Wrestlemania failed on every level from a fans perspective.

[Sedated]

It's quite obvious that you are desperate for acceptance

This is rich coming from the guy who randomly decided to jump on the bandwagon with his fellow ignorant buddies. You should stop projecting, kid.

 

[Remix]

No. When you look at the individual numbers by a whole year it makes it look even more all over the place than they really are. Your graph doesn't inform people the reason behind certain ratings and some of them are very real. Example: There is a 2.50 rating that is nielson error and some other things along these lines... things like RAW being pre empted for a dog show, things like RAW being on scifi. When these things were relevant I at least tried to point them out, something your graph makes zero effort to do.

here's the thing, chucklenuts. Individual datapoints don't matter that much. That's why analysing the week to week ratings of Raw is stupid. There are weeks where the show's rated a oddly how or high compared to shows of around the same time (take the February show rated 3.0 while the rest of the shows from that time are up in the low 4s). However, when you look at 24 datapoints, rather than one or four like you're doing you get a much more accurate picture because odd bits of data like pre-empted shows and Nielson errors get drowned out.

Actually, blaming Benoit for an overall decrease in interest is misleading. What do you think, that people tuned out for 4 weeks because of benoit and then tuned in for 4 weeks having gotten over it

Except that they hadn't got over it in four weeks. It might look like that when you look at small samples, but that's not what happened. Four weeks later Benoit, and his legacy was still a controversial topic.

It and then all of a sudden were bothered by it once again and tuned out? C'mon now, you're being silly and just refusing to admit you're wrong.

Or alternatively, the ratings fluctuated as they always do but when you look at the data from after Benoit's death you can see that a substantial portion of WWE's audience tuned out and stayed out.

 

[Steamboat Ricky]

This is rich coming from the guy who randomly decided to jump on the bandwagon with his fellow ignorant buddies. You should stop projecting, kid.

Isn't that the entire point of posting on wrestling forums? You know, to make posts in threads with other people?

 

[Sedated]

here's the thing, chucklenuts. Individual datapoints don't matter that much. That's why analysing the week to week ratings of Raw is stupid. There are weeks where the show's rated a oddly how or high compared to shows of around the same time (take the February show rated 3.0 while the rest of the shows from that time are up in the low 4s). However, when you look at 24 datapoints, rather than one or four like you're doing you get a much more accurate picture because odd bits of data like pre-empted shows and Nielson errors get drowned out.



Except that they hadn't got over it in four weeks. It might look like that when you look at small samples, but that's not what happened. Four weeks later Benoit, and his legacy was still a controversial topic.



Or alternatively, the ratings fluctuated as they always do but when you look at the data from after Benoit's death you can see that a substantial portion of WWE's audience tuned out and stayed out.

You're an idiot, that's all there is to it. You're a complete and total moron incapable of looking at facts objectively when they don't support your bullshit opinion.

When we look at ratings as a whole Cena being the face of the company over 10 years has tanked the ratings in the long run.

When we look at the ratings more closely we see that there's zero evidence to support benoit caused any last decrease in ratings.

When we look at ratings more closely we also see that there's zero decrease in overall ratings when Cena was injured.

Either way you choose to look at it you're factually wrong.

Are you going to argue that 6 or so years later the business is still in decline because of Benoit?

You can try to spin it any way you please, it doesn't matter, these will always be the facts. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, they're still facts and every single person in this thread claiming other wise is flat out wrong.

 

[Nate DaMac]

This is rich coming from the guy who randomly decided to jump on the bandwagon with his fellow ignorant buddies. You should stop projecting, kid.

What bandwagon? What have I said that even remotely pertains to the topic of this thread? I'm just trying to help a person in his time of need. I know that you just need someone to be there for you. I'm here, buddy.

 

[Nate DaMac]

When we look at ratings as a whole Cena being the face of the company over 10 years has tanked the ratings in the long run.

When we look at ratings more closely we also see that there's zero decrease in overall ratings when Cena was injured.

You realize that you basically just said that Cena isn't responsible for the ratings decline, right?

 

[Remix]

You're an idiot, that's all there is to it. You're a complete and total moron incapable of looking at facts objectively when they don't support your bullshit opinion.

When we look at ratings as a whole Cena being the face of the company over 10 years has tanked the ratings in the long run.

In the long run, yes. However, look at that graph. From 2005 to 2011 Cena was on Raw. There was not a consistent or sustained drop in those years. If Cena wasn't a draw, ratings wouldn't have increased during his tenure, which they did in 2005 and 2006, and then again in 2009.

When we look at the ratings more closely we see that there's zero evidence to support benoit caused any last decrease in ratings.

Except the 0.4 drop in the ratings for the first and second halfes of the year. But sure, let's overlook that in favour of looking at a smaller sample of highly variable data. That's more reliable

When we look at ratings more closely we also see that there's zero decrease in overall ratings when Cena was injured.

I'll be honest, I was taking the piss with the Cena injury affecting ratings vs Stone Cold's.

Either way you choose to look at it you're factually wrong.

Not really.

Are you going to argue that 6 or so years later the business is still in decline because of Benoit?

No. What I will say is that Benoit caused a large chunk of people to tune out that never consistently tuned back in again. That's why ratings dropped in the second half of 2007 and have remained at roughly that level ever since. Other things, like the economic crisis have affected WWE, like they have every other company.

But then, if you try to claim that things other than the top star can't affect ratings, I point you to your argument defending falling ratings from 2000 to 2002, when Austin was still with the company.

You can try to spin it any way you please, it doesn't matter, these will always be the facts. Don't like it? Too fucking bad, they're still facts and every single person in this thread claiming other wise is flat out wrong.

Keep telling yourself that.

 

[Sedated]

You realize that you basically just said that Cena isn't responsible for the ratings decline, right?

Ratings don't go down when Cena is gone proves that Cena isn't responsible for lower ratings over the course of 10 years?



Think about what you're saying *sigh*

I promise I wont even rub it in if you by some miracle realize how what you just implied made zero sense. I'm 100% honestly rooting for you...

 

[Nate DaMac]

Ratings don't go down when Cena is gone proves that Cena isn't responsible for lower ratings over the course of 10 years?

Well since he became the top draw in 2005 and it was only 8 years ago, not 10, there's your first strike (I know, math is hard.)

Second, in 2005-06, when Cena was the face of Raw, ratings went up. So that leaves 6 years.

07 was a bad year. Despite the fact that Nu has already demonstrated to you the correlation between Benoit's incident and the ratings decline but you fail to acknowledge it due to your high school drop-out level analytical skills, this year still doesn't work in your favor. That leaves 5 years.

2008, the ratings dipped. There, you got one.

2009, the ratings went back up. You lost your spot again.

Since 2010, the ratings have been in a slow decline, yet the ratings stay virtually the same whether Cena is there or not.

There is no correlation between Cena and the ratings downturn over the course of the past 10 years. Maybe over the past 3, though.

 

[Sedated]

In the long run, yes. However, look at that graph. From 2005 to 2011 Cena was on Raw. There was not a consistent or sustained drop in those years. If Cena wasn't a draw, ratings wouldn't have increased during his tenure, which they did in 2005 and 2006, and then again in 2009.

Dude...seriously... from 2005 to 2011 the ratings are noticeably lower...

and I'm more than willing to accept that ratings during that period were likely increased by Cena.

The product also doesn't live or die by Cena. Regardless if you're arguing Cena has a positive or negative effect on wrestling as a whole I don't think any of us are arguing the product 100% lives or dies by Cena (I certainly hope not at least.)

I'm not saying this to try to discredit the years that saw an increase, I'm just saying it because I feel like it needs to be stated so don't take it the wrong way. Those increases aren't worth a decade face of the company run, they're especially not worth it when you look at the overall data of 2005-2012 and they're not any indication of the worth of John Cena in 2013.

You're also STILL ignoring 2012 data which shows the ratings dropping even lower. I've told this to you quite a few times already.

At absolute best you can maybe argue that Cena has managed to stagnate the business in an acceptable fashion during a major lull in the overall product.

At worst you can say he's hurt the business.

You can make a fairly valid argument for both sides and the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. To pretend he's a huge draw though is just lunacy.

I'm well aware the current product has A LOT of problems beyond Cena, that much should be very obvious from my original post.

Except the 0.4 drop in the ratings for the first and second halfes of the year. But sure, let's overlook that in favour of looking at a smaller sample of highly variable data. That's more reliable

We've both stated our thoughts on this multiple times and obviously we're not going to agree so I'm going to try to address this from a different angle and that is: Who gives a fuck? No, really.. unless you're trying to say that to this day the product is still suffering as a result of what Benoit did it really doesn't matter that much in the grand scheme of this discussion.

I'll be honest, I was taking the piss with the Cena injury affecting ratings vs Stone Cold's.

Well thank God you can at least admit that much. It's not much but it's something.

No. What I will say is that Benoit caused a large chunk of people to tune out that never consistently tuned back in again. That's why ratings dropped in the second half of 2007 and have remained at roughly that level ever since. Other things, like the economic crisis have affected WWE, like they have every other company.

So you do think the Benoit debacle is having an effect on ratings 6 years after the fact...

I think benoit never played a huge role in the ratings decline is a lot more likely than saying people are still holding a 6 year grudge against WWE for Benoit but you're entitled to your opinion I suppose.

As far as the economic crisis I don't really see how that would hurt TV ratings, I could understand PPV buy rates but I don't really see why it would impact basic cable ratings on any major scale and what we've been discussing is TV ratings. I could also see how it would effect ticket sales or merchandise.

I wont say it's impossible though so if you have some form of evidence to back this up I'm open to it other wise it seems like you're just blowing smoke to me.

But then, if you try to claim that things other than the top star can't affect ratings, I point you to your argument defending falling ratings from 2000 to 2002, when Austin was still with the company.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with this. You said your self you were full of piss or whatever with the whole Austin comparison but now you're using it again? I'm getting bored of this so if it's actually something important feel free to reword it or something... other wise whatever.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Again Sedated you are a fucking idiot. I'm surprised you're even sticking to your failed argument.

 

[Sedated]

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2012-tv-ratings/

I'll post them again for you.

The average rating was 3.0

That's 4 years in a row of straight fucking decline with Cena as the face of the company.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

[youtube]E4vzPw4yvI0[/youtube]

There is nothing "failed" about that.

Your also a pretentious cynic.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2012-tv-ratings/

I'll post them again for you.

The average rating was 3.0

That's 4 years in a row of straight fucking decline with Cena as the face of the company.

Are you serious? Every show I've been to with Cena headlining the show had EVERYBODY either booing or cheering for him. Fuck wrestlemania was 60-20 cheering for him. Cena gets a reaction. It's as simple as that. Ratings don't exactly tell you the entire story.... It's weather you can get people as a face to buy your merchandise. 3.0 is actually a very good rating. You're NEVER going to see ratings the size of 5.0's or 4.0's like the Attitude era. Again Sedated, Cena Draws. Period.

 

[Remix]

Dude...seriously... from 2005 to 2011 the ratings are noticeably lower...

Yes they are. But unless you're blind you can see that the drop didn't occur until 2007. Where, ya know. Benoit happened.

and I'm more than willing to accept that ratings during that period were likely increased by Cena.

So, Cena drew?

I'm not saying this to try to discredit the years that saw an increase, I'm just saying it because I feel like it needs to be stated so don't take it the wrong way. Those increases aren't worth a decade face of the company run, they're especially not worth it when you look at the overall data of 2005-2012 and they're not any indication of the worth of John Cena in 2013.

Nope, but consistently selling the most merchandise, getting the loudest reactions and generating the most interest are worth the decade long run at the top he's had.

You're also STILL ignoring 2012 data which shows the ratings dropping even lower. I've told this to you quite a few times already.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to add it.

So you do think the Benoit debacle is having an effect on ratings 6 years after the fact...

I think a lot of fans tuned out as a result of the metric fuckton of bad press that affected WWE at the time, combined with residual bad press from the Attitude Era (look how long it took Bruno Sammartino to watch again) which existed (justifiably, it was trash TV).

I think benoit never played a huge role in the ratings decline is a lot more likely than saying people are still holding a 6 year grudge against WWE for Benoit but you're entitled to your opinion I suppose.

People aren't holding a grudge against WWE, just like people who didn't watch after 2000 don't hold a grudge against the company 13 years later.

As far as the economic crisis I don't really see how that would hurt TV ratings, I could understand PPV buy rates but I don't really see why it would impact basic cable ratings on any major scale and what we've been discussing is TV ratings. I could also see how it would effect ticket sales or merchandise.

I wasn't talking specifically about ratings after the meltdown I was talking about the company in general.

I wont say it's impossible though so if you have some form of evidence to back this up I'm open to it other wise it seems like you're just blowing smoke to me.

I can point you to the revenues WWE made in 2009 being lower than in 2008.

I'm not even sure what you're getting at with this. You said your self you were full of piss or whatever with the whole Austin comparison but now you're using it again? I'm getting bored of this so if it's actually something important feel free to reword it or something... other wise whatever.

The argument you initially made for the drops from 2000 onward were WWE bought WCW, and then screwed up everything causing massive rating drops. That's what I was referring to. You pin most of the blame on Cena for the ratings, not taking into account the other factors, wheras when those things happened on Austin's (and Rock, HHH, Angle, Brock and everyone else who was a star back then's) watch it's suddenly not their fault it's WWE miss-managing everything after they acquired WCW.

It's inconcievable to you that Benoit killing three people had a long term affect on the business. WWE mismanaging shit 13 years ago? Absolutely!

 

[Sedated]

Are you serious? Every show I've been to with Cena headlining the show had EVERYBODY either booing or cheering for him. Fuck wrestlemania was 60-20 cheering for him. Cena gets a reaction. It's as simple as that. Ratings don't exactly tell you the entire story.... It's weather you can get people as a face to buy your merchandise. 3.0 is actually a very good rating. You're NEVER going to see ratings the size of 5.0's or 4.0's like the Attitude era. Again Sedated, Cena Draws. Period.

How can you ask me if I'm joking? You're arguing with factual numbers.

So ratings don't tell us the whole story and it's all about t-shirt sales and general merchandise?

"Fuck the sponsors, fuck the network, fuck the vehicle we use to sell our PPV's, fuck the vehicle we use to advertise our garbage movies, because we're selling t-shirts baby!"

Since when do draws lose ratings for 4 years straight? I guess the IWC changed the definition of the word draw.

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

How can you ask me if I'm joking? You're arguing with factual numbers.

So ratings don't tell us the whole story and it's all about t-shirt sales and general merchandise?

"Fuck the sponsors, fuck the network, fuck the vehicle we use to sell our PPV's, fuck the vehicle we use to advertise our garbage movies, because we're selling t-shirts baby!"

Since when do draws lose ratings for 4 years straight? I guess the IWC changed the definition of the word draw.

And this my friends is why you should never argue with a Fool. Go watch TNA if you hate Cena so much.

 

[Slyfox696]

You guys can give your opinions all you want about how Benoit caused ratings to dive, it's just not true though.

Interesting...

Average Raw rating for 2005: 3.8
Average Raw rating for 2006: 3.9
Average Raw rating for 2007 before Benoit: 3.9
Average Raw rating for 2007 after Benoit: 3.4
Average Raw rating for 2008: 3.3


What was it you said earlier?

Protip: 3.74 IS NOT the same thing as 3.0. It's a pretty big fucking difference actually when it comes to ratings.

OH...so it's only a "pretty big fucking difference" when it comes to the ratings YOU want to use. Got it.

I've now proven with hard data that Benoit had no lasting effects on the ratings

Only if you selectively use the certain data which suits your benefits and ignore your own post from earlier about big differences between a large gap in ratings.

Otherwise, the exact opposite has been proven.

Actually, blaming Benoit for an overall decrease in interest is misleading. What do you think, that people tuned out for 4 weeks because of benoit and then tuned in for 4 weeks having gotten over it and then all of a sudden were bothered by it once again and tuned out? C'mon now, you're being silly and just refusing to admit you're wrong.

No, I think that Summerslam was in August and the ratings you are pointing to as an "increase" is little more than the traditional bump the WWE usually gets before their major PPVs. If you look at those ratings, you'll notice they drop once more after Summerslam.

You're an idiot, that's all there is to it. You're a complete and total moron incapable of looking at facts objectively when they don't support your bullshit opinion.

When we look at ratings as a whole Cena being the face of the company over 10 years has tanked the ratings in the long run.

Only if you refuse to consider the other measures by which viewership can be measured.

When we look at the ratings more closely we see that there's zero evidence to support benoit caused any last decrease in ratings.

Except we haven't seen that at all. We've seen you cherry pick the numbers you want and ignore the long-term trends which show a drastic shift in ratings after Benoit.

Either way you choose to look at it you're factually wrong.

Amusing.

 

[Sedated]

Yes they are. But unless you're blind you can see that the drop didn't occur until 2007. Where, ya know. Benoit happened.

Okay, this doesn't explain ratings going down for 4 years straight even it were true. Like I tried to explain to you before this just doesn't really matter in the big picture of things one way or another.

So, Cena drew?

Yes, early on he drew a little bit. I don't think I ever said Cena was -never- a draw of any kind.

Can you admit that Cena is no longer a ratings draw at least?

Nope, but consistently selling the most merchandise, getting the loudest reactions and generating the most interest are worth the decade long run at the top he's had.

Since when does being a draw rely on pops/merchandise? If this were true Zack Ryder would have been considered a draw at one point.

To be honest, I can't be bothered to add it.

That's fine, it just feels like you keep trying to pretend it doesn't exist.

I think a lot of fans tuned out as a result of the metric fuckton of bad press that affected WWE at the time, combined with residual bad press from the Attitude Era (look how long it took Bruno Sammartino to watch again) which existed (justifiably, it was trash TV).


People aren't holding a grudge against WWE, just like people who didn't watch after 2000 don't hold a grudge against the company 13 years later.

Bad press from their most popular and profitable era ever? umm lol
Anyway, I already addressed the benoit thing again ^ there, somewhere.

I wasn't talking specifically about ratings after the meltdown I was talking about the company in general.

At the very least you sure implied it had to do with ratings.

I can point you to the revenues WWE made in 2009 being lower than in 2008.

I don't need a source to know that one lol

The argument you initially made for the drops from 2000 onward were WWE bought WCW, and then screwed up everything causing massive rating drops. That's what I was referring to. You pin most of the blame on Cena for the ratings, not taking into account the other factors, wheras when those things happened on Austin's (and Rock, HHH, Angle, Brock and everyone else who was a star back then's) watch it's suddenly not their fault it's WWE miss-managing everything after they acquired WCW.

It's inconcievable to you that Benoit killing three people had a long term affect on the business. WWE mismanaging shit 13 years ago? Absolutely!

I gave you a blanket response to point out the ultimate collapse of the huge ratings because I didn't want to bother getting too specific with an argument you your self admitted was crap.

So either Austin, Rock, HHH, Lesnar, Angle, Undertaker weren't draws or WWE fucked the pooch to the max with most of their decisions post WcW buy out.

 

[Slyfox696]

Okay, this doesn't explain ratings going down for 4 years straight even it were true.

You've said this multiple times, you do realize it's untrue, correct?

 

[Shocky]

You've said this multiple times, you do realize it's untrue, correct?

It all goes back to people not understanding what the ratings actually are. It's the go to shit argument for people that don't have a clue. People don't realize that the rating system changes every year. Hell, even Nielsen is changing the way they measure ratings because they finally realize not everyone uses TV to watch programs. Going to the ratings is a terrible hangover from the Monday Night Wars (where it was justified being used).

It's like comparing the value of the dollar now to the value of the dollar 20 years ago. The value of the rating point has changed significantly in the last 20 years.

 

[Mighty NorCal]

It all goes back to people not understanding what the ratings actually are. It's the go to shit argument for people that don't have a clue. People don't realize that the rating system changes every year. Hell, even Nielsen is changing the way they measure ratings because they finally realize not everyone uses TV to watch programs. Going to the ratings is a terrible hangover from the Monday Night Wars (where it was justified being used).

It's like comparing the value of the dollar now to the value of the dollar 20 years ago. The value of the rating point has changed significantly in the last 20 years.

Wasnt Hogan and SNME doing like, 9's on some of their shows?

Damn that Austin and attitude era going to 7's and 6's. Right into the toilet I tell ya! his fault and ONLY his fault, nothing else! He sux!

 

[Sedated]

It all goes back to people not understanding what the ratings actually are. It's the go to shit argument for people that don't have a clue. People don't realize that the rating system changes every year. Hell, even Nielsen is changing the way they measure ratings because they finally realize not everyone uses TV to watch programs. Going to the ratings is a terrible hangover from the Monday Night Wars (where it was justified being used).

It's like comparing the value of the dollar now to the value of the dollar 20 years ago. The value of the rating point has changed significantly in the last 20 years.

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/270...manias-post-show-bring-in-big-numbers-for-wwe

Nielsen changes working in the WWE's favor right there.

 

[Sedated]

Wasnt Hogan and SNME doing like, 9's on some of their shows?

Damn that Austin and attitude era going to 7's and 6's. Right into the toilet I tell ya! his fault and ONLY his fault, nothing else! He sux!

Still better than a 3.0, I know you're just trolling but you can't compare a single SNME episode to an entire year of Raw.

 

[Shocky]

Wasnt Hogan and SNME doing like, 9's on some of their shows?

Damn that Austin and attitude era going to 7's and 6's. Right into the toilet I tell ya! his fault and ONLY his fault, nothing else! He sux!

Hogan vs. Andre got a 15.0 back in the day.