Skip to main content

Ratings Question

I'm a longtime reader and I have a question about television ratings.
Why does the WWE care so much about ratings for Raw? Now obviously I
know that higher ratings equal higher advertisement dollars. But let's
say that Raw averages a 3.0 rating over the last 12 months. When a big
show like the 1000th episode of Raw or the night after the Royal
Rumble and The Rock's title celebration pops a big number, everyone
acts as if the WWE should be so excited. But surely one big rating
can't affect the amount the WWE can charge to advertisers for spots in
subsequent weeks right? It seems to me while although the days of 6.0
and 7.0 ratings are long gone, Raw is still one of the highest rated
cable programs. Especially in the coveted 18 to 49 male demographic.
So with the days of the Monday Night Wars long in the past and no
danger of Raw being canceled, why are high or low ratings met with
such discussion?


WWE basically makes all their revenue off TV rights fees now, which is why they've stopped giving a shit about PPVs not named Wrestlemania, so yeah, ratings are pretty important.  It's not just that USA can cancel them, it's that they can go to Network X and say "Look at these ratings, buy our shitty fourth-string squash show for $3 million and you can get a piece of that too."  

Comments

  1. Question- if the WWE doesn't care about the non-Wrestlemania PPVs, why not cut them down to 4 a year, have TV specials on the off months (Clash of the Champions type shows), and put the big matches on those specials? Wouldn't that increase the ratings?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Question- if the WWE doesn't care about the non-Wrestlemania PPVs, why not cut them down to 4 a year, have TV specials on the off months (Clash of the Champions type shows), and put the big matches on those specials? Wouldn't that increase the ratings?

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is so true, yet strangely enough WWE (and to a lesser extent, Smackdown) continues its mundane or downright terrible quality level of programming. Does not compute. You'd think with the emphasis on programming nowadays the shows would be, you know, good. Another reason why The Biz has passed me by.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Because the other PPVs (somehow) still make money, although they have been toying with that idea with the network coming along.

    ReplyDelete
  5. two points:

    1. If they did the "Network" thing and didn't start gobbling up the ability to broadcast lower-tier Indy promotions, I'd be baffled.

    2. Wrestling needs to focus on digital and content on demand. I really don't care about Raw Being live anymore, I watch it (and smackdown) now on Saturdays after I get out of work, and I'd probably watch it elsewhere if it were easily available online in it's entirety.

    3. I'm going to admit that I pay for one PPV a year, and if I like a card that's on a PPV I will seek out other means to watch it - I wonder if the WWE would make more PPV revenue if PPVs were buy one get one free or something.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I like your first point. I think it'd be beneficial for everyone. Wrestlers get bigger exposure which in theory means bigger paydays. They'd also get seen more directly by WWE brass. And for WWE, its fans would be able to more easily see younger/developing talent and so when those wrestlers eventually sign with WWE, the WWE fans would be more familiar with them than the current model.

    ReplyDelete
  7. That's three:


    1, WWE is not going to bring in another promotion they don't have 100% control of. Hell, they couldn't even keep their OVW deal going.


    2. When RAW is hot (rare) I definitely wanna see it live. The Raw after Punk's 2011 promo is a good example. So I still want a live option, but I think an expanded WWE On Demand is a good direction.


    3. I wanna say that WCW tried that early on. I'd be interested in something like a "Road to Wrestlemania" package where you could get the Rumble, Chamber, and Mania for say $100.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I've long said a company like TNA should try a NO PPV model. Focus only on ratings and try and get ad revenue up. I believe TNA is the highest rated show on Spike already. If they could increase their ratings, it would help Spike get more cable companies to pick them up.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I thought Spike was one of those household cable companies like MTV, Nickelodeon, USA, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Did you watch Smackdown last Friday? Plenty of good matches.

    ReplyDelete
  11. To the OPs point, one important distinction to make though is that RAW and Nitro didn't only used to top the *Monday* night charts in terms of viewers and demographics, they routinely topped the weekly cable charts too, where RAW last week was 15th, 17th, and 21rst for each of the three hours of RAW for the week.

    There is certainly more premiere content on cable than there used to be, but to that point, wrestling has not maintained that reputation as premiere content and a lot of stuff that beats them is cheaper to produce than wrestling too, so it's still important to do a good number for negotiating and re-upping their deals.

    ReplyDelete
  12. the bigger question is do you remember?


    :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Or severely limit the Pay Per Views. 3 a year maybe? And have four months worth of story to build up to each PPV?

    ReplyDelete
  14. ... the time we fell in love?

    ReplyDelete
  15. It has been awhile but last I saw Spike was way down the list of # households that carry it. Nowhere near USA.

    ReplyDelete
  16. None. That's why I said a new model. TNA is already trying a restricted schedule and we'll see how that plays out.

    ReplyDelete
  17. and on Dish they just moved it to no-man's land, amidst the religious stations and home shopping networks and out of the MTV/Nickelodeon area it was in.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Do you think a special Sunday show which also happened to be free TV would work? Build it up as a special event. Have it on Sunday, Just have it on Spike and don't charge? I think commercials would limit the specialness of that. But it might be able to work.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Though, confusion might set in with branding and merchandising. Chris Hero fans might could get confused when Vince opts to change the upcoming talent's name.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Smackdown's now always good, 2011 I remember it being pretty good because of the Cody Rhodes stuff but I'd have to actually look at the results to compare them. Now Smackdown's usually pretty bad but this week it was great though that Sheamus/Big Show match was like forty fucking minutes!

    ReplyDelete
  21. The Randy Orton era was awful.


    I like Sheamus and ADR more than most, so 2012 wasn't that bad to me.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment