Raw does a 3.0 rating; AKA Slyfox resists the urge to putdown Punk's drawing ability

[SD619]

But the main-event was usually pretty darn good storywise, so people tuned in.

I think the reason that many people tuned in was not only because the main event scene was good but also because the mid-card was also quite interesting.

Now the mid-card does not any significant feuds and pretty much random storylines.

 

[JGlass]

I blame the champion. That's the easy thing to do, right?

I'll hop on this bandwagon.

 

[Slyfox696]

Please Sly, Ratings are not a better way of determining success, they are A way.

Do Ratings take into account recording it to watch later?

Have they ever? For any show?


I'm not comparing ratings from Monday to ratings from 2000. I'm comparing ratings from just this summer. And I never said ratings determine success, moneymaking determines success. All I've said in this thread is you can't sit there and tell me wrestling is "incredible exciting" because the only measure we have to gauge that right now (TV ratings) says otherwise.

In the future, there are other ways to tell how successful this summer's storylines have been. Live attendance, PPV revenue, merch sales...those are also indicators of success. But we don't have access to those figures right now, all we have is TV ratings, and TV ratings aren't telling us that wrestling is any more exciting right now than it has been at any other point over the last couple of years.

 

[JGlass]

I think the reason that many people tuned in was not only because the main event scene was good but also because the mid-card was also quite interesting.

Now the mid-card does not any significant feuds and pretty much random storylines.

Yeah dude... nobody was tuning in for the midcard.

 

[Slyfox696]

Why should any of these things force us to judge quality vs. viewership differently than another television program?

....you're joking, right? Because wrestling is different than those other shows. That was the point from the beginning.

Step out of your comfort zone and take a little time to think. What you're saying is that measuring Alabama Crimson Tide football and Marshall football is done on the same scale because they're both college football teams. That's asinine. Alabama football is so much different than Marshall football that to hold one team to another's success is silly.

If you take everything out of context, then it makes sense, but put it back into context and it doesn't. If a wrestler had 14 five star matches in a row he would get a bonus, because even if that wrestler was a total schmo before, now he's gonna be a hot commodity in high demand and the WWE brass will do everything to make sure they can keep him happy and putting on those 5 star matches.

Not if those 5 star matches are losing fans.

Why do people still think match quality is going to drive fans to the wrestling product? Hasn't the last 25 years taught us how silly that concept is? People don't show up for 5 star matches, they show up for the acting, the promos, the angles which pit two guys together.

If that 5 star wrestler loses fans during his segments, he gets fired. The IWC whines loudly, but nothing of value is lost to the WWE.

That's fair, but in the end every big company cares about one thing, and one thing only, and that's money.

That's true, but the creation of the product is not always for that reason in things like movies and music. In the case of the WWE, the company creates the product. That's not the case in movies, music and television.

But the ones that are pushed heavily are the ones that were made to optimize monetary intake. They call those tentpoles, and they include things like Harry Potter, Spider-Man, and Transformers. In wrestling they call them Cena and Stone Cold and Hulk Hogan. Doesn't mean there aren't awesome movies/wrestlers that are pushed as heavily.

It's so hard for me not to revert back to Slyfox of old right now.

The fact you still think wrestling and movies are the same thing simply boggles my mind. Either you're intentionally being obtuse, or you really just don't get it.

Because things can be exciting and entertaining without garnering great ratings.

But right now, we have no other way to show that something is exciting or entertaining except ratings, and ratings don't support your statement.

What you and I think certainly does matter, maybe not to the WWE's plans to make lots of money, but critically it certainly does. In every form of art you can separate the economics of it from the artistic side, and in every art for you can find examples of shit that was successful, and beautiful works that failed.

But wrestling is not an art. The only people who think wrestling is an art are the marks. Wrestling is about making money, even the legendary Ric Flair and Bret Hart will tell you that. The art in pro wrestling is making people care enough about you to want to pay their money to watch you. THAT'S the art as it pertains to pro wrestling.

You have been brainwashed by IWC thinking for far too long. Do yourself a favor, and just think for a moment. We both agree a wrestler's sole job is to make money. We both agree if they don't make money, they fail at their job. So then how can you say that, and then jump to "well, they're failures at what they do, but they're good at failing"? How does that make sense? At all? To anyone?

 

[The Bearded One]

All I've said in this thread is you can't sit there and tell me wrestling is "incredible exciting"

Isn't that completely subjective?

EDIT: By that I mean there is no way to prove something is exciting or not?

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Not many may tune in for the mid-card but they have to hold the audience between the opening segment, the 10pm main storyline progression and the main event. Mid-card is not important keeping a live paid audience because they have no where else to go. It is very important in television because if you lose viewers due to a lame mid-card, that audience may not remember to go back for your main event no matter how good it is.

 

[Slyfox696]

Isn't that completely subjective?

EDIT: By that I mean there is no way to prove something is exciting or not?

In pro wrestling, "excitement" is measured by the number of people willing to commit to your product. If the WWE cannot get more people to commit to their product, and indeed, maybe losing more people from their product, then what they're doing is obviously not exciting. Might it be exciting to one person? Yes. Is it exciting to the wrestling audience in general? No.

At the end of the day, making money (or increasing the potential to make money when it comes to undercard feuds) is what determines the success of a wrestling angle. Everyone in the business will tell you that. Making money is the objective standard by which you tell how well what you're booking is working.

 

[klunderbunker]

Jim Cornette has said this about a million times in one form or another:

"Pro wrestling is about finding a good guy and a bad guy and building their rivalry up to the point where someone is going to pay money to watch it."

That's coming from someone that has forgotten more about this business than any one of us are ever going to know. Think he might be closer to correct than most of us?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Jim Cornette has said this about a million times in one form or another:

"Pro wrestling is about finding a good guy and a bad guy and building their rivalry up to the point where someone is going to pay money to watch it."

That's coming from someone that has forgotten more about this business than any one of us are ever going to know. Think he might be closer to correct than most of us?

No arguments there man, if there is no big draws that can do the work themselves (Hogan, Austin, Rock) then the big match payoff is what sells. Build a rivalry and have it lead to a match people will pay to see. Sadly this has been forgotten and everything gets rushed too quickly, if it wasn't rushed Punk wouldn't have even made his return yet.

 

[Smooth Sexual Chocolate]

The fact that it is special. The fact they don't get multiple takes for their television, everything is live. The fact their actors do their own stunts. The fact wrestling is an athletic engagement, not one that gets by because of a script. The fact wrestling can exist without television. The fact wrestling doesn't exist solely on television, and instead depends on other means of moneymaking. The fact wrestling appears on two different TV stations on two different nights of the week with original programming. The fact there is no "season finale" which the WWE then takes a break from television.

So a whole lot of what you said about things that make wrestling "special" also apply to many other forms of entertainment, thus making them not special to just the wrestling business.

Not getting multiple takes for television because everything is live sounds pretty similar to a band or musician, or an actor on broadway not getting multiple takes because everything is live.

Both broadway actors and musicians manage to get by without soly using TV. Lot's of artists get by without T.V, just like some of the smaller wrestling organizations. The bigger ones make more off using television, just like bigger artists and musicians.. Nickleback comes to mind... So music and multiple forms of acting are both able to exist without television; it's not just exclusive to the pro wrestling. Small time bands get buy on merchandise and word of mouth, just like smaller wrestling organizations. Pro wrestling is not as special as they seem to think they are.

Pro sports off all kind have deals that expand over multiple television networks, again, it's not something exclusive to wrestling.

It's all entertainment, and it's all comparable. Pro wrestling isn't on a level where it's beyond comparison with other forms of TV and non TV entertainment, in fact it's actually pretty easy to compare. It's why pro wrestling has actors and athletes who do guest spots, because it's all entertainment, they're all trying to get people to watch what they do, whether it be movies, tv, music, sports or pro wrestling. When you boil it down it's all about making money.

 

[justinsayne]

Movies and wrestling are not the same thing. That's the argument people always make in response, and it's always wrong. Tell me, how do you know a movie is bad before you watch it? You can't, right? But by the time you're watching it, they've already got your money.

This is something you & I are never going to agree on, Movies & wrestling are both forms of entertainment. Most movie studios won't greenlight a movie if it they don't think they make money off it, which by your own definitions is wrestling only purpose as well. You can usually tell if a movie is going to be bad before you watch it buy watching trailers and the buzz around the same with wrestling (in a way), with wrestling you can tell if you are about to get a shit show or not just based on where the current product & storylines are going, & who's involved. You also say that by the time you're watching a movie & realize it's bad it's too late cause they already got your money, how is that differant than someone paying to go a wrestling show, or ordering a PPV only to get a shit show? does the wrestling promotion not already have their money? is it not too late?

Has there ever been a movie which has come out with 20 different parts?

IDK, I guess you could argue the Star Trek & Bond franchises

Wrestling is television, which means it can be turned off at any time

& when you go see a movie and don't like it you have the option to get up & leave anytime.

and count against your ratings.

if the movie is on TV & you change the ratings doesn't that count against the ratings like it would for wrestling?

Wrestling is graded ONLY by how many people are entertained by your product. They are completely different.

Isn't that how anybody in ANY field of entertainment grades their product though? So how are they completely different

You make very good points, but ratings that stay stagnant, or drop, over a small time frame do have the ability to gauge the interest in your product. You're right that a 5.0 and a 3.5 mean completely separate things now than they did 15 years ago, but a 3.3 last week and a 3.0 this week can be telling.

But how can we soley blame this on what Punk is doing, perhaps people saw Big Lazy was involved and dedcided to tune out, or perhaps they're just bored with watching Cena in the title scene yet again, or maybe they just don't want to watch ADR be the shitty boring ass champ that he is. You can't say that the ratings drop simply because the Punk angle is continuing. Fuck, only reason I still bother watching is because of Punk right now.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

I'm looking at the ratings for MNR for the years of 2005-2008.

Spoiler

January 3, 2005 3.4
January 10, 2005 3.8
January 17, 2005 3.8
January 24, 2005 3.8
January 31, 2005 4.1
February 7, 2005 3.7
February 14, 2005 3.9
February 21, 2005 4.0
February 28, 2005 4.1
March 7, 2005 3.8
March 14, 2005 3.8
March 21, 2005 3.9
March 28, 2005 4.0
April 4, 2005 4.3
April 11, 2005 4.1
April 18, 2005 3.9
April 25, 2005 4.0
May 2, 2005 4.1
May 9, 2005 3.8
May 16, 2005 4.3
May 23, 2005 3.6
May 30, 2005 3.8
June 6, 2005 3.7
June 13, 2005 4.0
June 20, 2005 3.9
June 27, 2005 4.4
July 4, 2005 2.6
July 11, 2005 3.6
July 18, 2005 3.8
July 25, 2005 3.7
August 1, 2005 3.8
August 8, 2005 3.7
August 15, 2005 3.8
August 22, 2005 4.0
August 29, 2005 3.9
September 5, 2005 3.6
September 12, 2005 3.3
September 19, 2005 3.6
September 26, 2005 3.2
October 3, 2005 4.4
October 10, 2005 4.0
October 17, 2005 3.6
October 24, 2005 3.9
October 31, 2005 3.4
November 7, 2005 3.6
November 14, 2005 4.5
November 21, 2005 3.6
November 28, 2005 3.9
December 5, 2005 4.1
December 12, 2005 4.1
December 19, 2005 3.7
December 26, 2005 3.7

Spoiler

January 2, 2006 3.7
January 9, 2006 4.3
January 16, 2006 4.3
January 23, 2006 4.5
January 30, 2006 4.5
February 6, 2006 4.5
February 16, 2006 3.3
February 20, 2006 4.0
February 27, 2006 4.0
March 6, 2006 4.0
March 13, 2006 4.2
March 20, 2006 4.3
March 27, 2006 4.2
April 3, 2006 4.1
April 10, 2006 4.2
April 17, 2006 4.3
April 24, 2006 4.1
May 1, 2006 4.0
May 8, 2006 4.1
May 15, 2006 4.0
May 22, 2006 3.7
May 29, 2006 3.8
June 5, 2006 4.0
June 12, 2006 4.3
June 19, 2006 4.3
June 26, 2006 4.0
July 3, 2006 3.6
July 10, 2006 3.9
July 17, 2006 4.0
July 24, 2006 3.8
July 31, 2006 4.0
August 7, 2006 4.2
August 14, 2006 4.1
August 21, 2006 4.1
August 28, 2006 3.4
September 4, 2006 3.6
September 11, 2006 3.6
September 18, 2006 3.7
September 25, 2006 3.4
October 2, 2006 3.6
October 9, 2006 3.8
October 16, 2006 3.7
October 23, 2006 3.6
October 30, 2006 3.5
November 6, 2006 3.7
November 13, 2006 3.8
November 20, 2006 3.7
November 27, 2006 3.8
December 4, 2006 3.7
December 11, 2006 3.8
December 18, 2006 3.5
December 25, 2006 2.7

