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

[Shocky]

It's too convoluted at this point. Ratings matter to the network obviously, but the NFL is such a different monster now then when it was 10 years ago. If USA network is happy, then the WWE is happy. Ratings are a piece, but there is so much more now.

1. How much Internet traffic has it caused for WWE sites?

2. Merchandising. Apparantely the CM Punk shirt is selling like crazy at live shows.

3. PPV buyrates. If Punk and Cena bumped the butyrate by 6 digits, I'm pretty sure the WwE will let Punk do whatever he wants. 100,000 buys at $50 a pop is impressive math. Now you have to wait and see what Summerslam does in comparison.

Lastly, hindsight will be 20/20, but it's going to take probably a year to see what effect punk has. There are far too many positives to establishing more stars around Cena. It makes no sense not to push Punk. Cena is the guy that has to be protected for many reasons. And creating another guy that can take the pressure off the main star is key.

 

[El Rev sXe]

I see all this chat about the ratings, but I think you people are forgetting that WWE is worldwide. Wich leads me to ask: how the WWE measures their success worldwide?

At leats here in Bolivia, Punk is becoming reallly popular a la Cena Orton and Mysterio.

 

[Hulk Hogan's Brother]

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

I'll blame the champion and the challenger to the championship as well. It seems as if they are not stringing together an interesting angle.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

such a redundant conversation. You can tell Sly is a teacher.

Saintlike paitence to explain the same inane, extremely simplistic paint by numbers common logic facts...over, and over, and over, and over.

 

[mr.ready]

I see all this chat about the ratings, but I think you people are forgetting that WWE is worldwide. Wich leads me to ask: how the WWE measures their success worldwide?

At leats here in Bolivia, Punk is becoming reallly popular a la Cena Orton and Mysterio.

Worldwide? Probably a combination of attendance figures overseas, merchandise and internet traffic.

 

[Slyfox696]

"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

If that's true, that's mighty impressive.

Apparently it wasn't true.

WWE's 2011 Money in the Bank PPV, which featured John Cena vs CM Punk during their hot angle this summer, reportedly took in 185,000 PPV buys, according to PWInsider.com. Although initial reports had the PPV taking in 265,000 buys, it appears as if that number is incorrect, and the actual buyrate is closer to the 185,000 range.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/241170-hardy-says-hes-reborn-wwe-mitb-draws-low-buyrate

Just sayin

 

[hatehabsforever]

Those are truly surprising and disappointing figures, especially when the figures first released looked so impressive.

I knew that damn John Cena couldn't draw a dime

 

[Slyfox696]

Those are truly surprising and disappointing figures, especially when the figures first released looked so impressive.

I knew that damn John Cena couldn't draw a dime

Cena did 1 million buys at Wrestlemania with The Miz. I blame CM Punk. If only he were as good as the Miz.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Cena did 1 million buys at Wrestlemania with The Miz. I blame CM Punk. If only he were as good as the Miz.

And here I thought breaking the 1 million buys barrier at Wrestlemania was because half of the main event match was so awesome! I guess Cena deserves some of the credit, and the guest referee didn't hurt matters either.

The simple fact of the matter is that the buy rates are indicative of pro wrestling's popularity in general, or lack thereof. Cena/Punk was a good program, but not enough to draw in more people and increase buy rates. The people who watched (who were likely going to tune in regardless) were way more enthused, way more interested and passionate, attributable to both Punk and Cena, but they were not enough to draw new viewers in.

 

[justinsayne]

what guest referee?

 

[Lee]

Apparently it wasn't true.


http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/241170-hardy-says-hes-reborn-wwe-mitb-draws-low-buyrate

Just sayin

http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/LookAndFeel/4121687/WWE-keyperformance.pdf

Page 5.

Just sayin

 

[Slyfox696]

http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/LookAndFeel/4121687/WWE-keyperformance.pdf

Page 5.

Just sayin

In all honesty, until the WWE announces it in their annual report in February, I don't really take any number seriously. What you'll notice is that those numbers change quite a bit, and it's not until the annual report where those numbers are finalized.

 

[Lee]

They're more believable than Wrestlezone.com

 

[Slyfox696]

They're more believable than Wrestlezone.com

Absolutely. But with numbers that soon after the PPV, and especially around the Q2 Earnings release, those numbers are probably more an educated prediction than a final tally. The actual number will probably come in lower, though perhaps not as low as the 185,000 as reported by PWInsider.

 

[Serious Mozzarella]

Have they ever? For any show?

My family is an Arbitron ratings household. The device is a beeper that basically reads the electromagnetic signals sent by the TV into the room when a show is on, so technically, watching it later adds to the ratings, but if you watch the show after a certain point, then it just doesn't matter.

Ratings come in for shows that aren't even airing that get tossed aside because they (rightfully) assume that they're just DVR ratings. In my opinion, they should just add the ratings from when the show airs to the next two or three days, and calculate like that.

I've heard some ratings companies do actually do that, but they adjust to people watching it twice or whatever.

 

[X]

TV ratings for a show that may or may not feature CM Punk each week are pretty much irrelevant in terms of drawing abilities these days, nobody draws big ratings apart from the old legends like Austin or Rock. You can't measure how over someone is or how much they can draw by TV ratings, but you can measure it by PPV buyrates. And Money in the Bank did three or four times the business this year than it did last year, and you bet your ass that was because of CM motherfucking Punk.

 

[Slyfox696]

but you can measure it by PPV buyrates. And Money in the Bank did three or four times the business this year than it did last year, and you bet your ass that was because of CM motherfucking Punk.

First of all, 165,000 to 265,000 is not even twice the business.

Second of all, this report says MITB didn't do 265,000.

During the last few days, there has been confusion over an exact number of PPV buys for WWE's July PPV Money In The Bank. Initially, WWE reported that the PPV drew around 285,000 PPV buys. However, over the last 24 hours the number has fallen down to 185,000, according to a Saturday August 27th report by PWInsider.com.

Apparently, the WWE added PPV buys from previous PPVs into that figure but have yet to explain why. The newer number more accurately reflects recent PPV patterns and is about the same as the 2010 Money In The Bank PPV.

Early word coming out of WWE is that many officials are upset over the low number of PPV buys. Many within the WWE felt the PPV would produce solid numbers based on the hot storylines of CM Punk leaving the WWE and his main event match against John Cena with Cena's WWE career also on the line. Despite the main event match being one of the best in recent years, and a solid PPV overall, the numbers didn't live up to expectations.

http://www.examiner.com/fight-sport...bank-ppv-draws-low-ppv-buys-internal-reaction

And this one agrees:

Based on the graph WWE released for their PPV buyrates in their latest key indicator, the Money in the Bank number was listed as 265,000 buys.

However, another breakdown in the estimates lists July PPV buys at just 185,000 buys. The other buys incorporated into the graph are being credited to Wrestlemania 27 PPV purchases that came in after the last key indicator was published by the company.

Now, as to the question as to why WWE would list those Wrestlemania buys as purchases for the Money in the Bank PPV on their graph, I can't begin to explain that one. I reached out for a clarification early yesterday but as of this morning, have not received a response. So, if and until we do, I wanted to make the note. If and when we get clarification, I will update.

http://www.pwinsider.com/article/61156/wwe-money-in-the-bank-ppv-updatecorrection.html?p=1

Both of those articles explain what Lee found (which was dated back on the 23rd of August). I guess we'll just have to wait until Q3 Report (or another "official statement") to find which is closer to the truth.