Skip to main content

2.7, ouch

http://www.f4wonline.com/more/more-top-stories/118-daily-updates/28580-raw-ratings-for-monday

Ratings dropped every hour and finished at a 2.5.  They have GOT to kill that third hour.  You cant even blame this on lack of Cena.

Comments

  1. Will someone please put another wrestling show on Monday nights to give these assholes some competition?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Still think they drove away some of the audience when they turned Punk heel. Not the hardcore smart fans that are going ga-ga for it....Im mean the 15-19 year olds who thought they found their anti-hero. They could not give 2 craps about old-school wrestling heels.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I can only speak for myself and why I stopped watching. I haven't watched a Raw since Raw 1000. And the reason comes down to the product not being compelling enough to watch. The show is mostly made up of 2-7 minute matches where guys are mainly trading wins. It's not very entertaining to watch quite honestly. And I really don't want to sift through 2 and a half hours of boring to get to the interesting stuff. Another reason I haven't watched is because it all just feels so sterile. So cookie cutter and boring. There are a lot of talented wrestlers who don't have anything interesting to do. One of the only guys in the company who breaks out of this cookie cutter mold is Punk. But as I said 3 hours is just too much when I can watch the good stuff on Hulu and YouTube.


    So that's why I haven't been watching. There hasn't been enough compelling storylines/characters/matches to make me want to watch 3 hours worth of Raw.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I agree completely. I follow the company pretty closely and feel the actual product just isn't worth my time anymore. Romance? Bleck. Big Show / Sheamus? Okay... Dolph and Cena ALREADY had a match? Welp guess I don't need to pay to see that... and so on and so forth.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Cena wasn't on Hell in a Cell and it did fine. I'd argue that John Cena is one of the driving reasons ratings have declined in recent years (or failed to rise during his reign on top). Not John Cena the man, but John Cena the character.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Nothing to do with match quality for me, there's usually 1 or 2 interesting matches on. Every other week Sheamus has an interesting 2 segment match it seems and I genuinely am interested in all the tag teams that are getting TV time now. It's just there's so much filler. I generally watch on DVR and I can get through a 3 hour RAW in about 1 hour simply because there's so much dreck and recapping. Trying to watch it live is just brutal. Even when there's no NBA on and the Monday Night Football game sucks I'll still wait for the DVR and watch that way. I just can't sit through a whole RAW anymore. The Cena/AJ/Dolph/Vickie story is an instant channel change for me and I actually like all 4 performers, even Cena.

    The Main Event show they have going on is perfect IMO. 1 hour, no filler, usually some kind of new video package or something to set up the match. The match usually is good and it has a self-contained storyline most weeks. If they did that on RAW it would become must see viewing for me again.

    ReplyDelete
  7. I vote for an AWF Warriors of Wrestling revival. Tito vs The Hammer bay-bay

    ReplyDelete
  8. I agree with you, though I have to argue, perhaps putting the same guy in the 15 minute match that goes 2 segments (Sheamus) is a bad move, as it reeks of predictability.

    ReplyDelete
  9. ^This. Every wrestling generation needs that new kind of star to shake up the formula. There's a chance it could have been Punk in 2011, but they botched that unique moment in time by turning him into smiling babyface #642 and then botched it even further by making him "just another heel." What if Stone Cold had always stayed as "just another heel?"

    ReplyDelete
  10. They tried it and it consisted of red birdcage matches, The Nasty Boys, and Hogan rambling about "not here to play a role, BROTHER", I'd much rather stick to everyone doing their own damn thing.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To be fair, there is an absolute TON of wrestling, actual good wrestling, every Monday. Each week they have at least 3, and often 4, matches that are 11-15+ minutes long.

    ReplyDelete
  12. I think Punk turning heel definitely had something to do with it.

    Just watching his character now compared to the guy he was when the reign started is just staggering. Now this is a guy who's suddenly beating up on old men, being a complete asshole, and for what? Because they didn't have enough heels? Because every heel that feuded with John Cena was made to look like a complete joke? Because John Cena refuses to turn heel because "you have to be a bad guy in real life to be able to play a bad guy on television"? (his words, not mine)



    Why didn't they just try and revert Punk back to being more about change again? Have him bitch about the hypocrisy of "Dwayne" just getting a title shot at the Rumble after wrestling only one match in the past eight years, have him bitch about the absurdity that his matches weren't closing the show despite being the champion (and seriously, the only match of Cena's that should have closed any show that didn't involve the champion was his match with Rock).


    Any of these storylines with Punk since Raw 1000 could have had him as a face, even his matches with Ryback.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yeah because his stupid goat face jokes were bringing in all teh ratingz!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Any alternative is better than no alternative.

    ReplyDelete
  15. The argument that the reason ratings are down is because CM Punk is a heel is the most ridiculous thing I've heard on this blog in a while. All the CM Punk fan boys are afraid to admit that he is has been doing his best stuff since MITB '11 as a heel. All you people hate John Cena but you keep trying to pigeon hole Punk as the big superman babyface who never loses. It's mind boggling to me.

    ReplyDelete
  16. You make some fair points, but damn if Punk isn't more entertaining as a hell, ratings be damned.

    ReplyDelete
  17. I would not advocate the Punk from "Summer of Punk" and "Voice of the Voiceless" to be turned heel. The Punk that got turned heel? Absolutely. They had taken his edge away and was relegated to mid-card status as WWE champion.

    ReplyDelete
  18. This is so true. I can't stand people who want to turn him face again. The AJ thing was terrible even back then and I don't really care to see anymore angles about CM Punk's alcoholic dad.

    ReplyDelete
  19. The problem is that this show is imminently DVR-able. There is no reason to actually tune in on Monday night, and that's ignoring all the water-cooler stuff like MNF or NBA or DWtS or The Voice or How I Met Your Mother.


    There's just nothing "must see" about anything they try to do. I have no idea what the solution is though.



    It makes me wonder how well Austin would have done if he came up in an era where "two hours leading to one stunner on a non-combatant" wouldn't have worked because we'd all just tune into the 2 minutes of compelling television the next day on the internet.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Snark aside, that's a valid point. Though I think Solo's point has some validity as well, particularly from a narrative perspective. Punk's current 1980s heel persona, much like his pandering babyface persona, is drastically out of character from the guy we were introduced to last year as a main eventer.

    ReplyDelete
  21. The way WWE got around that problem back in the day was entertaining backstage stuff. The whole show, Vince and his stooges would plot out how they would take out Austin to keep you tuned in and want to see what the pay off was at end when Austin came down to stun everyone.

    ReplyDelete
  22. I wonder how much of this has to do with, again, the whole company being in an obvious holding pattern leading up to one show.



    Who cares what happens right now when we all know UT, Brock, HHH and Rock are all waiting to start the real show in a month or two?

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think that stuff worked because they had a much more captive audience. You *HAD* to stay up and see what happened or you wouldn't know what everyone was talking about the next day at school.


    If I was 17 again, and the Austin era was happening again, BUT I had an iPhone...I'd have skipped a lot more shows and just caught up the next morning on youtube.


    Again, I have no clue what the solution would be. Be more compelling! As though that's something you can just "do".

    ReplyDelete
  24. I honestly think this might be last year that is a problem. Because in 2-4 years, all the guys that they have been bringing up the past few months will be on top by default. And we'll see if they sink or swim.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Come on, now: they were up against the Eagles-Panthers game, a main event in any stadium around the world.

    ReplyDelete
  26. It definitely will be interesting to see what they come up with for the WM after, when Brock/Rock/UT can't sell the show by themselves.



    Oh, right, that's when Austin will come back.


    So we still have at least two more to go, lol.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Nobody was introduced to Punk last year. His SES stuff was some of the best heel work in years. He has been a heel(and damn good one) for 95% of his WWE run.

    ReplyDelete
  28. OK, considering WWE's answer to low ratings is more McMahon's, how long until the inevitable Shane McMahon comeback? Actually, if Paul Heyman and Shane-O-Mac were on the same side, that could be pretty cool to watch.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Can't speak for everyone but I've never seen any SES stuff, or ROH stuff.



    I came back to this whole dumb thing strictly because of that MitB build when I read about it on espn.

    ReplyDelete
  30. The SES stuff was innovative, provocative and damn interesting. I wish he would've been able to take that group and gimmick all the way to RAW. I think he said in his doc that he got away with so much because he was "hidden" on Smackdown.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Even for people in your case. His character isn't that much different than MITB' 11. He is still sarcastic, bitter, and doesn't give a shit. The only difference is that he was directing his hate towards Vince instead of the fans.

    ReplyDelete
  32. You're definitely right but I think since his character is so lousy, giving him a chance to go out in the ring and kick some ass keeps his credibility up. I could watch him and Cesaro or him and Barrett just stiff the hell out of each other for 15 minutes every week. At least it keeps him from talking about his cousin O'Hanahan or whatever.

    ReplyDelete
  33. So much interesting shit gets started on Smackdown because nobody watches and nobody cares. Cody Rhodes' Dr. Doom gimmick fits in that same mold.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Yeah I just watched that this weekend, that's basically exactly what he says.



    Which is the same reason Jericho gives for getting so over on Nitro "no one was watching".



    I wonder what that says about me as a fan that, for me anyway, the most I've ever been entertained was when creative couldn't give less of a fuck about the guy.

    ReplyDelete
  35. BRING BACK THE ALLIANCE!

    ReplyDelete
  36. True. Even in his now famous promo/worked shoot, he tells the fans that are chanting for him to stick it. I still, to this day, think that Vince believed that promo would turn Punk into even a bigger heel. The fans responding to him as a face was not expected. I may be wrong, but that line by Punk tells me otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Perhaps having one guy hold the top title for 400 days isn't such a great idea then?

    ReplyDelete
  38. The reason fans turned him face is because of the shoot nature of the promo. If that promo was more like a traditional wrasslin' promo, he'd of never turned face.

    ReplyDelete
  39. It says that, just like in the old school days, wrestlers tend to be much better at creating their own character than some doofus in an office with a laptop who's never even watched wrestling until Stephanie hired them.

    ReplyDelete
  40. And none of the "mainstream" (read: one guy on ESPN) would've given a shit and it wouldn't have become nearly as big as it was.

    Man that build was great, I just watched the match again over the weekend and I didn't even realize his trainer and Colt are right there in the front row. So much awesome in that whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Oh, I'm not disputing that, I'm disputing the current nature of his character. Had they gone back to the Punk we had before the Del Rio feud, I'd be fine with the current direction.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Not true. Ratings have been on the decline for years now. In 2009, they averaged 3.69 on RAW. 2010, 3.47. 2011, 3.21. 2012, 3.06. That's a 4.5-7% drop year over year. In between, you've long reigns and short reigns. People are simply not as interested in the WWE as they used to be for a bunch of reasons. I would say, having a 3 hour show is not helping their overall rating at all.

    ReplyDelete
  43. No offence, but how many times have I heard that as an English fan? This never affected them before...

