because it scares him in his tracks.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ratings can be a good way to see how well a product is getting over with fans. After all, nobody wants to see shows they like become in danger of being cancelled. At the same time, however, I do think some of the writers on the wrestling sites do sometimes try to make every single drop or gain seem as though it's of major importance.

I went to tvbythenumbers.com a while ago and, overall, Raw drew and average audience of 4,483,000 viewers. So, roughly, Raw drew 4.5 million viewers this past Monday. So for the fall season, and really since late this summer, that's perfectly in line with what Raw has been drawing. Raw did lose almost 300,000 viewers in the second hour, which isn't something any show wants to see.

Last Monday, Raw was up against Monday Night Football as usual, which drew 14.4 million viewers. It was also up against new episodes of American Pickers & Pawn Stars in History and The Closer & Rizzoli & Isles over on TNT. All four of those shows are huge draws. Pickers drew roughly 5.2 million viewers, the two episodes of Pawn Stars drew an average of 5.6 million viewers, The Closer drew roughly 5.4 million and R&I drew roughly 4.8 million.

Raw is a show that consistently draws for USA and Raw always sees a slump in ratings during the fall season. Like TNA and it's 1.4-1.5 million hardcore base of fans, Raw will be just fine if it keeps its base.

 

[CrunKSinatrA]

I think a major factor that people aren't taking into account with ratings is the economy. Cable is one of the first expenses that people are cutting. I am now starting day 2 after cable and neither Raw nor Smackdown will see my Nielsen ratings anymore. The entertainment industry will need to readjust what exactly is considered a successful Nielsen rating, due to the drop in how people are dropping cable in favor of internet followers.

But I'm still fan and still want to follow the WWE. I think that maybe the WWE sees this and is the reason why they are promoting twitter like they work for twitter. Instead of telling advertisers that they are pulling 3.4 share in ratings and are now charging X amount for the ad space, the WWE is saying that it was trending so many people during this time on google and twitter.

 

[XXJJ]

I dont think ratings include viewers that DVR the show. And their are a lot of people that watch online. You can log onto WWE.com and watch complete episodes of Raw or SD if you missed them. You cant compare ratings from 10 years ago, it's a different world.

IMO you look at the average rating at the end of the year, to see how you did. Raw gives you new programming every week for the entire year. None of their other monday night competition does that. Their will be ups and downs throughout the year.

Its been a trend that the 2nd hour has had a dropoff recently. Maybe, right now their is something on that takes away viewers at the 10pm? Because I thought this was one of the better Raw episode in a while.

 

[billm75]

i agree with the OP 100 percent.

unfortunately, vince doesn't see it that way. if there is a dip from one show to the next, he rewrites months worth of storylines because it scares him in his tracks.

This right here. If it causes Vince to force changes, then it's sort of a big deal and goes a long way towards explaining all these story lines that just sort of stop.

To ME personally, the ratings mean little to nothing. As long as they're high enough to keep the show on TV every week, I'm good. But I can see why they report it, as it's news about the product. It's not necessarily INTERESTING news, but it's news.

 

[Headman]

Ratings are important, but they need to be watched over a period of time. Knee jerk reactions to ratings was one of my many issues with the attitude era. They notice a small spike and they milked it. Notice a small drop and boom, it's gone. Wrestling storylines and characters need time to develop and "Crash tv" as Russo called it prevents that from happening. I'm constantly amazed with how many members of the IWC that bash Russo have some much in common with him. In closing... Knee jerk reactions = poor decisions.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

I love how a thread with the purpose of venting a complaint about ratings discussion has mostly turned in to a ratings discussion.

The OP makes a generalization about IWC like we are of one mind when really we have varying viewpoints, some that get shared and some that don't.

I really enjoy discussions regarding ratings. They are the most available and general measure to compare my feelings and appetites to the feelings and appetites of the general population. It may not mean anything significant if a segment loses 5 viewers but it probably means something significant if a segment loses 500,000 viewers.

Wait until we get bored with ratings talk and we move on to internet trending discussion.

Plus, if you don't want to listen or read about ratings talk I don't think anyone is forcing you.

 

[SmarksAreIgnorant]

I love how a thread with the purpose of venting a complaint about ratings discussion has mostly turned in to a ratings discussion.

The OP makes a generalization about IWC like we are of one mind when really we have varying viewpoints, some that get shared and some that don't.

I really enjoy discussions regarding ratings. They are the most available and general measure to compare my feelings and appetites to the feelings and appetites of the general population. It may not mean anything significant if a segment loses 5 viewers but it probably means something significant if a segment loses 500,000 viewers.

Wait until we get bored with ratings talk and we move on to internet trending discussion.

Plus, if you don't want to listen or read about ratings talk I don't think anyone is forcing you.

I love how everything you said is practically what I said yet somehow comes as a critique, probably because you failed to spot my exaggeration for effect on the "5 viewers". Then go into the usual "no one is forcing you" schtick which is such a cop out.

And also I didn't generilize the IWC when my first two words were "its mostly". Its about ignorance moreso and the over exaggeration of importance of ratings, including websites.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Your sarcasm was clear but so was your message. "Mostly" or "All", the truth is that most people don't overreact. Just the silence of most members of this forum is an indication that they don't care or don't see a particular shift in ratings as an indication worth discussing. Don't take silence as agreement.

Yes, there are some folks who take things seriously and get too worked up about things that don't mean much or are just flat out wrong. But in this case it is a small group and not worth getting worked up in a thread.

 

[TheGreatLegend]

Maybe you don't care about the ratings but all the Mainstream Wrestling Promoters do.Why?,because It let them keep track of what is working on the show and what is not,how many viewers their show have,which segment was the lowest viewed and which was he highest.It shows them that which segment people want to see and which segment people don't want to see.If the ratings of a certain segment go down they try to make it better or ditch it on the next show.If the ratings of a certain match or segment is high they capitalize.Nbobody is forcing you to care about the ratings.

 

[MistaSynista]

Honestly though, should we really care about ratings...we are supposed to be fans (or trolls). We aren't on any boards for advertisers and we don't work for WWE corporate. If you like something you watch it, if you don't then don't. Are we suppose to look at the ratings and see it drop .3 and then let that number sway our opinion of the product? Who gives a shyt. There are alot of factors involved with why someone watches or doesn't watch, it could be the wrestlers, the segments, something else we watch, don't have cable, etc. Problem sounds like if they don't hit attitude numbers, some of ya'll are afraid to admit you still watch the product. Once again, I can see these numbers only affect people who have stock in WWE, USA Network, or any of the numerous advertisers. Watch something based on your accord on its own merit...screw the numbers.

 

[GrandSword]

However shows live and die by their ratings... and the WWE is on all year round. Take something like Dexter, it's on for 12 weeks and then you have to wait for next year. Raw is on each and every week, without a break, if it's ratings aren't up to scratch then us fans wont be able to see our past time/ obsession/ etc...

 

[MistaSynista]

However shows live and die by their ratings... and the WWE is on all year round. Take something like Dexter, it's on for 12 weeks and then you have to wait for next year. Raw is on each and every week, without a break, if it's ratings aren't up to scratch then us fans wont be able to see our past time/ obsession/ etc...

Then it's up to us fans to watch and spread the word for others to watch. Support the product. Looking at the tallied numbers isn't going to help us any. If the numbers are down, do we try and make a strong united push to gain viewership?? We should be doing that now whether they are above or below average