Lets talk about WWE making decisions based upon ratings, Merry Christmas TPWW [Archive]

Taker it Easy

12-25-2011, 08:27 AM

Ok. So speculations exist that WWE will be talking the belt off of Punk due to low ratings during his segments. Are they really that starved for an extra dollar?

Well, I do not like WWE basing what seems like a majority of their decisions, long terms or short, upon ratings. I think this may have been discussed previously but hell, lets do it again.

I understand they want to follow where the money is but it really seems similar to a steroid analogy. It gives them a short term performance boost yet in the long run it is not healthy.

Sometimes I don't see how they expect their champions to 'get over' into the area that they want them to be in if they keep removing the belt after a few weeks. We need long term champions.

We need growing franchises that have the companies support. WWE seems afraid to put more than one egg in their basket. They no longer seem to let the wrestlers work and rather seem to bypass the wrestler and become the wrestler their self. It seems if there can be nobody to out grow WWE's shadow.

There is a lot of confusion out there as to who the champion of the company is. We all know Cena is their whore horse but he also is not their Steve Austin and there seems to be no indication at the moment that he is heading into that direction.

Love him or hate him, I want a long term champion. Months to a year. Give Punk the belt for a year or more, please.

You may remove the belt from your, arguably, most charismatic, most talented in ring worker and most talented superstar on the mic because of the numbers during his moments. C'mon. We all know how Viet-fucking-nam turned out and it was booked by the fucking numbers. Get with it WWE. It is about irrational feelings and intuitions not a freudian rational numbers approach.

Merry Christmas and Taker it Easy

SlickyTrickyDamon

12-25-2011, 09:34 AM

They never even gave Cena a full year as champion in one full reign and he's the "face of the WWE." I doubt Punk will get that. Though I agree that he deserves time to get an audience as champion as an attempt to get some of the people who stopped watching to come back. He won't get a year but he deserves more than having his championship hanging on week by week or month by month decisions.

On the other side of the coin having to prove himself is nothing new to him and actually made the Miz better in the long run for his lengthy title reign. There was always news about The Miz's title reign was going to be short, but none of those plans panned out because he did so well as champion. I don't think CM Punk could fail where The Miz succeeded.

Kane Knight

12-25-2011, 01:35 PM

Uhhh....

The Attitude Era was also a time of the pursuit of the almighty dollar. Is following ratings trends really new for a bunch of carnies trying to sell tickets and merch?

Not really.

Is it a bad thing? No, nor is it really a good thing. It's a "keep us on TV" thing.

It's also really not a steroid analogue, since it's been of longterm benefit in the past.

The IWC has been more focused on ratings than ever, it seems, and a lot of it seems to boil down to "ratings are wrong when I don't like what they say, but ratings justify me when I do like what they say."

Ratings are a nice little business tool, but like most tools they are not inherently good or bad. And actually, taking the belt off a guy who doesn't draw really isn't a bad thing, either. I'm sorry, I get that Punk is beloved, but if his ratings really are bad (LOL after some of the thumping around here, but I digress), then maybe a product where you are trying to appeal to television audiences might want to change things.

Unless you want a Cena situation. I mean, assuming Punk still moves merch they can go that route with him. Is that what you really want, though?

SlickyTrickyDamon

12-25-2011, 02:38 PM

Aguakate

12-25-2011, 04:12 PM

Anybody Thrilla

12-25-2011, 05:22 PM

He is the holder of the most prestigious title in the company...for the second time. I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on how he is being held back.

Aguakate

12-25-2011, 05:34 PM

Watch the RAW Supershow every Monday night at 9PM on USA.

Anybody Thrilla

12-25-2011, 05:43 PM

I do. That's not elaborating at all.

Kane Knight

12-25-2011, 06:25 PM

His ratings? I don't get the "champion is responsible for the ratings" idea anymore. The roster is stacked full of superstars. John Cena is on the show just as much as he ever was except for having the PPV off. Somebody explain it to me please.

If you go back to the first post, you can see reference to "ratings during his segments."

His.

CM Punk's.

Not the show's ratings.

Nielsen ratings can get pretty detailed, down to at least quarter hours. I think they even do realtime charts now, but I'm no longer "in" that part of the system.

You can effectively narrow down what works and what doesn't in a show, though for QHs to work, you probably want at least an hour long show. Otherwise, you're looking at literally half the program, which doesn't narrow it down much. Wrestling segments work along this formula, and it's fairly easy over time to narrow down the problem.

Interesting note, Triple H for the longest time tanked his segments.

Anyway, when they say CM Punk's up next and everyone goes to the bathroom, it's a sign. If ratings are similar, for example, but one guy's are going down constantly, it's a pretty specific sign.

He is the holder of the most prestigious title in the company...for the second time. I'm going to have to ask you to elaborate on how he is being held back.

Because, to quote Nash, "People are made of stupid."

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-25-2011, 06:25 PM

I've said it before, and I'll say it again...WWE should've kept Punk exactly as he was when he cut "The Promo" a couple months back...heel, or as a "tweener" at the very least.

But no, they saw that fans were cheering for him, and they made him a "full-blown" face within a matter of weeks.

That damaged what he had managed to accomplish, in exciting existing fans, and even bringing back some fans who had stopped watching.

Also, like I've said, and some have disagreed, I really think there's someone in WWE who either doesn't believe in Punk, or just doesn't like him, because they've held him back. They HAVE held him back.

Shut up you stupid bastard. Held back? He is essentially the new JOHN CENA. But they still have done an excellent job at keeping him NOT GAY LIKE JOHN CENA.

He is exactly the same but a face. You are a stupid smark with no understanding of how the wrestling business works if you expected him to be the same as he was when he cut that pipebomb promo. It would fail. It would get boring. Actually it WAS getting boring during the Triple H mini feud he had going in September. If Punk is trashing the company non stop EVEN when things are going exactly the way he wants then the fans, especially the casuals will turn on such a stupid character. Myself included. CM Punk's character is about bringing change to the WWE and he has done exactly that. He is not a pussy. He does not suck up. He still talks shit. He is over. He is WWE Champion. He has surpassed Orton and become the #2 full time star in the WWE. How is he held back?

MrMyc

12-25-2011, 06:39 PM

Anybody Thrilla

12-25-2011, 07:18 PM

The year long run as champ might be interesting. They have done that with Cena. When he beat JBL for the belt and still had it at the following wrestlmania to defend against triple H. In fact he became so credible, that that match was one of the last times i really couldn't tell who was going to win.

I remember the period where people were BEGGING for Cena to lose, but he just kept winning. It was all pretty awesome in retrospect, and the way RVD finally beat him SHOULD have put RVD on that permanent next level...but then we all know what happened after that.

I love long title reigns.

Taker it Easy

12-25-2011, 11:06 PM

What was happening in the 1970's and during the 1980's? There were no TV shows. so no rating, to make booking decision based upon?

Those two decades may be considered some of the best years of wrestling. Certainly classic years. They must have booked based upon what sells a show, what puts people into the seats. Now it may be more closer to what puts people onto the channel?

Make me want to be at the arena and I will watch.

ace3025

12-26-2011, 12:06 AM

ll of the buzz that made punk take off this summer, was killed with the clusterfuck of Nash/HHH. He still got the title, but who cares? When Austin got the title against corporate liking in the storyline, he had vince mcmahon to play against. Punk has johnny ace, otunga. Something big needed to happen during the HHH/Punk feud and it didn't. Things just got more and more confusingly worse.

Punk is a great worker and is capable of being the guy to bring excitement back to wrestling, but the way they handled it all squashed it, for now.

Gertner

12-26-2011, 01:56 AM

You mean appealing to the IWC didn't raise ratings? Well colour me surprised. This is what happens when you give a bunch of bush league indy fucks power.

Juan

12-26-2011, 03:06 AM

I'm sure Daniel Bryan has tons of power :lol:

Theo Dious

12-26-2011, 03:32 AM

Those two decades may be considered some of the best years of wrestling. Certainly classic years. They must have booked based upon what sells a show, what puts people into the seats. Now it may be more closer to what puts people onto the channel?

Brief lesson for you.
In the 70s and 80s television was not much of a presence, and even when it became one it was far less than it is today. Now, what determines what television shows stay on TV? Advertising. And what is the measuring stick when it comes to advertising? Viewership. Comparing the standards of success of today with that of 25-30 years ago is asinine.

Mr. Nerfect

12-26-2011, 05:20 AM

The thing is, the status quo of John Cena and Randy Orton holding the World Titles also led to ratings and PPV decreases. No matter what people say, CM Punk did create an initial spark -- it just wasn't capitlised on as well as it could have been. Punk was turned into a permanent "WWE-style" main eventer, which is good for him, but tried to siphon all his heat into entities such as Triple H and Kevin Nash.

Taking the WWE Title off Punk would be a mistake, in my opinion -- because it just stunts any future potential Punk has as a main eventer. The kiddies need to be conditioned to have as much faith in Punk as they do John Cena if he is going to be considered "as successful" to the same audience. A year is far too long, in my opinion -- but a reign extending past WrestleMania would be fine booking, in my opinion.

Majunior

12-26-2011, 08:20 AM

I'm agreeing with Noid for the most part, as he pretty much said what I was thinking.

I do think we should get the occasional year+ title reign though, and not just on the two "main" titles. Treating the strap like a game of hot potato doesn't build credible stars. When the same 4 guys trade the belt between each other every third week, no one takes any of them seriously. Building one guy up by letting him beat all comers for 8, 9, 14 months means that when he DOES lose the belt, the person who beats him looks that much more credible in comparison.

I get ratings. I get how they're used, and why. That said, I don't think decisions should be quite so knee-jerk. I at least think that when a negative ratings trend forms, there should be some evaluation of what isn't working about it. You could have the right superstar with the belt, but the issue could be who they're working a program with, or a number of issues.

And honestly, I'm not so sure the McMahons are inclined to look at their own ideas for booking and accept the fact that maybe -- just maybe -- this idea of theirs is getting low numbers because it's a shitty idea, and it's NOT the fault of the performer.

EDIT :: It also occurred to me, if they're going to move the titles around more, we should go back to having title changes on the weekly shows and once in a blue moon at house shows again. As it is now, with titles only ever changing hands at PPVs, there's no real question. If someone gets a WWE title match or rematch on RAW, you know they're not winning the belt. At least add some uncertainty to the mix.

Iop

12-26-2011, 10:55 AM

of course wwe makes decision based on ratings!

Thats like saying, "OMG WHY DOES SONY MAKE DECISIONS BASED ON SALES! WHY DID THEY STOP MAKING GENERIC UNDERGROUND JAPANESE RICE SIMULATOR 64 JUST BECAUSE IT ONLY SOLD 2 COPIES?!!!"

Ratings=sales=money.

WWE goal = MONEY. NOT YOUR ENTERTAINMENT!

Kane Knight

12-26-2011, 01:31 PM

What was happening in the 1970's and during the 1980's?

You know, many of us were alive in the eighties. We actually remember wrestling programming from back in the day. Please don't pretend otherwise. Maybe you're fifteen and watched a couple of Youtube videos of old matches and figured they were taped solely for posterity. I don't know.

But COME ON.

Regardless, the business has changed. The business actually changed in the eighties, one of the two decades you put up as arguably the best decades in wrestling. The latter decade was practically defined by the shift to a heavily marketable identity, viewers drawn in by TV programming, and of course, Wrestlemania. The eighties were the transition point for the exact thing you're talking about.

And even if you want to ignore that, genie ain't going back in the bottle.

You mean appealing to the IWC didn't raise ratings?

Funnier since a lot of the people who were trying to hype this as a ratings boon now saying they want the company to keep appealing to the IWC. And, of course, fuck the ratings because they're not saying what I want them to.

Taker it Easy

12-26-2011, 03:56 PM

Kane Knight,

I know that the events were taped to air on local tv networks and the likes and even to sell via VHS. However the statement you said can make it sound like the events were taped for national TV which was not the case. The things aired on TV seemed little more than to activate the local region, to bring people to the arenas.

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 04:00 PM

The IWC smarknazis got owned. Plain and simple. They've been saying the ratings are down for years because WWE isn't pushing guys like Punk, Bryan, Ziggler and Ryder and now that they are the ratings are lower than ever. The ROH losers drew their cafeteria crowds across the nation but that is it :rofl:

Taker it Easy

12-26-2011, 04:04 PM

The argument here is that a good or great wrestling program brings in ratings.

A good or great wrestling program brings in more wrestling fans which creates higher ratings.

Creating powerful and stationary champions aids a good or great wrestling program.

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 04:05 PM

I agree with that. But guys like Bryan means shitty programming and that means shitty ratings

Taker it Easy

12-26-2011, 04:17 PM

Lets not forget that WWE is putting out low quality product via segments that start off the show, feature no wrestling and possibly offer little or no direction in terms of advancing story line (ala Jim Ross dancing or rapping).

Creative are also the ones that put fake award shows on a wrestling program and pair up a cliche, memetic and out of inspiration veteran with a midget.

They are also the ones that ignore the reality that they are a wrestling company / promotion.

How can one fault the IWC's icons within WWE for creating a bad product that does not drive in the rating in flocks and droves?

Daniel Bryan has been involved in some the most exciting angles since his arrival on the scene. Nexus and MITB can easily be considered exciting by the non IWC, both have been successful in terms of Bryan or in terms of creating iconic moments.

CM Punk has taken it to the next level and revitalized WWE within american culture, even if for just a moment as his characters muscle was neutered via WWE turning him face.

Dolph Ziggler has been arguably the most exciting heel this year, including 'whoever is currently fighting Cena'. Ziggler has done more for WWE than Del Rio did.

Woo Woo Woo has brought in tons of merch and revolutionized the wrestling business. This has all been done without the support of WWE creative.

With that said we can see that creative has not endeavored to instill a phenomenal show of quality. Heck, their big wad with the Rock did not even stick to the walls as of this writing. The iconic moments of this year were created mostly by fresh and young inspiration. That is what gets people talking and that is what gets people to watch your television show.

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 04:20 PM

Woo Woo Woo has brought in tons of merch and revolutionized the wrestling business.HOW THE FUCK HAS ZACK RYDER REVOLUTIONIZED WRESTLING?

CM Punk has taken it to the next level and revitalized WWE within american culture, even if for just a moment as his characters muscle was neutered via WWE turning him face.

HOW HAS CM PUNK TURNING FACE AND HIS CHARACTERS MUSCLE BEING NEUTERED (WTF?) REVITALIZED WRESTLING IN AMERICAN CULTURE?

Next Big Thing

12-26-2011, 04:22 PM

I think Punk's coming against the same problem Cena had, there's no credible or fresh opponents for him. The Punk versus Del Rio/Cena feuds are pretty much played out to me. They fucked up not turning HHH heel and having him be the "Mr. McMahon" foil to Punk with Nash as top lackey and some young guys like Ziggler and Swagger for Punk to go through culminating in a big match with Hunter. Instead, you got a cluster fuck.

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 04:27 PM

Pro Wrestling definitely peaked in 99-01 and is on its way down. It is slowly dying no doubt about it.

Nothing WWE does works. They appeal to the kids. Shit ratings. They appeal to smarks. Shit ratings. They bring back attitude era stars. Shit ratings. They write good storylines and have good shows (Punk storyline the whole conspiracy angle thing that made RAW "must see" for the first time in ever and they had a string of good PPVs).... shit ratings and PPV buys.

Taker it Easy

12-26-2011, 04:30 PM

Jordan

12-26-2011, 06:33 PM

R.I.P SEXUAL VANILLA

Jordan

12-26-2011, 06:35 PM

Taker It Easy puts the nail in the coffin once again.

Iop

12-26-2011, 07:30 PM

Here's a picture of Gene Snitsky,

http://cdn.remetee.com/pictures/gene-snitsky.jpg
Thanks!

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 08:30 PM

Ryder has revolutionized wrestling because he has shown how the internet can be used to create a superstar. He is the first to use the internet in a new way in terms of the wrestling business. So in years to come when future legends use the internet to get over all will recall that Zack Ryder first did it. That he saw potential in something that others did not see or use.

He will not be the first to gain success via this method so he has created a revolutionary method of getting over.

More peoples in american culture talked about WWE after Punks legendary pipe bomb than at any moment previous in terms of someone who is not on the Rock, Hogan or Austin level. People talked about WWE after that pipe bomb, like they talked about it when the Rock was slated for WM. Punk was not even cultural relevant like Austin, Hogan or Rock.

Yeah I guess you are right about Ryder opening up a new way to get over but its too bad such a talentless dweeb like that is the US champion.

You are wrong about Punk though. Yeah people talked about it but it was not any more than Bret coming back to the WWE, HBK retiring or Flair retiring. What do you mean within American culture? Do you just mean American wrestling fans? Because the WWE was not talked about that much more than it is normally. It definitely brought more intrigue into the product but to say that CM Punk revitalized WWE back into American culture is plain false and the ratings decreasing since then prove that. He sold some shirts and got some online articles written about him. lol that is nothing compared to wrestling being cool and half the kids in middle school owning an Austin, Rock, DX or NWO shirt.

Sadly the REAL most talked thing since the Attitude Era was the whole Benoit thing but that was for different reasons obviously.

SlickyTrickyDamon

12-26-2011, 08:33 PM

Here's a picture of Gene Snitsky,

http://cdn.remetee.com/pictures/gene-snitsky.jpg
Thanks!

You mean pictures don't you? Don't worry we all know IT WASN'T YOUR FAULT! :naughty:

SEXUAL VANILLA

12-26-2011, 08:36 PM

Snitsky looks like he is depressed :(

ace3025

12-27-2011, 01:14 AM

You are wrong about Punk though. Yeah people talked about it but it was not any more than Bret coming back to the WWE, HBK retiring or Flair retiring. What do you mean within American culture? Do you just mean American wrestling fans? Because the WWE was not talked about that much more than it is normally. It definitely brought more intrigue into the product but to say that CM Punk revitalized WWE back into American culture is plain false and the ratings decreasing since then prove that. He sold some shirts and got some online articles written about him. lol that is nothing compared to wrestling being cool and half the kids in middle school owning an Austin, Rock, DX or NWO shirt.

Sadly the REAL most talked thing since the Attitude Era was the whole Benoit thing but that was for different reasons obviously.

What? Do you even watch espn, read any sports magazine, or follow any type of media coverage at all? When punk dropped that promo Jim more, sportcenter, mlb.com, several journalists for major papers, and thousands of others were hanging on every moment from it. How is that not revitalizing into American culture? To take a stale sport and shove it front and center, all by yourself, with no support, is the epitome of that.
Also ratings NOW do not reflect on punks summer at all. It reflects how poor of a writing crew wwe really has. Punk gave them an easy gold mine and they spent their gold to make a half hearted kliq based storyline.....but left out a majorities of its members, yes I realize some are not overly welcome back but still, you're either in or out with that type of story. We saw an angle with steph start and go nowhere, saw Cena get screwed by HHH that went nowhere, and were forced to watch Nash and johnny ace fumble through their lines week in and week out. Add that to Michael Cole constantly tells us the world champion is boring, that the divas don't matter, and everything but the miz is a joke.....its not rocket science to see why people tune out......and it has nothing to do with punks promo

Mr. Nerfect

12-27-2011, 01:22 AM

I read an article recently talking about how Triple H managed to turn CM Punk's hot storyline into something about himself, while Punk was forced to play second-fiddle and people lost interest. It wasn't a wrestling article, either. It was an article calling Triple H one of the unsexiest men of 2011. :-\

Personally, I am in the camp that believes that Punk was brought back too soon and turned into too much of a "good guy." It's not his face status that worries me, so much as him shaking hands and rubbing shoulders with the Justice League of WWE. Punk should have been the Batman-like rogue standing outside the brightly coloured super-friends.

SummerSlam would have survived fine with John Cena challenging Rey Mysterio for Mysterio's newly won WWE Title. Triple H could have called out CM Punk on the show, since they had been having Punk attack Triple H verbally at Comic Con and such. Punk shows up in the SummerSlam crowd and Mysterio beats Cena to retain the WWE Title -- only for Del Rio to cash-in his briefcase and beat Rey Mysterio just before RAW was in San Diego. The following night, Del Rio retains the WWE Title against Mysterio -- cleanly -- via submission. It'd also have made sense for an entirely new WWE Championship to be created for the Mysterio and Del Rio runs. Meanwhile, Punk keeps holding onto the old "spinner" belt and showing up places with it.

When do they bring Punk back? Not too sure; but in retrospect, I now agree that when they did it was too early. Survivor Series could have been ideal -- with Punk targeting the show due to "Dwayne's" involvement.