No, what's misleading is the idea that numbers equal success. You say you're not concerned with profits, the problem with that is the WWE IS concerned with profits. When they set the prices on their goods and products, they do it according to what will make them the most amount of money, not what will attract the most number of people.
So when you post all these buyrates you are about to post, it means absolutely nothing. If the WWE lowered their PPV price from $45 to $20, I bet they could increase PPV buys by nearly a 1/3rd, if not more. But what good is that, if it costs you money? If you were a juggler, and charged admission to your show, would you charge 7 people $2, or 5 people $5?
That's great, it took you 5 minutes to find it? Here, I'll help you shorten that time:
http://forums.wrestlezone.com/showthread.php?t=145691
There, now you can have access to all sorts of wrestling information, and it's never more than a few mouse clicks away. Of course, since buyrates have absolutely nothing to do with revenue, I'm not really sure what your point is.
Ahh, so you did find the thread. Great. Do me a favor and look at the WWE's revenue, and tell me what you find. If you would like, I can upload a new batch of files to include WWE's profits, which are the greatest they've been since the Attitude Era. Just let me know.
Ratings are such an imperfect measure of success for a wrestling company, unless you understand all the other factors that go into them. If this was 1999, Monday Night Raw would probably be pulling a 4.5 rating right now, maybe higher. Go back and look at Saturday Night's Main Event ratings, and you'll see some 10.x ratings. You really think that many more people watch SNME? Of course not, just a higher percentage that had their television on at that time did. Of course, when there's only 30 channels (if that many), you're much more likely to get a better rating.
Ratings have been fairly consistent since 2002. Average yearly ratings from 2002 until June of 2007 were between the 3.7 and 4.0 mark. Average yearly ratings from June 2007 until 2010 (2011 isn't finished yet) have been roughly a 3.3. June 2007, of course, is when Chris Benoit made national news.
Go ahead and look, use the spreadsheet of information I provided. I include average ratings at the bottom. You'll see that I'm right.
I have no idea, but I do know that you were trying to make a point by using misleading and/or false information.
If you look at financial records, the answer is yes. If you look at live attendance is probably. "Better" is a relative term, which can only be measured by how the company meets its goals, and the WWE's goals are to make the most money possible. And in a time when the economy has been slumping for years, unemployment in the US is between 9 and 10%, when the poverty level in the country is at 15% (according to another thread on here), and when the disparity of wealth between the rich and poor is as great as it's ever been, the fact the WWE pulled the greatest profit since the Attitude Era would suggest that, no, the WWE wasn't a better product 5 years ago. And considering 2001 and 2002 (ten years ago) were the years the WWE went from the 5.6 TV rating they did in Januray of '01 to the 3.3 they did at the end of '02, I would argue that, no, ten years ago probably wasn't much better than they are today.
And again, I wish to point out how narrow of a view that is, because number of people is not what the WWE strives to maximize. They try to maximize revenue, or more accurately profit, not number of people. So with fairly constant ratings, fairly constant PPV revenue, and increasing company revenue and profit, there's really no way you can say the WWE is doing poorly.
