Ratings Thread

[#BROKEN Hasney]

WE DID IT GUYS

This week's Wild Card Finals episode of WWE Smackdown Live garnered 2,885,000 viewers on the USA Network.

This is up +247,000 viewers from the week prior and the first week ever that a first-run episode of Smackdown averaged more viewers than a first-run episode of WWE Raw.

We saw it coming as Smackdown was closing the gap and with a strong episode loaded with the return of John Cena and multiple title matches, it officially dethroned Raw. In fact, only the first hour of this week's Raw (which averaged 2,974,000 viewers) did more viewers than the average of this week's episode for the blue brand.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Maybe RAW needs to stop sucking brutal ass.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Monday Night Snore needs to step up

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

over written, over produced tripe. A bunch of guys out there going through the motions, trying to remember scripted promos doing a bunch of shit they're doing because the writers told them to.

Wrestling has never seemed more fake and that includes marty jennety ascending from a casket on the titantron as an Undertaker body double.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I think the problem is a lack of energy. Stuff happens, nobody cares, nothing matters.

[Big Vic]

We did it guys, all of our hard work paid off.

[Rammsteinmad]

Does Raw still open with 20 minute Stephanie McMahon/Authority figure promos?

[Evil Vito]

A-Show! WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Does Raw still open with 20 minute Stephanie McMahon/Authority figure promos?

Yup

https://media.giphy.com/media/I3mZQQi5JnkQw/giphy.gif

[slik]

This is a glorious day, The A-Show reigns supreme!

[Evil Vito]

#CancelRaw

[Evil Vito]

#RawBlows

[Evil Vito]

#MondayNightMcDrama

[Destor]

I dont want to derail the circle jerk but man do those number suck

[Ruien]

Lol. Will this change anything on Raw? Maybe they will give Rusev 30 extra minutes of air time :(. If they let Rusev beat Reigns the rating will skyrocket.

[Simple Fan]

I think the Wid Card theme of Smack down this week was pretty good. Instead of having a PPV for both shows every month, the show not doing a PPV could have a themed show like SD did this week. The lower tier PPVs feel like an extra episode of Raw or SD anyway so I think it would make sense.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

I dont want to derail the circle jerk but man do those number suck

Oh, I know. Other than a nice Cena bump, this is mostly Raw shitting the bed on a regular basis.

[Heisenberg]

over written, over produced tripe. A bunch of guys out there going through the motions, trying to remember scripted promos doing a bunch of shit they're doing because the writers told them to.

Wrestling has never seemed more fake and that includes marty jennety ascending from a casket on the titantron as an Undertaker body double.



I would like to see this Jennetty action actually

[Stickman]

The only things remotely entertaining on raw are Charolette and KO/Y2J

[Droford]

Axelmania is coming back to save RAW..brother

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">AXELMANIA IS RUNNING WILD!!!! <a href="https://t.co/eyJDd7P2eB">pic.twitter.com/eyJDd7P2eB</a></p>&mdash; Matt Thomas (@dumpsterm0nkey6) <a href="https://twitter.com/dumpsterm0nkey6/status/813949507700461574">December 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Emperor Smeat]

Good for Smackdown considering they've been consistently better than RAW since the brand split. Very likely won't last beyond this week but at least the brand gets rewarded for once for being the better flowing show overall.

[Simple Fan]

Axelmania is coming back to save RAW..brother

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">AXELMANIA IS RUNNING WILD!!!! <a href="https://t.co/eyJDd7P2eB">pic.twitter.com/eyJDd7P2eB</a></p>&mdash; Matt Thomas (@dumpsterm0nkey6) <a href="https://twitter.com/dumpsterm0nkey6/status/813949507700461574">December 28, 2016</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

Whatcha gonna do when Axelmania runs wild on you.
http://vignette3.wikia.nocookie.net/prowrestling/images/8/8e/Axelmania.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20150522131400

[XL]

Are we ignoring the fact that Raw was on Boxing Day?

[Simple Fan]

Yes because these are USA#1 ratings and we don't celebrate Boxing Day.

[Stickman]

Has this ever happened before?

[Corkscrewed]

Has this ever happened before?

This is up +247,000 viewers from the week prior and the first week ever that a first-run episode of Smackdown averaged more viewers than a first-run episode of WWE Raw.

[Gerard]

Does Raw still open with 20 minute Stephanie McMahon/Authority figure promos?

How often does raw start without someone coming to the ring and yapping for 20 minutes? This mad concept of starting a wrestling show with a wrestling match seems to be too much for the geniuses at wwe to figure out. Instead we get to see people recite badly scripted lines that sounds as natural as Stephen Hawking's voice synthesizer.

[Evil Vito]

I still think they should just give the first hour of Raw to the cruiserweights instead of spreading their segments randomly throughout the show (and stupidly changing the ropes several times a show as a result).

Used to love Nitro kicking off with a great cruiserweight match. The crowd is always juiced up at the beginning. Then start the "normal" part of Raw at 9 PM.

[Cool King]

I don't know what's making me happy right now.

The news of SmackDown finally beating Raw or the return of Corkscrewed.

[Big Vic]

Most eyes are on Raw at the start of the show. Cruiserweights won't keep their eyes there.

[Evil Vito]

Most eyes are on Raw at the start of the show. Cruiserweights won't keep their eyes there.

They'd stay there if they allowed the cruisers to wrestle matches like they did on the CWC.

[Emperor Smeat]

Could probably put them on for just the 3rd hour as a way to boost that hour but it becomes really dependent on how well the first two hours were.

If those hours were really bad, Cruises won't do anything to fix it but if the show is at least pretty decent, could be a way to keep the show's momentum going till the end.

In WCW's case, the reason it worked very well for the first hour was because WCW rarely cared about that hour so the Cruisers were perfect to keep the crowd pumped till the real show started. In the WWE's case, they pretty much just care about the start of the hours and the main event for RAW.

[Damian Rey 2.0]

I have always felt that the shows should be segmented by hours and who's featured based on pecking order.

Hour 1 consists of the cruisers and tag division, hour 2 consists of the women and mid card title, hour 3 has the upper mid card and main event scene guys.

You build towards the focal point of the show and pay it off at the end. You don't give away your main event stories and promos in the beginning. You use that time to clue the viewer in on what lies ahead and highlight the bottom of the card talent to help get them over and create interest.

This doesn't mean you can't sprinkle in backstage cut scenes to help move the plot of the show. But it does give a concrete direction in which to structure it and time for the whole roster to be utilized.

Feel like the big names shouldn't be coming out to open the show with a drawn out promo unless it's for something really important. Running your authority figures out there to start the show each week just waters down the importance of giving them mic time.

[KIRA]

Fuckin A-SHOW!

[RP]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/J2SGGSraugCLC" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/wwe-wrestling-swimming-J2SGGSraugCLC">via GIPHY</a></p>

[RP]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/4jfZIeSAFBBx6" width="480" height="432" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/wwe-awesome-4jfZIeSAFBBx6">via GIPHY</a></p>

[RP]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/l0HlI55hoyYjEEnMA" width="480" height="270" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/southparkgifs-l0HlI55hoyYjEEnMA">via GIPHY</a></p>

[Danny Electric]

Doesn't a constant drop in Raw ratings usually lead to Vince thinking he needs to make some on-air appearances?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Doesn't a constant drop in Raw ratings usually lead to Vince thinking he needs to make some on-air appearances?

Yes.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

<iframe src="//giphy.com/embed/J2SGGSraugCLC" width="480" height="360" frameBorder="0" class="giphy-embed" allowFullScreen></iframe><p><a href="http://giphy.com/gifs/wwe-wrestling-swimming-J2SGGSraugCLC">via GIPHY</a></p>

What if he didn't save Trump. :fu: Hogan

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I way prefer roided up Hogan

[Anybody Thrilla]

Well, it was a very, very good Smackdown. They earned it.

[Sting Fan]

I must admit I only really watch Smackdown nowadays, Raw feels so forced and theres not really anyone there I want to watch.

So does the Raw ratings plummeting bring back Vince or HHH? Quite excited for HHH to come in completely out pof left field, squash all before him and unite all the titles in Raw before moving onto Smackdown and ending this version of the brand split. Mainly for the internet backlash, partially for the fact it might speed up WWE decline.

[unclebrown]

HHH will come back at the Rumble and cost Rollins a chance to win the title. The seeds are all planted.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I dont want to derail the circle jerk but man do those number suck

Yeah, I was about to say, this has more to do with RAW being down than SmackDown being up.

[A.J.K]

Broken Hardy would be the man to save Raw.

[KIRA]

Yeah, I was about to say, this has more to do with RAW being down than SmackDown being up.

A win is a win.

Stop trying to ruin this with facts and context

[slik]

Raw ratings take a tumble from last week's high...




credit - wrestlingobserver

WWE numbers fell from last week, which isn't a story because the Monday after Royal Rumble is likely to be one of the two or three highest rated shows of the year.

But what was a surprise was how far they tumbled, as last night's show averaged 3.10 million viewers. To put that number into perspective, only five shows in 2016 outside of football season were lower.


The three hours were:

8 p.m. 3.34 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.17 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.84 million viewers

[#BROKEN Hasney]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C4OmtSUWAAIkkok.jpg

[The CyNick]

For WWE and USA the key is comparing what WWE drives in terms of viewers vs the rest of USA.

Most important for WWE is how much higher their bar is than the rest of top 25 cable. This ensures WWE will have multiple strong offers when renewal talks happen.

These points are usually glossed over by the wrestling bloggers and their disciples on forums like this this one.

[BigCrippyZ]

Lol... Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from over a year ago and excludes broadcast and premium networks.

[The CyNick]

Lol... Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from over a year ago and excludes broadcast and premium networks.

It compares the same time period as RAW and SDL ratings. Of course broadcast would be excluded from cable ratings because they are different animals.

[BigCrippyZ]

It compares the same time period as RAW and SDL ratings. Of course broadcast would be excluded from cable ratings because they are different animals.

:lol:

Not if you want a true objective picture and valuation. I do audits and valuations on music, film and television IP all the time in order to negotiate rights deals and/or sales contracts. They have the numbers and are excluding them for a reason but it's not because "they are different animals."

Vince and his family might think or want to believe that "they are different animals" so it doesn't matter, but I can guarantee you that when USA or any other network does an audit to determine a valuation for the next TV rights deal with WWE, it will absolutely include everything missing in that data.

[The CyNick]

:lol:

Not if you want a true objective picture and valuation. I do audits and valuations on music, film and television IP all the time in order to negotiate rights deals and/or sales contracts. They have the numbers and are excluding them for a reason but it's not because "they are different animals."

Vince and his family might think or want to believe that "they are different animals" so it doesn't matter, but I can guarantee you that when USA or any other network does an audit to determine a valuation for the next TV rights deal with WWE, it will absolutely include everything missing in that data.

You must not be paying attention to these negotiations.

If your statement is Network TV rights fees are generally higher than cable, you would be correct, because they draw a larger audience. Most people know that.

When it comes to ratings, you don't see it listed as every TV show ranked against one another. Ratings are ranked with cable separated from Network. Because it's apples and oranges.

WWE could negotiate with the major networks, but the networks would look at WWEs numbers and likely take a pass. WWE we assume will be negotiating with USA and other cable outlets. USA is not worried about their standing vs say ABC, but they are worried about their standing vs ESPN. The negotiations will centre around what WWE will do for USAs overall standing vs other cable networks. If for example, WWEs five hours of content pulls USAs weekly average over the top 25 average, then that puts WWE in a good position. Likewise a cable network below the average will look at WWEs numbers and think this might be a way to get them above the industry average. Of course it comes down to a numbers game of how much are those additional eyeballs worth. In the Attitude Era, not much, because the WWE was seen in a more negative light. Now with the clean up of the product, you have advertisers lining up to be involved with WWE, which will raise their value even more as more can be charged for ad time.

I'm happy to continue to school you on how the industry works if you'd like to PM me.

[Destor]

Cynik wants this to go to PM becuase he doesnt want to get burried in public

[BigCrippyZ]

You must not be paying attention to these negotiations.

If your statement is Network TV rights fees are generally higher than cable, you would be correct, because they draw a larger audience. Most people know that.

When it comes to ratings, you don't see it listed as every TV show ranked against one another. Ratings are ranked with cable separated from Network. Because it's apples and oranges.

WWE could negotiate with the major networks, but the networks would look at WWEs numbers and likely take a pass. WWE we assume will be negotiating with USA and other cable outlets. USA is not worried about their standing vs say ABC, but they are worried about their standing vs ESPN. The negotiations will centre around what WWE will do for USAs overall standing vs other cable networks. If for example, WWEs five hours of content pulls USAs weekly average over the top 25 average, then that puts WWE in a good position. Likewise a cable network below the average will look at WWEs numbers and think this might be a way to get them above the industry average. Of course it comes down to a numbers game of how much are those additional eyeballs worth. In the Attitude Era, not much, because the biggest WWE was seen in a more negative light. Now with the clean up of the product, you have advertisers lining up to be involved with WWE, which will raise their value even more as more can be charged for ad dollars.

I'm happy to continue to school you on how the industry works if you'd like to PM me.

:lol:

I'm not talking about how the ratings industry works, I understand how it works.

I'm talking about how the auditing and valuation of IP works when it comes to negotiating rights deals, which you clearly know nothing about.

I guarantee you that USA or any other potential network that might want WWE's TV rights, whether it's cable, broadcast, doesn't matter... when determining valuation of WWE's TV rights deal (what they should pay WWE) they will look and compare WWE's ratings with more than just other shows/networks in whichever format (whether they're broadcast, cable, etc.) they compete with. They will absolutely compare WWE's ratings with ALL networks, whether broadcast, cable, whatever. Not only will USA or any other network that offers for WWE's TV rights, require WWE to submit their own audit and expect to see WWE's ratings in comparison with ALL networks in WWE's own audit that they will submit, but they will also require WWE to consent and allow the network to perform their own audit (either internally and/or with an outside independent auditor) that will include a comparison in WWE's ratings with ALL networks. Without those comparisons, you won't get a true and accurate valuation of WWE's television rights.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that has been and will continue to be the case in the future, not just for WWE, but for any rights deals for any television shows.

[The CyNick]

Cynik wants this to go to PM becuase he doesnt want to get burried in public

I'm happy to debate this in public. Anyone who is objective will see I'm right.

[BigCrippyZ]

I'm happy to debate this in public. Anyone who is objective will see I'm right.

:lol:

If you were objective, you would understand that in determining a true, accurate and independent valuation of WWE's television rights, comparing WWE's ratings vs. ALL networks and not just cable is vitally important. As an attorney who works alongside those same type of folks everyday, I can assure you that the CPAs and attorneys and the execs at USA and all the other networks do. That's why they have those jobs.

[The CyNick]

:lol:

I'm not talking about how the ratings industry works, I understand how it works.

I'm talking about how the auditing and valuation of IP works when it comes to negotiating rights deals, which you clearly know nothing about.

I guarantee you that USA or any other potential network that might want WWE's TV rights, whether it's cable, broadcast, doesn't matter... when determining valuation of WWE's TV rights deal (what they should pay WWE) they will look and compare WWE's ratings with more than just other shows/networks in whichever format (whether they're broadcast, cable, etc.) they compete with. They will absolutely compare WWE's ratings with ALL networks, whether broadcast, cable, whatever. Not only will USA or any other network that offers for WWE's TV rights, require WWE to submit their own audit and expect to see WWE's ratings in comparison with ALL networks in WWE's own audit that they will submit, but they will also require WWE to consent and allow the network to perform their own audit (either internally and/or with an outside independent auditor) that will include a comparison in WWE's ratings with ALL networks. Without those comparisons, you won't get a true and accurate valuation of WWE's television rights.

If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that has been and will continue to be the case in the future, not just for WWE, but for any rights deals for any television shows.

You're making it sound more complicated than it is, and you buried the lead, which is ratings are measured cable vs cable and Network vs Network. You made the comment that WWE was lol because they didn't include Network numbers in their chart. But that's how ratings are compared in the industry. It seems like after reading my post and getting educated, you realized your error and went on a rant about irrelevant information.

I also find it funny that you seem to think WWE owns their TV rating information, when in reality is owned by a third party, and anyone with access to the Internet can find the data you were taking about. Pretty interesting insight from an insider though.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[The CyNick]

:lol:

If you were objective, you would understand that in determining a true, accurate and independent valuation of WWE's television rights, comparing WWE's ratings vs. ALL networks and not just cable is vitally important. As an attorney who works alongside those same type of folks everyday, I can assure you that the CPAs and attorneys and the execs at USA and all the other networks do. That's why they have those jobs.

The chart didn't say we're 90% higher than the average, therefore we get $100M more per year. It just compared their cable TV properties vs USAs CABLE TV PROPERTIES and then compared that to ALL CABLE TV PROPERTIES. This resulted in you going lol. Because you didn't understand how TV shows are measured.

[The CyNick]

Look, it's a guy who only exists because I exist.

[BigCrippyZ]

You're making it sound more complicated than it is, and you buried the lead, which is ratings are measured cable vs cable and Network vs Network. You made the comment that WWE was lol because they didn't include Network numbers in their chart. But that's how ratings are compared in the industry. It seems like after reading my post and getting educated, you realized your error and went on a rant about irrelevant information.

I also find it funny that you seem to think WWE owns their TV rating information, when in reality is owned by a third party, and anyone with access to the Internet can find the data you were taking about. Pretty interesting insight from an insider though.

:lol:

Way to miss the point. If you think that negotiating TV rights fees is simple, you're dumber than you seem.

I realize that WWE doesn't own their TV rating info, but anyone who negotiates with WWE for TV rights will expect WWE to present an audit and summary report with info of all of their TV ratings in comparison to all , production costs and more. Then the networks will perform an independent audit as well which WWE will have to consent to.

In performing an audit to determine valuation of WWE's TV rights, USA won't care how ratings are measured and presented to the public. They'll take the ratings data and use their own index and formula for determining valuation of WWE TV rights based on WWE's ratings in comparison to ratings of ALL other shows/networks as well as numerous other factors.

All the ratings data show is how WWE did vs other shows/networks. That's not the same as utilizing the ratings data in conjunction with other data and factors in order to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights. The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Ratings? What do we got ova here? A cuppa...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lhF1xqFpBfo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

NERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRDS!

[BigCrippyZ]

The chart didn't say we're 90% higher than the average, therefore we get $100M more per year. It just compared their cable TV properties vs USAs CABLE TV PROPERTIES and then compared that to ALL CABLE TV PROPERTIES. This resulted in you going lol. Because you didn't understand how TV shows are measured.

I understand how TV shows are measured. That's not the issue here.

What you don't seem to understand is how and why USA will absolutely compare WWE's ratings to ALL other shows/networks and why WWE leaving out critical ratings data doesn't show the whole picture of WWE's TV rights valuation which is all USA and WWE really care about.

I wasn't saying LOL WWE ratings are even worse than this chart shows because they're leaving out ratings info. The chart itself is LOL because it leaves out ratings info critical to WWE's financial health. WWE business affairs folks know it and USA and any other networks know it.

[Ruien]

Do you people care about the rating Arrow or whatever other shows you watch? Why does this matter so much to people? Serious questions.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

TV shows like that can get cancelled in the rating suck so they are more important. WWE makes too much money for the ratings to really matter until TV contract and it has nothing to do with us as it won't be cancelled.

[#1-norm-fan]

The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Another pretty solid piece of evidence...

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

Feel like I need to clarify that this isn't me doing that lame thing where you edit someone's post to show what you think they're REALLY saying. That is an actual quote from another time when he got caught bullshitting. The guy basically summed up his entire gimmick for everyone to see just in case someone still took him seriously. lol

[The CyNick]

:lol:

Way to miss the point. If you think that negotiating TV rights fees is simple, you're dumber than you seem.

I realize that WWE doesn't own their TV rating info, but anyone who negotiates with WWE for TV rights will expect WWE to present an audit and summary report with info of all of their TV ratings in comparison to all , production costs and more. Then the networks will perform an independent audit as well which WWE will have to consent to.

In performing an audit to determine valuation of WWE's TV rights, USA won't care how ratings are measured and presented to the public. They'll take the ratings data and use their own index and formula for determining valuation of WWE TV rights based on WWE's ratings in comparison to ratings of ALL other shows/networks as well as numerous other factors.

All the ratings data show is how WWE did vs other shows/networks. That's not the same as utilizing the ratings data in conjunction with other data and factors in order to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights. The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

You must be a lawyer, because you're making something simple very complicated. USA doesn't care what production costs WWE has unless WWE is trying to negotiate that USA pay for part or all of production. Then sure, you need to do a deep dive into costs. But you keep moving the goal posts. First it was lol at WWE for showing cable ratings, then it was they need to submit their "ratings audit", which isn't a real thing, now you're clutching on to production costs.

Put everything else aside, just explain why it's lol for WWE to show a slide comparing their cable properties to other cable properties. That's all I need to hear about.

[BigCrippyZ]

Do you people care about the rating Arrow or whatever other shows you watch? Why does this matter so much to people? Serious questions.

If it's a show I like and want to see continue then yes, I'll try and keep up with the ratings.

I don't really follow WWE's ratings though and only learn about the ratings themselves through discussions on here.

[The CyNick]

Do you people care about the rating Arrow or whatever other shows you watch? Why does this matter so much to people? Serious questions.

I enjoyed WWE far more after I stopped concerning myself with their weekly ratings. My role in this whole thing is to help the uneducated learn about how WWE can have declining ratings and still be in a great position to negotiate rights fees.

[Destor]

I'm happy to debate this in public. Anyone who is objective will see I'm right.LOL


Anyone who is objective will see you're right? You just created a falicy. If you go into the argument with the pretense you cant be wrong you then are not objective. Therefor you yourself can not define right or wrong.

[Simple Fan]

CyNick has the worst comprehension. Also asking people to look at his post objectively while his post are completely subjective is kind of funny.

[#1-norm-fan]

Besides, we all know ratings don't matter. Social media is where it's at! (Where WWE is getting DUMMIED by YouTube sensation PewDiePie!)

[The CyNick]

Another pretty solid piece of evidence...



Feel like I need to clarify that this isn't me doing that lame thing where you edit someone's post to show what you think they're REALLY saying. That is an actual quote from another time when he got caught bullshitting. The guy basically summed up his entire gimmick for everyone to see just in case someone still took him seriously. lol

You understand why The Rock was never arrested for threatening to sodomize someone with a shoe, right?

That quote you love to use was a joke, but not shockingly, you failed to grasp that.

[The CyNick]

LOL


Anyone who is objective will see you're right? You just created a falicy. If you go into the argument with the pretense you cant be wrong you then are not objective. Therefor you yourself can not define right or wrong.

When it comes to this stuff, I'm always right. People who are objective will back me up. People who live solely to disagree with me, will say otherwise. It's up to you to decide what's right.

[The CyNick]

Besides, we all know ratings don't matter. Social media is where it's at! (Where WWE is getting DUMMIED by YouTube sensation PewDiePie!)

I have no idea what that is, but I'm glad you found something that gives you joy.

Money is all that matters. WWE just posted their best revenue year ever. I'm not sure what that thing you mentioned is worth.

[Destor]

When it comes to this stuff, I'm always right. People who are objective will back me up. People who live solely to disagree with me, will say otherwise. It's up to you to decide what's right.
Easily the most ignorant post of all time

[Destor]

Wait. That was bait. Nvrmnd. Well played. Troll's gonna troll.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Snowday-a-mania.

Neeeeeeeeerds

[#1-norm-fan]

You understand why The Rock was never arrested for threatening to sodomize someone with a shoe, right?

That quote you love to use was a joke, but not shockingly, you failed to grasp that.

Except it was your response to being called out on blatantly contradicting yourself. It's not like you "made a joke" and then actually explained yourself. That was your only response. And it's an accurate response. Because sometimes you get so deep into spouting retarded bullshit that you can't even bullshit your way out of being called out on it. So when that happens, it's time to just admit...

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

You were probably better off just not responding when you got called out and just hoping no one noticed. Especially if you're an internet troll, letting that be your response was a huge fucking fail. lol

[BigCrippyZ]

You must be a lawyer, because you're making something simple very complicated. USA doesn't care what production costs WWE has unless WWE is trying to negotiate that USA pay for part or all of production. Then sure, you need to do a deep dive into costs. But you keep moving the goal posts. First it was lol at WWE for showing cable ratings, then it was they need to submit their "ratings audit", which isn't a real thing, now you're clutching on to production costs.

Put everything else aside, just explain why it's lol for WWE to show a slide comparing their cable properties to other cable properties. That's all I need to hear about.

I already have. The same reason why it's "lol at WWE for showing cable ratings". It's not an accurate reflection on the valuation of their TV rights nor overall financial health.

Plus a ratings audit is very much a real thing. Just not in the way you're thinking or misrepresenting it.

Any negotiations dealing with WWE's TV rights will require performance and presentation of at least 2 audits, (one provided by WWE and one by the negotiating network or an independent auditor) of which the audits will include among many other things, WWE's TV ratings data compared to ALL other networks/shows. The Nielsen ratings data provided by WWE in their audit will be compared to the Nielsen ratings data gathered by the network or independent auditor to see if there's any falsifications or mistakes in WWE's presentation of the Nielsen data. This ratings data will then be reconciled or accepted and used to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights.

[The CyNick]

Easily the most ignorant post of all time

If you knew my background, and knew my intelligence, and my experience you would understand why I'm perfectly justified saying that.

[Damian Rey 2.0]

But what was their net gain? Batman v Superman was a high revenue movie, but nearly flopped due to actual profit.

Is WWE making their best profit? Isn't profit, not revenue, most important?

[Damian Rey 2.0]

Feel like CyNick is the Donald Trump of the boards. He's got intelligence, the best intelligence, he has experience, wonderful experience, but he doesn't really show any tangible data or facts.

He says things factually, but nothing is presented to back it up.

[The CyNick]

I already have. The same reason why it's "lol at WWE for showing cable ratings". It's not an accurate reflection on the valuation of their TV rights nor overall financial health.

Plus a ratings audit is very much a real thing. Just not in the way you're thinking or misrepresenting it.

Any negotiations dealing with WWE's TV rights will require performance and presentation of at least 2 audits, (one provided by WWE and one by the negotiating network or an independent auditor) of which the audits will include among many other things, WWE's TV ratings data compared to ALL other networks/shows. The Nielsen ratings data provided by WWE in their audit will be compared to the Nielsen ratings data gathered by the network or independent auditor to see if there's any falsifications or mistakes in WWE's presentation of the Nielsen data. This ratings data will then be reconciled or accepted and used to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights.

I didn't bring it up, you did. Its coming from a third party, they can just go to the third party to get the data, and the data is available to the public on tons of websites. All I'm saying is the numbers WWE posted are perfectly legitimate. There's no dispute that WWE used accurate numbers in the presentation. You seemed lost in your first post claiming they were using over a year old data, but it's a year over year chart, including Q4 2016 data.

The only way the WWE having ratings that are nearly double the network's average wouldn't be a positive to their ability to get a good rights deal would be if the network couldn't sell and space during the show. As I mentioned, this is why WWE was far worse off in the Attitude Era, even though the ratings were double or more what they are today. As has been documented from recent up fronts, WWE programming has generated a long list of new A list sponsors, which makes them even more valuable.

If you want to dispute that, you've got an uphill battle. But I appreciate your gumption.

[#1-norm-fan]

Feel like CyNick is the Donald Trump of the boards. He's got intelligence, the best intelligence, he has experience, wonderful experience, but he doesn't really show any tangible data or facts.

He says things factually, but nothing is presented to back it up.

He's got numbers. And they're the best numbers. Better than your numbers. You won't believe these numbers. They're huge. HUGE! He woke up this morning like... "If they knew what I knew about these numbers..."

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

alternative facts

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol CyNick's day has been made by being compared with the Donald.

[The CyNick]

But what was their net gain? Batman v Superman was a high revenue movie, but nearly flopped due to actual profit.

Is WWE making their best profit? Isn't profit, not revenue, most important?

Long term, yes. In a period when you are trying to transform the business, it's understandable to take a profit hit.

The problem is you will never know what the profitability of the company would have been without The Network. I believe it would have been much lower than it is today, but that's making an assumption that WWEs PPV business was in decline. But admittedly is a debatable point.

[The CyNick]

Feel like CyNick is the Donald Trump of the boards. He's got intelligence, the best intelligence, he has experience, wonderful experience, but he doesn't really show any tangible data or facts.

He says things factually, but nothing is presented to back it up.

President Trump's proof is in the skylines of many of the greatest cities in the world. I guess mine is on this forum, just read my posts. They are all insightful and on point.

[The CyNick]

lol CyNick's day has been made by being compared with the Donald.

It's actually not shocking to me that the type of people on this board think being compared to President Trump is an insult. It actually validates my opinion of most people on here.

[The CyNick]

Except it was your response to being called out on blatantly contradicting yourself. It's not like you "made a joke" and then actually explained yourself. That was your only response. And it's an accurate response. Because sometimes you get so deep into spouting retarded bullshit that you can't even bullshit your way out of being called out on it. So when that happens, it's time to just admit...



You were probably better off just not responding when you got called out and just hoping no one noticed. Especially if you're an internet troll, letting that be your response was a huge fucking fail. lol

Like I said, I'm not shocked you missed the layer of that post. I get it. You make it crystal clear every time you post that quote.

[Destor]

He's got facts, but they're secret facts. You cant know them, but believe him, theyre good facts.

[The CyNick]

He's got facts, but they're secret facts. You cant know them, but believe him, theyre good facts.

Hey, maybe I'm a wrestling "journalists", they do the same thing.

#1fan will get that reference... No wait, he won't. Too bad.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[#1-norm-fan]

Like I said, I'm not shocked you missed the layer of that post. I get it. You make it crystal clear every time you post that quote.

Keep replying without actually acknowledging that the quote was your way of avoiding having to come up with an excuse after getting called out on contradicting yourself AGAIN. Maybe it will eventually go away and you can look smarter. Wait, no it won't. Because I'm gonna keep quoting it and reminding you of it. Consider yourself DUMMIED!

[The CyNick]

#1fan is going to go home and rest before making any speeches. Low energy. Let's keep counting those votes!!

[BigCrippyZ]

Hey, maybe I'm a wrestling "journalists", they do the same thing.

#1fan will get that reference... No wait, he won't. Too bad.

Was that supposed to be a joke or an insult?

Either way... swing and a miss, Cynick. Swing and a miss.

[#1-norm-fan]

CyNick is the Vince McMahon to my PewDiePie.

[The CyNick]

Keep replying without actually acknowledging that the quote was your way of avoiding having to come up with an excuse after getting called out on contradicting yourself AGAIN. Maybe it will eventually go away and you can look smarter. Wait, no it won't. Because I'm gonna keep quoting it and reminding you of it. Consider yourself DUMMIED!

You really don't get the context of that post, do you? It's really sad. Do you think I slipped up and accidentally buried myself? I challenge you to go back and re-read that whole thread, or at least a couple pages. You will realize how badly you are coming off right now.

[#1-norm-fan]

I actually missed the part where CyNick was a Trump supporter until it was brought up by Dale in this thread. lol Amazing.

[Damian Rey 2.0]

Long term, yes. In a period when you are trying to transform the business, it's understandable to take a profit hit.

The problem is you will never know what the profitability of the company would have been without The Network. I believe it would have been much lower than it is today, but that's making an assumption that WWEs PPV business was in decline. But admittedly is a debatable point.

Transform what business? The sports entertainment business? They're the only game in that town. What is it that they're trying to transform?

And it still didn't answer my question. Are they a profitable company or are they losing money?

[The CyNick]

Was that supposed to be a joke or an insult?

Either way... swing and a miss, Cynick. Swing and a miss.

You say that, but here we are, in yet another thread, where everything revolves around me. Sounds like another grand slam for the bad guy.

Maybe if you had my insight and intelligence you would be able to hold court like I can.

[The CyNick]

Transform what business? The sports entertainment business? They're the only game in that town. What is it that they're trying to transform?

And it still didn't answer my question. Are they a profitable company or are they losing money?

Very profitable.

They transformed from being PPV dependent to moving into the VOD space. That was a major transformation which retired a lot of investment. It started paying off in 2015, and grew even more in 2016.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[BigCrippyZ]

You say that, but here we are, in yet another thread, where everything revolves around me. Sounds like another grand slam for the bad guy.

Maybe if you had my insight and intelligence you would be able to hold court like I can.

That's just sad. I'm all for intense or controversial discussions or debates, but I don't give a fuck if they revolve around me. Maybe you should seeks some help or re-examine your priorities.

[The CyNick]

I actually missed the part where CyNick was a Trump supporter until it was brought up by Dale in this thread. lol Amazing.

Are you an illegal immigrant? Please say yes!

[Damian Rey 2.0]

Very profitable.

They transformed from being PPV dependent to moving into the VOD space. That was a major transformation which retired a lot of investment. It started paying off in 2015, and grew even more in 2016.

Proof?

[The CyNick]

That's just sad. I'm all for intense or controversial discussions or debates, but I don't give a fuck if they revolve around me. Maybe you should seeks some help or re-examine your priorities.

Of course you don't, because they never do.

[The CyNick]

Proof?

Use your Google machine

[#1-norm-fan]

Sometimes it's a simple, generic insult to try to save face and avoid acknowledging another blatant strawman...

Here's an idea. Make Lesnar wrestle a RAW once in a while!

Special attraction wrestles every week on TV and is no longer special. Complainers gonna complain.

You have the worst comprehension ever. He said nothing about Leaner wrestling every week.

What a geek.

Sometimes it's responding with the truth in "joke" form to try to avoid acknowledging getting called out on your bullshit...

I wonder if Shane will win the Rumble and face Styles for the title at WM...surely they wouldn't do that...right?

That's not the plan. But plans change.

I thought the plans were in place for months?

They are, but I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about. I'm trying to be like the wrestling journalists.

Either way... it's always wonderfully Trumptarded.

[#1-norm-fan]

Are you an illegal immigrant? Please say yes!

Totally. I flew over on a plane though. Better build an extra big wall.

