Is it really a good idea for WWE to rely on children for their ratings?

[#1-wwf-fan]

There is no "smart thing to do" as far as ratings. You just have to figure out what crowd you're going for and successfully aim for them. They can be way more successful with a more adult based product and they can just as easily fail miserably with a more adult based product. It doesn't matter. What matters is successfully making the market you're aiming for spend their money on it and take their time watching it. Most of the entertainment industry is not aimed towards kids. In no way does that hold movies, TV shows, etc. from being hugely successful.

The good thing about WWE PG is that the current booking team is not terribly creative at all and most of the time is horrifically lazy and seems to not put effort into long term booking across the board. This doesn't really bother little kids so... fuck it. If the booking team was top notch, they could very well make more money with a more adult oriented product. Problem being that they can't keep switching it up all that often. They need to grow and keep viewers.

Bottom line is the rating doesn't matter nearly as much as anyone makes it out to matter. Regardless of which side of the debate they're on.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Exactly. The promoters just want people to think ratings matters above all else to them so the "loyal" (regular) viewers will tune in as often as possible, and if the promoter can get them to do so, to have them order most if not all of their PPV's in a given year.

PPV revenue + ad revenue from RAW/SD! + kids' merchandise I'm sure must add up to something in the high $100M's if not low $1B's per year. If that's something that tells Stevevicious89 or anyone else that WWE won't make it another 5 years (his words, not mine), then they need their head(s) examined.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Steveviscious89 Relatively stable? Relative to what? A month ago? They now struggle to keep a freakin 3! Wake up already and look at the stats. It's been steadily declining for years.

I don't know if you've actually looked "at the stats," but Raw has been at roughly the same rating point for the last few years now. It has not been steadily declining. It fluctuates during certain sporting events and other major times, but it always did.

But I am curious as to how you think they would appeal to another demographic. It's not going to be the dudebros who are busy with MMA, or reality TV. So who? The smark community? Should they turn it into a weekly episodic drama mirroring the current lineup on Network? Perhaps a Fox News clone with pro wrestling?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Keith I think that when people say "I wish WWE was more like the Attitude Era", they're not really thinking about what the Attitude Era really was all about, but rather, the people (wrestlers) that were going out there and carrying out what we saw each week on tv. I don't know if I'm explaining myself out. What I mean is that there's a fine line between actually longing for what we used to see (the actual "cutting edge tv"), and longing for the characters that we used to see actually go out there and play a part in said "cutting edge tv". If WWE went back to that type of "attitude", it's not a given that they'll be as successful as they were back then, with the guys we have today. It was a special time, there were many veterans who had been in the Indy scene, in WCW and in ECW, and were at (or near) the top of their game, as well as a lot of young guys who were on their way up. Also, a lot of things that were done we had never seen. But in 2012, we've basically seen everything. So there's not going to be that "novelty" factor, either.

Additionally, they couldn't keep pushing the limits.

But the Attitude Era was dying as people grew up, moved on, and became adults. They were losing fans anyway, losing money, and they found a new avenue eventually. The Attitude Era fans were the ones who actually left first.

[The Rogerer]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Just throwing this out there. The ratings were once consistently twice as high as they are now. Let's not confuse having steady ratings with "They're set and have no reason to change anything." Being successful is not a cut and dry thing. They could drop a full rating point over night and still be one of the highest rated shows on cable. I'd still say they need to try to improve things.

And how many wrestling fans are just downloading or streaming the show now, as opposed to the old days?

[Haze]

Ratings are not the only thing that determine the success/failure of the WWE. Before Nitro went head to head with Raw, the ratings didn't have as much weight as we give them today. As long as they maintain high attendance for events, sell pay-per views,and move the amount of merch they have been moving...they are a long way away from dying off.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Just throwing this out there. The ratings were once consistently twice as high as they are now. Let's not confuse having steady ratings with "They're set and have no reason to change anything." Being successful is not a cut and dry thing. They could drop a full rating point over night and still be one of the highest rated shows on cable. I'd still say they need to try to improve things.

Those "consistently high ratings" were very short in the overall scheme of things and did not reflect double the number of viewers, because there is no direct correlation between 1 point and a set number of viewers.

incidentally, they could drop a full ratings point and still be one of the "highest rated shows on cable" only if you cast a wide net on what is "high." After the top ten, there's a pretty big pile of shows.

And they are kind of set. They're top ten television, they draw huge amounts of cash, they are the most financially secure they've ever been, so....While technically, it's not as high as it could be, and ratings aren't the sole definition, they are an unmitigated success. Why do they need to try and improve things, again? Because you don't like the programming, or because you've decided ratings are more important than you just indicated, or...?

I mean, ratings aren't a cut and dry thing, right? They don't necessarily indicate success, right? So what does? Well, money says they're a success. And since that's the biggest factor in terms of things, shouldn't they be considered a success?

[Big Vic]

Children by more of their merchandise

[#1-wwf-fan]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Those "consistently high ratings" were very short in the overall scheme of things and did not reflect double the number of viewers, because there is no direct correlation between 1 point and a set number of viewers. incidentally, they could drop a full ratings point and still be one of the "highest rated shows on cable" only if you cast a wide net on what is "high." After the top ten, there's a pretty big pile of shows. And they are kind of set. They're top ten television, they draw huge amounts of cash, they are the most financially secure they've ever been, so....While technically, it's not as high as it could be, and ratings aren't the sole definition, they are an unmitigated success. Why do they need to try and improve things, again? Because you don't like the programming, or because you've decided ratings are more important than you just indicated, or...? I mean, ratings aren't a cut and dry thing, right? They don't necessarily indicate success, right? So what does? Well, money says they're a success. And since that's the biggest factor in terms of things, shouldn't they be considered a success?

Because they're a fucking company and success is not cut and dry. They wanna be a mainstream juggernaut. You just admitted they technically aren't as high as they could be and asked why they need to try to improve things in the same paragraph. Think about that. Why would a company stop trying to improve?



Stuff like this for a more clear example happening multiple times at TV tapings over the past year does not equal success. It's an area that needs improvement. These are Smackdown tapings. Apparently guys like Sheamus, Cody Rhodes, Alberto Del Rio, etc. aren't drawing huge crowds believe it or not. The Rock can't show up every night. Neither can Cena. The lack of guys who can actually draw is an issue. To the point where they had to bring in part timers from the past who are WAY more over than everyone else to raise interest.

Businesses don't just check the numbers, see they're in the red and ignore issues. The funny thing is, WWE probably realizes this and has been doing things to improve even though you seem to think they're set. They were a success before The Rock came back. They were a success before bringing Lesnar back. These weren't typical run of the mill decisions that went with the typical every day flow of keeping stagnant. These were attempts to IMPROVE ratings. To IMPROVE buy rates because the guys on the roster right now COULDN'T DRAW LIKE GUYS IN THE PAST COULD because of a failure by the company to make new stars like it had done in the past. So they brought back one of the biggest draws of all time and a guy who left and became one of the biggest draws in UFC.

They are not "set". That's ridiculous.

[DLVH84]

To be honest, in the short-term, yes, but long-term, I really don't think so.

[abec]

The original argument/concern is moot, Hulk Hogan was the same way and look how that indeed up.

[#1-wwf-fan]

The original argument is definitely moot. Like I said, the only thing PG does is makes it easier to attract a crowd without having to be all that creative. It doesn't hold back the company from making a compelling product. It just makes it easier because kids are dumb. They could still attract an adult crowd as well.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan You just admitted they technically aren't as high as they could be and asked why they need to try to improve things in the same paragraph. Think about that.

Not much to think about. I uttered one facetiously and the other in a specific context. They're not contradictory at all; I pointed out the fact that ratings aren't exactly a marker of success, that WWE was making money hand over fist.

Stuff like this for a more clear example happening multiple times at TV tapings over the past year does not equal success.

Attendences are pretty much the same according to financial reports. I suppose you also think ratings just became as low as they are in the last year, too.

[Raven Reaper]

Smackdown taping photos like that are just O______O. I wonder if they put CGI crowds into the tapings so that we think it's a full house taping.. Hmmm..

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Raven Reaper Smackdown taping photos like that are just O______O. I wonder if they put CGI crowds into the tapings so that we think it's a full house taping.. Hmmm..

Don't they typically face only one side? It's been common practice for years to fill seats on the "camera" side of televised events.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by abec The original argument/concern is moot, Hulk Hogan was the same way and look how that indeed up.

indeed

[Kane Knight]

'Course, Hogan wasn't exactly known as a team player, while Cena is.

Could kinda be a key difference down the line, when Cena is reaching the analogous time period where Hogan was overstaying his welcome.

[Kane Knight]

The other issue there is that Hogan's status was one of the things that inevitably led to the Attitude Era, the oft-fellated deal where rasslin' became more "mature." It was forced to grow up with its audience. Of course, I could be addressing the wrong audience here.

[Damndirty]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Not much to think about. I uttered one facetiously and the other in a specific context. They're not contradictory at all; I pointed out the fact that ratings aren't exactly a marker of success, that WWE was making money hand over fist. Attendences are pretty much the same according to financial reports. I suppose you also think ratings just became as low as they are in the last year, too.

So you're saying that it means nothing for there to be a WWE wrestling television show? And people are feeding the company only after seeing the program on the internet or seeing it live to entice them to buy merchandise all these years? Or maybe the movies they put out, that too, right?

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Damndirty So you're saying that it means nothing for there to be a WWE wrestling television show?

Mmmm...False dichotomy.

[dronepool]

Children should go to sleep by 9/10pm so, no.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by dronepool Children should go to sleep by 9/10pm so, no.

Psssh. Your notions are ridiculous. Parents aren't there to control kids, they are there to be walking wallets for their children. So who's going to enforce such a bedtime? The government?

[Kane Knight]

Anyway, I think the important thing here is that I am dissatisfied with wrestling right now, and therefore WWE is unsuccessful.

[Damndirty]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight Anyway, I think the important thing here is that I am dissatisfied with wrestling right now, and therefore WWE is unsuccessful.

I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CALL MYSELF STUPID, ASSGOBLIN!!!!

[Kane Knight]

I'M THE ONLY ONE WHO CAN CALL MYSELF ASSGOBLIN, TWATTYFACE!

[Rhaps]

It's been mentioned here already, but many people who came into wrestling in the late '90s don't always seem to realise that WWF/E has been 'PG' or 'Child friendly' for a lot longer than the Attitude Era, was for all intents and purposes was but a brief period of time compared to the overall longevity of McMahonland.

Sure the Attitude Era was the most successful period in the company's history than the dizzying heights of Hulkamania (if not more so??), but as has already been mentioned more than a few times here, the majority of folks who tuned in back then were fairweather fans who cared as much about T&A (not the tag team) and seeing Austin flip the bird on TV than they did about watching a 5* classic wrestling match.

Once the 'E stopped delivering the tits, the fans went away, and those folks who got into wrestling back in the days of Hulkamania, or even when Bret/Yoko were holding the title kept on keeping on in terms of supporting the product.

YES, it all nearly went tits up with the kid-friendly product before, but WWF almost going out of business back then had as much to do with McMahon's steriod trial and other external factors than it did the company targeting the younger demographic.

Today, rating's may be down yes, but I'm willing to bet ratings across pretty much every genre of television aren't what they were back in the 'late 90s. We didn't have Facebook or Netflix of Xbox or any of the multitude of things that can occupy the time we'd otherwise just spend on watching TV.

Barring some major disaster, WWE is always going to be fine.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Rhaps Today, rating's may be down yes, but I'm willing to bet ratings across pretty much every genre of television aren't what they were back in the 'late 90s.

Aaaaaand you'd be wrong.

[Kane Knight]

Maybe in five or ten years, ratings will have declined across the board in a way similar to wrestling, but there's still a huge demand for broadcast TV especially.

[Joesgonnakillyou]

I can't be bothered to read all of this thread because it's stupid, but I'm bored and if no one has answered to topic question here's the actual answer.

Yes, Here's why:

WWE is a business and on TV
Business's want to make money
On TV, Business's make money through advertising
Advertiser's like to appeal to as many people as possible
Advertisier's like to appeal to children because they are dumb and impressionable.

Now can you think of a way to make a TV show reach to as many people and children in particular?

Hint: it has two letters and you've been bitching about it for the last 5 years.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by Joesgonnakillyou I can't be bothered to read all of this thread because it's stupid, but I'm bored and if no one has answered to topic question here's the actual answer. Yes, Here's why: WWE is a business and on TV Business's want to make money On TV, Business's make money through advertising Advertiser's like to appeal to as many people as possible Advertisier's like to appeal to children because they are dumb and impressionable. Now can you think of a way to make a TV show reach to as many people and children in particular? Hint: it has two letters and you've been bitching about it for the last 5 years.

There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful.

It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.

[Joesgonnakillyou]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful. It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.

Fair point, it is specific to WWE because it's not that successful.

Although kids buy more toys and other merch

[DAMN iNATOR]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight There's a bit of a flaw there in that PG is not the only way to reach people. You know how you can tell this? Turn on the TV. Like, there's a ton of successful programming that's not PG. Some of it even gets better ratings and is more financially successful. It may be a necessity specifically for WWE, but not because of flawed logic.

C'mon...we all know there's only one reason WWE programming is still stuck at the PG level after all these years...although I can't possibly think what that would be...


















































Oh...right. Linda's still trying to become a U.S. Senator.

[Kane Knight]

Yay conspiracy theories!