Very Troubling Trend for the WWE

[bigbootydaddyV]

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

Competition is a great argument actually because competition raises the overall pool of viewers as well. During the Monday Night Wars there were millions more viewers overall, and as long as you are winning that competition that meant a tremendous amount of viewers for your show. There is a reason numbers were so high during that period, because the overall show was better. The level of talent was better and the WWE had an identity, something it seems to have lost now. As someone said earlier, it's hard to tell who the show is directed to or focused on these days because they seem to be trying to bring in various types of viewers without fully satisfying any of them. On a total sidenote, IF they are still trying to get a large kiddie audience, it's only going to blow up in their face with the whole twitter love fest, why leave open the possibility of putting your impressionable fans being influenced by the IWC. It'd be like telling your kids to go somewhere where all people talk about is how santa doesn't exist. Kids aren't going to look past that or get interested in the business side of things, they are just going to stop watching.

Anyways, back on to topic, i just had to mention that. I don't think manipulating the numbers is going to do much, and is similar to what Eric Bischoff was doing. The WWE has gotten lost in it's own shuffle with trying to be an entertainment company and needs to go back to its core competency, that being pro wrestling. I don't think Vince has his finger on the pulse of the nation and he doesn't realize that when it comes down to it, wrestling is still on a lower tier of entertainment. It'll never get the respect of hollywood or pro sports and by that i mean it won't reach those levels of success, yet those are now its aspirations it seems like. Look at the XFL, I really think it would have had more than a season if Vince didn't force the wrestling tie in. Vince has got to keep the two (wrestling and ANYTHING else) separate in order to keep each strong. Instead we have Vince trying to incorporate all kinds of superfluous junk into the 2 hour window he has on Mondays and now this time the wrestling product is suffering as well (it probably would have back then too if HeHateMe started being a Raw GM).

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

I really fuckin hate the Attitude era arguments. First off, a 7 rating in 1999 isn't the same thing as one in 2011. there is other technology, etc going on now.

Not only that, but 1998 Raw ranged between mid 3s and mid 5s. 1999 mid 5s to mid 6s with a few low 7s and and an 8.1. 2000 mostly mid 6s and ended up in the low 5s. 2001 mostly high 4s and low 5s, ending up in the 3s. 2002 mostly in the 3s, early in the year they were in high 4s.

In other words, ratings pretty much boomed and before and after have been pretty constant. With the household share changing, more channel, and more ways to watch not even measured by Nielsen, it's pretty safe to say that other than the outlier of the boom period, WWE has been pretty consistent. Also, stop saying "they were in the 7s in the attitude era" as that's clearly not true. They may have peaked at around 7s, but they have never consistently gotten 7s.

People saying "don't worry about ratings" well how about you don't worry about ratings threads? some people (me) don't really "worry" about ratings, it's just fun to study it. I am a business major, I enjoy analysing these things and so does Ryan.

I kind of want to see a "number of viewers" analysis complete with confidence intervals, statistically significant changes, and adjusted for possible youtube/internet viewers. My guess is the difference isn't as big as "ZOMG 8.1 TO 2.75 DIFFERENCE!!!!!" like most of you simpletons think.


BigdaddyV, WWE is clearly targeting families. The only reason Toy Story 3 looks like it targets kids is because it's animated. It's family friendly with a fun plot, memorable characters, and everything kind of had an underlying modern social/political issue. It seems that's what WWE is trying to do. The attitude era created as much hatred for pro wrestling as it did love. The current format they have is much more sustainable. You aren't seeing TV specials on how violent and crude and awful pro wrestling is for kids to watch anymore. Instead you have ESPN saying good things about them and the WWE getting more and more good publicity. You can't undervalue the worth of goodwill.

 

[CrayzChris]

One of the main arguments we always hear about is the WWE's "Lack of Star Power". I don't really think that's the WWE's fault.

Sure, in the "Attitude Era", you had Steve Austin, Undertaker, Triple H, The Rock, Mick Foley, etc. Those were your main stars...and they passed the torch to what was supposed to be the next generation of superstars.

Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, Chris Jericho, Batista, Edge, Randy Orton, and John Cena...just to name a few. Well, what happened to those guys? Guerrero & Benoit's untimely deaths were a shock to everyone. They were at the peak of their careers, and would likely still be wrestling today.

Benoit was supposed to face CM Punk the night he took his life. He likely would have also feuded with John Morrison, who wound up taking his place in the match, and becoming ECW Champion. Both of those guys would have gotten a "rub" much sooner, had that actually happened.

I'm just using that as one example, but the fact is - the BIG STARS who replaced the stars from the attitude era all left prematurely (for various reasons).

Eddie Guerrero's death, Brock Lesnar leaving to pursue his football career, Kurt Angle's release from the company, Edge's retirement, Chris Jericho coming and going every few years, Batista retiring...

These guys never had the opportunity to get in the ring and put over the current crop of WWE talent. So all the up and coming stars have no one to help put them over. There's no one they can face that will make them an overnight sensation. It's just a bunch of guys who never beat anyone, facing eachother. That's not really their fault.

You could have all the entertaining storylines in the world, but no matter what happens - everyone constantly says "I don't buy __________ as a main eventer" or "__________ isn't ready yet".

WWE is doing a great job of giving opportunities to new stars. They have no choice.

I think if you want the product to get better, start putting it over. As "wrestling fans", which is what we are supposed to be, we could actually help the product, but pointing out the positive things, instead of the negative.

Instead of pointing out who's ready and who's not and what they lack...support these young new talents and try to acknowledge that they have potential. No one is going to be Steve Austin overnight. Not even Steve Austin. Who would have ever thought in 1991 that "Stunning" Steve Austin, with his long hair and multi-colored tights, would end up being one of the biggest and influential stars in the history of the business? He wrestled for almost 15 years before he even showed up in the WWE and got his "big break". Now, we want guys who have been wrestling 2 - 3 years, to come in and be the "next big thing". That takes time.

Even a guy like Mark Henry. Sure, he's not The Rock....but the guy has been floundering in the WWE since 1996. Now, 15 years later, he finally found something that's working for him.

People complain that the crowds aren't into the show as much as they were in the "attitude era". Well, go to the shows and cheer louder. If everyone loves wrestling to the point that we care enough to sit here and post about it - then I think we should do our part as FANS. Cheer, Boo, buy the pay per views, buy the merchandise. Support the product. Stop criticizing everything the WWE does, or doesn't do....and actually be a fan for once. Ratings be damned.

 

[Davi323]

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

This. People don't seem to grasp that. Pro wrestling is NOT a sport. It is Entertainment. When USA Network looks at the ratings for Raw, they don't give a shit about how it did compared to TNA. They care about how it did in its time slot vs. other cable networks, not against other wrestling programs. Monday Night Raw, even at a 3.3, is still going to be one of the top rated cable TV shows out there. Guaranteed to be in the top 25. When you think about how many cable channels there are, how many hours of programming there is in a given week, the fact that Raw consistently ranks in the top 25 means that they are clearly doing exactly what they need to do. Cable networks simply don't get the same viewership NBC, CBS, ABC or Fox get. A 3.3 on a broadcast network would be absolutely horrible. That same 3.3 for a cable network puts you near the top.

 

[WWEIsLife2]

One of the main arguments we always hear about is the WWE's "Lack of Star Power". I don't really think that's the WWE's fault.

Sure, in the "Attitude Era", you had Steve Austin, Undertaker, Triple H, The Rock, Mick Foley, etc. Those were your main stars...and they passed the torch to what was supposed to be the next generation of superstars.

Kurt Angle, Chris Benoit, Eddie Guerrero, Brock Lesnar, Chris Jericho, Batista, Edge, Randy Orton, and John Cena...just to name a few. Well, what happened to those guys? Guerrero & Benoit's untimely deaths were a shock to everyone. They were at the peak of their careers, and would likely still be wrestling today.

Benoit was supposed to face CM Punk the night he took his life. He likely would have also feuded with John Morrison, who wound up taking his place in the match, and becoming ECW Champion. Both of those guys would have gotten a "rub" much sooner, had that actually happened.

I'm just using that as one example, but the fact is - the BIG STARS who replaced the stars from the attitude era all left prematurely (for various reasons).

Eddie Guerrero's death, Brock Lesnar leaving to pursue his football career, Kurt Angle's release from the company, Edge's retirement, Chris Jericho coming and going every few years, Batista retiring...

These guys never had the opportunity to get in the ring and put over the current crop of WWE talent. So all the up and coming stars have no one to help put them over. There's no one they can face that will make them an overnight sensation. It's just a bunch of guys who never beat anyone, facing eachother. That's not really their fault.

You could have all the entertaining storylines in the world, but no matter what happens - everyone constantly says "I don't buy __________ as a main eventer" or "__________ isn't ready yet".

WWE is doing a great job of giving opportunities to new stars. They have no choice.

I think if you want the product to get better, start putting it over. As "wrestling fans", which is what we are supposed to be, we could actually help the product, but pointing out the positive things, instead of the negative.

Instead of pointing out who's ready and who's not and what they lack...support these young new talents and try to acknowledge that they have potential. No one is going to be Steve Austin overnight. Not even Steve Austin. Who would have ever thought in 1991 that "Stunning" Steve Austin, with his long hair and multi-colored tights, would end up being one of the biggest and influential stars in the history of the business? He wrestled for almost 15 years before he even showed up in the WWE and got his "big break". Now, we want guys who have been wrestling 2 - 3 years, to come in and be the "next big thing". That takes time.

Even a guy like Mark Henry. Sure, he's not The Rock....but the guy has been floundering in the WWE since 1996. Now, 15 years later, he finally found something that's working for him.

People complain that the crowds aren't into the show as much as they were in the "attitude era". Well, go to the shows and cheer louder. If everyone loves wrestling to the point that we care enough to sit here and post about it - then I think we should do our part as FANS. Cheer, Boo, buy the pay per views, buy the merchandise. Support the product. Stop criticizing everything the WWE does, or doesn't do....and actually be a fan for once. Ratings be damned.

This

I too get so tired of everything being compared to the Attitude Era. The Star Power,the Crowds,the Storylines,etc. Why does everything have to be compared to the Attitude Era? Why? I just don't get it. Thats like comparing different Eras in Baseball.

Its not the WWE's fault that alot of the guys from the Attitude Era have left or Retired. It was there choice not WWE's nor anyone else's. We should be supporting the current crop of WWE Superstars we see on TV every week instead of bashing them.

Just watch RAW,Smackdown,the PPVs,etc with an open mind and stop acting like you know whats best for the WWE. Ratings to me don't matter alot and yeah I like seeing what RAW & Smackdown do every week but I don't need to make threads like this saying how high or low they are.

 

[ryan86]

People, OMG. Yes they account for DVR, they give it a seperate number, but it doesnt count in the rating system B/C advertizers dont see it as a number that depicts how many people watched their advertizment.

And The WWE uses their ratings as leverage in advertizing - shared - revenue with their parent network. They dont get paid for views through other media resouces by USA network. So the Rating it's self dictates how much money they get, not excuses, not losses to competition, not based on how entertained the people were who did stick around, and not to a falling percentage of total house holds viewing. Even though a 3.3 would have been a 4.0 ten years ago, that is not in the equation of advertizing payment. The network and advertizers look at the total percentage of housholds watching. When number of house holds expand but your rating doesnt keep up, you lose that same share of leveraging power.

If you like entertainment and dont care about the ratings, dont discuss B/C you have no informative ideas.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

People, OMG. Yes they account for DVR, they give it a seperate number, but it doesnt count in the rating system B/C advertizers dont see it as a number that depicts how many people watched their advertizment.

And The WWE uses their ratings as leverage in advertizing - shared - revenue with their parent network. They dont get paid for views through other media resouces by USA network. So the Rating it's self dictates how much money they get, not excuses, not losses to competition, not based on how entertained the people were who did stick around, and not to a falling percentage of total house holds viewing. Even though a 3.3 would have been a 4.0 ten years ago, that is not in the equation of advertizing payment. The network and advertizers look at the total percentage of housholds watching. When number of house holds expand but your rating doesnt keep up, you lose that same share of leveraging power.

If you like entertainment and dont care about the ratings, dont discuss B/C you have no informative ideas.

Okay, but by the same logic, if more people are watching in different ways, WWE can advertise in different ways too can't they? I'm guessing they have a pretty healthy number of webhits and probably get ad revenue in ways I can't even imagine.

Sure I would like the product to be more popular, but it's a niche entertainment. Even when they were drawing 7s, that's still pretty niche. A vast majority of people don't and never have watched or liked wrestling. It's an extremely healthy company and what they do is incredible. Saying what they're doing is "troubling" is like saying last year Albert Pujols' "down year" was troubling, even though he was still very productive.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

WWE has been on a decline for quite some time and the product they are putting out isn't as good in quality as it used to be. For the WWE to be the only "wrestling" show on Mondays and only draw a 3, when they drew double the amount when there were 2 shows on monday, shows that obviously people are losing interest. What gets me is why does everyone turn a blind eye to this? Yes I understand that there is DVR and web streaming, but a 3.0 on a good night when you're the only product of your kind on tv is crazy. When it comes down to the bottom line, Raw is a tv show. It is supposed to bring in ratings and it is supposed to entertain people enough to get them to watch.

You realize they aren't competing against just wrestling shows, but all of entertaiment. Also, they are consistently tops in their timeslot, NOBODY in cable does 7s anymore. Maybe on network TV, but not on cable. Also, WWE only did a few 7s, at their peak they were high 5s and low 6s, which adjusted for household share and the amount of PC/streamers, isn't as much of a difference as 7-2.8

 

[goukuma]

in the event that there is a decline, can we even be surprised. look at the product right now. tag team, mid card, and divas division is non existent. wwe and wrestling in general seems to go in cycles. the 1st half of the decade is normally the decline before things pick back up. in the last couple years or so we have lost quite a few main eventers. chris jericho, batista, shawn michaels, edge. undertaker and triple h as well considering they havent done much in the last couple years. its only gonna worse from here. i doubt rey mysterio, kane, and big show got much left to name a few. plus you never know when a big star might have to leave wwe early due to a career threatening injury. right now there is a lot of young talent that needs to be brought up and that will take a few years. we will never know who will be main event players 5-7 years from now until its too late, its already happened.

 

[ryan86]

OK, If people think that getting 2.9% of total house holds viewing, is just as healthy as 7% of house holds viewing, I just don't know what to say....

Go look at the financial statements and tell me exactly What the percentage of revenue is brought in through alterior ways of viewing. It's less than 3%.

Advertizing Revenue though their parent network is what brings in the marjority of money. Followed by PPV buys, then Attendance.

And people trying to say WWE just might be just as popular as 98-01, need to just check out attendance numbers. 13,000 per event in 98, 14,000 per event in '99, 14,000 in 00, and 11,000 per event in 01.

by '03, it had dropped to less than 5,000.
with the rise of Cena, in 05 it picked up to 6,200
By 2009, it was still stable at 6,400.

Right now, we are still at 6,000 per event.

the WWE has gone from events "sold out for months", to having to change the camera views to accomodate the half full arenas, and put black tarp over the upper decks.

And yes, these PG crowds suck!!!!!!!

 

[justinsayne]

OK, If people think that getting 2.9% of total house holds viewing, is just as healthy as 7% of house holds viewing, I just don't know what to say....

Go look at the financial statements and tell me exactly What the percentage of revenue is brought in through alterior ways of viewing. It's less than 3%.

Advertizing Revenue though their parent network is what brings in the marjority of money. Followed by PPV buys, then Attendance.

And people trying to say WWE just might be just as popular as 98-01, need to just check out attendance numbers. 13,000 per event in 98, 14,000 per event in '99, 14,000 in 00, and 11,000 per event in 01.

by '03, it had dropped to less than 5,000.
with the rise of Cena, in 05 it picked up to 6,200
By 2009, it was still stable at 6,400.

Right now, we are still at 6,000 per event.

the WWE has gone from events "sold out for months", to having to change the camera views to accomodate the half full arenas, and put black tarp over the upper decks.

And yes, these PG crowds suck!!!!!!!

You're 25 yrs. old & you still don't know how to spell, or worse yet how to fucking use spell check?! I'm sorry but it's going to be pretty hard for anyone to take you ever take you seriously when you can't even spell words like "advertising" "accommodate", & "majority" correctly. It really doesn't matter what numbers you pull, you are still gonna come off as looking like a complete moron if you can't even spell basic words correctly. Also the trends show that rating pick up as we head closer to Wrestlemania. Further more I'd rather WWE will always have a home on cable tv because it's cheap easy programming to produce, so there is nothing to worry about, as long as they continue to watch they can mange to suffer a ratings drop for a few months & survive just fine.

 

[oldhamandy1]

Ok I'll put it simply for Ryan86 seeing as maybe your being confused, it's fine I understand *********ing over Rhodes 20 hours a day is always going to lead to a mild bit of idiocy.

Before the internet ratings and advertisng were THE primary way, sometimes only way for TV shows to make money. WWE also makes money from the tickets sold to live shows, so that helps. With me so far?

Well since the internet boomed and became the social beast it currently is other revenue streams have opened up, such as advertising over the internet. I had the pleasure of interviewing the chief press officer of Bury Football Club last year, no I'm sure no-one knows who they are so a quick summary. A small soccer club in the north of England, about 10,000 fans if they're lucky. Well they make £20,000 a year off their website alone, well imgine if you took their internet traffic and times it by milllions which is viable in this comparision. WWE will make a lot from thier webiste, PPV buys, merch sales, live events, and god knows what else. This is a pointless thread and please can someone put a limit on the number of posts you can make, before this board turns into a long running joke of what Ryan86 will say next. Troll no-one is going to give you a job because they like what you say, so please get a life stop researching the ratings and go outside.

We don't get long on the planet and your wasting it my friend, wasting it so stop now before you forever become known as that loser who loves Cody Rhodes.

 

[TM Punk]

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

You say that you're being serious, I'm calling bullshit on that. In the past week you posted about 142 threads, all of them negative, all of them were posted just so that you get a reation from people on this forum. You think its cleaver, but you're very transparent. You're talking about ratings being bad... during football season? Football is the most poular sport in america, mondays are a big night for said sport. Also, the 10 o'clock hour is a huge hour for football. Why? Because its the second half of the game, more people tend to tune in to the end of a sports game than the beginning. And with raw, its the exact opposite. The beginning of raw, every week is the most important part. It sets up the whole show, and its what people tune in to see. They know they're going to lose 10 o clock rating, but if they have a huge number at 9, it makes up the difference. That's why pipers pit was at 9, not 1030.

And...really? 2000 started a decline? 2001 wasn't the companies biggest year ever? Aquisition of WCW and ECW? Wrestlemania 17? Sounds like it was a pretty mediocre year. You're right dude. Ratings? U serious bro?

 

[ryan86]

TMPunk

Your joking right?

Were you watching 15 years ago like I was? I know that their are people who have been watching 25 years, but lets be specific. If you were not watching in the 96-00 boom era, just admit it.

you'r talking about that time period as someone would who's only heard and read about it.

2001 was a very sharp decline for the WWE that actualy started in september 2000. Now the popularity was so darn massive it was hard to see unless you were paying attention to the numbers. Also, the XFL took a massive blow out of the WWE in 2001. In-fact, it ate up every penny of the 250 million that Vince got from stock values that he was paid for in april 2001, a year after the WWE went public.

Jan - aug 2000 average rating: 6.5
Sep - Dec 2000 average rating: 5.4

2001 average rating: 4.8

and by the way, everyone who was ACTUALLY watching durring that time knows the WWE blew the whole WCW thing, BIG TIME.

Do I need to go on to tell you that attendance in 2001 was down 30%from 2000. PPV buys down....

 

[TheHeartbreakPunk]

Look, we all know that wwe product is not what it used to be. But there are reasons that ratings are dropping right now. Its the holidays, people are getting their last minute presents, nobodys got time to watch a 2-hour long show. Come January, ratings are gonna start picking up again, especially considering it will be wrestlemainia season.

 

[TWJC: The Beginning]

OK, If people think that getting 2.9% of total house holds viewing, is just as healthy as 7% of house holds viewing, I just don't know what to say....

Go look at the financial statements and tell me exactly What the percentage of revenue is brought in through alterior ways of viewing. It's less than 3%.

Advertizing Revenue though their parent network is what brings in the marjority of money. Followed by PPV buys, then Attendance.

And people trying to say WWE just might be just as popular as 98-01, need to just check out attendance numbers. 13,000 per event in 98, 14,000 per event in '99, 14,000 in 00, and 11,000 per event in 01.

by '03, it had dropped to less than 5,000.
with the rise of Cena, in 05 it picked up to 6,200
By 2009, it was still stable at 6,400.

Right now, we are still at 6,000 per event.

the WWE has gone from events "sold out for months", to having to change the camera views to accomodate the half full arenas, and put black tarp over the upper decks.

And yes, these PG crowds suck!!!!!!!

Actually I'm pretty sure I read in their yearly report that a majority of their revenue comes from event tickets. I could be wrong though.

WWE attendance and everything is down, it's like that across the board. Relatively speaking (to other forms of entertainment and tv shows), they're still tops. Just because they aren't world beaters anymore doesn't mean they aren't highly successful and I don't think it's a troubling trend seeng as the next few months are typically upward trends.

PG crowds aren't as loud because they aren't a bunch of drunk hicks anymore. Watch any show before mid 1997, it sounds the same. Shit I CHALLENGE you to watch 1993-1995 Raw, it's difficult.

 

[TM Punk]

TMPunk

Your joking right?

Were you watching 15 years ago like I was? I know that their are people who have been watching 25 years, but lets be specific. If you were not watching in the 96-00 boom era, just admit it.

you'r talking about that time period as someone would who's only heard and read about it.

2001 was a very sharp decline for the WWE that actualy started in september 2000. Now the popularity was so darn massive it was hard to see unless you were paying attention to the numbers. Also, the XFL took a massive blow out of the WWE in 2001. In-fact, it ate up every penny of the 250 million that Vince got from stock values that he was paid for in april 2001, a year after the WWE went public.

Jan - aug 2000 average rating: 6.5
Sep - Dec 2000 average rating: 5.4

2001 average rating: 4.8

and by the way, everyone who was ACTUALLY watching durring that time knows the WWE blew the whole WCW thing, BIG TIME.

Do I need to go on to tell you that attendance in 2001 was down 30%from 2000. PPV buys down....

I'm 2 years younger than you. Just because I don't have a window up on my desktop showing Monday night raws ratings throughout the year so I can go on a forum and make people think I know what the fuck I'm talking about, even though what I'm talking about has absolutly nothing to do with the quality of product, and is just something that big time executives, and advertisers use to determine the success or lack there of of said tv show, doesn't make me any less of a fan than you. You see I sat dow, as a toddler... and watched wrestlemania 7. I looked on in awe as shawn michaels and bret hart battled for an hour at wrestlemania 12. When I was in the hospital at 6 years old with pancreitis, all I wanted was for my brother to tape wcw uncensored so I could watch the doomsday cage match. So don't come on here and question me because I don't nerd out over something as irrelevant to a fan as ratings. What do you care what the ratings are? Raw isn't going anywhere.

Everything you post reads like a whiny little attitude era fanboy trying to hold onto the past, and not willing to accept that what is happening right now, while it may not be better, but its not bad. Just enjoy the show...RATINGS?!?!?! Are you serious bro?

 

[ryan86]

TMPunk:

That was a very sweet story you told me. Not scarcasticly speaking at all (I am pretty sensitive) why did you have to make me feel like an ass with that heart breaking story about you in the hospital? So sorry.

Anyway, I live for stats. It's how my brain is wired. Ive been discecting rating/PPV Buys/Attendance figures since I was 14.

Economics ended up being part of my degree, I just love it.

And trust me, I never have a window open with numbers, i know them all by heart. Thats how long I've been studying the Financial aspect of WWE...and WCW. I can Even pull out some ECW stuff... Not much, but some. And I honestly do know what i am talking about.

and no, I still cant get over that sweet story. Sorry.