[#1-norm-fan]

That's just sad. I'm all for intense or controversial discussions or debates, but I don't give a fuck if they revolve around me. Maybe you should seeks some help or re-examine your priorities.

He's the best at getting attention on internet message boards though. The best. He's got huge amounts of people who talk to him on internet message boards. HUGE. Other geeks wish they had as many. But they don't. They're losers. Now he's gotta go to another forum and talk about how many people talk to him on this forum. He's so busy getting so much attention on so many forums you wouldn't believe it. In fact, he was just talking to a very important person the other day and he was like "Wow. It's unbelievable how much attention you get on those forums. Just unbelievable." #BuildtheWall

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Low Energy, sad.

[Damian Rey 2.0]

Lol. Give CyNick a chance to prove his point and he tells you to look it up. Wonderful.

[#1-norm-fan]

His point is right there to see. You can't not see it. It's huge. HUGE. Other people have points but they're so insignificant compared to his point. He talked to Google the other day and Google was like "CyNick. That's such a huge point you have. How do you do it, even?" #SomethingAboutChina

[The CyNick]

Sometimes it's a simple, generic insult to try to save face and avoid acknowledging another blatant strawman...






Sometimes it's responding with the truth in "joke" form to try to avoid acknowledging getting called out on your bullshit...









Either way... it's always wonderfully Trumptarded.

Again, you completely missed the context of the statement. Link the thread and let everyone see how badly you missed the point.

[The CyNick]

Lol. Give CyNick a chance to prove his point and he tells you to look it up. Wonderful.

Why would I post something you can just look up?

Give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life. Consider yourself fed for life.

[#1-norm-fan]

Link the thread

Why would I post something you can just look up?

lol Amazing. Especially since my quotes actually contain links to the threads. Trumptarded on 2 different levels.

[#1-norm-fan]

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Do you people care about the rating Arrow or whatever other shows you watch? Why does this matter so much to people? Serious questions.

I do, because I like to know what the future might hold for a television show, and I like to know what works and what is trendy, etc. I do a fair bit of work in the television industry (nothing glamorous, I'm not bragging like CyNick would), so I find the business itself very fascinating. That being said, ratings are important for wrestling fans who want to analyze the business.

You might think it is nerdy, but when a product has left us a bit dry and our fandom cries out for more, ratings are useful because it at least indicates whether or not something works for the general audience, even if we hardcores are left unsatisfied. That being said, we need to swallow a bitter pill when things are going down and our favorites are on top.

I'd be interested in ratings for Arrow in the same sense if I felt they were butchering this DC Comics character I enjoyed and I had this feeling that "No one is going to like this version of Green Arrow because they've fucked with him too much." If ratings were soaring, then it'd mean that my opinion is clearly out of sync with what audiences want. If ratings were going down the gurgler though, then it somewhat supports the suspicions my fandom has given me.

Also, generally television shows that keep losing viewers change something, and that the WWE loses viewers and keeps on the same path is incredibly frustrating and fuel for the hardcore fan/WWE love/hate relationship.

If you're enjoying the product, then I don't know why you'd bum yourself out with ratings. If you're not, there's something bittersweet about finding out that the general taste consensus is with you. It's the only authority a fan has to appeal to when they comes to disagreeing, cosmically, with Vince McMahon. And it's one that goes over even his head.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Guys, I know I have been a bit of a grouch lately, but you have GOT to tell me when a thread gets this good.

[Ruien]

I do, because I like to know what the future might hold for a television show, and I like to know what works and what is trendy, etc. I do a fair bit of work in the television industry (nothing glamorous, I'm not bragging like CyNick would), so I find the business itself very fascinating. That being said, ratings are important for wrestling fans who want to analyze the business.

You might think it is nerdy, but when a product has left us a bit dry and our fandom cries out for more, ratings are useful because it at least indicates whether or not something works for the general audience, even if we hardcores are left unsatisfied. That being said, we need to swallow a bitter pill when things are going down and our favorites are on top.

I'd be interested in ratings for Arrow in the same sense if I felt they were butchering this DC Comics character I enjoyed and I had this feeling that "No one is going to like this version of Green Arrow because they've fucked with him too much." If ratings were soaring, then it'd mean that my opinion is clearly out of sync with what audiences want. If ratings were going down the gurgler though, then it somewhat supports the suspicions my fandom has given me.

Also, generally television shows that keep losing viewers change something, and that the WWE loses viewers and keeps on the same path is incredibly frustrating and fuel for the hardcore fan/WWE love/hate relationship.

If you're enjoying the product, then I don't know why you'd bum yourself out with ratings. If you're not, there's something bittersweet about finding out that the general taste consensus is with you. It's the only authority a fan has to appeal to when they comes to disagreeing, cosmically, with Vince McMahon. And it's one that goes over even his head.


Touché.

[Mr. Nerfect]

If you knew my background, and knew my intelligence, and my experience you would understand why I'm perfectly justified saying that.

Am I the only one who cracks up whenever I hear CyNick reference his intelligence? There are lots of smart people on this forum, brother. You got schooled by no less than three in this thread.

Long term, yes. In a period when you are trying to transform the business, it's understandable to take a profit hit.

That insight there -- that's literally a Yahoo Answers response to the question about revenue vs. profit. This is the intellectual titan you are dealing with, folks. One week of business class and he thinks he's the Trumpster himself.

You must be a lawyer, because you're making something simple very complicated. USA doesn't care what production costs WWE has unless WWE is trying to negotiate that USA pay for part or all of production. Then sure, you need to do a deep dive into costs. But you keep moving the goal posts. First it was lol at WWE for showing cable ratings, then it was they need to submit their "ratings audit", which isn't a real thing, now you're clutching on to production costs.

Put everything else aside, just explain why it's lol for WWE to show a slide comparing their cable properties to other cable properties. That's all I need to hear about.

You talk about shifting goal posts, but you are the one constantly shifting them in order to stop BigCrippyZ from lodging that football so far up your ass it knocks your teeth out, son. You shift the posts in your last paragraph. I don't think you were being ironic.

BCZ pretty much explained that the data is manipulated to avoid other data. You can say it makes sense for a business to present itself in the best possible light all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is worked and doesn't address the overall health of the television product. That is right in line with "what you need to hear," right?

You understand why The Rock was never arrested for threatening to sodomize someone with a shoe, right?

That quote you love to use was a joke, but not shockingly, you failed to grasp that.

Jokes are supposed to make people laugh, and not betray a crippling sense of self-awareness in your own lack of arguments. Somehow I think that if you were a super-genius, you'd grasp that and be able to write wittier material. Maybe you can help Melania with her speeches? You seem proficient with Google.

[Mr. Nerfect]

This thread has been amazing. Thank you all. Please continue as CyNick believes he is trolling people, but doesn't actually get an emotional response out of anyone, and just gets logically dissected. Or as Vince McMahon would say "verbally eviscerated."

[Damian Rey 2.0]

Why would I post something you can just look up?

Give a man a fish, you've fed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and you've fed him for life. Consider yourself fed for life.

Well typically when you're arguing a point and stating it as fact you present proof that what you're saying is indeed fact.

If it's dio easy to find surely you'd have no issue proving your point. Unless you have no data to back up your claims and you telling me to look it up is a way to avoid admitting it.

[BigCrippyZ]

Of course you don't, because they never do.

No, I don't give a fuck because I don't have ego or arrogance that borders on narcissism.

[The CyNick]

I do, because I like to know what the future might hold for a television show, and I like to know what works and what is trendy, etc. I do a fair bit of work in the television industry (nothing glamorous, I'm not bragging like CyNick would), so I find the business itself very fascinating. That being said, ratings are important for wrestling fans who want to analyze the business.

You might think it is nerdy, but when a product has left us a bit dry and our fandom cries out for more, ratings are useful because it at least indicates whether or not something works for the general audience, even if we hardcores are left unsatisfied. That being said, we need to swallow a bitter pill when things are going down and our favorites are on top.

I'd be interested in ratings for Arrow in the same sense if I felt they were butchering this DC Comics character I enjoyed and I had this feeling that "No one is going to like this version of Green Arrow because they've fucked with him too much." If ratings were soaring, then it'd mean that my opinion is clearly out of sync with what audiences want. If ratings were going down the gurgler though, then it somewhat supports the suspicions my fandom has given me.

Also, generally television shows that keep losing viewers change something, and that the WWE loses viewers and keeps on the same path is incredibly frustrating and fuel for the hardcore fan/WWE love/hate relationship.

If you're enjoying the product, then I don't know why you'd bum yourself out with ratings. If you're not, there's something bittersweet about finding out that the general taste consensus is with you. It's the only authority a fan has to appeal to when they comes to disagreeing, cosmically, with Vince McMahon. And it's one that goes over even his head.

Record breaking revenue in 2016.

Network subs up year over year. You mentioned hardcore fans, you would think The Network would be a solid indicator of what the hardcore fan thinks of the product.

TV ratings are down, yes, but they are still way above the average for both USA and Cable as a whole. What that will likely mean is a healthy new TV rights fees deal.

The issue for people like you, and Crippy falls into this category is you're just looking at television ratings for RAW and not grasping the larger context of what those numbers mean. The NFLs ratings are down, The Walking Dead's ratings are down (ask #1 fan), lots of things are down. However WWE continues to see growth in other areas, and have managed to grow a brand new revenue stream that will likely keep them profitable for decades to come. Until some of these metrics that actually matter (rights fees, Network subs, revenues, etc) start to decline, then the WWE will see a need to change. Right now things are going well. Guys like you don't seem to enjoy it, but the paying customer is enjoying, and they matter more than you.

[The CyNick]

You talk about shifting goal posts, but you are the one constantly shifting them in order to stop BigCrippyZ from lodging that football so far up your ass it knocks your teeth out, son. You shift the posts in your last paragraph. I don't think you were being ironic.

BCZ pretty much explained that the data is manipulated to avoid other data. You can say it makes sense for a business to present itself in the best possible light all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is worked and doesn't address the overall health of the television product. That is right in line with "what you need to hear," right?
.

Your goal posts comment makes no sense, when Crippy's lol WWE comment is what I was responding to in the first place. He didn't sufficiently explain why comparing the ratings for a show on cable is lol to compare it to the rest of cable. He made the comment because he didn't understand what he was talking about. Including a reference to ratings being over a year old but it's a year vs year chart. Again, he seemed to not understand what he was reading.

Why would you bring Network ratings into a chart about the health of a cable property. It would be worse to include Network ratings in the total number because it would be comparing apples to oranges. My guess is you don't understand the difference between the two anymore than Crippy does. Which explains why you think he's winning the debate.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I realized CyNick is doing Stephen Colbert's old gimmick. it's awesome

[Emperor Smeat]

Record breaking revenue in 2016 ...

However WWE continues to see growth in other areas, and have managed to grow a brand new revenue stream that will likely keep them profitable for decades to come. Until some of these metrics that actually matter (rights fees, Network subs, revenues, etc) start to decline, then the WWE will see a need to change. Right now things are going well. Guys like you don't seem to enjoy it, but the paying customer is enjoying, and they matter more than you.

Record breaking revenue and yet their net profits are lower than pre-Network years. They simply are spending way too much money to the point they needed around a $200 million emergency loan to help cover costs late last year I believe.

Even the Network numbers are deceptive since they are only in the break even range and have to stay within it per month. WWE completely whiffed on their estimates since it was supposed to be around 2 million within a year and 3-4 million by now.

Also your last paragraph is barely true at all. If it wasn't for tv fees, WWE would be posting net losses and not net gains. Everything else outside of the tv revenues is down and has been trending that way the past several of years.

