Raw rating lowest since July 2012

[Damian Rey]

Really enjoyed (the hulu cut of) Raw. A wresting heavy show about wrestling was actually good. Now that Reigns has been pushed back into the main event, I'm hoping the Survivor Series screw job of Seth Rollins, with Reigns taking his place as hand picked face of the company goes in to motion.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by Big Vic Still waiting for you to catch me in this "lie"

Originally Posted by The CyNick What was your favorite match at Hell in a Cell?

Originally Posted by Big Vic lol i didn't watch.

DAMN! Back to the ol' drawing board.

[The CyNick]

I never claimed to be a sleuth

[Emperor Smeat]

Raw Viewership for 10/26 8pm: 3.635 9pm: 3.213 10pm: 3.214 Avg: 3.354

Down a bit compared to last week and 2nd month in a row no post-ppv bump. Only good news was 8pm being a bit stronger than last week and 10pm making up for 9pm being down.

[The CyNick]

Network subs up 62% YoY

The sky is falling!!!!

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Network subs up 62% YoY The sky is falling!!!!

Proving what exactly?

That people want to watch WWE PPVs for $10/month instead of the former substantially higher rates but care less and less about RAW? Shocker. People want to pay less for something they used to have to pay more for. Even more so if they feel that the quality has declined. Also, if so, that's not good for TV licensing or TV sponsorship revenues for WWE.

Or maybe that people want to watch former WWE, WCW or ECW shows when the quality of the product was superior?

Also, are these subscription increases primarily the result of the Network availability expanding into new markets or an increase in internet access? If so, that would no doubt likely result in higher year to year growth until most markets are reached.

The point is, without specifics, Network subscriber growth alone isn't proof of anything. It certainly doesn't disprove the theory that WWE has for years had horrible quality booking and writing and that it's resulting in RAW's ratings dropping.

[Big Vic]

Network subs have nothing to do with the Raw rating. Raw isn't shown live on the network.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I've thought for a while that maybe the answer isn't dropping the whole first hour, but maybe a half-hour. Still would give them plenty of time each week to build stars and storylines who are actually being used, while reserving Main Event and Superstars for the low and mid-card guys who would otherwise not get much if any TV time.

I honestly wish the brands were still split, because SD! just can't get outcof RAW's shadow, and no matter how great it is or how terrible, it always just sort of feels like a clone of RAW which is a waste of 2 hours every Thursday night, and that's a shame.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I'd keep one World title, with the champ able to compete on both shows, put the IC title on SD!, US on RAW, let the Tag champs compete on both shows, bring back the Women's title and bring it back to RAW and put the Divas belt on SD! and split the women's division between shows and if necessary create a Women's tag division and belt and the Women's tag champs would be eligible to compete on both shows.

[Big Vic]

Both shows would benefit being cut by 1 hour IMO.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ Proving what exactly? That people want to watch WWE PPVs for $10/month instead of the former substantially higher rates but care less and less about RAW? Shocker. People want to pay less for something they used to have to pay more for. Even more so if they feel that the quality has declined. Also, if so, that's not good for TV licensing or TV sponsorship revenues for WWE. Or maybe that people want to watch former WWE, WCW or ECW shows when the quality of the product was superior? Also, are these subscription increases primarily the result of the Network availability expanding into new markets or an increase in internet access? If so, that would no doubt likely result in higher year to year growth until most markets are reached. The point is, without specifics, Network subscriber growth alone isn't proof of anything. It certainly doesn't disprove the theory that WWE has for years had horrible quality booking and writing and that it's resulting in RAW's ratings dropping.

It shows the health of the business, which has been my over arcing point in this thread.

2013 revenues - $508M
2014 revenues - $543M
2015 revenues - $492M (with a quarter to go)

Yes ratings are down a bit, but it shows how small drops in ratings means very little to the overall picture, which is quite rosy at the moment.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR I've thought for a while that maybe the answer isn't dropping the whole first hour, but maybe a half-hour. Still would give them plenty of time each week to build stars and storylines who are actually being used, while reserving Main Event and Superstars for the low and mid-card guys who would otherwise not get much if any TV time. I honestly wish the brands were still split, because SD! just can't get outcof RAW's shadow, and no matter how great it is or how terrible, it always just sort of feels like a clone of RAW which is a waste of 2 hours every Thursday night, and that's a shame.

