SD/RAW Ratings are in - SD almost tops RAW this week!
 

What can we gather from this? We can gather that people just aren't staying through the show. We can gather that the main events just aren't keeping interest. And we can gather that maybe Kevin Owens as Universal Champion isn't the interest-garner people were hoping for. I thought he was really good on RAW, to be honest -- mainly in that first backstage segment with Tom Phillips and in the ring in the main event. I'm not sure if people "believe" in him though.

What is the share here? Lately RAW has only barely been sitting above a 2.0, and they don't have much of that 18-49 demographic share.

Going be some really serious issues for the WWE if Smackdown doesn't tie or beat RAW this week.

Even when compared to the low expectations, RAW still did worse this week. Was expected to be in the 2.9 million range and ended up doing less than 2.7 million instead.

The third hour of RAW typically drops a lot, which is the opposite of what people would expect, since it's the main-event the program is built around. The first hour is always the highest, which is interesting since the least amount of noteworthy stuff typically happens there, outside of the opening segment.

While I would love to see RAW go back to 2 hours, there is zero chance of that happening since WWE makes more revenue having a third hour and there isn't anything that would garner the rating the third hour gets on the USA Network.

The third hour does trickle off, but that itself is a problem.

RAW is doing a bad job carrying momentum from week to week which pretty much was the case pre-Brand Split as well.

Last week erased all the interest built up from previous weeks and people just didn't care about this week. Also pretty much continues the trend of main events with Reigns resulting in really bad 3rd hours.

Very good points there. Episodically, RAW does often feel thrown together. I do feel that they built on some storylines here -- but when that's Enzo & Cass vs. The Shining Stars, you have to wonder just how glued to their sets people will be.

Apparently the ratings for this week managed to tie the lowest ever rating Nitro got during the Monday Night Wars with a 1.8 according to NeoGAF's wrestling thread.

In regards to TNA, their highest ever for Impact was a 1.5 which was the Hogan debut episode for the company.

At some point last night around 9 someone behind me said "this is what they're going to put up vs football tonight?" at that point it had been the 15 minute opening promo, commercials, triple threat match, commercials and backstage stuff. 1 match in an hour..

I wonder how many people watch RAW "not live" and how the # increases over the next 7 days?

Does that really matter to the WWE's success? If they're trying to sell themselves as live entertainment, yet people don't really watch them live, it's pretty scary. They're under a 1.0 in the 18-49 demographic. NFL, SportsCenter and Love & Hip Hop is beating them out. Family Guy and Teen Mom are catching up.

The WWE has managed to land some good sponsors recently, and that family-friendly demographic will probably get them through this period, so I don't expect things to change much or get any better.

I think I read once the largest demographic was watching WWE programming was actually significantly older than the 18-34 demographic.

Not sure what this means to anyone, but both of the Monday Night Football games were fucking terrible too.

Nah Steelers always draw big

Really feel like the amount of live viewers dropping lower and lower each year has more to do with ppl not watching live TV on a TV as much anymore... Feels like it doesn't take live streaming into account, or DVRs, or Hulu and stuff...

Tbh it "feels" like WWE is more popular these days than it has ever been in the "post-Attitude era"

I dont know what poeple expect though when Steen and Styles are your champions. These guys should be "the greatest IC champions of all time" not headlining.

Nah AJ styles has been money lately, Steen yeah, I agree.

While I agree that's true to a degree, it doesn't take into account the "buzz" factor and ratings other shows on cable are able to still pull off today simply because of their quality content. Walking Dead, Breaking Bad, Game of Thrones, Better Call Saul, Mr. Robot, American Horror Story, etc.

Granted I don't watch any of those shows myself but I know tons of non-fans of WWE as well as current and former WWE fans who talk more about those shows today than I ever hear anyone talk about Raw, SD or PPVs today.

I'm certain lots of people were watching, but I'm saying the games were terrible to watch as a football fan. The NFL gets a pass on poor quality games, but WWE doesn't. Not really fair.

If I remember, its like in the 40s for the age average and a huge reason is due to Cena's target audience not carrying over after a few years. WWE spent 10+ years on trying to make Cena the next Hogan and its not showing in ratings or viewers.

Sort of like the Pokemon effect where the biggest groups are kids and young adults while the middle group lost interest. Except in WWE's case the middle group isn't really coming back.

True. I'm a diehard wrestling fan, and I usually don't watch live outside of the PPVs because commercials are annoying. During the Attitude Era, I just had to stay home on Monday Nights.

That's how I feel to. I know the "Live + 7" ratings take into account any content watched or streamed up to 7 days after the show airs. I wonder how much higher that raises their rating...the news sites never report on it.

Their work is fine. They both dont look the part and it translates in "non-fan" viewership. Their core base will watch anything they feed them. They may draw... 0.7(?) off work rate. Guys like AJ and Steen arenot going to bring in numbers.

AJ has been money on the mic, and he's a heel so he doesn't need to be the face of the brand. Just the heel that people want to see taken out.

So who does now? Who should headline if those guys don't draw? Options seem limited outside of Brock, or hitting the Rock or Cena or Undertaker panic buttons.

Exactly the issue theyre facing. They pushing guys that thier base will like because it's all they have to offer. Same thing they did in the mid 90's when they almost went under. Tough times ahead.


But the point remains: what more can you ask of the guys theyre pushing? They'll never be numbers guys. They dont have what it takes.

Correct. This is a product of going to the well one too many times with Cena or part time/old guys. Wtf do they expect going forward if the main event of WM is HHH and Roman? They're telling people that's the best they have to offer?!

Makes me wonder where their betting their chips. Like, what's the important figure they look at to determine success? Triple A said it about traditional ratings. Do they care? Should they care? Do those numbers mean what they used to?

What is/are they looking at? Network subs? Ratings? DVR replays? House show gates? Merch sales? Other? That's a question as I have no idea.

I've heard that it's mainly older men.

AJ Styles is the best wrestler in the world today. His ring work is good and his promos are good. I think he's charismatic as well. That doesn't necessarily mean he'll draw. He sort of reminds me of Shawn Michaels circa '96/'97. He's the best guy they've got and he deserves his position, but they are sort of spinning their wheels because they don't have that epic babyface like Austin on the swell. Owens I'm completely on board with not being a draw. He's a great performer overall, but his very presence in the main event sort of buries whoever he is working with, because he's often smaller than them, but he also looks worse. This implies that he's got to be tremendously gifted in the ring, which means an opponenet who struggles with him is not.

The WWE will choose to measure itself by the metric that makes them appeal most to shareholders. Their focus has been on WWE Network subs. They will mention overall profits and television revenue -- given that they get paid for that shitty third hour and Total Divas, Bellas, etc. Ratings are going down, but it's that share that isn't being reported, and just how low that it is. Less people, proportionately, are watching wrestling live, which doesn't translate well for that next round of rights fees offers, unless USA Network still has nothing keeping it afloat.

What are the patchworks the WWE will offer to this? If I had to guess, it would be to pander harder to kids and add a third hour to SmackDown. Anything they can do to make more money short-term.

wrong

Random little point on money: I wonder how wise it was for the WWE to box themselves in with $9.99 for the WWE Network. I personally feel they threw way too much content onto the Network right away -- PPVs were still making money, but even if you took them away from traditional PPV companies, you could have ordered them through the WWE Network for an engorged price.

To my knowledge, the Network subs have remained largely around the same mark. With things getting tighter, a price raise for the Network would be an instant response, but the WWE drilled "$9.99" into people's heads in such comical fashion that I can actually imagine outrage over even a slight increase.

Care to elaborate, Mr. Pertruder?

SmackDownLIVE almost topped RAW for ratings this week.

Rollins. Rollins. Rollins.

It almost topped it for viewers. The rating (a percentage) might actually be higher.

Games dont draw as much as teams do

Going to laugh when Vince takes Cena and AJ from Smackdown and brings them to Raw.