They do have a chance to improve their net profit for this year because of the tv fee being higher than last year but that can easily be eaten away by another Network based show if the stuff about the UK guys ends up happening.

[screech]

Lol. Give CyNick a chance to prove his point and he tells you to look it up. Wonderful.

This is my favorite thing about CyNick. Not only is he a condescending asshole, but he refuses to confirm any of his information.

Funny, since a while back he was all about people citing sources for rumors from the sheets. At least you're consistent, Nick!

[Emperor Smeat]

Ouch at RAW's numbers this week since it hit 1997 levels of bad for significance.

Raw started lower than last week, but declined far less during the show, and ended up at 3.07 million viewers, down one percent from last week.

It was the least-watched Monday Raw that didn't go up against a major sports event or fall on a major holiday, dating back to 1997.

Unlike the Charlotte vs. Sasha Banks title match, which was a huge ratings hit as the main event, the lone ratings positive out of Charlotte vs. Bayley is that the third hour number didn't fall at the same pace as it usually does ...

The three hours were:

8 p.m. 3.20 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.15 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.91 million viewers

For a comparison, last week's three hours were 3.34 million, 3.17 million, and 2.84 million

[Ruien]

Lol. Who the hell was sticking around for Charlotte and Bailey?

[Ruien]

Raw would do so much better if their main events were as good as Smackdown.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The three hours is a killer. You have to wonder how much that extra money is worth it when they keep burning out their audience. You've lost 33% of your audience at this point -- maybe it's time to get them back and spending money on merchandise, live events and the Network? A big problem with WWE is that if you work out you can miss it and it doesn't matter, why watch it at all?

[The CyNick]

Record breaking revenue and yet their net profits are lower than pre-Network years. They simply are spending way too much money to the point they needed around a $200 million emergency loan to help cover costs late last year I believe.

Even the Network numbers are deceptive since they are only in the break even range and have to stay within it per month. WWE completely whiffed on their estimates since it was supposed to be around 2 million within a year and 3-4 million by now.

Also your last paragraph is barely true at all. If it wasn't for tv fees, WWE would be posting net losses and not net gains. Everything else outside of the tv revenues is down and has been trending that way the past several of years.

They do have a chance to improve their net profit for this year because of the tv fee being higher than last year but that can easily be eaten away by another Network based show if the stuff about the UK guys ends up happening.

I'm curious. Where are you getting your break even numbers for the network? Take a look at their financial statements, it clearly shows the networks contribution to the bottom line. And it's positive. Stop reading BS reporting from people who don't know the business.

The $200M wasn't anything out of desperation, it was part of long term planning to grow various areas of the business. You have to spend money to make money. If the street would have seen that loan as a desperate move, the stock would be tanking. Instead it's nearing its nearing its all time high.

Another wrong statement about everything being down. Everything other than TV is not down. Network is up. Venue merchandising was up. Liscencing was up. WWEShop was up. Revenue in just about every segment of the business was up. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of an ignorant post.

Try to come back after you actually went through their numbers. Then we can discuss like gentlemen.

[The CyNick]

Ouch at RAW's numbers this week since it hit 1997 levels of bad for significance.

How many shows on cable did a better number?

[The CyNick]

The three hours is a killer. You have to wonder how much that extra money is worth it when they keep burning out their audience. You've lost 33% of your audience at this point -- maybe it's time to get them back and spending money on merchandise, live events and the Network? A big problem with WWE is that if you work out you can miss it and it doesn't matter, why watch it at all?

A problem facing literally all forms of entertainment in TV. People still watch, they just use other means than cable. WWE generated the most revenue they ever did in 2016. That means people are shelling out their money to consume WWE.

Take a look at UFCs ratings in FS1, they are not great. But they are great for FS1. Therefore UFC will make a shitload in their next TV deal. Ratings for them are far worse than the Chuck and Randy days, but the money they get for a fraction of the ratings is much higher today.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Your arguments on this subject have been dismissed constantly. It is well established that you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye, troll.

[Emperor Smeat]

I'm curious. Where are you getting your break even numbers for the network? Take a look at their financial statements, it clearly shows the networks contribution to the bottom line. And it's positive. Stop reading BS reporting from people who don't know the business.

The $200M wasn't anything out of desperation, it was part of long term planning to grow various areas of the business. You have to spend money to make money. If the street would have seen that loan as a desperate move, the stock would be tanking. Instead it's nearing its nearing its all time high.

#1 - WWE and other financial related sources stated that was their break even number around the lead up to the Network's launch. Its a number that needs to be maintained for a long while because the WWE spent way too much money for the Network's launch. Also a big chunk of their monthly earnings goes to MLB and maybe others.

#2 - Kind of funny you use the WWE's exact words for the loan. Their stocks did tank a bit because ta da, the "streets" who are way smarter than you exactly saw it as a desperation move because of the very large amount asked, the very small window WWE was asking for the money, and some shenanigans related to the terms of it.

They were already spending a ton of money to begin with because of the Network and stood a risk of running out of usable funds for the quarter/period or having to cut back on a lot of spending. The biggest downside to the loan wasn't to the WWE but instead to investors who saw their stock value drop because it was likely cheaper for the WWE to just issue stocks than pay it back the normal way.

The reason has nothing to do with earnings, but rather the company’s decision to raise as much as $200 million through a vehicle known as a “convertible note.” The notes act like a bond, in that the holders will receive semi-annual interest payments until the loan gets paid back in 2023. But unlike a traditional bond, these notes can be converted into WWE stock under certain conditions.

And that’s the part that investors don’t like. If the bond holders convert $200 million worth of loans into stock, existing shareholders suddenly own a smaller piece of the company, because they have to make room for the new stock. That so-called dilution is why WWE shares are down Tuesday.



How many shows on cable did a better number?
WWE's biggest non-sports juggernaut Love & Hip Hop 7 was one.

[The CyNick]

Your arguments on this subject have been dismissed constantly. It is well established that you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye, troll.

Wrong.

It's because you guys don't read financial statements, or understand how to read them, and just generally ignore facts. When I provide facts, like the WWE stock is nearing an all time high, I get a response of "the stocks did tank a bit". I don't know how a stock tanks a bit, but if you look at any stock ticker, they are currently sitting about 50 cents of their 52 week high. They have over $250m in gross profit and 82m in EBITDA. They have more free cash than debt. There's no tanking there.

These conversations with you people reminds me of when I was doing my undergrad in business and I would take electives and have debates with people taking useless degrees like history or women's studies about business matters. Because I was alone in a group of like minded individuals, they all thought I was wrong, and evil. But when I would go and recount the debate among my peers in degrees that actually require intelligence, they would laugh at how ignorant those people were to real facts.

[screech]

lol you do not provide facts. You present information as fact, then say: "You guys just don't get it. Go look it up on the Internet." These are not the same.

[The CyNick]

WWE's biggest non-sports juggernaut Love & Hip Hop 7 was one.

Interesting you said "one", because it was the only show that did a better rating in the 18-49 demo. RAW was number two. But let's dig into the numbers a little too get a better representation. RAW did a 0.86 among women in that demo and was soundly beaten by LUSH at 1.75. with men, RAW was 1.43 and LHH was 0.64. when we look at total viewers, RAW easily beat LHH by nearly a million viewers. Now, for the sake of transparency, RAW was not #1 in total viewers, it was bested by some news programs on Fox News, but the vast majority of that audience is in the far less desirable 50+ demo, whereas RAW's big numbers come from the most desirable group men 18-49.

As an advertiser, RAW is far and away the most attractive property on cable that night.

[The CyNick]

lol you do not provide facts. You present information as fact, then say: "You guys just don't get it. Go look it up on the Internet." These are not the same.

I just provided a bunch of facts. You think I made those numbers up? I'd like someone to refute any of those numbers with actual proof that I'm wrong. Don't waste your time, I'm right.

[screech]

Why is it on anyone else to prove you wrong? If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide the proof?

[screech]

For example, if I were to say "WWE made more gross profit in 2016 than 2015" I would show this from NASDAQ...

http://i.imgur.com/mNMgfFV.jpg

...instead of being a dick and saying "look it up and get educated." It's really not that hard.

[Destor]

LOL meatball ate him alive and then he only responds to the final sentence.

[#1-norm-fan]

Link the thread

Why would I post something you can just look up?

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[Emperor Smeat]

Wish I remembered what site or source it was that broke down the weekly demographics outside of the Observer for wrestling because for a long time now, RAW's valuable 18-34 demo even for men was leaning heavily towards the end part.

Think the average viewer is in the 40s now and been growing older every few years. Has to do with WWE being unable to get Cena's massive youth base they spent years building to carry over as the new future base for the WWE.

This week's numbers sort of show how much stronger WWE's older base is compared to its younger one which is going to be a serious problem once Cena really goes away.
http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Final-Cable-2017-Feb-13.MON_.png

[The CyNick]

For example, if I were to say "WWE made more gross profit in 2016 than 2015" I would show this from NASDAQ...

http://i.imgur.com/mNMgfFV.jpg

...instead of being a dick and saying "look it up and get educated." It's really not that hard.

If something is so easy to obtain as doing a Google search, I'm not going to take my precious time to post an image. I feel like my reputation is strong enough here that my readers who are intelligent will take my word for it.

But hey, thanks for validating that I'm right.

[#1-norm-fan]

Link the thread

Why would I post something you can just look up?

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[screech]

So you'd rather just be an asshole who ignores anything that goes against you (i.e. the majority of Smelly Meatball's post up there).

Good to know!

[The CyNick]

Wish I remembered what site or source it was that broke down the weekly demographics outside of the Observer for wrestling because for a long time now, RAW's valuable 18-34 demo even for men was leaning heavily towards the end part.

Think the average viewer is in the 40s now and been growing older every few years. Has to do with WWE being unable to get Cena's massive youth base they spent years building to carry over as the new future base for the WWE.

This week's numbers sort of show how much stronger WWE's older base is compared to its younger one which is going to be a serious problem once Cena really goes away.
http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/Final-Cable-2017-Feb-13.MON_.png

Good post.

The thing is if you look at males 12 - 34 WWE they are still far and away #1 on cable, so you still have a healthy mix of young people watching the product. In terms of 50+, they do well, but other shows outperform them in that demo. If anything what that chart tells me when you look at his they colour code the demos, WWE does very well across all demos. Most shows like a LHH only really appeal to young women, they do okay with men and terrible with old people. Fox News has the old people cornered, but does average to below average numbers with young people. It's a testiment to hire WWE has managed to create a variety of characters and storylines that appeal to different folks.

I don't think that demo well disappear if Cena leaves. You can see they are still trying to create kid friendly babyface characters like Bayley.

[The CyNick]

So you'd rather just be an asshole, then. Got it.

People get their backs up when someone is right as often as I am. They are intimidated by people with more knowledge on a subject. If you were to analyze my posts on a scale of accuracy, you would see my numbers would be huge. My detractors are like the left wing media; fake news, and trying to insult me rather than debate me. It's the cross I carry for all of you to have access to my brilliance.

[screech]

Since "anyone can look it up," you aren't really proving your intelligence/knowledge on anything other than how to use a search engine.

But as long as you're having fun, do the thing!

[#1-norm-fan]

People get their backs up when someone is right as often as I am. They are intimidated by people with more knowledge on a subject. If you were to analyze my posts on a scale of accuracy, you would see my numbers would be huge. My detractors are like the left wing media; fake news, and trying to insult me rather than debate me. It's the cross I carry for all of you to have access to my brilliance.

Link the thread

Why would I post something you can just look up?

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[BigCrippyZ]

#1 - WWE and other financial related sources stated that was their break even number around the lead up to the Network's launch. Its a number that needs to be maintained for a long while because the WWE spent way too much money for the Network's launch. Also a big chunk of their monthly earnings goes to MLB and maybe others.

#2 - Kind of funny you use the WWE's exact words for the loan. Their stocks did tank a bit because ta da, the "streets" who are way smarter than you exactly saw it as a desperation move because of the very large amount asked, the very small window WWE was asking for the money, and some shenanigans related to the terms of it.

They were already spending a ton of money to begin with because of the Network and stood a risk of running out of usable funds for the quarter/period or having to cut back on a lot of spending. The biggest downside to the loan wasn't to the WWE but instead to investors who saw their stock value drop because it was likely cheaper for the WWE to just issue stocks than pay it back the normal way.

Originally Posted by Barrons.com
The reason has nothing to do with earnings, but rather the company’s decision to raise as much as $200 million through a vehicle known as a “convertible note.” The notes act like a bond, in that the holders will receive semi-annual interest payments until the loan gets paid back in 2023. But unlike a traditional bond, these notes can be converted into WWE stock under certain conditions.

And that’s the part that investors don’t like. If the bond holders convert $200 million worth of loans into stock, existing shareholders suddenly own a smaller piece of the company, because they have to make room for the new stock. That so-called dilution is why WWE shares are down Tuesday.


I love how Cynick ignores all of this, in particular the convertible note aspect. Granted, I'm not surprised, because most people here don't know or fully understand the intricacies or consequences of a convertible note, especially the one referenced here. Cynick claims to "truly understands the business" but doesn't address this critical aspect of it because he can't refute it and in fact doesn't "truly understand the business". So great. :lol:

[screech]

Funny how he complains about not being debated while ignoring big points for debate.

Keep having fun doing you, Nick!

[BigCrippyZ]

In fairness, we all know he's not here to really debate.

[screech]

I mean, that's obvious. If he is as intelligent as he claims, you'd think he'd try to disguise it better.

[screech]

But he seems to enjoy pushing his narrative/gimmick/whatever. And isn't that what really matters?

[Destor]

Funny how he complains about not being debated while ignoring big points for debate.

Keep having fun doing you, Nick!
Cant lose a debate if you ignore all the facts

[Evil Vito]

I would like to hear Heyman's take on CyNick's most recent posts in this thread.

[BigCrippyZ]

Well, you can definitely lose the debate.

Cynick ignores the facts to preserve his own internal illusions that he won the debate and that he knows more than he actually does.

AKA illusory superiority or the Dunning-Kruger effect. If he truly believes what he says on here, Cynick is pretty much the personification of Dunning-Kruger.

[The CyNick]

I love how Cynick ignores all of this, in particular the convertible note aspect. Granted, I'm not surprised, because most people here don't know or fully understand the intricacies or consequences of a convertible note, especially the one referenced here. Cynick claims to "truly understands the business" but doesn't address this critical aspect of it because he can't refute it and in fact doesn't "truly understand the business". So great. :lol:

I'm happy to have that debate, since I've done this as part of a start up. I would guess the finer details would go over the heads of most here. I'm curious, how you feel the convertible note will hurt the WWE going forward? I'm a free market type of guy (crazy, right?), So to me if the market has the stock at or near us 52 week high, that would indicate investors are not concerned.

Which ties into the over arching debate about WWE ratings. I've always conceded, yup they are down, can't deny that. But the context of being down is important. They have a very strong social media presence, the network continues to grow, rights fees for TV properties continues to increase. These are all measures that actually contribute to the bottom line of the company. One of the most under reported stories of 2016 was that NBCU in conjunction with WWE added 50+ blue chip advertisers. That coupled with their strong performance relative to other cable properties and other USA properties should result in a healthy rights fees deal in a couple years.

[The CyNick]

I would like to hear Heyman's take on CyNick's most recent posts in this thread.

Heyman is an intelligent person, he weighs out what people say. I value his opinion because he hears both sides. Unlike others who think they know everything because they read a paragraph in 30,000 word newsletter.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

this thread is more entertaining than RAW, proving that CyNick is great for ratings.

[Destor]

He makes a fine jester

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

He reminds me of Patterson and Brisco

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

not an insult btw best friend, Pat and Gerald had one of the most epic fucking runs as Mr. McMahon's trusted right hand men during the attitude era.

[Destor]

He reminds me of Patterson and Brisco
Ha!

So he would make...the 3rd stooge

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

lol


Mister MAC-MAH-HIN

[#1-norm-fan]

I think the solution to WWE's plummeting ratings is to build a big, giant wall. It makes sense because walls keep people in AND out of things. I have been in TONS of buildings with walls and if not for doors I would NOT be able to go from one side of the wall to the other. So you build a wall. Mexicans can't come in, WWE fans can't leave. Problem solved.

[The CyNick]

I think the solution to WWE's plummeting ratings is to build a big, giant wall. It makes sense because walls keep people in AND out of things. I have been in TONS of buildings with walls and if not for doors I would NOT be able to go from one side of the wall to the other. So you build a wall. Mexicans can't come in, WWE fans can't leave. Problem solved.

Don't know about a wall, but WWE is going to be making some great deals.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Since "anyone can look it up," you aren't really proving your intelligence/knowledge on anything other than how to use a search engine.

But as long as you're having fun, do the thing!

Ouch.

I will also remind people that the most complicated thing CyNick has said re: business is an Investopedia reply to a question about revenue versus profit. When he tried to hang with BigCrippyZ in a ratings discussion, BigCrippyZ pulled out his lawyer and put CyNick in an ambulance for him to chase so he could school CyNick twice.

Not to get too political, but this is also a man who considers Trump an unblemished businessman, despite his Chapter 11 appeals. How are those steaks doing? As long as you back pocket a few billion nothing else matters, right?

[Mr. Nerfect]

These conversations with you people reminds me of when I was doing my undergrad in business and I would take electives and have debates with people taking useless degrees like history or women's studies about business matters. Because I was alone in a group of like minded individuals, they all thought I was wrong, and evil. But when I would go and recount the debate among my peers in degrees that actually require intelligence, they would laugh at how ignorant those people were to real facts.

You remind me of an old friend I used to have. I say used to, because he eventually got so tedious people stopped feeling sorry for him and his self-aggrandizing need to argue points, usually incorrectly, to the point where he thought he had won because people stopped conversing with him. He was the sort of prick that would hear an out-dated trivia fact and claim it as gospel until he was blue in the face, even if more modern information was available and proved him wrong. Sometimes he would be just plain wrong, but usually he was so firmly confident in his own intelligence, he would just embarrass himself and alienate others, who were actually more correct than he was.

Turns out people who think they are so much smarter than other people because they do "harder" degrees (and as I said in your rep, my sister did a Bachelor of Business and can't change her oil), aren't that smart at all. Isn't it funny how you're around a bunch of like-minded people in one scenario, but when it suits you suddenly you are around "smart" people when you are being agreed with? I've never met someone who describes themselves as a genius who wasn't an underwhelming bore. Real geniuses don't need to go around doing that.

You're constantly outsmarted by people on these forums and they never describe themselves as geniuses. While I do think you are trolling, I actually do think you believe yourself to be smarter than most people. The thing is, you're not very good at debating. You constantly make huge leaps in logic. You're constantly projecting and generalizing (you constantly reference people reading Meltzer like it's a fetish, but I can honestly say I've never read anything other than an extract -- this makes you WRONG). The straw-men are abundant and you shift the goals so much they aren't even on the field anymore. I mention RAW's audience being worse than decimated since it's gone to three hours and you respond with an IRRELEVANT side to this not being notable because cable television is generally decreasing. How does this at all retort the possibility that a two hour show would be more digestible, as the third hour drop-off seems to imply? Which other cable television show even goes three hours to compare it to? It completely evades the question and addresses a different issue. A smarter response would have been to point out that correlation is not causation, but you have already proven in the Baron Corbin thread that you do not understand that argument. Some genius you are. #AlternativeFacts

I used to buy the argument that you are a nice dude with some alternative viewpoints, but your inability to structure an argument, respond to what is being discussed, address criticisms of your arguments without resorting to personal dismissals and your displayed sense of superiority makes me think that you are probably the poster in here that I'd least like to catch up with over a beer. I bet you have a lot of opinions about things that you try to pass off as facts, and, perhaps even worse than that, I bet you're fucking boring.

You're worse than a troll pretending to be a WWE mark -- you're a mark for yourself. And it's clear that:

I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I am talking about.

[The CyNick]

Ouch.

I will also remind people that the most complicated thing CyNick has said re: business is an Investopedia reply to a question about revenue versus profit. When he tried to hang with BigCrippyZ in a ratings discussion, BigCrippyZ pulled out his lawyer and put CyNick in an ambulance for him to chase so he could school CyNick twice.

Not to get too political, but this is also a man who considers Trump an unblemished businessman, despite his Chapter 11 appeals. How are those steaks doing? As long as you back pocket a few billion nothing else matters, right?

Where have I ever called Trump an unblemished businessman? His name does spot many skylines of the great cities in the world. He did build a multi billion dollar empire. And oh yeah, he did just become President even though the entire media was against him and he was up against the entire Republican party and a person who has literally lived her whole life to become President. But in Noid's world his steak business didn't hit it out of the park, so lol Trump. And this is the guy who's logic leads him to think I lost a debate. Sounds like a credible source to me!

And now #1 fan will quote that last sentence and miss the context in which it was written.

[Mr. Nerfect]

You're also not successful as a troll. You're the sort of person who thinks that people spending time on you means you are, but look at the time you spend here. You're breaking even at best. But you don't really understand business that well, so I can imagine that is lost on you.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Where have I ever called Trump an unblemished businessman? His name does spot many skylines of the great cities in the world. He did build a multi billion dollar empire. And oh yeah, he did just become President even though the entire media was against him and he was up against the entire Republican party and a person who has literally lived her whole life to become President. But in Noid's world his steak business didn't hit it out of the park, so lol Trump. And this is the guy who's logic leads him to think I lost a debate. Sounds like a credible source to me!

And now #1 fan will quote that last sentence and miss the context in which it was written.

Speaking of taking things out of context...

You're missing the point like a liberal arts student there, and proving it. Are you sure you didn't take calligraphy in college?

[Mr. Nerfect]

His name does spot many skylines of the great cities in the world.

That sounds like a history wanker writing an introductory paragraph to their self-published book. Are you sure you aren't of the homosexual persuasion or a Hillary supporter?

[The CyNick]

You remind me of an old friend I used to have. I say used to, because he eventually got so tedious people stopped feeling sorry for him and his self-aggrandizing need to argue points, usually incorrectly, to the point where he thought he had won because people stopped conversing with him. He was the sort of prick that would hear an out-dated trivia fact and claim it as gospel until he was blue in the face, even if more modern information was available and proved him wrong. Sometimes he would be just plain wrong, but usually he was so firmly confident in his own intelligence, he would just embarrass himself and alienate others, who were actually more correct than he was.

Turns out people who think they are so much smarter than other people because they do "harder" degrees (and as I said in your rep, my sister did a Bachelor of Business and can't change her oil), aren't that smart at all. Isn't it funny how you're around a bunch of like-minded people in one scenario, but when it suits you suddenly you are around "smart" people when you are being agreed with? I've never met someone who describes themselves as a genius who wasn't an underwhelming bore. Real geniuses don't need to go around doing that.

You're constantly outsmarted by people on these forums and they never describe themselves as geniuses. While I do think you are trolling, I actually do think you believe yourself to be smarter than most people. The thing is, you're not very good at debating. You constantly make huge leaps in logic. You're constantly projecting and generalizing (you constantly reference people reading Meltzer like it's a fetish, but I can honestly say I've never read anything other than an extract -- this makes you WRONG). The straw-men are abundant and you shift the goals so much they aren't even on the field anymore. I mention RAW's audience being worse than decimated since it's gone to three hours and you respond with an IRRELEVANT side to this not being notable because cable television is generally decreasing. How does this at all retort the possibility that a two hour show would be more digestible, as the third hour drop-off seems to imply? Which other cable television show even goes three hours to compare it to? It completely evades the question and addresses a different issue. A smarter response would have been to point out that correlation is not causation, but you have already proven in the Baron Corbin thread that you do not understand that argument. Some genius you are. #AlternativeFacts

I used to buy the argument that you are a nice dude with some alternative viewpoints, but your inability to structure an argument, respond to what is being discussed, address criticisms of your arguments without resorting to personal dismissals and your displayed sense of superiority makes me think that you are probably the poster in here that I'd least like to catch up with over a beer. I bet you have a lot of opinions about things that you try to pass off as facts, and, perhaps even worse than that, I bet you're fucking boring.

You're worse than a troll pretending to be a WWE mark -- you're a mark for yourself. And it's clear that:

Wow, now you're stealing fans gimmick. Sad.

I'll address the ratings piece, because the rest is a bore. My deal with ratings, and I've said this about a hundred times, is that WWE is a business. They are trying to make money. The state of the cable industry is RELEVANT because the WWE will generate a rights fee deal based on their numbers vs the competition and what USA or another network thinks that's worth. WWE was asked to add a third hour and they got paid big dollars for it. Unless WWE can drive ratings in two hours that would lead to a larger rights fee deal than the current three hour state, they would be stupid to do that. For USA, RAW doing the ratings they do still drives up their averages. That leads to more as money. The problem is I present these positions to guys like you, and then you claim I don't back anything up. You're just ignorant to the industry. And the guy who you think is spot on, doesn't even understand a year over year chart.

As for me as a person, I have met people from F4W and was universally well liked. I don't really care if you think I'm a mean person. But if you met me, I guarantee you would like me. Frankly, everyone does.

[The CyNick]

That sounds like a history wanker writing an introductory paragraph to their self-published book. Are you sure you aren't of the homosexual persuasion or a Hillary supporter?

Hilary supporter? That's the worst thing you can call sound minded person. Didn't realize we were taking low blood at one another. Time to rise above hate.

[BigCrippyZ]

I'm happy to have that debate, since I've done this as part of a start up. I would guess the finer details would go over the heads of most here. I'm curious, how you feel the convertible note will hurt the WWE going forward? I'm a free market type of guy (crazy, right?), So to me if the market has the stock at or near us 52 week high, that would indicate investors are not concerned.

The day after WWE's announcement of the notes, WWE's stock, which reached a near annual record high close the day prior, fell and remained below $19 for over a month. Sure, it was temporary, but WWE investors were at least initially concerned about the possibility of dilution of their stock.

What you're also failing to address is that WWE, not the note purchaser, has the option to convert these notes to common stock. While that's good for WWE in regards to the debt, in the event they can't repay the notes by 2023, it's actually bad for their existing investors and potentially for WWE's future stock value. If WWE elects or simply has no better alternative but to convert the notes to common stock, this will dilute the stock for existing shareholders and decrease the stock value.

[BigCrippyZ]

I love how Cynick thinks I don't understand a year over year chart.

It never occurred to him the reason for the criticism of WWE's chart indicating "Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from 2015" is that the chart compares WWE's ratings to Top 25 from 2015 and Top 25 from 2016 but using the top 25 national networks from 2015 as the basis for both top 25 2015 & 2016 ratings data. Why would you base top 25 2016 ratings on the top 25 networks from 2015?

Now sure, it's possible that the top 25 national networks from 2015 were the same in 2016. However, without that clarification on the chart or going and looking at the data, it's just as possible that the top 25 average of U.S. national ratings in 2016 that are actually based on the top 25 in 2016, were higher than those same top 25 ratings in 2016 that are (for some reason) determined from what were the top 25 networks in 2015.

[The CyNick]

I love how Cynick thinks I don't understand a year over year chart.

It never occurred to him the reason for the criticism of WWE's chart indicating "Top 25 reflects average U.S. national ratings from 2015" is that the chart compares WWE's ratings to Top 25 from 2015 and Top 25 from 2016 but using the top 25 national networks from 2015 as the basis for both top 25 2015 & 2016 ratings data. Why would you base top 25 2016 ratings on the top 25 networks from 2015?

Now sure, it's possible that the top 25 national networks from 2015 were the same in 2016. However, without that clarification on the chart or going and looking at the data, it's just as possible that the top 25 average of U.S. national ratings in 2016 that are actually based on the top 25 in 2016, were higher than those same top 25 ratings in 2016 that are (for some reason) determined from what were the top 25 networks in 2015.

If that's your logic for your criticism, you come off better if you just didn't understand how a year over year chart works. Have a look at the top 25 cable networks year over year and see what the difference would be using your methodology.

You're so anti WWE (well you pretend to be anyway) that you will grasp at anything to try to paint a Rosey picture with a doom and gloom brush. The company is very profitable, has more cash than debt, and is growing revenue in virtually every revenue stream.

[The CyNick]

The day after WWE's announcement of the notes, WWE's stock, which reached a near annual record high close the day prior, fell and remained below $19 for over a month. Sure, it was temporary, but WWE investors were at least initially concerned about the possibility of dilution of their stock.

What you're also failing to address is that WWE, not the note purchaser, has the option to convert these notes to common stock. While that's good for WWE in regards to the debt, in the event they can't repay the notes by 2023, it's actually bad for their existing investors and potentially for WWE's future stock value. If WWE elects or simply has no better alternative but to convert the notes to common stock, this will dilute the stock for existing shareholders and decrease the stock value.

So did it occur to you that investors dug into the deal and the numbers and came to the conclusion that it was a good business move? Considering the stock is now near their 52 week high, your fear about the deal is unfounded. Or are you smarter than the market?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I can't believe you haven't processed that it's not that one possible hypothesis you draw from the information that people don't like -- it's your fucking pigheadedness towards any other possibility. EVERYBODY has considered that the WWE will get offered more money for more television in the future. Fuck's sake, man. That does not mean that it also couldn't come tumbling down like a house of cards either.

There are several reasons that the USA Network might decide that WWE RAW isn't performing like they'd like it to when the contract comes up. In fact, given that they will be requested to spend more money for the same amount of content reaching a decreasing number of viewers each week, it'd be insane if they didn't try to get it for cheaper, and right now the WWE is depending a lot on that money.

Cable is going down. Clap, clap -- you fucking idiot. That doesn't mean that the WWE's downward spiral in ratings -- actually a greater decrease than most other shows on cable -- is a healthy trend. It feels obvious stating that, but it seems to evade you. It also is NOT relevant to whether or not three hours is detrimental to the product or not, you fucking muppet.

[Shisen Kopf]

If I watch Smackdown replay on Hulu, am I watching TV or television? Also, lay off Trump steaks. They were really good it's justnthatnthe idiots that bought them were burning them. Medium rare ONLY.

[The CyNick]

I can't believe you haven't processed that it's not that one possible hypothesis you draw from the information that people don't like -- it's your fucking pigheadedness towards any other possibility. EVERYBODY has considered that the WWE will get offered more money for more television in the future. Fuck's sake, man. That does not mean that it also couldn't come tumbling down like a house of cards either.

There are several reasons that the USA Network might decide that WWE RAW isn't performing like they'd like it to when the contract comes up. In fact, given that they will be requested to spend more money for the same amount of content reaching a decreasing number of viewers each week, it'd be insane if they didn't try to get it for cheaper, and right now the WWE is depending a lot on that money.

Cable is going down. Clap, clap -- you fucking idiot. That doesn't mean that the WWE's downward spiral in ratings -- actually a greater decrease than most other shows on cable -- is a healthy trend. It feels obvious stating that, but it seems to evade you. It also is NOT relevant to whether or not three hours is detrimental to the product or not, you fucking muppet.

Calm down PAL, you're getting really worked up.

USA asked for the extra hour because even with the decline it's still far greater than any show USA could air in its place.

WWE would be in more trouble if the demos were weak, but they are strong. WWE would be in more trouble if they had trouble getting advertisers, but they had a laundry list of new BLUE CHIP sponsors are to partner with them and USA. That's a direct result of the years of effort to change the image of the product.

So yeah, it could go down, rights fees could tank across the board, maybe Cable disappears in two years. If I were a betting man, I would say WWE either stats flat or increases their rights deal. The third hour of RAW will be a major factor in that. But to mention they will have other suitors, maybe an ESPN looking at them.

[BigCrippyZ]

So did it occur to you that investors dug into the deal and the numbers and came to the conclusion that it was a good business move? Considering the stock is now near their 52 week high, your fear about the deal is unfounded. Or are you smarter than the market?

:lol:

Only an idiot would conclude that there's nothing worry about and everything is great.

I'm not smarter than the market, but I get paid everyday to help individuals and companies build and protect their wealth by spotting, analyzing and evaluating issues and risks, usually before they occur or become bigger problems.

[The CyNick]

:lol:

Only an idiot would conclude that there's nothing worry about and everything is great.

I'm not smarter than the market, but I get paid everyday to help individuals and companies build and protect their wealth by spotting, analyzing and evaluating issues and risks, usually before they occur or become bigger problems.

Well at the end of the day, let's see what happens when the new contract is signed. We'll see what your vast vast experience is worth. Maybe you'll want to put this warning to WWE on your business card...or maybe not.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Calm down PAL, you're getting really worked up.

USA asked for the extra hour because even with the decline it's still far greater than any show USA could air in its place.

WWE would be in more trouble if the demos were weak, but they are strong. WWE would be in more trouble if they had trouble getting advertisers, but they had a laundry list of new BLUE CHIP sponsors are to partner with them and USA. That's a direct result of the years of effort to change the image of the product.

So yeah, it could go down, rights fees could tank across the board, maybe Cable disappears in two years. If I were a betting man, I would say WWE either stats flat or increases their rights deal. The third hour of RAW will be a major factor in that. But to mention they will have other suitors, maybe an ESPN looking at them.

Again, you're projecting. It takes no energy at all to call you a moron. None at all. In fact, it keeps me calm as more important shit goes on around me. Calling you a cunt is like sniffing lavendar.

[DAMN iNATOR]

If I watch Smackdown replay on Hulu, am I watching TV or television? Also, lay off Trump steaks. They were really good it's justnthatnthe idiots that bought them were burning them. Medium rare ONLY.

Medium-well or GTFO because you're not enjoying steak properly.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Raw broke the record this week for the lowest audience to watch the show since 1997 on a night when they weren't facing major sports competition or it being a major holiday, with 3.04 million viewers.

8 p.m. 3.16 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.12 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.87 million viewers

[Evil Vito]

Medium-well or GTFO because you're not enjoying steak properly.

:|

[#1-norm-fan]

The word "well" should not be anywhere in the same sentence as "steak".

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Pls take it to the Trump Steaks thread

[#1-norm-fan]

Oh, man. Raw's falling ratings and Trump steaks in the same thread? Someone's gonna have a rationalization field day with this!

[Destor]

Anything past medium is burned

[#1-norm-fan]

Might as well just eat your shoes at that point.

[Destor]

Chew on charcoal

[rob11]

I know Meltzer sheep but that is bad...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/hnGq8mCPYz4?ecver=1" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

[Sixx]

Medium-well or GTFO because you're not enjoying steak properly.

Pfff, I want to slap you in the face with a raw steak.

[Sixx]

Actually no, you make them the way you do and I'll just crack your skull with one.

[slik]

This week's average was: 2.78


Hourly:

8 p.m. 3.09 million viewers
9 p.m. 2.80 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.47 million viewers

[slik]

Monday’s Raw drew an average of 3.1 million viewers, down from last week’s 3.6 million viewers.


Hourly breakdown:

8 PM - 3.3 million viewers
9 PM - 3.2 million viewers
10 PM - 2.8 million viewers

http://www.tpww.net/2018/04/wwe-raw-ratings-apr-23-2018-down/

[Emperor Smeat]

Bit troubling that the 3rd hour hit the sub-3 million number faster than last year's post-Mania RAWs.

Probably a really good chance RAW hits the sub-3 million overall faster as well since that didn't happen till the 5th week after Mania last year.

[Mr. Nerfect]

But people still tweet about it, right?

[slik]

RAW dropped around half a million viewers from the go-home show for Backlash to the post-Backlash edition of RAW.

Lowest rating of 2018 so far. NBA could have taken some viewers but I don't think it is responsible for nearly half a million RAW viewers tuning out.




RAW rating - 2.69 (last week 3.1)

Hr 1 - 2.8 million
Hr 2 - 2.7 million
Hr 3 - 2.5 million

[Mr. Nerfect]

I've never really bought into the "well, in our defense, people would rather be watching something else" argument.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Nice to see Braun Strowman drawing because he is so over though. With Jinder Mahal getting some more focus, I am sure that the viewers will jump back up 2 million next week. :y:

[Loose Cannon]

everytime i look at the ratings I notice the 3rd hour is always the worst. like every single week. it means people give the show a shot and then realize the shit never ends

[Emperor Smeat]

When the 3 Hour Era started, it used to be the opposite with the 1st Hour as the weakest and 3rd Hour as the strongest. Flipped to where it is now due to WWE's terrible attrition style booking and people getting used to the show starting at 8PM.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I feel like I've said this too many times, but the defense for that third hour is they get paid a lot of money for it. How much money do they sacrifice by having such a watered down and gentrified product, though? The creative problems were there before they went to 3 hours, granted, but we haven't seen a WWE that have had a 2-hour Raw with a unified roster since 2002, because I think they started the "Supershow" crap back when there were still a brand split in 2011.

That's merely a technicality, but god damn it -- end the roster split and cut your content down. If you need to release the Andre the Giant Battle Royal talent to save more money, go ahead and do that too. I'd consider cutting SmackDown too. There was demand for it in 1999/2000. Now it feels like they put out the show because they're obligated to.

[slik]

SD ratings lowest since October 2017

Too bad b/c it was a good show!



Rating - 2.29

(last week - 2.43)

[slik]

Lack of interest in Roman Reigns now hurting the blue brand

[Mr. Nerfect]

It doesn’t help that they’re doing their best to make Bryan unspecial. But yeah, general interest is going to be down when Raw sucks.

[Emperor Smeat]

Probably doesn't help that Smackdown has gotten hit harder than RAW has been with the NBA playoffs this year.

Smackdown had to deal with a lot more competitive game between Rockets-Jazz than RAW did with Raptors-Cavs.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Again, it's that "there's something better on" excuse. Be better then.

[LibSuperstar]

YouTube views seem to conflict w/ the TV ratings.

[slik]

YT views apparently come from mostly outside the US -- per the infamous dirtsheets they mainly come from India.

[slik]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-lang="en"><p lang="en" dir="ltr">19 years ago today, 8M+ viewers (at time of calculating) tuned in to watch <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/Raw?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#Raw</a> - scoring an 8.1 Nielsen rating, WWE’s highest ever. ��<br><br>(Image: <a href="https://twitter.com/BrandonThurston?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@BrandonThurston</a>) <a href="https://t.co/XbY0hq54uH">pic.twitter.com/XbY0hq54uH</a></p>&mdash; PWStream (@PWStream) <a href="https://twitter.com/PWStream/status/994584564965179392?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 10, 2018</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Loose Cannon]

seems like there was some minor spike at end of 2008. wonder what that was from?

[XL]

Is that chart showing millions of viewers or rating?

[Emperor Smeat]

seems like there was some minor spike at end of 2008. wonder what that was from?

Think the chart is a bit messed up and it might be from 2009 instead. Had some trouble finding when the spike happened but it might be from the June 22nd episode.

That episode was when Trump "bought" RAW and aired it as a commercial-free episode for the night.

[Loose Cannon]

that would make some sense. completely non wwe talent related lol

[slik]

RAW bounced back this week



Hour one - 2,903,000 viewers
Hour two - 2,692,000 viewers
Hour three - 2,628,000 viewers

Average - 2,741,000

[#1-norm-fan]

I've never really bought into the "well, in our defense, people would rather be watching something else" argument.

AKA The CyNick Defense (RIP)

[Destor]

Raw 2018 pulling in them bret hart numbers

[Mr. Nerfect]

Raw got over the 4.0 mark 4 times in 2009:

* February 16, post-No Way Out. Randy Orton continues his path to the McMahon family and punted Shane and RKO'd Stephanie. Shawn Michaels also announced his intentions to challenge The Undertaker at WrestleMania.

* February 23, with HBK beating JBL to earn the right to face Vladimir Kozlov for the right to face Undertaker at WrestleMania, and Triple H chasing Legacy around with a sledgehammer.

* June 22, which had Trump buying Raw, it being "commercial free," everyone getting refunds, more Triple H/Randy Orton drama and John Cena being embarrassed by The Miz.

* July 27, which had a bunch of Beat the Clock Matches to decide who would get to challenge Randy Orton at SummerSlam. Shaq was a special guest and he backed up Cryme Tyme in the main event against Jeri-Show.

[#1-norm-fan]

Cryme Tyme = ratings

[Mr. Nerfect]

Cryme Tyme = ratings

The thought/joke occurred to me. They appeared on quite a few of those shows.

I was never attached to them at the time, but honestly, both guys were really charismatic. Shortcomings in the ring aside, I'd kill for two guys with their personalities today. You can cover up those weaknesses in the ring.

I'm just reading up on Shad now. The dude is a stage actor and has won awards for writing comic books. He's married to a fitness model and foiled a bank robbery in 2016. Honestly, the guy sounds a bit like a superhero.

JTG looked small compared to Shad, but the dude is 6'1 1/2 and was billed as 232lbs. He was always jacked to the gills. These two -- either as a tag team busting myths about black people or as individuals -- would be worth another shot. In my opinion. Maybe I've just forgotten how much they suck in the ring or whatever. It feels like Shad, especially, was made to jump through hoops and was kind of a victim of a...shall we called it a "Purple Hayes" in the WWE.

[Mr. Nerfect]

It's been long enough that the environment has changed. I'd like to see Cryme Tyme vs. Dolph & Drew and Owens & Zayn. I'd also like to see them against New Day and The Usos. And that's as Cryme Tyme. I think those stereotypical gimmicks are the bottom of what they can achieve.

[#1-norm-fan]

I loved Cryme Tyme. They were outstanding for what they were.

[Mr. Nerfect]

They didn't have what I looked for in a tag team. Felt too much like a gimmick. I like my working tag teams.

[#1-norm-fan]

It takes all kinds. Especially nowadays. I don't know that I would have put the titles on them but for midcard entertainment value, they were top notch.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Oh, agreed. Right now their personalities would put them so far ahead of almost everyone else it isn't funny. Well, it kind of is funny.

[LibSuperstar]

Oh, agreed. Right now their personalities would put them so far ahead of almost everyone else it isn't funny. Well, it kind of is funny.

It is. Are you partial to The Revival?

[BigCrippyZ]

Right now their personalities would put them so far ahead of almost everyone else it isn't funny.

True. Who would've thought back then that WWE would be even worse some 9 years later?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I try to think back to a time where I've been happy to be a fan, haha. Even back in my Val Venis-obsessed days, my enjoyment of his selling on Heat was getting me through some dark times, haha.

I remember being fond of 2008. Maybe not the entire year, but WrestleMania that year stands out, and the random pushes for CM Punk, William Regal and Brian Kendrick felt good -- even if two of the three got in the way of theirs.

The Shield kicked ass in 2013 and 2014, but it never felt like the whole product was up to them and Daniel Bryan. I feel a bit spoiled whinging about that though. But it's been a long time since wrestling has been "good."

[Mr. Nerfect]

It is. Are you partial to The Revival?

I like them as a team. They have clearly watched tape and are trying to implement psychology into what they do, which is automatically appreciated. I love the way Dawson takes the lead and Wilder basically plays the spoiler. It's a great dynamic in a world where tag team partners are interchangeable and everyone does the same thing.

A problem facing them is their size. Neither guy is a heavyweight, to my knowledge, which means that them working as bad-ass ring generals kind of lacks...panache. When they're out there against guys like Gargano & Ciampa it doesn't matter so much, but I'm not sure how easily I buy them working heel against bigger dudes, you know?

I've seen some things on here about their personality. I like what they're doing. They're supposed to be dry. Dawson can talk well enough when he needs to. If you plug them in as the antithesis to a team with personality, it would work. The problem is if Vince sees them and casts them as "boring guys" in his mind.

They're a team you book with a purpose. You either have babies you want them fuck up, or you bring in babies for them to fuck up. When they're just plugging in to different tag team matches with each and every tag team, I worry that they will lose their charm.

I like them, but I worry for them, and I don't know if the WWE is going to be able to implement them the way I'd like to see them implemented. But given they don't like to fire people, I can see them having jobs for a long time, and at least being heel lackeys to someone.

[Big Vic]

I loved Cryme Tyme. They were outstanding for what they were.

That's pretty racist.

[Evil Vito]

The Revival are/were at their best when they can work long-form matches packed with psychology and brilliant storytelling. They were always going to be fucked on the main roster where they're expected to get their shit in in five minutes or less.

[Mr. Nerfect]

That's pretty racist.

That's pretty funny.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The Revival are/were at their best when they can work long-form matches packed with psychology and brilliant storytelling. They were always going to be fucked on the main roster where they're expected to get their shit in in five minutes or less.

It's weird, because I remember there being trepidation about them getting called up, but I feel like hopes are always high for some stupid reason. :lol:

[Emperor Smeat]

Wonder how much NBC now really regrets giving WWE $300+ million per year for RAW considering this week's episode set the record for least viewed of the year and since June 2017.

Last week's taped UK episode did better than this week's live episode which almost never happens for RAW.

Monday’s Raw drew an average of 2,668,000 viewers on USA Network, down from last week’s 2,741,000 viewers. This was the lowest viewed episode of 2018 and the lowest viewed episode since the June 12, 2017 episode which drew 2,542,000 viewers ...

This time last year, the May 23, 2017 Raw drew 2,615,000 viewers. The May 23, 2016 Raw drew 3,268,000 viewers.

Hourly breakdown:

8PM: 2,792,000
9PM: 2,767,000
10PM: 2,447,000

[LibSuperstar]

Wonder how much NBC now really regrets giving WWE $300+ million per year for RAW considering this week's episode set the record for least viewed of the year and since June 2017.

Last week's taped UK episode did better than this week's live episode which almost never happens for RAW.

Probably not much! I'm sure they've been keeping up w/ the numbers prior to the deal.

[Destor]

All tv numbers are trending down. What would they put in that time slot thats going to get 2.5 million viewers?