Steve Austin didn't pop ratings when he first started going against the grain either. People need time to digest things which are new to them.
So much for that CM Punk will draw ratings thing...
- Thread starter Slyfox696
- Start date
What's the matter, xfear? Were you sad I didn't take your flame-bait earlier? So now you had to troll with inaccuracies regarding Cena? It must be sad to be you sometimes.
I have some anecdotal evidence about my wife to support your claims.
I think I'm just going to post this from now on. It's all you really do around here, at least in threads I participate in. Here we were having a great discussion, and you have to come in with your obvious trolling. Seriously, you have to do a better job deciding proper times to troll.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Actually they did. The week before he won King of the Ring Raw was at a 2.3. After he won it didn't hit that mark again for a month, including going up to their highest rating in over a month the night after he won. Things did go up immediately after he won.
And WCW filed a lawsuit for it, stripped him of the title of "WCW Champion", NWA eventually did the same and WWE had to blur the belt.
If the storyline ends after Summerslam, that's still over a month of top quality programming for me, which I haven't gotten from pro wrestling in a long time, so that's still better than nothing, correct?
And also Sly, let's be honest, I haven't seen you this invested in anything pro wrestling wise in a long time either. If WWE was doing their typical, redundant cookie cutter bullshit and they were drawing a 3.7 with Cena feuding with Del Rio, I bet you wouldn't be as interested in that storyline as you are this one.
"Inaccuracies regarding Cena"? Are you kidding me? What about what I just said isn't true? Have ratings not declined since Cena became the top guy? Have PPV buyrates not gone down the toilet? Has house show attendance not gone down? Answer to all of these questions: Yes, they damn sure have.
So why exactly is Cena exempt from any blame for declining business, but Punk is? Cena's been the main focus of the company for 6-7 years, Punk has been the main focus for all of two months. Think you might be jumping the gun just a wee bit?
Cue non-stop excuses about how it's not Cena's fault that business has gone down despite him being the main focus of the company for the last 7 years. No, it's not Cena's fault, can't be...no it must be that damned Kofi Kingston's fault. Of course, that explains it.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Other than the two highest bought PPVs ever being headlined by Cena.
If you make a thousand dollars one day and then lose twenty thousand dollars in the same week, that doesn't put you ahead KB. It doesn't work like that. Two great PPV buyrates doesn't outweigh the dozens of shit buyrates for shows he's headlined and the fact that ratings and buyrates have gone down on average all across the board.
No offense, but I was under the impression that the 2003-2005 product was utter shit in terms of rates and buys.
How long did all that take? Is the answer "longer than Punk was off TV"?
Probably more to do with Warrior taking a stand against the evil Camp Cornette than anything. Really, who's to say that's not the case?
Well if you want to be technical about it, Cena was already main eventing PPVs in World title matches by 2003. He didn't become the main focus until 2005 though.
The point I'm trying to make here though is that it isn't Cena's fault that business has gone down, just like it's not Punk's fault that the Raw rating was down this week. There are other extenuating circumstances, mainly the decline in pro wrestling popularity in general and the inability to create long-lasting stars who can draw. And if you're going to blame one guy for a lower rating one week, you have to do the same thing to a guy that has been the main focus of a company whose buyrates and ratings have gone down. You can't just pick and choose when you want to use that philosophy, like Sly is here. That would make you a hypocrite.
This whole conversation is pretty unproductive and stupid. It's obvious that this CM Punk storyline has done nothing for WWE's short term rating game. I don't think it's not that casual fans are uninterested in the feud, just not dedicated to wrestling in general. In fact, I would be fascinated to see the last time there was a big ratings increase, as I'm starting to think that the casual fans just won't come back no matter what the WWE is putting on. If John Cena vs. The Rock won't get a huge ratings spike, what will? Certainly not Cena vs. Punk.
That said, CM Punk is still immensely talented. This feud has gotten the internet buzzing and every arena that he has been in since this feud has began has been vocal about the angle one way or another, whether they back Cena, Punk, or a healthy but confusing mix like last night. He also put on one of the best matches in WWE history along with Cena at Money in the Bank.
I know that this isn't a conversation about how talented Punk is, and I know it's off topic, but I really don't care. The fact of the matter is not a single one of us know what's going to increase WWE's ratings, and most of us don't even have a clue what would do it.
That said, CM Punk is still immensely talented. This feud has gotten the internet buzzing and every arena that he has been in since this feud has began has been vocal about the angle one way or another, whether they back Cena, Punk, or a healthy but confusing mix like last night. He also put on one of the best matches in WWE history along with Cena at Money in the Bank.
I know that this isn't a conversation about how talented Punk is, and I know it's off topic, but I really don't care. The fact of the matter is not a single one of us know what's going to increase WWE's ratings, and most of us don't even have a clue what would do it.
I haven't been nearly as interested in the storyline as I have Punk fans. But sure, I've enjoyed the program as well. My point is all those who were saying Punk was being launched into superstardom have yet to be proven right.
But as far as those other feuds, I've always been interested in Cena feuds. In fact, about the only thing wrestling wise I do get interested in is Cena feuds. I had many conversations about Cena and the Rock earlier this year.
It's getting kind of pathetic now. Surely you have better things to do than this.
But I'll tell you what. I'll humor you this one time. You are inaccurate about Cena. Ratings didn't decline when he became champion, they actually went up. From the 3.69 they averaged in 2004, to the 3.8 in 2005, and the 3.9 in 2006, they did go up. And if I'm not mistaken, they were hovering around the 3.9 mark in early 2007.
Then ratings tanked. Why? Chris Benoit's double murder suicide, and then the steroid scandal a month later. The WWE went from a 3.9 average before the murders to a 3.3 (I believe) after. Average PPV revenue also increased during those years I mentioned, and in fact, until the economic hard times we've had, PPV business was good.
So yes, inaccuracies regarding Cena. I consider this matter now closed. Feel free to continue with your pathetic cries for attention. Or better yet, don't.
shattered dreams
Hexagonal Hedonist
What is it that the ever so vague "masses" actually do care about? It certainly isn't Cena.
This says it all right here. The "masses" of existing WWE fans have been tremendously interested in the Cena/Punk program, there's no doubt about it. That's why these forums are so lit up about this angle, and why such passionate and heated debates are happening here about it. But this angle is doing nothing to appeal to the "masses" of non-WWE fans, or former WWE fans, or niches like this, to get them to follow along. Bottom line? Tremendous buzz, but no ratings increase. Not quite what the WWE brass would ideally like, but still not too bad.
The lawsuit and the stripping? I believe it only took a day after his first appearance.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
See, actually it does. This year, mainly due to Mania, has done a good deal more buys than last year up to this point. It's something like 170,000 more this year, which sounds like improvement to me. The one big PPV draw has made up for the lower buyrates of the other shows.
I'm pretty sure the point Killjoy is making is that 2003-2005 wasn't wildly successful, yet we're still graced with the large shadow Triple H's nose casts over all living things.
You're kind of right, but don't let that get in the way of Xfear's trolling.
Bingo. JGlass nailed it on the head. It's no one's fault. Wrestling is a declining form of entertainment in terms of popularity, and it doesn't matter if they bring back The Rock, Stone Cold, Mick Foley, Hulk Hogan, and Bret Hart as full-time members of the roster because the rating wouldn't even sniff past a 3.5 at max.
Oh and you know what's more important than TV ratings? Merch sales. Which have gone through the roof for Punk since this angle started. The WWE made millions upon millions more off of Austin t-shirts than they ever did from getting ratings in the 7.0's.
klunderbunker
Welcome to My (And Not Sly's) House
Who's to say any of the ratings holding up have to do with Cena and Punk?
Pretty much this. If some people don't see dollar signs on what people who are watching like passionately and have voted on overwhelmingly with t-shirt sales, there's nothing left to be said to those detractors.