    ReplyDelete
  44. Except even though Austin was the star, there was just as much interesting stuff going on in the undercard. TAFKA Goldust, the rise of the Rock in the Nation, DX, Ken Shamrock, Marc Mero and Sable, Black Hart Owen, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  45. His feud with HHH was pretty garbage too.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Yep, the writers (half the issue) just don't pay ANY attention to guys in that kinda position, which leads to too many chefs in the kitchen as far as the main event goes.

    If you have 20 writers, maybe divide them up so EVERYONE gets a storyline?!

    Failing that, give Russo a call. He knew how to do it... (ducks for cover)

    ReplyDelete
  47. I blame it on a lack of Hogan. (Just kidding)

    ReplyDelete
  48. Duck and run! Listen, we've done the Russo experiment sooo many times. Yes, he'll come in and give everyone something to do. Then, matches will all be 2-3 minutes, with no clean finishes and beyond dumb gimmicks. Then, after a month or so, you won't know who's heel, face, or anything in between from the constant "swerves". Enough with Russo, he's the biggest hack in pro wrestling history.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Ah, but what feud with Triple H hasn't been garbage in the past twelve years?


    I didn't hate that feud completely, I liked Punk bringing up his idea of a star against what Triple H thought was a star, but then the stupid pigeonholing of the "if I lose, I'll relinquish my COO position" stipulation happened, the gag reflex scene, the Nash text message debacle, and the "this isn't between CM Punk and Triple H, it's between Phil Brooks and Paul Levesque" line reared their ugly heads.

    ReplyDelete
  50. I hate generally hate anything that has to do with insider terms, why people get buried or pushed, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Just let Russo deal with the mid card and under guys.

    ReplyDelete
  52. FEED ME... *changes the channel to football or How I Met Your Mother*! I'M HUN... *changes channel to 2 Broke Girls*

    ReplyDelete
  53. I don't blame you, it's one of the reasons I actually really didn't like the original DX.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Meanwhile TNA got a 1.8 on THANKSGIVING. Is this the first time the ratings of TNA and Raw were within a point?

    ReplyDelete
  55. No but I wouldn't be surprised to see Stephanie get air time.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shane's pretty much crawled through the pipe and is in Zihuatanejo at this point. If he didn't show for Raw 1000, he's not coming back. Can't say I blame him

    ReplyDelete
  57. Eh, really it's like 60-40 heel. He was a face from early summer 06 through late summer 09, after all.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Holy shit, is that legit? That would be the new record for Impact, right?


    Wow, good for them. I'm really happy. I just hate that it was merely an OK show instead of the usual very good episode of Impact so they could really hook viewers.


    Great number, though.

    ReplyDelete
  59. It's sarcasm, as this week's football matchup was one of the worst that they could possibly have given the poor records of the two teams this late into the season.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Could we at least give 70-80% of the guys something to do, then?

    ReplyDelete
  61. And yet, I actually watched a fair bit of that game, and enjoyed much of it. Of course, Cam going off like that helped me come from behind in one of my leagues...

    ReplyDelete
  62. I hated him as a face, but I also hate him as a mustache twirling heel. I want to see the guy that was breaking the conventions of wrestling again.

    ReplyDelete
  63. As Flair pointed out, this has been going on for years, but many have just covered their ears and hidden behind the illusion that Cena being the only guy booked like a star in the company was justifiable because he was such a gigantic draw. And the very idea of turning him heel is mocked because "He's the biggest draw ever!"

    His merchandise may sell tons. His WrestleManias may sell tons (though his other PPVs do abysmally). But in the Cena era, wrestling's mainstream penetration has reached low levels not seen since Diesel Power. There's just no buzz, because WWE has been content with its audience, so they stick to the same "proven" formulas over and over.


    I'm not suggesting Cena isn't a big wrestling star. I'm saying that turning him into the modern day Hulk Hogan has had zero net positive impact on the company, simply because whatever financial profits they're making are coming at the expense of growing the brand, creating stars and putting eyes back on the product.


    To be clear, I'm not a CM Punk apologist either. I enjoy him as a performer, but it's clear his title reign did nothing to move the needle at all, largely because absolutely nothing changed about the product as a whole. He's just another dude cutting predictable in-ring promos, at the end of the day.

    ReplyDelete
  64. This will be confusing for them, considering it must have been Ryback who popped a decent buy for Hell in a Cell!

    ReplyDelete
  65. They're NEVER going to turn Cena heel as much as all of us feel it's necessary:

    1. Sells to much merch

    2. Better ambassador for Make a Wish than the rest of the roster combined

    3. They learned that lesson with Austin in 2001

    Let it go peeps. It ain't happening.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Exactly what they need

    ReplyDelete
  67. He was being sarcastic. The Eagles and Panthers are terrible teams, that likely did the lowest MNF rating of the year.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Because he said things that people felt but never get to hear. A lot of fans DO think Vince is out of touch, DO think his daughter and son-in-laws are idiots and that the company will never be what it was.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Zack Ryder's heat was here.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Interesting point. The shows are going down but PPV is doing pretty well. I think a lot of it is from people feeling the only time something happens is on PPV.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Right. There was truly something for everyone, from a character perspective. Frankly, babyface Steve Austin was horrible to me. I rooted against him. Always found his redneck act annoying until he got goofier in 2000/2001.

    But I tuned in every week (or taped it to watch Nitro) for the Rock, primarily. I'd sit there waiting for him to show up. I also enjoyed D'Lo, the Stooges, Taker's weirdness and all that.

    ReplyDelete
  72. I'll always wonder what would have happened if TNA was still on Monday nights when they got on their hot streak a few months back.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Cena as a face isn't a problem. It's Vince's insistence to keep Cena at the top of the card and winning all the time because he's still butthurt over Lesnar and Lashley walking out after getting monster pushes.

    ReplyDelete
  74. It would be neat if TNA did a live Monday show once a quarter or something to test the waters a bit. Although if they launch during the Road to Wrestlemania they wouldn't see the same results they would this time of year.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Gotya! That's why I felt the need to point out my nationality.. :)

    Still, it applies to when it's a good/decent match, too. I seem to hear excuses every other week now.

    ReplyDelete
  76. MAIN EVENT TITO > WWE RAW

    ReplyDelete
  77. Yeh, sorry. I wasn't meaning to open a can of worms here, but look at his WWF track record when Vinnie Mac was keeping him in check. He hasn't had that since, and made himself look a little foolish as a result.

    Honestly, I know people completely disagree, but i'd even take Russo on his own booking Raw over what we have now. Nothing really seems to happen!

    I'd rather someone try too hard than not try hard enough, and that's the distinct feeling I get, and have had over the past couple of years.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Kat Dennings has HUGE BEWBS

    ReplyDelete
  79. 95?


    I dont wanna go back and forth with you Cult... just saying thats exaggerated.

    ReplyDelete
  80. I think TNA actually did a 0.8 -- one of their lower ratings in awhile, but they were up against a huge football game.

    I think that if it doesn't cost them anything, running on Mondays might be worth a shot still -- no gimmicks though or lame Russo booking, just a change of nights to go where the (declining) wrestling audience is. Anything to drum up some excitement via the spirit of competition.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Was Cena the reason any of those Wrestlemanias did huge buys? I'd give more credit to Trump, Mayweather, and the Rock in regards to the huge buys for Wrestlemania than I would to John Cena.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Probably. But that's only because that all I remember from his shit, his heel runs. Punk was a boring white meat babyface before he first turned, and that what he was before he turned again recently.

    ReplyDelete
  83. They'd still get their butts kicked.

    ReplyDelete
  84. TNA just need to curry as much favor with Spike as possible. Now that UFC is gone, they can become the foundation of the network.

    ReplyDelete
  85. HowmuchdoesthisguyweighNovember 28, 2012 at 4:55 PM

    Didn't read every post so don't know of this was touched on....

    Can't ratings be down due to; DVR, YouTube, WWE APP (which essentially gives you te clifnotes version of RAW). I don't think you can point to single guys being the reason for the drop. The product is bad....

    I am a lifelong fan and am almost plugged in to what is going on but I made a point to tune in when something good happens. I made a point to tune in to see how they would follow up the debut of SHIELD. I am still a fan but it just bores me most weeks. Not sure if Cena is all bad but his character needs tweaking and they need better booking

    ReplyDelete
  86. Exactly. There is surely a tangled web of possible reasons for the precipitous decline. Some of those ideas are probably way off and others probably have some solid footing behind them.

    The bottom line though is -- whatever they are doing, they aren't doing it well.

    ReplyDelete
  87. That stuff could account for SOME drop, but they are drifting into dying days of WCW territory as far as ratings go.

    ReplyDelete
  88. not quite. a 2.7 in 2000 is equivalent to a 3.4 to 3.5 today due to more households equaling a ratings point

    ReplyDelete
  89. I don't think it's a bad idea. Monday is IMO the least competitive night of TV when football is not on. Thursday on the other hand is the most competitive.

    ReplyDelete
  90. I agree, it is the product first and foremost. Lots of possible reasons, but clearly the overall product is less than inspiring for viewers. DVR viewership is included in Nielsen measurements FYI.

    ReplyDelete
  91. You are right...my bad. My wrestling phone app reported that.

    ReplyDelete
  92. I'm not saying they would have had bigger ratings, I'm just wondering if they would have gotten more traction with fans with a hotter product than what WWE was doing at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  93. I think you are about 70% correct. the youtube age is a challenge. However more compelling TV would certainly help as well. If you gave all the guys storylines in the midcard and time develop them, as they used to, I think that helps keep the audience. We all remember great midcard feuds during the 80s and 90s, and WWF was full of great midcard feuds and gimmicks from 97-04ish. Once Cena and Batista hit (not blaming them personally, just bookending the timeline) it seems all the focus went to main eventers and everyone else just traded wins and losses. Then i stopped watching in 07 and from what I understand, it's still an issue today.



    Weak brands look at youtube as a problem, strong brands look at youtube as a place that prospective viewers can see something awesome that will make them want to watch the entire show.

    ReplyDelete
  94. As soon as we start shooting, brother, I tune out completely.

    ReplyDelete
  95. That merch argument is bullshit. nWo and Austin 3:16 are two of the biggest sellers of all time and they were for heels.

    ReplyDelete
  96. IF you watch in within 3 days. I just found that out. Not that i'm a Nielsen family but I know that I wait until the weekend to watch shows from Tuesday and Wednesday night that I record (Go on, New Normal, Modern Family, Nashville) so they wouldn't count if I was. Now I doubt most wrestling fans wait more than 3 days to watch a DVR due to spoilers and talk on the internet, but I jut wanted to put that out there.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Of course you would.

    ReplyDelete
  98. So the world champ takes the blame for none of this?

    ReplyDelete
  99. Seriously, the moment Shawn and Hunter start yelling to the commentary that the Hart Foundation was "burying them" in loud whiny voices, I remembered why I hated pre-Jesus Shawn and still hate Triple H to this day.


    That, and him calling the WWF Title "a worthless piece of tin."


    Not to mention the announcers, as well as Shawn, calling him "the greatest WWF Champion of all time" without any sense of sarcasm (which might have been just an attempt to take some shots at Hogan and Nash).

