Very Troubling Trend for the WWE

[ryan86]

Now this is a very serious ananysis I will be presenting, so if your not into serious matters outside of entertainment, please controll yourself.

The ratings for Raw have been slipping for 7 consecutive weeks. Now I went back for a specific look at the past 16 years, and I could only find ONE precident for this happening; Late 2000. It was the start of a 4 year decline.

I had made a mistake and compared this year to 1997, but one thing I missed; The WWE was not losing viewrs to competion, It was gaining. And that was the rise of SCSA.

And for anyone to blow this off as "well, ratings dont matter B/C of the different Technologies"; Let me open your mind to the fact that these technologies did NOT appear in the last 2 months. And that advertizing Rev. is WWE's biggest money maker.

Competition is not a great argument B/C If your losing viewers to it, that means people are not finding the product good enough to stick around.

The WWE needs to jack up that first hour, to make up for the tuning out in the 2nd

MODERATOR'S NOTE:
If you feel the need to call the OP out in a personal fashion, do so through private message or through our "Rep" system. All personal-attack posts will be deleted, and given an infraction. Thanks.

 

[RicoLen]

So what are you saying? That we're in for the start of a multi-year decline?

What's funny though, I think 2002 was probably one of my favorite years ever.

And also, do you mean to tell me that 2005 was better than 2004?

 

[MaverickAZ]

IMO, one of the reasons for decline in viewership is the lack of star power from the attitude era

The Undertaker, HHH, The ROck, Bret Hart, Stone Cold, and now Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels

thats 7 superstars that are no longer active performers in one way or another
thats alot of firepower lost

also, everythings been done, and every angle you see today, has been done to death. So when you have "secondary" guys like Cena, Orton, Punk, Miz, ZIggler, Barrett, Sheamus, Christian, Mark Henry, Bryan doing it, people aren't taking to it like they used to

SUre the kids are drawn to these guys, but the demo that pays the tickets, buys the PPV's, just might be burnt out on WWE

even today, i was looking at an old RAW from 2002, and the crowd is literally into EVERY segment, EVERY match even if it was Raven vs Jeff Hardy, or Spike Dudley vs XPac. You just don't see that today.

 

[BK Styles]

As has been mentioned in the spam sections, this is traditionally the worst point of a year in the WWE as far as ratings go. I kno you have facts and figures to support your argument, and this is your THIRD ratings-related thread (I'm surprised to see Punk not mentioned in your OP), but the real test will be if ratings don't pick up around Royal Rumbe, and are down considerably from last year. That'd be my advice.

 

[Canadian Ninja]

Now this is a very serious ananysis I will be presenting, so if your not into serious matters outside of entertainment, please controll yourself.

The ratings for Raw have been slipping for 7 consecutive weeks. Now I went back for a specific look at the past 16 years, and I could only find ONE precident for this happening; Late 2000. It was the start of a 4 year decline.

I had made a mistake and compared this year to 1997, but one thing I missed; The WWE was not losing viewrs to competion, It was gaining. And that was the rise of SCSA.

And for anyone to blow this off as "well, ratings dont matter B/C of the different Technologies"; Let me open your mind to the fact that these technologies did NOT appear in the last 2 months. And that advertizing Rev. is WWE's biggest money maker.

Competition is not a great argument B/C If your losing viewers to it, that means people are not finding the product good enough to stick around.

The WWE needs to jack up that first hour, to make up for the tuning out in the 2nd

Why jack the ratings up for the first hour to only lose them? Ratings are taken every 15 minutes, and then collectivley listed for the entire hour. Your math doesn't add up. It's always been a higher first hour, and a lower second hour. Raising the first hour's ratings will not show any difference, except for a greater decline. The only way to improve ratings, is to keep viewers for the full two hours. The only way to do that is to make less predictable shows, and keep people entertained leading into the second hour. THAT is how you will stop the decline. It's football season right now, so RAW will always struggle with the NFL on Mondays. Gathering more viewers is good, keeping them is the trick. The years you are comparing todays product to is almost like comparing apples to oranges. Everything was different 10 years ago. The reason say the entertainment is more important then ratings, is because it is. It's what the people see on their TVs that will keep them viewing, not what the numbers are. The only people who need to worry about what the ratings are, is Vince McMahon and the writers as the number of viewers they have is reflective of their work and the way they put the shows together, not to the viewers like you and me. If you have 2 big segments that people are interested, one in the first hour, one in the second and nothing but fluff in between, no one will care to stick around for hour number 2. Why? They don't want to see stuff randomly put there to fill in the show that doesn't matter. No matter how many fans want to see Kevin Nash in the ring, putting Santino there just doesn't do anything and people will tune out as people can already guess what will happen. They need to fix up the writers, and get a good stories in all levels for all titles going as that works. If you make people want to stay till the end of the show, give them something to invest their time in until then. Countless promos, backstage segments with meaningless matches won't keep viewers. It was more then just Stone Cold that made the ratings, it was a meaningful show on all levels, seeing Austin in the end was the pay off for fans, at a time when wrestling was at the height of its popularity. Now that it's not so popular, and WWE is losing its base of hardcore fans to blow off football games and re-runs not because of one or two guys, but because the whole program sucks and can be seen through easily.

 

[Creepy Crawl]

From February up until about a month and a half ago I watched the whole show. Now I either watch and flip the channel when it gets boring, or just DVR it and watch later and FF through the dumb ass parts. It has had its fare share of them too here lately.

 

[FitFinlay4Life]

The problem I see with the current product is that they do not seem to know who they are aiming the product at; the kids or the adults. On one side, we have the CM Punk kayfabe teasing promos and Kevin Nash assaulting Trips with a sledgehammer, hardly kiddie friendly. Against this we have Muppets, Hornswoggle, Santino and, arguably, Cena who leave many adults cold. Couple this with a lack of bankable names and these dropping ratings might be cause for concern. If viewers are turning over because they don't like the style, or indeed the featured characters, of a particular segment, then there is always the risk that they will not turn back.

I believe that they need to make their mind up, either try to do a Pixar and make their storylines good enough for both the young and old or return to PG13 (remember Myagi's thoughts on walking down the road). They also need to have the courage of their convictions and stick with their pushes. Cena will not be there forever and you have to wonder what would happen if he were to get an injury?

Edit: Before I get lynched from some quarters, I'm not knocking the Muppets, just having kayfabe knocking one segment followed by Sheamus and Beaker discussing the family reunion.

 

[ryan86]

Canadian Ninja:

I know exactly how ratings are gahtered, But you don't seem to understand what i am saying. I looked at the past 16 years, (95-11), and i compared mid october to mid december. The week leading up to christmas allways takes a dive, and usualy the last week of Dec. And yes, they have allways proven to pick up in january. I have not found one period (mid oct - mid dec), where ratings have fallen 7 consecutive weeks. The only time we saw that trend was late 2000, when he WWE headed for a 4 year decline.

Do you think WWE Execs are sitting around saying, "the entertainment is good for those who stick around, so we wont worry about the numbers"?

No, they are trying to figure out how to change the prodcut, as to keep viewers, with the constant goal of expanding.

A short term fix would be to load the first hour, try for a 3.6, and when the second hour falls, do what you can and hope for a 3.0. The average comes to a 3.3 (3.6/3.0).

Do this untill the viewers will stick around for the 2nd hour.

 

[sephx42]

Yeah, well, WWE has a number of glaring problems with the product right now. There are no tag teams (I think a bigger deal than they lead on), the Diva's division is filled with models that can't wrestle (so much a problem they made an angle out of it to 'take back' some of the heat) who are also having variations of the same match 6 weeks in a row now, and unless someone makes themselves a star soon, there are only like 4 guys to throw against the world champ. I don't buy these passing fueds and musical chairs between the 4 said guys that are main eventers.

Worst of all, there hasn't been a good/coherent storyline around the main event in forever. Every one of these wasn't an issue during previous eras. One may have been wrong, but not all of them.

 

[Canadian Ninja]

Canadian Ninja:

I know exactly how ratings are gahtered, But you don't seem to understand what i am saying. I looked at the past 16 years, (95-11), and i compared mid october to mid december. The week leading up to christmas allways takes a dive, and usualy the last week of Dec. And yes, they have allways proven to pick up in january. I have not found one period (mid oct - mid dec), where ratings have fallen 7 consecutive weeks. The only time we saw that trend was late 2000, when he WWE headed for a 4 year decline.

Do you think WWE Execs are sitting around saying, "the entertainment is good for those who stick around, so we wont worry about the numbers"?

No, they are trying to figure out how to change the prodcut, as to keep viewers, with the constant goal of expanding.

A short term fix would be to load the first hour, try for a 3.6, and when the second hour falls, do what you can and hope for a 3.0. The average comes to a 3.3 (3.6/3.0).

Do this untill the viewers will stick around for the 2nd hour.

To do that, they need to make it entertaining. If it's entertaining throughout, people won't change the channel during the second hour. You're aim in a tv business should NEVER lose viewers. If a show is losing viewers, there is something wrong. If they only look at the numbers, not caring about the entertainment (which, as viewers, is what we are looking for) then they have a problem as they are missing out on half of the big picture. You missed a line, where I said the only people who need to worry about the numbers IS the WWE Execs, not Joe Shmoes like you and me. WE are those numbers, WE are the consumers. If the numbers drop, it means us, the consumers, are not being entertained enough to keep watching. That is bad. The numbers shows that their "entertainment" is bad. Do you get the drift? WWE Execs should look at the numbers and get the idea that "If people are tuning out, it means they are not being entertained enough and they find it boring to watch." So they should fix the entertainment aspect of the show, and the numbers will rise. Better show=better numbers.

 

[steveom07]

Canadian Ninja:

I know exactly how ratings are gahtered, But you don't seem to understand what i am saying. I looked at the past 16 years, (95-11), and i compared mid october to mid december. The week leading up to christmas allways takes a dive, and usualy the last week of Dec. And yes, they have allways proven to pick up in january. I have not found one period (mid oct - mid dec), where ratings have fallen 7 consecutive weeks. The only time we saw that trend was late 2000, when he WWE headed for a 4 year decline.

Do you think WWE Execs are sitting around saying, "the entertainment is good for those who stick around, so we wont worry about the numbers"?

No, they are trying to figure out how to change the prodcut, as to keep viewers, with the constant goal of expanding.

A short term fix would be to load the first hour, try for a 3.6, and when the second hour falls, do what you can and hope for a 3.0. The average comes to a 3.3 (3.6/3.0).

Do this untill the viewers will stick around for the 2nd hour.

Who cares?? I go by whether I personally have found Raw enjoyable. Does a decrease in ratings mean I didnt enjoy the show? No! Like someone else mentioned, leave it for the WWE execs to sort out, not your issue.

Now I'm not here to debate ratings etc, because I am in the UK and have no idea about the USA ratings system (we dont have one, just goes by viewers).

I feel that 'loading' the first hour is just plain stupid. SO what you want Cena, CM Punk, Orton, Del Rio, Miz or whatever all in matches and segments in the first hour? And save what for the second hour? Main event Santino v Alex Riley? Yeah that will work

 

[donnelllangs]

Now this is a very serious ananysis I will be presenting, so if your not into serious matters outside of entertainment, please controll yourself.

The ratings for Raw have been slipping for 7 consecutive weeks. Now I went back for a specific look at the past 16 years, and I could only find ONE precident for this happening; Late 2000. It was the start of a 4 year decline.

I had made a mistake and compared this year to 1997, but one thing I missed; The WWE was not losing viewrs to competion, It was gaining. And that was the rise of SCSA.