Spoiler

January 1, 2007 3.9
January 8, 2007 3.7
January 15, 2007 4.1
January 22, 2007 4.1
January 29, 2007 4.2
February 5, 2007 4.1
February 15, 2007 3.0
February 19, 2007 4.0
February 26, 2007 4.3
March 5, 2007 4.0 or 4.1
March 12, 2007 4.1
March 19, 2007 3.7
March 26, 2007 3.9
April 2, 2007 4.3
April 9, 2007 3.9
April 16, 2007 3.7
April 23, 2007 3.7
April 30, 2007 3.6
May 7, 2007 3.6
May 14, 2007 3.6
May 21, 2007 3.7
May 28, 2007 3.2
June 4, 2007 3.8
June 11, 2007 3.8
June 18, 2007 4.1 or 4.2
June 25, 2007 3.8
July 2, 2007 3.7
July 9, 2007 3.4
July 16, 2007 3.4
July 23, 2007 3.4
July 30, 2007 2.5
August 6, 2007 3.8
August 13, 2007 3.8
August 20, 2007 3.7
August 27, 2007 3.2
September 3, 2007 3.6
September 10, 2007 3.9
September 17, 2007 3.3
September 24, 2007 3.4
October 1, 2007 3.2
October 8, 2007 2.8
October 15, 2007 3.3
October 22, 2007 3.3
October 29, 2007 3.5
November 5, 2007 3.8
November 12, 2007 3.5
November 19, 2007 3.5
November 26, 2007 3.5
December 3, 2007 3.2
December 10, 2007 4.1
December 17, 2007 3.5
December 24, 2007 2.5
December 31, 2007 2.6

Spoiler

January 7, 2008 3.2
January 14, 2008 3.6
January 21, 2008 3.5
January 28, 2008 3.9
February 4, 2008 3.6
February 11, 2008 3.4
February 18, 2008 4.0
February 25, 2008 3.5
March 3, 2008 3.5
March 10, 2008 3.6
March 17, 2008 3.6
March 24, 2008 3.42
March 31, 2008 3.9
April 7, 2008 3.3
April 14, 2008 3.2
April 21, 2008 3.0
April 28, 2008 3.3
May 5, 2008 3.2
May 12, 2008 3.3
May 19, 2008 3.2
May 26, 2008 3.1
June 2, 2008 3.1
June 9, 2008 3.0

I'm sure someone can use 'em in the debate. They certainly fluctuate a good .1 or .2 here and there. Can't find ratings for 2009-2010.

I think people just aren't interested or have bigger interests nowadays. For example, both me and my younger brother watch pro wrestling and never miss an episode of Raw. However, after football season started, he'd much rather watch football and forces me to watch Raw on my laptop. There goes my .000001 not being added into the ratings. It sure sounds like a personal problem (ya know, one televison and all), but while watching online it made me think: why doesn't WWE stream Raw and Smackdown online? I should be asking them instead of asking here, but that's food for thought.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

Was anyone really expecting 'great' ratings when this Punk is shooty shooty started? Most, if not all, of the content is stuff most of WWE Universe don't get or/and don't give a damn about.

And can people stop using Cena as an excuse? If he can make up almost half of the merch sales by himself, there's no way in hell he is the cause of 'poor' ratings.

 

[Slyfox696]

So a whole lot of what you said about things that make wrestling "special" also apply to many other forms of entertainment, thus making them not special to just the wrestling business.

Does all of them apply?

Not getting multiple takes for television because everything is live sounds pretty similar to a band or musician, or an actor on broadway not getting multiple takes because everything is live.

When the musician records their album, is this true? Does the actor on Broadway perform in front of millions of fans and in different parts of the country every night?

Wrestling is unique, and trying to apply the standards by which other mediums of entertainment might be similar is a waste of time.

When you boil it down it's all about making money.

Absolutely it is. When you make money, you know you have done your job. As long as we agree on this basic premise, I don't see why there's an argument.

So, naturally, the question that follows is, "Do fans pay money for something that isn't entertaining to them?". Since we both know the answer to that is no, then we know that things which don't make money aren't entertaining, speaking in general.

This is something you & I are never going to agree on, Movies & wrestling are both forms of entertainment. Most movie studios won't greenlight a movie if it they don't think they make money off it, which by your own definitions is wrestling only purpose as well.

While that is true, those who create the movie aren't always as concerned. In pro wrestling, the company that greenlights the show is also the one who creates it.

You also say that by the time you're watching a movie & realize it's bad it's too late cause they already got your money, how is that differant than someone paying to go a wrestling show, or ordering a PPV only to get a shit show?

It's not different there, but if The Smurfs have your money, then they no longer care what you do. In pro wrestling, they get your money once, but they want it again tomorrow, the day after that, and the day after that. They want your money (or your viewership) every single day. Whereas Smurfs want it twice...at the theater and at the video store. Once they have your money, they have no further obligation to you.

Wrestling cannot do that. If wrestling turns you away from the show, then they lose your money today, tomorrow, the day after, and so on. It is MUCH more important for wrestling to get your business every day than twice.

Wrestling and movies are simply not the same thing.

IDK, I guess you could argue the Star Trek & Bond franchises

Agreed. Now over how many years are those movies spread?

& when you go see a movie and don't like it you have the option to get up & leave anytime.

Yes, but you've already paid for it. So there's no way of measuring whether you liked it or not. But if someone turns off the TV during the wrestling show, we can see from the ratings what they liked and what they didn't.

if the movie is on TV & you change the ratings doesn't that count against the ratings like it would for wrestling?

Does the movie have to interest you again next week with a sequel? And again the next week? And the week after that?

Isn't that how anybody in ANY field of entertainment grades their product though? So how are they completely different

Not at all. For example, take the writing of a book. A book can entertain people, but be poorly written. It can have misspelled words, sentence fragments, improper use of dialogue, etc. By contrast, a book I read about being an administrator of a computer server can be very easy to understand, with great examples, and provide valuable information, but not really be that entertaining, even though it accomplishes the purpose the book was written for.

But how can we soley blame this on what Punk is doing

I have not done that.

You can't say that the ratings drop simply because the Punk angle is continuing.

I never did. You can go up and down this thread, and not see me say that once.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

Who in the hell went to see The Smurfs, Sly?

 

[Poop Master Flex]

Who in the hell went to see The Smurfs, Sly?

I did, and it was Smurf tastic.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

I see. I am glad you enjoyed it then.

 

[Slyfox696]

Who in the hell went to see The Smurfs, Sly?

It's made $330,000 million worldwide, so I guess someone did.

 

[Wade's Public Transit Bomb]

Hrm. Guess I care too little. Last I read it only made around 18 million, but that was opening week.

Can we talk about The Smurfs instead? I did enjoy the cartoon as a lad.

 

[suttree]

What i dont like is the way the IWC will always use ratings to justify their point. if the show sucks and features pg style promos, guest hosts etc' and gets a bad rating, the IWC are all over it with "people want more realism and are sick of the current product, and this is why ratings are down.

But, if its a cm punk angle, and ratings are shit - its all because "everyone dvr's these days, watch online, ratings dont mean shit bla bla bla. make up you god damn mind already, your hypocrisy is laughable.

 

[gurvinder372]

What i dont like is the way the IWC will always use ratings to justify their point. if the show sucks and features pg style promos, guest hosts etc' and gets a bad rating, the IWC are all over it with "people want more realism and are sick of the current product, and this is why ratings are down.

But, if its a cm punk angle, and ratings are shit - its all because "everyone dvr's these days, watch online, ratings dont mean shit bla bla bla. make up you god damn mind already, your hypocrisy is laughable.

Well said, not long ago, people bombarded this site with posts explaining how attitude era used to rule, giving ratings as the success criteria for the same. Now, when the similar edginess is showing any surge in ratings, people are saying, rating is an inaccurate indicator of Punk angle's drawing power! Its funny because ratings was one of the main argument given in the favor of drawing power of attitude era. Now when rating is ruled out as any sort of indicator in the present era, how does IWC explains their claim that people loved attitude era more.

 

[ABMorales787]

 

[mr.ready]

According to the latest numbers released to WWE stockholders, the 2011 Money in the Bank pay-per-view with John Cena vs. CM Punk in Chicago did over 265,000 worldwide buys. This is up over 100,000 pay-per-view buys from the first Money in the Bank pay-per-view, which did 165,000 worldwide buys.

The increase can be attributed to the hot CM Punk angle and the match against John Cena.

The 2011 Money in the Bank buyrate is WWE's best this year besides WrestleMania 27 and the Royal Rumble.

Just sayin

 

[Slyfox696]

If that's true, that's mighty impressive. If they can keep that up over the next several PPVs, then I think the WWE can say they're heading for greener pastures.

However, because I know people are expecting me to say it, let's wait on the whole CM Punk is next Austin draw bit. Remember, One Night Stand 2005 did a great PPV buyrate as well.