    ReplyDelete
  100. Blaming Big Show seems kind of random.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Yeah, Isn't he mostly on Smackdown anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  102. At least with DX it was new and cutting edge. So I'll them a pass for it.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Yeah, and he only was only on Raw for one segment. As usual, Dougie's argument is invalid.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Agreed. But the better move, especially with the Rock on the horizon, was to revive the Summer of Punk character. That was the $$$$ - that was what we saw on Raw 1000 that got everyone SUPER excited.



    Punk playing old-school heel has not.

    ReplyDelete
  105. I'm not sure the disparity is quite so much, but I'll let someone else do the math -- for 2000 one cable ratings point equated to about 800,000 households, where now I think it's a bit over a million per rating point. One issue with cable and satellite subscriptions is that penetration peaked and then has home up and down slightly a few times since 2003. Probably not enough to make a huge difference but its there.

    I think the more telling way to make comparisons is to compare the position of Raw relative to the other programs for the week (not just the night) in terms of audience share. By that measure, they aren't at WCW 2001 numbers but they are hanging out in 1995s neighborhood with some regularity.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Did you not read half the posts about Punk's heel turn?

    ReplyDelete
  107. Wonderful argument you have there. Care to elaborate on why I'm wrong? I'd say those three guys are bigger draws than John Cena could ever hope to be.

    ReplyDelete
  108. actually it one cable ratings point equaled 1.008 million homes so i was a little high. It would a 3.1 in 2000 terms which equals 3.129 million viewers.

    ReplyDelete
  109. I believe they track a few different ways, one measurement for live as well up to repeat viewings up to 3am (for overnights), one for three days and one for seven. That is an interesting feature though. It would actually seem to work in the favor of event television (sports, wrestling) and negatively impact syndicated shows and reruns.

    Interestingly enough, as of late last year, DVR playback reportedly accounts for only about 10 to 15% of all TV watching done per household. I'd have figured it was way more, but like a lot of things I suppose, people have them but don't always use them.

    ReplyDelete
  110. I don't watch anything new any other way. I hate commercials so I DVR all my primetime stuff and watch it later. The stuff I watch with commercials (or flip around) is only sports or reruns of sitcoms, or occasionally stuff on food TV. Even if it's as simple as starting the DVR and then starting to watch an hour show at 8:30, I never watch a brand new program at the scheduled time.

    ReplyDelete
  111. I just wish ESPN Classic wasn't a premium channel (lousy Time Warner...) so I could watch AWA reruns from time to time

    ReplyDelete
  112. The only things new and cutting edge with the DX stuff was the weenie roast (which was so tasteless and awesome) and strip poker. Shawn had been dropping insider terms all year in the most blatant way possible, such as "Sunny Days", "you're the Hitman every second of the day, while I go home and become Shawn" and the "handwritten note from God".

    ReplyDelete
  113. From one blithering dumbfuck troll to another, at least make it look like you're trying.

    ReplyDelete
  114. I have to admit I put an up vote on your post. Heck I put an up vote on your post about the challenges of the internet in today's day and age too.

    ReplyDelete
  115. To me, Tuesday has always been the crap night.

    ReplyDelete
  116. So no blame for punk. It's everybody else's fault. Got it.

    ReplyDelete
  117. I think that is for one broadcast ratings point in 2000. Cable and satellite penetration didnt pass the 100 million mark until last year, while broadcast passed it in late 1999 according to the numbers I have.

    Yeah, I think you are on the ball there, cable TV is more of a well rounded place numbers wise now, with more shows pulling better ratings and more viewers due to increased penetration.

    I guess another thing for people to keep in mind too is that ratings are calculated in terms of households and then converted into number of viewers -- the two terms often get used as if they are interchangeable. Hogan vs Goldberg was the first cable match to pull in 10 million viewers which was a record at the time, surpassed by Goldberg vs DDP and then a bunch of RAW matches. What has the highest segment in the last 10 years on RAW pulled, six or seven million? And with quite a larger pool of viewers (though more competition). Weekly they are averaging around three or four million now, so yeah, quite a drop from wherever the were at.

    ReplyDelete
  118. Wait, so now It's Punk's fault? What about Big Show? Are they feuding or something?

    ReplyDelete
  119. Same here -- I time shift everything just to avoid some of the commercials if I can.

    ReplyDelete
  120. Again, practically half the posts here are about Punk's character.

    ReplyDelete
  121. I apologize for my laziness and not reading every comment because I might repeat some things already said.


    I just don't see a reason why this should alter plans. If you put on multiple good shows in a row, this isn't going to be a problem. July was a hot month for TV. August and September's Raws were decent shows but too bloated. Then they threw in Main Event, Saturday Morning Slam, AND the Hulu Plus package with Superstars and NXT. Those are all quality shows in their own ways, which makes it easier to burn out fans. The company had stretched itself out to the farthest point possible.


    Then October and the first half of November came and they put on a string of mostly crappy shows. As Cena nursed his wounds, he was granted about 1 long and 1 short non-wrestling segment per week. And I don't care how good Sheamus's matches are, he has had a 15 minute, 3.25 star match every week for about two months where they try to make him look like a total badass. It's repetitive on an already repetitive show. Then they totally screwed up the build up to Survivor Series for three straight weeks.



    Last week wasn't too bad, and this week's show was good. If you put on a couple months worth of shows like this week's, you'll start to get positive word of mouth. People who check it out on YouTube or Hulu will start to trust that there's going to be a good show. More people on the fence will DVR it. Lastly, more people with Nielsen boxes will watch it.



    We saw it with Nitro in 96 to 97 and Raw in 97 to 98--you have to put on good shows for months at a time for people to catch on. Gasp, it's almost like every tv show they brag about being older/longer than! Of course, having a Hulk Hogan turn, a Mike Tyson appearance, or a Cyndi Lauper angle doesn't hurt either when it's done during positive viewing trends.

    ReplyDelete
  122. Yeah, I think part of their issue is that their audience seems stagnant no matter what. Their ratings dipped downward on Monday's before (and their product was bad) and recovered somewhat with the move back to Thursdays. They have basically been stuck ever since, despite the improvements in the product, so might be worth bringing a good show to Monday. On the other hand, if it doesn't work out, do they just move it again or does Spike give up in them?

    ReplyDelete
  123. Oh yeah? What about the people that don't live in Ivory Towers and Golden Mansions like you and can't afford the DVR?



    Okay, okay. Sometimes I feel left out as I'm like the only guy here without DVR. That's all.

    ReplyDelete
  124. Seriously guys, not one ounce of the blame goes to World Champion CM Punk?

    ReplyDelete
  125. It's even more annoying when you realize they have a big enough roster to not have to run the exact same shit every week

    ReplyDelete
  126. Thanks for the numbers. Btw, your reply post to me over the weekend was one of the classiest responses posted. I appreciated it.

    ReplyDelete
  127. So we're in agreement that they need to take the belt off him and give it back to cena. Finally.

    ReplyDelete
  128. For what? Not catching the falling knife? It's been trending lower for years. I'd have hoped Punk could have built some momentum but bad booking trumps great wrestling .

    ReplyDelete
  129. There's something more systematic than punk or cena at play. I've followed raw ratings online since it was a ONE hour show. The ratings always went up during the show. Then the 2nd hour was alwaus the highest. The "stories they are telling" are paid off in hour #3 and the ratings havedropped every single week in hour 3

    ReplyDelete
  130. Look, we are in an age where internet darlings and hard workers dominate our sports entertainmentz.

    Who owns the title historically known as "the workers belt," the Intercontinental Championship? Kofi Kingston (or Johnston if you ask Ozzy or Sharon).

    How do you not blame Kofi for this mess? That pec-less, Jamaican impersonating bastage.

    ReplyDelete
  131. I think that's unfair. You honestly think THAT many people ordered WrestleMania to see Donald Trump stand in Lashley's corner? When he was already appearing on network television on a regular basis? I'm not saying he didn't help -- of course he did -- but to give him more credit than Cena is a little ridiculous. I'm not all that convinced about Mayweather, either.


    Fans continually ride WWE because of the perception that "the other guy" always gets credit for successful shows. Your perception is no better.

    ReplyDelete
  132. No, I'm pointing the fact that you didn't read this thread at all.

    ReplyDelete
  133. The one thing about all this that is unclear to me is that -- are fans tired of the WWE flavor of wrestling or are they tired of wrestling all together?

    I don't think you can bring fans back with "good shows" if the genre itself is completely tired. For either WWF or WCW to turn the ratings in their favor, they needed to turn all of the conventions of wrestling on their head. Goodbye jobber matches and superheroes, hello anti-heroes and gang style stables. In ring interviews and theme music became a catalyst for drama and violence and action was no longer limited to the ringside area. They changed the whole look of the program too.

    In the mainstream products all of that was new and fresh stuff that came around in a short period of time. The WWE operates as part of a sluggish corporate machine now -- they are recycling the same stuff and its no longer fresh. The show basically looks the same, only tamer. I don't think it is as simple as going back to what they were doing before or going TV14 or whatever, the rematch/sequel is almost always a case of diminishing returns.

    If they want their core wrestling audience they just have to keep them happy, but if they fade or the goal is to be more widely viewed, then I think they have to reinvent the whole thing and I don't think Vince is going to be the one to do it at this point, and I doubt Stephanie is going to do it by adopting the Twilight marketing either.

    ReplyDelete
  134. DX wasn't so new and cutting edge. I always considered them nWo light.

    ReplyDelete
  135. This is a really good question.

    When TNA product improved, ratings stayed the same and they had some bizarre dips in there. It doesn't matter what the hot angle in WWE is, ratings don't go too far in any one direction but the general trend is downward.



    It very well may be that the core wrestling audience just isn't watching wrestling anymore. In which case WWE needs to double down on kids and create a new generation.

    ReplyDelete
  136. Hmm. Food for thought.



    I'm not sure if they really need something drastic to gain more viewers, though. They could reinvent themselves and we'd welcome it, I grant you. However, people gravitate to entertaining shows. If you're entertaining for about six months and you have a breakout character, you're going to get a lot more viewers. They've had breakout characters over the last ten years--I think Batista in 2005, Edge in early 2006, and Punk in 2011--but they never really ran with them when they were at their hottest (or you could say they were cock blocked by Cena and HHH).

    ReplyDelete
  137. DX and nWo couldn't be more different. nWo was 20 minute monologues and beatdowns. DX were two guys going out there and acting like teenagers.

    ReplyDelete
  138. and, oh yeah... just go back to 2 hour Raws already.

    ReplyDelete
  139. Honestly, in addition to the overexposure of the product, one of the biggest issues WWE is facing right now is that the company seems to have such a contentious relationship with its fans right now.

    I think many fans understand why John Cena can't turn heel at this time -- but WWE seems unwilling to even add layers and complexity to his character in order to make him more interesting and tolerable to those who don't particularly enjoy his act. And ton top of that, he's also the spotlight of each and every PPV.

    And while I think the CM Punk heel turn has found its footing, but I think the fact that it happened at all -- when most fans weren't asking for it -- turned people off (and the flimsy story behind it didn't help).