And for anyone to blow this off as "well, ratings dont matter B/C of the different Technologies"; Let me open your mind to the fact that these technologies did NOT appear in the last 2 months. And that advertizing Rev. is WWE's biggest money maker.

Competition is not a great argument B/C If your losing viewers to it, that means people are not finding the product good enough to stick around.

The WWE needs to jack up that first hour, to make up for the tuning out in the 2nd

Everyone keep saying don't worry about the ratings. Well no good ratings mean cancelled show. People say wwe is going up against football but when wwe was pulling 7.something in ratings it was not a problem. We have to worry a little bit because I like my wrestling. The writers have to think outside the box from point A, B and C to keep the viewers tuned in. Like one of the posters said, the storylines have been done to death. No one has good enough character or gimmick with some type of catchphrase to get over. It seems to me that any sports today is not as good as sports was yesterday but the players are getting paid out the butt except for wrestlers. Even John Cena is not getting paid as much as mankind was. No one will see The Rock or Stone Cold type money unless they get those ratings up and increase butts in the seats.

 

[Clem]

The Attitude Era only worked because Vince had WCW and ECW to steal from, both in talent and story. Lacking any major competition to ripoff, WWE have spent a decade surviving off leftovers. The fact he's making a Network almost entirely out of library footage he inherited from those promotions just goes to show it's still happening.

I wouldn't be surprised if in a few years, he didn't turn around and poach all the best stars from TNA and ROH. Take TNA's X Division, ROH's Tag Division and suddenly people pay attention again...

 

[Harthan]

I completely agree with you. I couldn't imagine you being more right. The only thing that could possibly explain a ratings decline over seven consecutive weeks...why, there would have to be some sort of massive, seasonal television show. One that draws a huge number of viewers. One that draws from the same target audience as the WWE. One that is routinely far more popular than the WWE, every single year around this time of year. But no such show exists. Surely, these are the end times.

Oh.

Right.

Seriously, come on now. This happens every single year, it's nothing to go raising hell over. Raw's going up against tough competition that many people are just going to watch no matter what because football season only last so long and Raw will be there forever.

Now, I'm not arguing that everything the WWE is doing is perfect, that they are really, consistently putting on the most compelling television show possible - but that's a different discussion. The idea that ratings are about to slip into some kind of four year decline when anyone with two brain cells to rub together can tell you that Monday Night Football is on...come on now, son.

 

[VinnieSunshine]

As has been mentioned in the spam sections, this is traditionally the worst point of a year in the WWE as far as ratings go.

Agreed.

You have November which is where all the shows air their best episodes and some shows are either airing their season or mid-season finale. Also December brings about the last 4 games for NFL, the games that mean playoffs or not, then you are dealing with the playoffs themselves.

Here is the main reason ratings are as low as they are...

THE STROYTELLING IS WEAK!

Part of WWE's downfall was lack of creative storylines. Summer started off with a bang as it usually does. But with summer storylines there is also followthrough. There was no followthrough this summer. The Punk storyline felt rushed (for good reason) and the Punk/Triple H/Nash/Conspiracy angle went nowhere fast.

Vince changed his mind SO MANY times over the summer on what he wanted, that storylines fell apart and people started to lose interest. He wouldn't have had to rely so much on The Rock if he would just focus on his full-time players.

Personally I was curious as to where Punk was going at the beginning of the summer and where the Nash/Punk story was going. Now I couldn't care less.

 

[Jordanland]

To do that, they need to make it entertaining. If it's entertaining throughout, people won't change the channel during the second hour. You're aim in a tv business should NEVER lose viewers. If a show is losing viewers, there is something wrong. If they only look at the numbers, not caring about the entertainment (which, as viewers, is what we are looking for) then they have a problem as they are missing out on half of the big picture. You missed a line, where I said the only people who need to worry about the numbers IS the WWE Execs, not Joe Shmoes like you and me. WE are those numbers, WE are the consumers. If the numbers drop, it means us, the consumers, are not being entertained enough to keep watching. That is bad. The numbers shows that their "entertainment" is bad. Do you get the drift? WWE Execs should look at the numbers and get the idea that "If people are tuning out, it means they are not being entertained enough and they find it boring to watch." So they should fix the entertainment aspect of the show, and the numbers will rise. Better show=better numbers.

Can you please tell me why you're so fixed on the ratings for the show? This has to be the 3rd topic Ive seen you rant on the ratings. why not just enjoy the product instead of worrying about if others are watching or not?

 

[WWEIsLife2]

^ Agreed Jordan

I really don't know why some people all of sudden are so fixated on what the Ratings are. If RAW were the 1's like TNA Impact is all the time then I could see why the worry but they still remain in the mid-high 3's. Even Smackdown's Ratings have gone up in the past couple months since Mark Henry won the World Title.

I think RAW has been top notch again since the week before Survivor Series and after in the past couple weeks. Lets just enjoy what is going on and stop worrying about the little things.

 

[Big Red Machine]

Honestly I've been watching since the summer, really getting back into it before Capitol Punishment.. since I got back to school (I don't have cable) I had to stream online. I don't know how much viewership that takes away from ratings but judging by the chat windows while I watch, there's a fair share of people who are still watching, just not on TV at the time Raw airs (as the case with DVR and such).

 

[kokoBawesome]

I love when the opening line of a thread is somewhat insulting.

Raw traditionally uses the first hour to set up the main event and the second half of the show. If the first hour of the show has a Cena match, a C.M. Punk match, and whatever else is going to blow the live fans away.... whats going to be in the second half? The Divas, some tag action, a few newer guys and mid card players they wanna push, Santino? The only thing that going to happen is when ten o'clock comes I'm going to either go to bed because I have work in the morning, or I'm going to watch the end of the Monday night football game.

Raw is setup perfectly. The show starts by expanding feuds and story lines for the second half, where the story lines expand even further through run-ins, after match beat-downs or any number of post match results. If Cena is going to wrestle The Miz, its better off to have them smack talk each other to set up the match for later, than to have the match and have all the tension be gone.

I get what your saying, and it makes sense in theory. Maybe I'm wrong and you can save the best match for last anyway, but than again that gives me forty five minutes to get bored and change the channel anyway.

Raw has been great lately. Every segment is great. Having the Smackdown wrestlers around every week guarantees the best of the best on Raw every monday. If every segment features the best you have, for example having Randy Orton and Mark Henry pop up instead of some c lister in the 10:20 spot, theres a better chance people are gonna stick around. They need to get rid of this brand extension failure already. (wwe 12 instead of smackdown vs raw is a pretty good indication they might). Some newer guys are going to get buried in the fold, but its worth it to keep the fans around.

 

[ns530]

Don't start talking about ratings going up near Rumble because that's a slanted view.
OF COURSE it's gonna go up then. ROCKY will be there, DUH. Look folks, keep it real, the real concern for WWE and all of you should be the day after Mania 28. what in the hell will they do to sustain ratings once the bubble is popped and Rock bails to make Fast and Furious 6?

Keep it real.™

 

[Azane]

They'll pick up for Royal Rumble and Wrestlemania, the start of the year is their best written usually, except for the ME being obvious, cliche and already written, we should expect a good surge from the youth this year.

2012 is going to be a year of breakout stars, 2011 came close, but those young stars making the Midcard good right now are 2012 MErs.

At first, they won't draw, As good as Dolph or Cody are, they're not going to draw audiences at this point in their careers, but they will develop. Cena appeals to the broad market, ratings aren't tanking because he's at the top, to everyone not on the internet, he's Hulk Freaking Hogan 2.0. To everyone on the Internet, he's Hulk Hogan part 2.

WWE is in between eras, the Youth movement that these forums have cried for for 5 years are here, and now there's outcry that ratings drop with unknown faces being in the limelight. It'll pass as new stars are made, WWE dropped the ball on the mid generation though, Cena, Orton and recently Punk are the middle of Attitude and Reality eras, if WWE had made another 3 or 4 big names during the mid 2000 decade, they might of kept ratings up, but now they're recycling the stars and pushing ahead.

TLDR; Young guys devloping will swing the pendulum back to the gain side within 2012.

 

[RKOPUNK]

Ryan86, what is it with you and your obsession with the fucking ratings? Somebody ban threads about ratings already.

Just watch the show, and let the WWE worry about the ratings. Being in Australia, I'm no expert on rating on U.S t.v, but considering that The road to WrestleMania, the biggest part of the year, is about to begin, there will most likely be a spike in the ratings.

 

[Viggo]

"Jack up the first hour."

"Load the first hour."


What do you mean? Explain.

WWE's ratings our down for a simple reason:

The product SUCKS right now.

I say the "product" because there's a lot of talent in the WWE roster, it's just not being utilized effectively.
I feel like the backstage brass is more interested in getting "anal bleeding" to trend worldwide on Twitter than giving us an entertaining two hours of television. Until WWE creative starts developing storylines that play out over a series of months instead of weeks, and having big payoffs at PPVs, the ratings will continue to be low.

Stop re-writing the show at the last minute, it looks sloppy. Give us some stories (who cares if they're PG or not) that unfold logically and intricately. It's not rocket science.

And for goodness sake, enough with the twitter force-feeding...

 

[rokuma]

IMO, one of the reasons for decline in viewership is the lack of star power from the attitude era

The Undertaker, HHH, The ROck, Bret Hart, Stone Cold, and now Chris Jericho and Shawn Michaels

thats 7 superstars that are no longer active performers in one way or another
thats alot of firepower lost

also, everythings been done, and every angle you see today, has been done to death. So when you have "secondary" guys like Cena, Orton, Punk, Miz, ZIggler, Barrett, Sheamus, Christian, Mark Henry, Bryan doing it, people aren't taking to it like they used to

SUre the kids are drawn to these guys, but the demo that pays the tickets, buys the PPV's, just might be burnt out on WWE

even today, i was looking at an old RAW from 2002, and the crowd is literally into EVERY segment, EVERY match even if it was Raven vs Jeff Hardy, or Spike Dudley vs XPac. You just don't see that today.

It's funny...I went back and watched some Royal Rumbles from 2005, 2006, 2007 and hardly any (if any) of the guys in the rumble are with WWE these days. And there were young guys, veterans, supposed "up and comers" or the "next big thing." They are having trouble building stars because of the "cookie cutter formula" they are displaying. Sure, some guys look credible like Dolph, Miz, etc. and we can buy them as main eventers, but they are not stars like the Triple H's, SCSA, Rock, HBK, Undertaker, Foley, etc. Big difference...that's why the attitude era boomed. There were legit, interesting stars, and not just mundane guys like you see today.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

This is somewhat troubling. I don't think it's the start of a new downward trend. It could be random, it might not be. However, each instance is unique.

The competition for the WWE isn't just like TNA, or even just UFC, it's ALL of entertainment.

Curious, because I don't have time to look it up with 2 exams today and finals next week starting this saturday, what was their position in the rankings.

Also, did you make sure the drop was statistically significant? Because Nielsen is based off sample size, if you drop from say 2.98 to 2.95, that's probably not statistically significant and maybe it's only been a 4 or 5 consecutive week drop.

Just trying to be optimistic here. Also optimistically, Vince sees the same things you do, if he finds the same things, they'll no doubt try harder, which is only good for us.

Think about this too, next week is the slammys, the week after that we're supposedly gonna see something about the videos (Y2J in all likelihood) then the big return on the 2nd, then the road to wrestlemania after that. So, in all likelihood, ratings and every other metric should show a healthy increase for the next 4 months.