lol, this argument is getting silly. You might have the rest of these people believing the earth is flat but I'm not falling for it. I ask you to explain how Benoit causes decreased ratings from 2011-2012 and you move the goal posts.
You want me to explain something which didn't happen. That doesn't make sense.
I'll try to make this easy for you.
Raw before Benoit: 3.9
Raw after Benoit: 3.4
You now have your proof Benoit affected ratings. As far as why ratings have gradually moved from a 3.4 to a 3.0, that goes back to the other things I mentioned, which doesn't suggest any less viewership. This really isn't hard to understand.
I said viewership just to see if you would come back here and continue to harp on the one thing that can't be proven and low and behold you did.
Of course. You made a claim which you cannot prove to be true and I countered it.
All the evidence shows a general decrease in interest but you'll decry it all for the one statistic we don't have. You'll then say the business isn't down, but then defend the business is down due to Benoit, Piracy, Economic woes, DVR etc. Which is it? Is the business perfectly fine or not? Like usual you just appear to be arguing for the sake of arguing.
So much confusion on your end...
Business is not down. Interest is not down. The WWE HAS been effected by numerous other factors which has impacted ratings and their bottom line, but that does not suggest a downward trend in business, but rather a bump in the road due to factors outside of their control, which when stabilized, will not impair their future business prospects.
The business is running perfectly fine. John Cena is still making them millions of dollars.
Does that make sense?
For starters DVR doesn't mean fuck all to a network or to advertisers.
Of course it does, advertisers need to know ratings which are revised to include DVR.
Who is going to sit there and watch most of the commercials when they can fast forward it?
Even more reason to know which shows are being watched on DVR and which shows are getting their ratings from live viewing.
Is hulu an issue? No because the WWE is well of aware of what's happening on hulu.
EXACTLY! THANK YOU!
You are right, the WWE is well aware of what is going on with Hulu. You don't. Hulu is not reflected in the ratings you keep harping about. Thank you for finally understanding what I'm saying.
Are people more likely to pirate something if they continually feel ripped off by it? Yes.
I'd love to see you support this with research. My experience is people are more likely to pirate something if they do not feel they can afford it or if the content is not available in their area.
You can easily attribute increases in piracy to a partial result of a poor product.
That must be why Game of Thrones suffers from a high level of piracy, right?
Again, please direct me to the research to support your claim.
We're way past the point of arguing just ratings.
No, WE are not, I am the one doing this. You want to look at quick and easy numbers and not analyze the numbers at all. Furthermore, you want to cherry pick the numbers you use and ignore the ones which prove you wrong.
You're continually grasping at straws and either put your head in the sand when the over whelming majority of hard numbers just don't support what you're saying on a multitude of levels or you concoct an array of excuses. This isn't just about your economic crisis claims, this is about the general stances you've taken.
On the contrary, the hard numbers support EXACTLY what I'm saying. Economic crash in October 2008? Lower revenues in 2009. Economic crash in October 2008? Lower PPV numbers in 2009.
The numbers do support me. You just want to ignore context and focus on a single aspect. And that's an absurd way to analyze something.
What the fuck... it's absurd that after years and years interest in Cena would start to decrease?
A) Yes
B) What I said is that it's absurd interest would decrease IMMEDIATELY from one year to the next.
People even stopped giving as much of a shit about Hogan until his heel turn. How many times do I have to say that I'll buy into things like economic crisis having an effect but it still doesn't magically clear Cena of any responsibility or liability.
I could not care less how many times you say it, it won't make it true. What liability is Cena supposed to be cleared of? If you accept economic crisis, then what is Cena responsible for?
We're not comparing Cena to Austin because there is no comparison. The fact of the matter is that WWE tries their best to portray Cena in that light and sometimes it's worth pointing out how untrue it is just for the lulz of it.
Which is why you also point out how Funaki is no comparison to Austin, right? Because it's fun to do to point out how Wrestler A doesn't compare to Austin.
Please direct me to the lulz thread where you compared Dolph Ziggler's drawing ability with Austin. Thank you.
By the way, Cena is not portrayed in any manner similar to Austin. The only similarity between the two is that both men were undisputedly the best draws in the company for a year or two. Of course, Cena has been the undisputed best draw for 8 years and Austin was only for 2.
Hey, I guess you were right. There is no comparison between Cena and Austin.
I'm not trying to discredit all of John Cena's merchandising accomplishments. I've simply pointed out that WWE's success doesn't rely solely on merchandising and that there have been other changes to the merchandising business model to increase revenue beside John Cena.
Then you're wasting your time, because I don't think anyone has argued merchandise is the only source of revenue. But aside from the DVDs, which helped propel a spike in merchandising which has since subsided, merchandising after John Cena is clearly higher than merchandising before John Cena.
Beyond all that if merchandise translated over to being a draw than Zack Ryder was at one point a draw, I think we all know that's not true.
Being in the Top 10 once or twice doesn't make you a draw. Being the #1 merchandise seller for 8 years, however, is a pretty good sign people pay to watch you.
I can still give credit where it's due though and I admit that John Cena has done some impressive things when it comes to sales of his merchandise.
Which would suggest he's over, would it not?
I addressed my feelings on all this in a rather lengthy post a couple of posts back, I'm not going go back over it all again.
Then link me to the post where you explained why John Cena would still be headlining Wrestlemania cards when he is a drain on WWE's business. You won't have to repost it, just link me to the post you discussed it.
If WWE is THAT worried about viewers who are so fickle they change the channel each time a segment or character airs that they don't like they'd be doing it wrong, that's not an audience really worth chasing if they're THAT easy to lose. If you think ratings are actually a better indication of what's happening at that exact moment compared to the quality of the program in weeks leading into the current program I'm not sure what to say. Again, it's not like people know if a show is going to be shit until they watch it.
What are you talking about? This isn't hard. Maybe an example will help you. Let's take a 10 minute John Cena promo.
Minute 1: 30,000 people added, 10,000 people lost
Minute 2: 12,000 people added, 7,000 people lost
Minute 3: 15,000 people added, 3,000 people lost
Minute 4: 4,000 people added, 5,000 people lost
Minute 5: 8,000 people added, 2,000 people lost
Minute 6: 6,000 people added, 5,000 people lost
Minute 7: 6,000 people added, 4,000 people lost
Minute 8: 4,000 people added, 3,000 people lost
Minute 9: 1,000 people added, 4,000 people lost
Minute 10: 4,000 people added, 3,000 people lost
Total: 90,000 people added, 46,000 people lost for a net gain of 44,000 fans
Now, those are totally made up numbers, but it's a basic example of the information the WWE gets. It shows people were very interested in seeing what John Cena says, to the point where they tune in as soon as he comes on the screen, and for the most part, stay. The WWE gets these numbers, and they can see who draws fans to the show and the trends in their appearances in terms of ratings.
This is an incredibly important measurement. For you to dismiss it seems strange to me.
Nobody said ratings exist in a vacuum.
No, but your argument relies on it. You want to say "3.9 rating in 2006 and a 3.0 rating in 2012. People tired of Cena." You want to say "$53 million in profit in 2010, $31 million in 2012. People tired of Cena".
The only way your argument works if you ignore things like Benoit and DVR and piracy and if you ignore economic collapses and WWE Films cutting into profits.
You never said they exist in a vacuum, but your argument can only be propped up with it.
I feel you're 100% claiming ignorance on this matterl.
...how am I the one claiming ignorance, when you're the one who only wants to look at a narrow set of criteria and numbers and not look at the big picture?
Basically you're too big of a Cena fan that it prevents you from looking at all of the evidence in a completely rational and level headed manner.
I'm not at all. I've been a huge fan of AJ Styles for years, but I'm not upset he's not holding the World title for years at a time. The business is what it is. It's absurd to apply emotion to it. The fact is John Cena has been the top guy in the WWE for 8 years. The fact is the WWE is only concerned about making money. If the WWE shows us John Cena is the top guy/biggest draw/most over, then it's going to be true.
At which point, your argument that John Cena is not over and/or not a draw is destroyed.
You can try to say how regardless of being a Cena fan it hasn't clouded your judgment when it comes to him but I'm not going to believe you, it's human nature to defend the things we care about and if none of us cared about wrestling we wouldn't post here ever.
I'm a big Cena fan, he's my second favorite active worker (Sting being the 1st). But to say a person cannot objectively critique something because he's a fan is absurd. I'm ALWAYS critiquing and analyzing things I like. As a teacher and a coach, you have to.
Just because some people cannot put aside biases, it doesn't mean everyone can't.
Again, credit where it's due: Nicely done. On a side note I wish WWE would release more information about buy rates from before they went public. Arguing purposes aside, it's fun stuff to look at as a fan.
Even when the WWE releases the information, they later go back and revise the numbers. Generating PPV numbers, especially now they are coming in from all over the world, is a rather imperfect science, and numbers are constantly being revised. It's better now than it used to be, but usually the final numbers for the first year can be found in the quarterly report from the second year.
Honestly, all the 2012 numbers show to me is there's a decent case that could be made that Lesnar is a bigger draw than The Rock in wrestling currently..makes their booking of him that much more infuriating but that's a whole other story I suppose.
Ignoring for a moment Lesnar and Rock both worked with Cena, how do you figure a 53,000 increase in buys (Extreme Rules) is better than a 158,000 increase in buys (WM)?
I wasn't counting Wrestlemania because it's well Wrestlemania, I already stated this when I initially talked about buy rates declining that it was with the exception of Wrestlemania.
And like I said, Wrestlemania is Wrestlemania from one year to the next. For you to not count Wrestlemania makes no sense.
Brock being a draw doesn't mean Cena is a draw.
So Extreme Rules would have sold just as well if Brock was wrestling Santino? Of course not.
The draw was in Brock vs. Cena.
This is like saying Vince McMahon is a huge draw because Austin was feuding with him so much at that time. You keep trying to give credit to Cena for The Rock and Lesnar being draws just because they were in the same ring as him. That doesn't mean that Cena is a huge draw, that means he's a passable main event caliber wrestler. Summerslam saw about the same level of increased buys as Extreme Rules did and Lesnar fought HHH, I think we all know by now that regardless of your opinion of HHH he was never really a draw.
How is Triple H not a draw? Do you even understand what being a draw means?
No, no, let's stick with this, I won't even read the rest of your post right now (I'll respond to it next time if you'd like). Do you understand what it means to be a draw?