Wouldn't make any sense

You would have to increase the rating enough in the remaining two hours to justify USA increasing TV rights fees to cover the loss of the rights fees of the third hour. I don't think the math works.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR I'd keep one World title, with the champ able to compete on both shows, put the IC title on SD!, US on RAW, let the Tag champs compete on both shows, bring back the Women's title and bring it back to RAW and put the Divas belt on SD! and split the women's division between shows and if necessary create a Women's tag division and belt and the Women's tag champs would be eligible to compete on both shows.

This idea doesn't work in practice.

One brand has to be the A brand for touring purposes (hit the A towns). If a guy gets over huge on the B show, he gets moved over to A show. So then what's the point of the split? You basically create a feeder system.

You also reduce the number of fight combinations on each show. There's only so many guys who should be on TV. If you split those guys by two, now you have fewer combinations of fights. You also are forced to put more guys on TV before they are ready.

I would rather have fewer guys booked on both shows each week. But even that is tough, because the network will want all the stars on each show to drive ratings.

[DAMN iNATOR]

LOL, well the show needs some sort of reduction in length. Run it from 8-10PM Mondays, and if the writing and in-ring action would actually improve enough, they may start drawing better numbers...I'm not saying they'll ever get back to 4.0+ rating territory, but maybe they'd be able to bring in between 3.7-3.9ish. CLEARLY 3 hours was a bad move from the start. Vince took something that wasn't broken, length-wise, tried to fix it, and now years later, go figure, IT'S BROKEN.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by DAMN iNATOR LOL, well the show needs some sort of reduction in length. Run it from 8-10PM Mondays, and if the writing and in-ring action would actually improve enough, they may start drawing better numbers...I'm not saying they'll ever get back to 4.0+ rating territory, but maybe they'd be able to bring in between 3.7-3.9ish. CLEARLY 3 hours was a bad move from the start. Vince took something that wasn't broken, length-wise, tried to fix it, and now years later, go figure, IT'S BROKEN.

Its been a huge win money wise.

[Big Vic]

Originally Posted by The CyNick It shows the health of the business, which has been my over arcing point in this thread. 2013 revenues - $508M 2014 revenues - $543M 2015 revenues - $492M (with a quarter to go) Yes ratings are down a bit, but it shows how small drops in ratings means very little to the overall picture, which is quite rosy at the moment.

Originally Posted by Smelly Meatball WWE released the updated Network numbers and it looks like it might never do any better than just break even for the WWE. 1.2 million overall so far but had a huge drop during the summer. They need to average around 1.2-1.4 million to be at break even, 2 million to make some really good money, and 3-4 million gives them huge financial security.

womp womp

[The CyNick]

Sorry in your brain, what does that show exactly?

My guess is you didn't look at all of their financial statements. On track for over $600M in revenues. But I'm sure you think that's a negative.

[Big Vic]

It sounds like they are not quite breaking even.

Can you please show me their financial statements?

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Big Vic It sounds like they are not quite breaking even. Can you please show me their financial statements?

Where are you getting that from?

Look at the front page.

[The CyNick]

Ironically based on the title of this thread they are on pace for their best year bottom line wise since 2012.

[Big Vic]

That doesn't change the fact that the ratings are low. They made a good profit this year but not because of eyeballs on the screen.

One of the big reason for their profits was due to their reality shows.

[The CyNick]

There are a lot of factors.

But the bottom line is it doesnt matter when the overall business has never been healthier.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I'd laugh if Vince shut down RAW at the end of its contract, and just started producing reality television full-time. Wait, no I wouldn't...

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think the best thing for the WWE Network is that it still hasn't launched in some major markets.

I don't think anyone was arguing about overall revenue intake other than CyNick. I'm fairly certain this was about less people watching RAW and whether or not that was connected to a lifeless and unambitious product.

How do WWE's expenses come out next to this revenue? What are their actual profits like? And why did their stock drop today?

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by Noid I think the best thing for the WWE Network is that it still hasn't launched in some major markets. I don't think anyone was arguing about overall revenue intake other than CyNick. I'm fairly certain this was about less people watching RAW and whether or not that was connected to a lifeless and unambitious product. How do WWE's expenses come out next to this revenue? What are their actual profits like? And why did their stock drop today?

This.

CyNick just takes irrelevant news like an increase in Network subscriber numbers and uses that to leap to the conclusion that the ratings don't matter because the network numbers increased and so the product isn't bad and shouldn't be criticized.

He completely ignores the fact that revenues and subscriber numbers may be up but doesn't mention what WWE's expenses are, nor the fact that subscriber numbers fell almost 10% this summer after Mania.

Nevermind the fact that WWE also wasn't able to get the TV rights deals for RAW and Smackdown that they were expecting. Last year they were expecting and promising investors at least a 100% increase in TV rights fees with NBC Universal and only managed to get a 70% increase after NBC Universal initially rejected WWE's original offer.

In addition, he doesn't address the fact that with the release of the earnings report, etc., WWE's stock fell over 12% today and has been somewhat consistently pretty low over the past 5 years with the exception of a few spikes, the greatest being the spike for the launch of the network.

Investors don't like a poor primary product, especially during a period of transition in business models. For a company that can't maintain or increase the quality of its primary product and are losing regular viewers, how is it going to successfuly handle a transition in business model?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I still think the WWE left a lot of money on the table by having all their PPVs included under the initial Network umbrella. I understand them taking it in-house, but a PPV is worth more than $9.99. EVOLVE charges more for its PPVs. They needed some original programming for the Network, and the PPVs probably got a larger instant sign-up, but it feels now like there is no going back.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Apparently $10.4 million was the profit margin for this quarter. They just spent 10% of that on Alberto Del Rio.

[Evil Vito]

Originally Posted by Noid I still think the WWE left a lot of money on the table by having all their PPVs included under the initial Network umbrella. I understand them taking it in-house, but a PPV is worth more than $9.99. EVOLVE charges more for its PPVs. They needed some original programming for the Network, and the PPVs probably got a larger instant sign-up, but it feels now like there is no going back.

They certainly can't go back. You start charging more for PPVs and people will be pissed off.

I've thought maybe they could explore doing something with charging more for people who sign up in March (to take advantage of the one-month sign ups just for Mania) but people would see right through that too.

[The CyNick]

Ugh

First, I don't recall saying TV ratings don't matter at all. What I have been saying is that the ratings are not the be all and end all for the business. Ratings are down across many forms of entertainment. USAs overall numbers are falling faster than WWEs. As I've tried to help you guys understand, the landscape of media and entertainment had changed. WWE has invested time and money into the digital side of things, which has been extremely successful to date. It may have come at the expense of some TV viewers, but that's just how the younger generation consumes entertainment these days. You evolve or you perish. But when the TV universe is shrinking by the day, you can still increase your rights fees (70% increase is amazing) and have ratings decline. Let's see what the next TV deal brings them. I bet it will be another massive increase.

Second, the network play was designed to increase revenues and eventually overall profits. You can't set up something like The Network and pay $0 in expenses. This isn't some Mom and Pop operation. In my opinion Wrestlemania specifically had to be included in order to make The Network appeal to more people. If any of you guys knew how to read a financial document you would look at revenues generated for past Manias and notice that WWE is now generating those revenues in each quarter. I don't believe you get much more than 100k subs if the events formerly known as PPVs were not included in the deal.

Third, if you look at OIBDA they will finish up with one of their better years and next year could be their best ever. So if you guys and dopey dirt sheet writers who are still stuck in 1998 living off weekly cable ratings think that's a bad year, hey man you do you.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Vito Cruz They certainly can't go back. You start charging more for PPVs and people will be pissed off. I've thought maybe they could explore doing something with charging more for people who sign up in March (to take advantage of the one-month sign ups just for Mania) but people would see right through that too.

Its much harder to promote that way. It's no different than Netflix. You might be a fan of House of Cards. In theory you could wait for the new season of HOC, binge watch and cancel your sub. Netflix is fine with that because they assume you will sample other stuff and stick around. Some people will just sign up for one month in the year, but in the end those people are the minority.

Same for WWE. They have to be able to continue to provide unique content that makes the vast majority of users want to stick around. But you will always have a group of people who now just pay $10 for Mania and leave. That's why there should always be a post Mania dip in subs. But overall Mania draws in a wider audience, and x percent of those people will stick around and pay $10 for 12 months.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid Apparently $10.4 million was the profit margin for this quarter. They just spent 10% of that on Alberto Del Rio.

In Noid's company salaries come out of profits.

Didn't get on the honour roll at your business school I see.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Noid I still think the WWE left a lot of money on the table by having all their PPVs included under the initial Network umbrella. I understand them taking it in-house, but a PPV is worth more than $9.99. EVOLVE charges more for its PPVs. They needed some original programming for the Network, and the PPVs probably got a larger instant sign-up, but it feels now like there is no going back.

The average WWE PPV was struggling when they decided on The Network. I personally believe sports entertainment PPVs was a dying business. It's tough to get fans to pay $60 a month to see a similar product as you see for free on TV every week. $10? Now that's a different story. On top of that from a revenue standpoint WWE wasn't even seeing half of that $60. So they are charging their fans more than $30 per month to make another company rich. To me it was a simple decision, and the numbers are starting to demonstrate how good of an idea it was.

The key will be gaining traction is some of these new markets in Asia. If they can be successful there, there will be absolutely no doubt this was a home run idea.

[Mercenary]

Man I miss the 80's When it was just fun watching it, and not over analyzing every little detail

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by Mercenary Man I miss the 80's When it was just fun watching it, and not over analyzing every little detail

I agree. I got pulled into the swamp with the negative world order.

I prefer to just discuss the on screen product. But I'm also a business geek.

[broverboard]

I guess the question I have based on what I've read in this thread would be, is Vince a great businessman (he absolutely is) and does his ability as a businessman impact profit more than the quality of the product. The answer I'd hope we all agree is yes.

To suggest there are few issues with the product because profits are good is naive. Personally I no longer record Raw and I've cancelled my network subscription but catch highlights on wwe.com and YouTube because I don't enjoy the product as much anymore. There is no way to measure the people that consume content the same way as me, so it's a pointless conversation.

The simple facts are the business is healthy but the product can (and should) improve. The rapid growth of NXT is testemant to what can be achieved in a short space of time when production is good.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by broverboard I guess the question I have based on what I've read in this thread would be, is Vince a great businessman (he absolutely is) and does his ability as a businessman impact profit more than the quality of the product. The answer I'd hope we all agree is yes. To suggest there are few issues with the product because profits are good is naive. Personally I no longer record Raw and I've cancelled my network subscription but catch highlights on wwe.com and YouTube because I don't enjoy the product as much anymore. There is no way to measure the people that consume content the same way as me, so it's a pointless conversation. The simple facts are the business is healthy but the product can (and should) improve. The rapid growth of NXT is testemant to what can be achieved in a short space of time when production is good.

NXT to me proves another point. It proves that the same people who have authority on calling shots for the main roster can create a wrestling show that appeals to the IWC. The problem is RAW is meant to and needs to appeal to more than just a small percentage of total wrestling fans. People here dont grasp that difference and think everything should just appeal to them.

[broverboard]

Originally Posted by The CyNick NXT to me proves another point. It proves that the same people who have authority on calling shots for the main roster can create a wrestling show that appeals to the IWC. The problem is RAW is meant to and needs to appeal to more than just a small percentage of total wrestling fans. People here dont grasp that difference and think everything should just appeal to them.

I think that people here do grasp that, and I don't think it's fair to suggest otherwise. Granted I've not been here long and I can only go by what I've read in recent discussions.

You are absolutely right when you said "The problem is RAW is meant to and needs to appeal to more than just a small percentage of total wrestling fans" and likewise, RAW needs to appeal to more than a group of kids and that is the point it seems people are trying to get across. I get the impression there is a lack of identity behind the show. Either you make the show a kids show and change the time it's broadcast (and the products that you're sponsored by) or accept the show is aired at a time when most kids are in bed so your audience is predominantely older and cater for them. A balance needs to be found and I think people will continue to switch off until someone works out what that balance looks like.

[The CyNick]

See this is where I think there is a disconnect. I don't think the product today is all that different than the product from the heyday. The main difference is you don't see angles with Asian men trying to cut off a man's penis.

The product is still wildly successful on TV. Most weeks its the second most watched show on cable on Monday nights. You don't draw that number by just appealing to 10 year olds. Especially when your show runs till 11PM at night. And they continue to draw good numbers from the key demo.

The fallacy of this thread is that the product is bad. Yes there has been a ratings dip. But it's not isolated to WWE. All forms of entertainment have felt it, and will confine to as viewing habits shift away from traditional TV. The great thing for WWE is they have a track record of maintaining viewers and with TV audiences shrinking, companies like USA will see properties like WWE even more valuable. And even if the TV business collapses, and everything shifts to a Netflix type model, WWE is well on their way to having a strong foothold there.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Originally Posted by The CyNick In Noid's company salaries come out of profits. Didn't get on the honour roll at your business school I see.

10% of $10.4 million is $1.04 million. Del Rio is getting paid $1.45. That's actually more than 10%. My bad.

[Mr. Nerfect]

broverboard has got a great future.