    Meanwhile, fans are salivating over a big Daniel Bryan push, and we see.... Big Show: World Champion? Fans are legitimately invested in Zack Ryder, who they won't even give a proper storyline to.....meanwhile stale characters like Alberto Del Rio and Randy Orton (who, admittedly, gets a reaction) have a permanent place in the main event?

    I think a big reason why people watched during the Attitude Era was because they felt like they had an impact on the show. The fans MADE Mick Foley into a legend. I can see why fans have given up on the show now.

    ReplyDelete
  140. No bigs. I think TNAs overall peak show was a 1.5 with a 1.88 being their peak qtr hour.

    ReplyDelete
  141. You make some good points. They seem to want to stay the course with Super Cena no matter what. I think they'll ride that out unless business really tanks or they find his replacement -- They seem most comfortable marketing wise with a superhero babyface as their main guy, so they are probably going to want to find the Warrior to his Hogan, if you will. Wasn't Sheamus supposed to be that guy down the line?

    ReplyDelete
  142. no problem. and thank you. Call me silly but I don't much like people disliking me on the internet. so when I get called out it makes me think a bit.

    ReplyDelete
  143. JeffHardysInnerDialogueNovember 28, 2012 at 7:43 PM

    2.7 ounces of...oh wait. This is about rantings. Nevermind.

    ReplyDelete
  144. I don't know. We can't post links here but I simply googled cable ratings for 2000 and looked at a list of the top 15 shows for a week in september (WCW had a 2.5 or so I think). It noted at the top that each ratings point equaled the number I gave. I guess the site could have been incorrect but if you google the term cable ratings 2000 and go down to the link for mediapost publications, that is where I took the numbers from. maybe we should start a ratings topic on the message board and it might let us post links?

    ReplyDelete
  145. I know you corrected yourself, but TNA drew their lowest rating in six years. Just a little off the mark XD. They drew 1.1....total viewers (millions)! That's a 0.7, or what Sandman blows on a typical Friday night.

    ReplyDelete
  146. The third hour of RAW drew 2.5 million more viewers than the show that followed it. Why on earth would USA want to get rid of the third hour of RAW? Unless they hate money and ratings.

    ReplyDelete
  147. A problem is fans tune out once WrestleMania is over. Semi-fans know nothing happens until after the Royal Rumbe, since that's when guys like The Rock, Undertaker, Triple H and Brock Lesnar return. Why watch a crap product in November when it won't get good until late January?

    Bringing back Rock and Lesnar and Taker and building them up as being bigger and better than everybody else isn't helping the current guys. Long term planning is January thru April, and everything else seems to run on auto pilot.

    ReplyDelete
  148. You hit the nail on the head. There are no new viewers. They may siphon half a mil off RAW, but most of WWE's fans now know WWE and only WWE. If they're not watching WWE wrestling, then they're watching something else and likely not flocking to TNA.

    ReplyDelete
  149. the drop off in ratings from 10-11 and 11-12 is huge on ALL networks. people go to bed and do other stuff. The better comparison would be what USA got at 8 PM before Raw took over and not just ratings, but the ad rates and the costs to USA for production, royalties, and/or payment to production companies. You might be surprised.

    ReplyDelete
  150. Don't leave us hanging. What's the comparison?

    ReplyDelete
  151. Not early nWo. Hall and Nash, even Hogan, they were the rebellious group. They acted like overgrown, spoiled men. DX was very similar and of course they were, Shawn, Nash, Hall, et al...this is probably how they acted backstage.

    ReplyDelete
  152. I'm sorry, I don't care how many downvotes I get again. This is funny!

    ReplyDelete
  153. Exactly. Heels have sold plenty of merch. People like wearing the bad guy garb

    ReplyDelete
  154. Sheamus is only like a year younger than Cena. So by WWE logic: absolutely.

    ReplyDelete
  155. Another very real reason the ratings are dipping are because people are flocking away from television. Sure, you've still got Walking Dead and football and select few shows doing big numbers, but overall television ratings are doing the same drop year by year.


    WWE is making a strong transition in an online presence.

    ReplyDelete
  156. As long as they stay over 2.5 before The Rock comes on, they'll be fine. Rock'll fix everything.

    ReplyDelete
  157. oh i was just musing. Anyone can google what was on at 8 pm before Raw started the three hour show. But as far as ad rates and costs, those numbers are buried in the accounting of Comcast (who I believe owns NBC who owns USA,).

    ReplyDelete
  158. My mistake, I actually looked at the title matches for 23, and it was the HBK/Cena and Taker/Batista matches. Both of those had the "holy shit, who the hell is going to win?" vibe to them. For some reason I get 23 and 25 mixed up as far as title matches go.

    ReplyDelete
  159. HowmuchdoesthisguyweighNovember 28, 2012 at 8:54 PM

    Haha.. You are not alone sir. I am DVR'less

    ReplyDelete
  160. I know we all want to believe that, but the ratings for the Mania build-up weren't exactly earth shattering.


    If they really wanna spike up the Raw ratings and assuming he takes the title at the Rumble, WWE & USA should consider having Rock actually work a match on Raw during February sweeps. Hype the crap out of it for a month just like Raw 1000 and give him a credible, safe opponent who wouldn't necessarily be a future Mania opponent. Rey, Jericho, Kane, Bryan or Orton would all potentially work.

    ReplyDelete
  161. It's the status quo that's killing the WWE. Nothing ever seems to happen. And there's not much left in the tank to realistically hotshot.

    ReplyDelete
  162. Look for The Shield to have their name changed to The Anchor.

    ReplyDelete
  163. What do all three of those guys have in common?


    Batista was sent packing to Smackdown so as to avoid further feuding with HHH.


    Edge lost his title back to Cena, who went into a program for no reason with HHH other than someone needed a WrestleMania main event payday.


    Punk was the hottest act of 2011, only to be shoehorned into a program with HHH that somehow ended with HHH vs. Kevin Nash at TLC 2011.

    ReplyDelete
  164. Good idea! I have yet to try out the forum.

    ReplyDelete
  165. HowmuchdoesthisguyweighNovember 28, 2012 at 9:05 PM

    Wasn't aware of how it measures on. Thanks

    ReplyDelete
  166. Even early nWo. They always had a plan and that was to take over WCW. DX was more mindless anarchy. I wouldn't even label nWo rebellious. They weren't trying to rebel from WCW, they were an outside force trying to destroy it.

    ReplyDelete
  167. Punk is getting some blame in a round about way. We can admit that Punk is doing poorly because of writers, Vince, HHH, etc.


    Just not because of Punk. If he was allowed to just do his thing bah god, it'd be a different story.

    ReplyDelete
  168. HowmuchdoesthisguyweighNovember 28, 2012 at 9:08 PM

    True. Not a good trend. I believe it is so fixable. Makes me upset. They romanticize the attitude era, and why? They had star power up top and mid carders....... HAD A PURPOSE.

    ReplyDelete
  169. I'd be all for a TNA version of Clash of the Champions a few times a year. Maybe they could even get ballsy and run one up against a major WWE show like SummerSlam.

    ReplyDelete
  170. Definitely down, but it was a holiday and up against new programming on NBC and Fox plus early Black Friday specials starting in most of the country so its not like people were around the TV.

    ReplyDelete
  171. 25 is pretty awful outside of HBK/Taker, MITB, and the Jericho/Steamboat segment.

    ReplyDelete
  172. I need a TL;DR for this entire thread. Ratings+Punk=everyone writing 45 paragraphs a piece.

    ReplyDelete
  173. Austin, while extremely hot, wasn't the only thing worth tuning in for on Raw in the 90's. You had a whole stable of characters who had their own continuing storylines. They may not have always been great, but fans were certainly interested in what angles DX, Taker/Kane, Rock, Foley, and the midcarders like Val, Shamrock and Goldust were up to.


    Nowadays you have Sheamus and Del Rio feuding non-stop for 3 months without a single memorable moment other than Sheamus stealing Del Rio's character and defecating into it, before Del Rio moves onto a feud with Orton that seems to have no real story at all other than random matches months on end.

    ReplyDelete
  174. I think there's something to this - one of the factors behind interest building around him last summer is that the material was presented in a relatively fresh manner, and both Punk and Cena were given near-Mania type build in a non-Mania setting.


    Fast forward a few months and you add on Punk getting Standard WWE Writing to a lack of depth in the top half of the card and we got the Ryback experiment. And while that seems to have brought about an uptick in buys for HITC, it's not playing well on a week-to-week basis.

    ReplyDelete
  175. I got it done in two. Efficiency!

    ReplyDelete
  176. Huh...Funny how that works out


    ReplyDelete
  177. Most casual fans probably don't even realize that TNA exists. So I seriously doubt they would be any competition for RAW. Internet fans only make up like 2% of the viewing audience.

    ReplyDelete
  178. What do you mean by internet fans? Because I'm pretty sure every wrestling fan is on the internet. Even if the casuals don't all have a WON sub, they still will google their favorite wrestlers to try and find shit out.

    ReplyDelete
  179. And to believe that was a red-hot NFC title game just nine years ago!

    ReplyDelete
  180. So what you're saying is these guys don't know how this business works. Fuck them.

    ReplyDelete
  181. The crap night is Saturday hands down.
    Even the premium channels have stopped putting good programming on Saturdays at this point.

    ReplyDelete
  182. yeah, I'm a big sports fan so sometimes I forget about Saturday. I think the assumption is that everyone is out (or watching sports) so they don't bother to put too much on. Most of the networks are showing college football in the evening and I can't think off a big a big cable show that shows a first run program on Saturday. Plenty of reruns, but you aren't seeing debut episodes of Honey Boo Boo, mad Men, Walking Dead, Pawn Stars or other highly rated cable shows on Saturday night

    ReplyDelete
  183. So apparently Raw might be going back to two hours. I think it's a glitch in the system personally, but all across cable systems Raw for next week is two hours.

    ReplyDelete
  184. Right now Vince must be channeling his inner Bart Simpson...


    "The Rock is coming, The Rock is coming, The Rock is coming..."

    ReplyDelete
  185. Dougie's gotten lazy ever since he got outed for being John Sorrow/Danny Treo, etc. When is Scott gonna ban him again, anyway?

    ReplyDelete
  186. Who are these guys you speak of?

    ReplyDelete
  187. This is the first I've heard of this, is it gonna be 8-10? Because that's the timeslot they need to stick with.

    ReplyDelete
  188. I love Punk, he's the best around for fans like us, but can we all admit he is not a draw.

    Yes yes I know people will jump out with 'It's the writing!' But no one ever comes to defend Diesel as a big star, with bad writing.

    ReplyDelete
  189. ...to follow up on that, most of the audience in attendance at the last few RAW's had "That Awful Shirt" [/Vince McMahon] ...in the bright yellow of Punk. In FACT, Punk has the most decent merch of any of the wrestlers right now. ...and it's selling.

    ReplyDelete
  190. Those were his old names. Scott banned him a few years ago for being a giant troll.

    ReplyDelete
  191. Well, according to any TVGuide like site, they've got NCIS listed for the 8 - 9 time slot. IMDB seems to be one that still has it listed for three hours though. Like I said, might just be a glitch.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment