Skip to main content

Ratings down = no biggie?

Hey Scott,
Despite the fact that ratings are on the decline (or so I keep reading) - is the WWE actually making more money regardless, since Raw is now spread out over 3 hours instead of 2? I'm thinking maybe they could explain the ratings dip on the fact the show lasts 3 hours, but it's actually no big deal (to them) because they're taking in more revenue having an extra hour of airtime. 
With that in mind at what point do ratings actually begin to trouble WWE, if they haven't already? 

​The point when USA cancels them, basically.  Other than that, they're essentially paid in advance for their deal with USA and don't see any of the ad revenue (or at least not enough to factor in) so really ratings don't directly affect them.  However, what does affect them is if ratings are so bad, like with Superstars and Main Event, that the TV station drops them rather than continue with the deal.  But no, it's not like the old days of the Wars at all.  ​

Comments

  1. And USA isn't dropping them because despite diminished ratings it is still one of the highest-rated shows on cable.



    As long as it stays well above the 0.7 territory (the dark days of March 3, 1997), Raw is pretty good.

    ReplyDelete
  2. all this talk about the Monday Night Wars this morning has given me a hankerin' for country fried steak. Might need to ditch the Campbell's Chunky soup I brought for lunch and hit up Cracker Barrel.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Blimey, the ratings didn't get that bad. That show did a 1.9.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You're telling me!

    ReplyDelete
  5. And a 1.9 today is still better than a 1.9 in the 90s.

    ReplyDelete
  6. So to those who still think Cena is not a draw, RAW last night offered a
    refund to anyone in the seats last night upset by his absence.

    ReplyDelete
  7. They've probably plateaued in terms of ratings and it's secondary to subs anyway.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I'm curious if wwe raw would go from 7-10:05 instead of the current time would improve the ratings.
    If your target demographic figure is kids, many of their bedtimes are 10 and earlier. Even many adults don't stay up past 10 because they have to work at 5-6am the next day.

    ReplyDelete
  9. They did that at a house show I went to earlier this year as well. From what I've read they've been doing that for the past few years.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did they get to watch the show and get a refund, or did they have to leave if they got a refund?

    ReplyDelete
  11. The show would still be 80% adults like it is now, because
    kids have much better things to do than watch this silly show.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Start ea­rni­ng ex­tra in­co­me wi­th onl­ine wo­rk fr­om ho­me... Make extra $3000 every month by working for a few hours a day. You'll need an internet connection and USA,CANADA,UK,AUSTRALIA or NEW ZEALAND residency and you are ready to start... You'll get paid weekly [wqcpm8]...

    >>>>>>>>>>>> -> fox7⁵.com

    ReplyDelete
  13. Leave me alone :(

    ReplyDelete
  14. I don't know what families you know, but most kids definitely aren't in bed by 10. A shift to 7 would be awful as at 7, many families are still eating dinner or getting the kids in the shower, packing lunches, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  15. It does start at 7 if you happen to live in the best time zone in the land! However, with DVRs and all it may not matter as much. I can't relate because the thought of watching 3 hours of it live just doesn't appeal to me, but I suppose there is a group that does watch live and then watch the extras on the network for just 9.99.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Cracker Barrel rules. Just sayin

    ReplyDelete
  17. Then put it on Saturday morning. Give the little bastards a reason to get up early on Saturdays like we used to do.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The irony is, with the WWE network, the old TNA model of "weekly pay-per-views" might actually work. Raw could go from the flagship weekly show to just a live version of "WWF Superstars" while the real action takes place on the network. The dark matches could be on the Network, with the really good stuff held off cable, leaving just enough to keep Raw minimally sufficient to get that 2.0 rating.

    They could sell single day access to the network for $0.99 and probably collect some more money from folks who don't want to pony up $9.99 but are willing to shell out $1 to see a good match. If they can do 300K buys/week, then that's $15M in additional revenue every year. Plus, it gives you names to try to sell the full network to later. I can see parents shelling out $1 for their kids to see a match or 2, then buying them 6 months of network access as a birthday or Christmas gift.

    ReplyDelete
  19. We all kind of get hung up on that rating number, sometimes comparing it to old ratings. People forget a 1.0 rating today is more viewers than a 1.0 fifteen years ago. You have to compare actual viewers. However, the part of it really important to USA is the demographic breakdown, and how many of those viewers are in the 18-49 category. If WWE stops appealing to teens and young adults, and the audience is just kids and bored parents, then that's where the trouble lies. So the ratings go down, it doesn't hurt WWE immediately. As Scott noted USA gets the ad revenue. WWE has sponsor deals, like with Mountain Dew. Where it'll hurt them is come renewall time. If the numbers are down, particularly in the key demos, their offer goes down. And at some point that "but they still get good ratings for cable" argument goes out the window because of the lesser ad rate wrestling earns.

    ReplyDelete
  20. No! Earn that extra income! If you don't, you're leaving money on the table! JUST LIKE THE WWE! MULTIPLE EXCLAMATION MARKS!

    ReplyDelete
  21. They've done that when anyone (relatively major name) who is advertised locally doesn't appear don't they?

    ReplyDelete
  22. They care about ratings a little otherwise they wouldn't hotshot big matches like they seem to do once every couple of months or so?

    ReplyDelete
  23. As a kid, our bedtime was 9-9:30.

    ReplyDelete
  24. I'd be curious (as a UK-dweller) to see how it would affect them if the PPVs were on a Saturday night, rather than a Sunday.


    It's always a pain, because the options are (a) Sit up to watch it, but be completely dead at work the next day or (b) Spend the entire next day avoiding the internet in any shape or form until you can see it when you get home.


    A Sat Night PPV, on the other hand, would be much more convenient.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Every family I've ever known including my own has their kids in bed by 9-10 if they're school age.

    ReplyDelete
  26. One thing I've wondered is: With the current roster now being thin to the point that there's now several guys frequently working twice, sometimes even three times at the Smackdown/Main Event tapings, why haven't David Otunga and Brad Maddox been used at all?

    Even if you just relegated them to being comedy jobbers on the level of SlaterGator and Adam Rose, they would still occupy a spot on the card thus keeping some guys from getting overworked and getting injured.

    ReplyDelete
  27. except that I'm quite sure the contract with USA has minimum standards. USA demands big names and big matches on Raw. I'm sure their is wording to protect that, particularly since the knew about the network during negotiations.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Perhaps they couldn't truly become the old Wrestling Challenge, but how do you measure those minimum standards? Since they never really showed dark matches on free TV before, I think they can still get away with this. Last night, they had Shamus vs. Rusev as a Network only event. As long as they had sufficient starpower to pull a 2.0, then USA is probably going to be OK with it.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment