So much for that CM Punk will draw ratings thing... | Page 4 | WrestleZone Forums

So much for that CM Punk will draw ratings thing...

And if bad guys are cheered for what should make them a bad guy, you don't have any bad guys any more.

You're a smart guy, figure it out.
I've figured it out: Pointless talking in circles is occurring.

It doesn't change the fact you're exposing the show behind the curtain. :shrug:
Still struggled to be bothered by this. :shrug:

No, it most certainly is about shock. Because it's not maintainable.
Acknowledging reality isn't maintainable? Odd. Where's reality running off to then?

Good vs. Evil will always draw. It always has, and always will. Battles about respect will always draw. It always has, and always will. Having conversations about which Internet favorite got fired, and CM Punk's real name being Phil does nothing for the show, except try and shock people into watching it, for the fact the WWE is now talking about things they wouldn't talk about before. Of course, when it becomes standard fare to talk about behind the scenes news, how are you going to shock fans into watching?
Good vs. evil and respect feuds draw because they're always there and they're always prominent. People know how to handle them. The internet hasn't been given a proper chance to draw and I refuse to acknowledge it can't until it's given a real chance to play on the same level as good vs. evil and respect for such a sustained period that people are given a chance to understand this new and unusual thing. This is the same way I've always felt about big guys drawing -- doesn't mean little guys can't with the right opportunity. And we'll never see eye to eye on this one, I know.
 
Smackdown is gradually reducing itself to Impact level ratings. What good are those bigger names doing on a taped Friday night show which airs on the Sci-Fi channel? Obviously, you put those bigger names on the Smackdown show so the house show circuit will draw better (though far behind the Raw show), but the fact is, if you eliminate the brand extension, you can still separate your house show circuit into two different brands. But at least this way, you're getting you best workers on the show which is your flagship show.

Clearly, the ratings are not bad due to lack of talent, but b/c people can read what you do with talent before they decide whether or not to watch it... You keep the rosters as they are, but give them better things to do, & that is how you raise the ratings. (Much the same way "Raw" does not necessarily have its ratings affected due to what happens on it, since it is live, so people don't know until they see it.)
 
Oh look, Sly trolling CM Punk fans. By god I've never seen this before.
 
If it goes 6 months I shudder to think of what the numbers might look like.
That's nice. Because I'm not admitting defeat until I see those numbers.

It's the way wrestling works anymore. Week to week TV isn't going to draw much unless there's something really different going on.
Have we tried not insulting people's intelligence and seeing how they react to that?

No, wait! You should probably let them get used to it before getting gun shy because most of them don't know how to digest it yet coming from a company that isn't utter garbage.

That novel enough? Because they've seen everything else.
 
Still struggled to be bothered by this. :shrug:
Ask ECW what the payoff for it is.

Acknowledging reality isn't maintainable? Odd. Where's reality running off to then?
Sure, you can mention reality, but who's going to care after a few weeks of it?

Good vs. evil and respect feuds draw because they're always there and they're always prominent. People know how to handle them. The internet hasn't been given a proper chance to draw and I refuse to acknowledge it can't until it's given a real chance to play on the same level as good vs. evil and respect for such a sustained period that people are given a chance to understand this new and unusual thing. This is the same way I've always felt about big guys drawing -- doesn't mean little guys can't with the right opportunity. And we'll never see eye to eye on this one, I know.
Indeed.
Why should I bother getting back to you? If your posts can be believed, you already know what I think about everything.



It proves the people in WWE don't care about them... The fans in the IWC, however, are a different story.



My mistake; You are an expert in showing it, but not seeing it.



No, but you clearly are... And it clearly does.



When they should've just fired him while he was suspended... Nobody would notice if his 90-day break became permanent.



There was a time I thought the same of you.



90% of that was mic time, which is something I don't recall Smith ever getting. Kozlov did, but spoke little if any. That has nothing to do with their wrestling ability.



You'd think so, wouldn't you?



If you're not on TV, how am I gonna know if I should like you or not?



I have, & you have clearly also learned a little bit. VERY little.

See ya.
 
Clearly, the ratings are not bad due to lack of talent, but b/c people can read what you do with talent before they decide whether or not to watch it... You keep the rosters as they are, but give them better things to do, & that is how you raise the ratings. (Much the same way "Raw" does not necessarily have its ratings affected due to what happens on it, since it is live, so people don't know until they see it.)

Nope. The talent is bad. When a show's sole focus is strictly the main event, there are issues that need to be addressed. Like how the midcard can't grasp a single strand of attention, but the main event has the net-boys wetting their pants. Normally, netfan's cling to the fresh midcard guys and toss the "overexposed" main event guys.
 
You obviously must not have spent much time around here after Punk's first "shoot" promo.

Punk's first shoot promo is exactly what I am trying to talk about. His "shoot" appealed to the fans who were already going to watch anyway, and made them happier and helped them enjoy the show more, but it did nothing to promote new viewership. End result was the exact same rating (which does not surprise me at all), but the number of people who made up this rating enjoyed it more, even though they were going to watch anyway. In other words, the IWC smarks, who are already watching anyway, are having even wetter dreams about the storyline, which makes it a moderate success at least, yet ratings are not increased because of it. I truly am at a loss as to what WWE can do to significantly increase ratings at this point, and sustain them.
 
That's nice. Because I'm not admitting defeat until I see those numbers.


Have we tried not insulting people's intelligence and seeing how they react to that?

No, wait! You should probably let them get used to it before getting gun shy because most of them don't know how to digest it yet coming from a company that isn't utter garbage.

That novel enough? Because they've seen everything else.

You wouldn't call what we've seen so far as insulting to our intelligence?

"Well yes John Cena, I do hate your entire way of life and I hate this company, so I'm going to take the title in a worked wrestling match that just happens to be in front of my hometown and leave with the title even though there are about 10,000 ways Vince McMahon could have stripped me of it or made me lose it in the time between the PPV ending and midnight."

I'd call a lot of that insulting to my intelligence.
 
Punk's first shoot promo is exactly what I am trying to talk about. His "shoot" appealed to the fans who were already going to watch anyway, and made them happier and helped them enjoy the show more, but it did nothing to promote new viewership. End result was the exact same rating (which does not surprise me at all), but the number of people who made up this rating enjoyed it more, even though they were going to watch anyway. In other words, the IWC smarks, who are already watching anyway, are having even wetter dreams about the storyline, which makes it a moderate success at least, yet ratings are not increased because of it. I truly am at a loss as to what WWE can do to significantly increase ratings at this point, and sustain them.

But those fans of Punk were certainly singing the praises of Punk, and used the fact the WWE Shop didn't produce merchandise for him as a sign he was going to be a huge draw. Do you not remember the comparisons to Austin?
 
You wouldn't call what we've seen so far as insulting to our intelligence?

"Well yes John Cena, I do hate your entire way of life and I hate this company, so I'm going to take the title in a worked wrestling match that just happens to be in front of my hometown and leave with the title even though there are about 10,000 ways Vince McMahon could have stripped me of it or made me lose it in the time between the PPV ending and midnight."

I'd call a lot of that insulting to my intelligence.
Name me what stupid sports organization let's it's talent walk away with company property?
I disagree. The talent isn't bad, the acting is bad.
Tomato, to... ma.. to... FUCK!
 
You wouldn't call what we've seen so far as insulting to our intelligence?

"Well yes John Cena, I do hate your entire way of life and I hate this company, so I'm going to take the title in a worked wrestling match that just happens to be in front of my hometown and leave with the title even though there are about 10,000 ways Vince McMahon could have stripped me of it or made me lose it in the time between the PPV ending and midnight."

I'd call a lot of that insulting to my intelligence.
You're in one of the upper percentiles as far as intelligence in wrestling fans is concerned. There's no way around insulting you. As a booker, I certainly wouldn't bother jumping through the hoops that you could create because most idiotic wrestling fans won't notice that nonsense. However, there's plenty of other nonsense they do notice and they'd at least like to see their knowledge of it validated by the system. And I don't see the harm.
 
As a fan, I've never cared about business or ratings... I just want to enjoy the program. And I enjoyed last night's program, specifically the ending segment. Fuck ratings, fuck pay-per-view buys, fuck merchandise sales... I just want to be intrigued by the show as I watch it, and the Punk/Cena storyline has me more interested in pro wrestling than I have been in a very long time. I don't get a fuck if casual fans are confused by it or not... fuck 'em. When I was a kid/casual fan some stuff confused me as well, but it didn't make me enjoy the show any less, because the pay off came with the MATCHES, which is ultimately what pro wrestling is all about. And trust me, every fan, from casual to hardcore internet, will get a great pay off with this feud come Summerslam, since these two are bound to have a very good match.
 
You're in one of the upper percentiles as far as intelligence in wrestling fans is concerned. There's no way around insulting you.
Disagree with this as well. There's plenty of ways to book, without insulting intelligence of the true knowledgeable fan. Any wrestling fan is going to have to accept some degree of inconsistency in a storyline, but that doesn't mean things have to be insulting to intelligence.

For the record, I didn't have a problem with the Punk leaving with the title storyline though.
 
As a fan, I've never cared about business or ratings... I just want to enjoy the program. And I enjoyed last night's program, specifically the ending segment. Fuck ratings, fuck pay-per-view buys, fuck merchandise sales... I just want to be intrigued by the show as I watch it, and the Punk/Cena storyline has me more interested in pro wrestling than I have been in a very long time. I don't get a fuck if casual fans are confused by it or not... fuck 'em. When I was a kid/casual fan some stuff confused me as well, but it didn't make me enjoy the show any less, because the pay off came with the MATCHES, which is ultimately what pro wrestling is all about. And trust me, every fan, from casual to hardcore internet, will get a great pay off with this feud come Summerslam, since these two are bound to have a very good match.

If the masses don't like what you like, then what you like won't be around very long.
 
You're in one of the upper percentiles as far as intelligence in wrestling fans is concerned. There's no way around insulting you. As a booker, I certainly wouldn't bother jumping through the hoops that you could create because most idiotic wrestling fans won't notice that nonsense. However, there's plenty of other nonsense they do notice and they'd at least like to see their knowledge of it validated by the system. And I don't see the harm.

That's true, most wouldn't. However, most fans don't seem all that interested in what's being presented. Most fans are casual fans who don't watch every show. Based on the numbers we've had over the past month, they don't seem to be watching any more than usual. The numbers do however indicate that other than last week, things have been going down pretty steadily.
 
But those fans of Punk were certainly singing the praises of Punk, and used the fact the WWE Shop didn't produce merchandise for him as a sign he was going to be a huge draw. Do you not remember the comparisons to Austin?

Indeed I do remember the comparisons being made to Austin. Such comparisons were being made by the more rabid fans comprising the 3.1-3.3 ratings. New casual fans were not being lured in by Punk's SCSA comparison, just the existing fans were more excited by such comparisons.

The "fans of Punk" were singing his praises, but these fans were the same people who were watching regardless, and will continue to watch after the angle plays out. These same fans are the ones buying the WWE merchandise. The Punk angle has been very effective in pleasing the people who are already on board, but has done nothing to bring more people on board.
 
I fucking love how whenever a rating drops even the slightest bit people who hate whoever the focus of the show is on at that time love to talk non-stop about how this proves that the guy they don't like sucks or can't draw ratings.

Well Slyfox, guess what? WWE ratings across the board have done nothing but decrease since John Cena came into the main event scene as the number one babyface. Where's the blame for that? Weird, I don't remember you ever having a problem with that. Ratings, PPV buyrates, and house show attendance have all been on a downward spiral since Cena became the top guy. Funny how you never had a problem with that, but RAW drops 200,000 viewers in one week and that conclusively proves that Punk isn't a draw? Get the fuck out of here with that absolute ridiculous nonsense.

Unless your name is The Rock or Stone Cold, no one is going to draw big ratings for the WWE anymore. Period, bottom line, end of story. That includes all of your favorite wrestlers Sly as well as mine.
 
If the masses don't like what you like, then what you like won't be around very long.

If you seriously think that the "masses" of WWE fans haven't been interested in this Cena/Punk program, you are absolutely positively full of steaming shit.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Members online

No members online now.

Forum statistics

Threads
174,846
Messages
3,300,837
Members
21,727
Latest member
alvarosamaniego
Back
Top