Raw rating lowest since July 2012

[slik]

Well it was a pretty boring show.



Monday's episode of WWE (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/wwe-news/) RAW, with the Roman Reigns (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/profiles/270/roman-reigns/) vs. Bray Wyatt (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/profiles/288/bray-wyatt/) in the main event, drew 3.333 million viewers. This is down 0.5% from last week's 3.349 million viewers and a new non-holiday low going back to July 2012 when RAW went to three hours.

- wrestlinginc.com

[Shisen Kopf]

Damn that's like the same amount of viewers for the last CHW ppv

[VSG]

That's 3.333 viewers. Chairman Jose gave a 1/3rd of his attention to scope the competition.

[Emperor Smeat]

Not surprised. Even with the dirtsheets teasing Vince and the WWE were in panic mode, RAW felt the same as its been for weeks in terms of lack of meaningful stuff.

Too many potential great things have been squandered (ex. Divas Revolution, Ceasro), too many feuds are just dragging on (ex. Rusev-Zig, Wyatts-Shield Bros, Comic Book feud), and too much focus on the same old stuff every week (ex. constant rematches, Authority promos, Rollins promos, Cena promos).

A rumor floating on Neogaf's wrestling thread for a bit was about the WWE holding off on doing a big "reboot" until after Mania since all they care about right now is legit breaking Mania's attendance record and older stars as the key to it.

[NormanSmiley]

Divas kill ratings

[Shisen Kopf]

Bring back GTV and have them tape the divas locker room. I know Jazzy Foot will agree, honk honk!

[Rammsteinmad]

No doubt Daniel Bryan is to blame for these ratings.

[Heisenberg]

My decision to not view RAW live was to better my Monday nights, not to spite WWE. I know damn well I'm not the targeted demographic anymore and looking back I understand and feel fine. NXT was cool until it became an alternative. I'll eventually appreciate wrestling again down the road, but the lack of extreme violence I yearn for isn't there.


At least we have Macho Man and Attitude Era to relive

[Shisen Kopf]

Maybe if they turned Natty into a crazy cat lady that would=ratings? Let the catitude era begin

[Big Vic]

Ratings might be down but how are Cena's merch sales doing? That's what matters.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Man, I can't believe this. I thought RAW was great:

* Cena's US Challenge being back is best for business. It was good to see him build his match with Seth Rollins at Madison Square Garden, which will give him a chance to beat Rollins three times in a row and cement the US Title as the most prestigious in sports entertainment. Rollins can handle it, because he's a bad guy, and the money is in his super-built match with Triple H.

* The New Day were fantastic. I worry that they might be relying on them too much, as they do the same entertaining shtick every week, but Xavier Woods was by far the best choice to face Cena in the singles match, given that he's had the most success as a singles competitor.

* The six-man tag was really good. I do wish Cena and The Dudleyz got the win, since beating the champions would have helped them, but you can't hit all the nails on the head.

* Bringing in an HR consultant to deal with the impending issues between Kane and Seth Rollins is a unique and fresh build-up to their tertiary main event for the World Title at Hell in a Cell.

* Sexual tension sells, so Ambrose and Orton fighting over Reigns' approval will keep the young girls interested. It will be like Memphis in the old days. Ambrose vs. Orton with Reigns as Special Guest Referee will be great -- especially if Reigns refs it shirtless. :naughty:

* Big Show vs. Mark Henry was fun. The only problem I can think of is how they will promote Show vs. Henry the next time they want to run The Biggest vs. The Strongest. I guess Mark Henry can always come back for revenge. Maybe he can beat Cesaro next week? See, Cesaro is a young cat, so the story is in him working his way up the ranks and eventually beating Big Show, then Mark Henry, once Henry beats Big Show.

* Charlotte and Becky being on Miz TV was a great throwback to their segment on the show last time. Paige joining Charlotte and Becky is actually really great storytelling, because we all know girls can't make up their minds. The Bellas beating them made sense too, because Paige is going to turn heel again soon, and she needs to beat Charlotte so that she can get her automatic rematch.

* I liked the segment with Kane giving Seth Rollins the head, because it had Ashley in it. I'm glad they are introducing new female characters to this show.

* The Wyatt Family need wins so they can take the titles off The Dudleyz down the line. They'll beat Orton and Ambrose first though. It's a shame The Prime Time Players had to do the job though. I would have liked to have seen them get more in on Strowman, so they could come out of this match looking stronger.

* Stardust vs. Neville has got great build. I like the way they keep beating each other. King Barrett coming back will lead to a Triple Threat at Hell in a Cell, which works, because they're probably going to do a Fatal 4-Way between Owens, Rusev, Ziggler & Ryback and a multi-woman match, so it creates a theme for the PPV, which I think it desperately needs. I hope Barrett gets his own tag team to fight The Lucha Dragons and The Ascension. Maybe The Crown Princes of Puerto Rico, in Epico y Primo?

* I love the build to Kane vs. Rollins. It might seem silly, but I think having two different Kane allows for them to create two different action figures. Maybe they can even have Kane wrestle on the show twice? Not everything has to be so serious folks, and I think this will really help their World Title match stand above previous serious affairs for the title. Rollins tricking Kane into the Pedigree was clever, and I liked Ashley saying Rollins was the one that was difficult to work with -- I think that will get people to boo him. The Demon coming out of the ambulance was a great spot, and it highlighted how magic Kane is.

* Randy Orton beating Bo Dallas was good. Bo is pretty young, so he should be losing to everybody. His serious re-invention was too professional wrestling, but Bo's got a big future in sports entertainment with his current gimmick. I just wish this did go longer, because these two could have really worked a really good story as to who has the better chinlock.

* I talked about the Fatal 4-Way earlier. It's a shame we didn't get any progression in the Dolph Ziggler vs. Rusev story, but the two fighting over the IC Title with Ryback and Owens is just what that story needed. Maybe Summer Rae could end up siding with Ryback and his giant muscles? :naughty:

* Paul Heyman talks too much, but I appreciate what they were trying to do here. I think Big Show should have knocked him out or ate him, so that Brock Lesnar has a reason to be scared at Madison Square Garden.

* The main event was excellent, and man did that crowd make it. I could watch these two guys go at it every week from now until the end of time. This is the future, folks, and it reminds me of the days when Austin and Rock used to wrestle every week. See, this is good storytelling, because there wasn't a finish to the match, because we are building to the finish LATER. It's called BUILD, people!

Great show, and I'm genuinely enthused about the hot young stars of WWE. Especially Cesaro and Summer Rae.

[Big Vic]

Noids sarcastic review of Raw sounds better than Raw from what I hear.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Oh, I wasn't being sarcast. CyNick has converted me. I'm reading between the lines now, because I "get it."

[Anybody Thrilla]

I'm thinking maybe Noid should lay down for a bit.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>I have Raw on as background noise most of the time, and when the show ends I still find myself feeling like I'd wasted my time.</font>

[Innovator]

After all these years, Cynick was the one who made Noid snap and become a badass machine

[Damian Rey]

That Noid post was absolutely amazing.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Noid vs. CyNick verbal debate on the next TPWW podcast</font>

[Mr. Nerfect]

After all these years, Cynick was the one who made Noid snap and become a badass machine

Seems like an odd match to build to, but I owe something to CyNick for taking most of the heat in those six-mans at the start of our careers as young boys in Japan.

[The CyNick]

Always funny to me when people blame creative for everything. They give two guys a chance to carry the ball, and the viewing audience rejects it. This is why Cena continues to have the ball and deserves to.

That said, I think you have to expect some drop off at this time of year. Its like the time before Mania storylines start to heat up, and football is back. Its a tough time for ratings. And yet, I bet RAW was still one of the most watched things on cable on Monday.

[Mr. Nerfect]

The drop-off for football is usually in the 300,000 mark. That's not enough to account for record lows. I think a stale product, a stale format, too long a show, shitty booking and the method of how television is being watched these days all have their part in it.

[The CyNick]

Here's another way to look at the ratings - RAW was the SECOND MOST watched show on all of cable on Monday

quick - everyone panic!!!

Its amateur journalism to report on TV numbers without understanding the landscape of how people consumer entertainment. But that is par for the course in the industry.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Plus Vince had explosive diarrhea which he spread to kevin Dunn, thus explaining any blips in the programming. This not being reported presents further shoddy journalism.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Expect this to continue with football. Football is life.

[The CyNick]

Plus Vince had explosive diarrhea which he spread to kevin Dunn, thus explaining any blips in the programming. This not being reported presents further shoddy journalism.

comedy attempt?

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

What you refer to as a comedy attempt, I call fair and balanced pro wrestling reporting.

[Shisen Kopf]

Ratings will pick up when it is revealed that Summer Rae is addicted to having abortions.

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

Who will play Stan the Man?

[Frank Drebin]

Looking forward to the Rad Russian and El Pollo Loco myself.

[#1-norm-fan]

What else is even on cable on Monday nights other than MNF?

[The CyNick]

What else is even on cable on Monday nights other than MNF?

A bunch of shows. WWE dummies them all, except football. Oh and they've been doing it for more than 10 years. But lets continue to be negative about it.

[Emperor Smeat]

What else is even on cable on Monday nights other than MNF?

Love & Hip Hop Atlanta?

Barely know anything about that show except for it beating RAW in ratings almost every week pre-MNF and probably still is with MNF back.

[Rollermacka]

http://i696.photobucket.com/albums/vv323/Rollermacka/rvbcw_zpsbem0xgsh.jpg (http://s696.photobucket.com/user/Rollermacka/media/rvbcw_zpsbem0xgsh.jpg.html)

[#1-norm-fan]

Love & Hip Hop Atlanta?

Barely know anything about that show except for it beating RAW in ratings almost every week pre-MNF and probably still is with MNF back.

But Cynick says Raw is still DUMMYING every other show. Is HE lying or are YOU lying???

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Cynick knows all. Meatball is lying. Vince owns the world.

[Mr. Nerfect]

A decrease in ratings is still a decrease in ratings. I mean, RAW could be #2, but it's not where it once was. This is like the Dixie Carter "Well, Vince Russo didn't write that segment" response to "Fire Russo!" chants in TNA. Somehow you still have to explain to shareholders why your business is declining.

Although reports are that Vince is panicking, the ultimate goal is to probably have everything on the WWE Network as traditional television platforms collapse. I imagine ratings will decrease even more over the next few years, as WWE gets more and more air-time.

What will be hard to explain is why there isn't significant WWE Network subscription growth as ratings decline, if the idea is to move people from one medium to another. The explanation will be "Football" and at least the WWE will get on enough devices in India, Japan and maybe even China to at least perpetuate the idea that it is a growing enterprise.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Creatively, the WWE violates a lot of rules of television writing. The amount of redundant segments and even characters is insane. The lack of continuity in an era that has presented us television such as Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead doesn't help. People like gritty and things making sense. Cartoony and soft with the presentation of a soap opera might not be the best way to go in 2015 if you want people to take you seriously.

[Jazzy Foot]

Bring back GTV and have them tape the divas locker room. I know Jazzy Foot will agree, honk honk!

I enjoying videotaping divas and taping naked divas to the wall or bed. I prefer them doing it to me though.

[The CyNick]

But Cynick says Raw is still DUMMYING every other show. Is HE lying or are YOU lying???

I dont know who this meatball is, but he's not great with math.

Last week RAW had 3.5 million viewers and that hip hop show had 2.5 million. As I said - dummying. Maybe in some universe, the one this meatball lives in, 3.5 is less than 2.4

For the record, Sportscenter was the only show to get close to RAW's viewership numbers. And of course football, which dominated everything.

[The CyNick]

A decrease in ratings is still a decrease in ratings. I mean, RAW could be #2, but it's not where it once was. This is like the Dixie Carter "Well, Vince Russo didn't write that segment" response to "Fire Russo!" chants in TNA. Somehow you still have to explain to shareholders why your business is declining.

Although reports are that Vince is panicking, the ultimate goal is to probably have everything on the WWE Network as traditional television platforms collapse. I imagine ratings will decrease even more over the next few years, as WWE gets more and more air-time.

What will be hard to explain is why there isn't significant WWE Network subscription growth as ratings decline, if the idea is to move people from one medium to another. The explanation will be "Football" and at least the WWE will get on enough devices in India, Japan and maybe even China to at least perpetuate the idea that it is a growing enterprise.

Thats the thing though, business is NOT declining. RAW ratings might be slightly down, but RAW ratings go up and down all the time. A smart investor would look at the overall prospects of the business. RAW has been a steady driver of viewers for OVER A DECADE. Very few shows on all of TV can lay the same claim. Thats why WWE will continue to be a very profitable entity. As an investor, I would be more concerned about how does WWE elevate the perception of their audience, so that networks like USA can charge for ads, and in turn, WWE can generate more revenue in TV rights fees. Thats not going to be accomplished by pushing Cesaro to the moon.

Why would a ratings decline lead to more network subs. Sorry, not sure I'm following your logic there. I do agree that WWE is poised to see massive international growth in the network. Which is yet another reason why the long term future of the company is very strong.

[The CyNick]

Creatively, the WWE violates a lot of rules of television writing. The amount of redundant segments and even characters is insane. The lack of continuity in an era that has presented us television such as Sons of Anarchy, Breaking Bad and The Walking Dead doesn't help. People like gritty and things making sense. Cartoony and soft with the presentation of a soap opera might not be the best way to go in 2015 if you want people to take you seriously.

Hilarious.

Why are The Simpsons on TV after 25 years? Are they gritty - whatever that means? What about Big Bang Theory - is that award winning writing...wait for the canned laughter before you answer.

People watch a variety of forms of entertainment. YOU WATCH and have for decades. I'm pretty sure I could leave for another 10 years, and come back, and you will be complaining about how Apollo Crews needs to step aside to let some indy geek move up the card.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Hilarious.

Why are The Simpsons on TV after 25 years? Are they gritty - whatever that means? What about Big Bang Theory - is that award winning writing...wait for the canned laughter before you answer.

People watch a variety of forms of entertainment. YOU WATCH and have for decades. I'm pretty sure I could leave for another 10 years, and come back, and you will be complaining about how Apollo Crews needs to step aside to let some indy geek move up the card.

You completely missed the point. I don't know what's happened to you, man, but I hope you work your way through it and come out shining on the other end.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Thats the thing though, business is NOT declining. RAW ratings might be slightly down, but RAW ratings go up and down all the time. A smart investor would look at the overall prospects of the business. RAW has been a steady driver of viewers for OVER A DECADE. Very few shows on all of TV can lay the same claim. Thats why WWE will continue to be a very profitable entity. As an investor, I would be more concerned about how does WWE elevate the perception of their audience, so that networks like USA can charge for ads, and in turn, WWE can generate more revenue in TV rights fees. Thats not going to be accomplished by pushing Cesaro to the moon.

Why would a ratings decline lead to more network subs. Sorry, not sure I'm following your logic there. I do agree that WWE is poised to see massive international growth in the network. Which is yet another reason why the long term future of the company is very strong.

Yeah, but the up's are down from the up's they were. Sometimes the up's are more down than some of their down periods.

If your goal is to lessen the importance of PPV and television as methods of delivery of your product, you're going to have to be able to point to Network subscribers as indicators that your product isn't dying. If you cannot follow that, I don't know if I can help you any more. There have been Forbes articles written on this, man.

[The CyNick]

You completely missed the point. I don't know what's happened to you, man, but I hope you work your way through it and come out shining on the other end.

Classic "I have no counter" statement

[Mr. Nerfect]

It's not worth retorting to you, man. You can't honestly believe the stuff you're forcing on people. For a guy who claims to like arguing, you commit some of the most egregious logical fallacies I've seen on these boards, and you stopped being fun when you started talking down to people and calling them things like "meatball" and coming off like a huge condescending prick. You haven't done it so much to me, but I've seen it done to others, and it's not cool, man.

[The CyNick]

Yeah, but the up's are down from the up's they were. Sometimes the up's are more down than some of their down periods.

If your goal is to lessen the importance of PPV and television as methods of delivery of your product, you're going to have to be able to point to Network subscribers as indicators that your product isn't dying. If you cannot follow that, I don't know if I can help you any more. There have been Forbes articles written on this, man.

Television continues to be a major revenue stream. Continues to increase year over year. I dont see how they are lessening the importance of PPV and television. Care to explain that one?

The point of The Network is to merge with the PPV business (check out a WWE investor meeting if you dont get it), because the company feels PPV is less profitable long term. PPV you create programming where you lose half of the money right off the top to the cable providers. Network they essentially keep all the revenue. And the long term growth opportunities are likely greater with the Network in markets like India and China. Who knows, WWE could be wrong on that, but so far they seem to growing the business year after year.

WWE had 19K at MSG. They have nearly 15K tonight in Boston. They will likely have close to a 100K in Dallas for Mania. They have sold 60K+ tickets for each Mania the last 10 years. I get it, you dont like WWE right now. Cool, dont watch. Come back in 6 months and maybe you will enjoy. No, instead watch every week, read dirt sheets, sit there and nod and then come on here and complain about the show.

[The CyNick]

It's not worth retorting to you, man. You can't honestly believe the stuff you're forcing on people. For a guy who claims to like arguing, you commit some of the most egregious logical fallacies I've seen on these boards, and you stopped being fun when you started talking down to people and calling them things like "meatball" and coming off like a huge condescending prick. You haven't done it so much to me, but I've seen it done to others, and it's not cool, man.

I think the guy I called meatball was named meatball.

If that makes me a prick, well a prick I am.

The reality is I take more personal shots on here than anyone. Why? Because people like you are not used to having someone disagree with you about sports entertainment. You think you have the market cornered on what people 'should' think about modern day sports entertainment. I happen to disagree that the sky is falling and every week is garbage. I am happy to debate any point without taking shots at anyone. But go ahead make some comment about how I'm trolling, or whatever road takes you as far away from actually defending your position in an intelligent manner.

[Mr. Nerfect]

His name is Mr. Meatball to you. I don't call you nick, Nick.

No one really insults you, other than perhaps the labels of trolling and being delusional with your points -- which is backed up by a certain amount of evidence. Your third paragraph is a perfect example of how you come off condescending, dude.

[The CyNick]

His name is Mr. Meatball to you. I don't call you nick, Nick.

No one really insults you, other than perhaps the labels of trolling and being delusional with your points -- which is backed up by a certain amount of evidence. Your third paragraph is a perfect example of how you come off condescending, dude.

but if you did, wouldnt you find it odd if say Heyman got upset about it?

Ive never been delusional or trolly in my life.

[hb2k]

Been on holiday for a couple of weeks, but simply had to chime in on how fuck awful this rating is, and how horrifying on paper the rest of the year looks with Cena taking time off. Granted, most people watching this Raw could have figured out it was going to get killed against Packers/Chiefs, but still, the worst is yet to come.

Anybody else surprised they haven't taken the title off Rollins in a panic yet?

[SlickyTrickyDamon]

It's still 2nd place. Cable ratings are down for everybody except NFL. Not a big deal. Less people watching TV overall in traditional sense.

[Innovator]

Just counting cable ratings is pointless when the big hitters on Monday night are all network shows.

[Innovator]

Since June 15, 800,000 people have stopped tuning in.

[DAMN iNATOR]

I CAN'T be the ONLY one who's glad Cena will be gone for a while...I may not like him at all, but he really desperately needs the time off for himself. It seems like he's really burnt out right now from no time off in who knows how long.

[Damian Rey]

I'm happy for it. He's been going full time for how long now? Needs a breather and it could be good for him. Absence makes the heart grow fonder.

To his credit, this is far and away the most I've enjoyed him since he became the guy. Matches have been top notch, hasn't been treating his opponents like a joke during promos, and the US title is now as big if not bigger than the world title.

That said, hopefully whoever takes him out assuming it's an injury angle gets a nice, long and strong run going into a Mania rematch.

[Emperor Smeat]

Being rumored from after Hell in a Cell till maybe January since WWE doesn't have any dates set for him in December.

They could still panic and cut his break short or he gets bored and wants to come back early but he's getting at least a month off.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Cena deserves the time, but I find it ironic it comes at a time when he is the most interesting he has been in years.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Cena deserves the time, but I find it ironic it comes at a time when he is the most interesting he has been in years.

Oh, believe me, I thought of that as I was making my earlier post, and I agree. The irony isn't lost on me.

Maybe give him an extra month off and let him be a "surprise" entrant in the '16 Rumble match.

[Damian Rey]

Ooooh....have whoever beats him for the belt dominating the rumble, only for the unadvertised Cena to hit the ring, go after the guy, taking 52nd both out of the ring. Cena feels so strongly, so personally about the US title and has such disdain for the guy who beat him for it that he's willing to give up a shot at his record tying world title to ruin the other guy's chance at challenge him for the United States title at Mania.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I like Cena returning in the Rumble. Seems like a prime spot for it. I don't really want to see him go after the US Title again though. Or if he does, he wins it, then loses it quickly to Dolph Ziggler and moves into a WrestleMania program with The Undertaker.

[Damian Rey]

Taker Cena for the United States heavyweight championship with Cena going over.

[Damian Rey]

Then he loses the title the next night to Samoa Joe on Joe's debut.

[Anybody Thrilla]

It feels like Cena has returned in the Rumble like 26 times.

[Heisenberg]

A

[XL]

The idea that "you don't enjoy it, you should stop watching" is sort of redundant.

Firstly, it's evident that a lot of people have done just that. There's a bunch of guys on this very forum, who came here as wrestling fans and have since stopped watching.

Secondly, the people here, at least the ones you're talking about, probably don't see WWE as a "TV show" in the same way they might see something like Lost, Sons of Anarchy, or Breaking Bad where their viewership is based on the quality of the writing. It's probably more equally compared to a sports team. My favourite soccer team is Aston Villa, has been since I was about 6. In the time I've been supporting them they've won a couple of trophies and had a good 2-3 year spell where they were competing at the top of the league. In the last 3 years, however, they've been abysmal; narrowly avoiding relegation for three seasons, and it's looking to be a similar situation this year. Do I just give up? Do I forget about something I've loved for 25 years? No. I hope (against all hope) that things will get better; that the performance improve, the style of football is enjoyable, and we start to win.

With a lot of guys here they've watched wrestling as long as I've been a Villa fan, including me. It's almost habit at this point. And we hope (against all hope) that it improves to a point where we/they can enjoy it again.

[Anybody Thrilla]

I wouldn't even know what to watch if it weren't for wrestling.

[Big Vic]

The idea that "you don't enjoy it, you should stop watching" is sort of redundant.

Firstly, it's evident that a lot of people have done just that. There's a bunch of guys on this very forum, who came here as wrestling fans and have since stopped watching.

I haven't watched for 2 weeks don't plan to start watching again anytime soon.

[Rammsteinmad]

Ratings are low coz the product sucks. Simple as that.

That's why I barely watch at the moment. I stream Raw and get through it in about ten minutes.

[Shadrick]

Ratings are low coz the product sucks. Simple as that.

That's why I barely watch at the moment. I stream Raw and get through it in about ten minutes.

this times a fucking million.

[Innovator]

3,287,000 viewers, last hour getting close to that 3 million mark

[Emperor Smeat]

Hour one – 3,518,000 viewers
Hour two – 3,254,000 viewers
Hour three – 3,082,000 viewers
Average – 3,284,667 viewers

3rd hour has been killing the ratings and viewership for months now. Used to not be the case where instead it was 8pm as the weakest, 10pm as the middle, and 9pm as the strongest.

Vince in panic mode is almost no different than regular Vince.

[Savio]

I'm worried he'll panic a make cena champ again.

[Emperor Smeat]

Won't really do anything for the long run with ratings and viewers. WWE would get a small spike and then be back to normal within a few weeks. Happened with a lot of Cena reigns and mega pushes that were panic-based.

Even putting Cena in prime spots like the main event a few weeks ago didn't help with ratings.

[Savio]

Yes but does Vince know that?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I can't believe the ratings went down with the show being so riveting on Monday.

[The CyNick]

I can't believe the ratings went down with the show being so riveting on Monday.

Hard to imagine why numbers would go down at this time of year.

[Innovator]

The streak....is over

3,357,000 viewers average

[The CyNick]

so is RAW good now?

[Emperor Smeat]

Hour one – 3,600,000 viewers
Hour two – 3,347,000 viewers
Hour three – 3,123,000 viewers
Average – 3,356,667 viewers

72k increase overall but third hour still dragging things down. Getting to the point where 8pm is now their strongest hour unlike a couple months ago.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

The streak....is over

3,357,000 viewers average

The actual rating went down though, hilariously. 2.21.

[NormanSmiley]

Hilarious.

Why are The Simpsons on TV after 25 years? Are they gritty - whatever that means? What about Big Bang Theory - is that award winning writing...wait for the canned laughter before you answer.

People watch a variety of forms of entertainment. YOU WATCH and have for decades. I'm pretty sure I could leave for another 10 years, and come back, and you will be complaining about how Apollo Crews needs to step aside to let some indy geek move up the card.

This guy is so legit. His points are right on.

[The CyNick]

72k increase overall but third hour still dragging things down. Getting to the point where 8pm is now their strongest hour unlike a couple months ago.

That seems to make sense given the amount of sports that are on right now. Depending on how the games are going, people watch some RAW and then start surfing.

To me it's nothing to be concerned about. Especially when the third hour is still one of the top 5 watched things on cable on Monday.

[Innovator]

so is RAW good now?

Well the number should have gone up with all the past stars being advertised for it.

[hb2k]

That number is horrific. No way to spin it. Not only are those stars not going to be there again, but the existing bigger draws, Cena and Orton, are going to be off Raw for a couple of months apiece by the look of it, ditto Lesnar, and the NFL is only going to get tougher as competition with Cowboys/Redskins, Bengals/Broncos and Patriots/Bills on the horizon for Monday night games which will all do big numbers.

It really is amazing how different this era is. Numbers like this would have seen Rollins drop that belt so fucking fast in years past.

[The CyNick]

That number is horrific. No way to spin it. Not only are those stars not going to be there again, but the existing bigger draws, Cena and Orton, are going to be off Raw for a couple of months apiece by the look of it, ditto Lesnar, and the NFL is only going to get tougher as competition with Cowboys/Redskins, Bengals/Broncos and Patriots/Bills on the horizon for Monday night games which will all do big numbers.

It really is amazing how different this era is. Numbers like this would have seen Rollins drop that belt so fucking fast in years past.

Do you think it's healthy to go back to an era where the championship changes hands every 4-6 weeks?

Numbers are down in a time period when competition for eyeballs is at its highest. That said, RAW was still watched by more people than anything that isn't football. That's impressive no matter how you try to spin it.

Viewership is likely to continue to decline as more and more people more from consuming entertainment through television to other outlets. It's not luke USA has a ton of other shows pulling those massive numbers like RAW does 52 weeks of the year.

[The CyNick]

Well the number should have gone up with all the past stars being advertised for it.

And the number did go up. Maybe the number would have been even lower without those guys. No way to know. The system is very flawed in that a small number of people deciding to not watch RAW has an impact. Even assuming the number is a real reflection of actual viewership, it doesn't tell what the people who were watching RAW are now watching and doesn't tell you if people who don't watch RAW every week we're aware these guys would be on the show.

[Big Vic]

Do you think it's healthy to go back to an era where the championship changes hands every 4-6 weeks? I don't think he is suggesting that.

[The CyNick]

I don't think he is suggesting that.

I'll let him speak for himself, but he's suggesting a knee jerk reaction to a few ratings during football season.

Doesn't sound like long term planning

[Big Vic]

they have been decreasing during the summer as well.

[XL]

I'll let him speak for himself, but he's suggesting a knee jerk reaction to a few ratings during football season.

Doesn't sound like long term planning

He wasn't suggesting anything.

[#1-norm-fan]

I don't think he is suggesting that.

Are you implying CyNick may be coming up with a strawman in order to ignore shit that is damning to his point? Or maybe that he's just bad at very basic comprehension? Or maybe he's just doing obvious things like this to be a troll? Naaaaah.

[Emperor Smeat]

That seems to make sense given the amount of sports that are on right now. Depending on how the games are going, people watch some RAW and then start surfing.

To me it's nothing to be concerned about. Especially when the third hour is still one of the top 5 watched things on cable on Monday.

Doubt the WWE is happy considering how small the bump was from the Legends. Part due to how little they really advertised the legends and part due to people not caring about RAW regardless who was on this week.

Only 8pm was in the Top 5 this week. 3rd hour has been floating in and out of the Top 5 recently while shrinking the padding it had with other shows in the Top 10.

Just 0.2 rating separates 2nd and 3rd hour from being bounced out of the Top 10. WWE got really lucky the MLB playoff game Monday didn't do more damage because it was played in Canada.

#6 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 3.123 1.1
#7 WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 3.347 1.1
#8 FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 2.193 1.0
#9 FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:00 PM 2.040 1.0
#10 MONDAY NIGHT COUNTDOWN L ESPN 6:00 PM 2.115 0.9
#11 REAL HOUSEWIVES OF OC BRVO 9:00 PM 2.039 0.9

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/10/20/monday-cable-ratings-oct-19-2015/479602/

[The CyNick]

Are you implying CyNick may be coming up with a strawman in order to ignore shit that is damning to his point? Or maybe that he's just bad at very basic comprehension? Or maybe he's just doing obvious things like this to be a troll? Naaaaah.

Is being the 2nd most watched thing on cable on Monday a terrible thing?

[The CyNick]

Doubt the WWE is happy considering how small the bump was from the Legends. Part due to how little they really advertised the legends and part due to people not caring about RAW regardless who was on this week.

Only 8pm was in the Top 5 this week. 3rd hour has been floating in and out of the Top 5 recently while shrinking the padding it had with other shows in the Top 10.

Just 0.2 rating separates 2nd and 3rd hour from being bounced out of the Top 10. WWE got really lucky the MLB playoff game Monday didn't do more damage because it was played in Canada.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/10/20/monday-cable-ratings-oct-19-2015/479602/

Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they fall out of the top ten anytime soon.

[DAMN iNATOR]

And the number did go up. Maybe the number would have been even lower without those guys. No way to know. The system is very flawed in that a small number of people deciding to not watch RAW has an impact. Even assuming the number is a real reflection of actual viewership, it doesn't tell what the people who were watching RAW are now watching and doesn't tell you if people who don't watch RAW every week we're aware these guys would be on the show.

It does indeed have an impact, but it's so miniscule that it's a point not really worth even arguing/making. Nielsen measures show ratings not just hour by hour, every 30 mins., every 15 mins., every 10 mins. No. nowadays in the 21st Century they measure minute-by-minute, sometimes second-by-second.This ensures as accurate a ratings databsse as is possible.

Ask someone who knows. My father and I wrre a Nielsen household within the past year-3 years, and we got those facts along with our "viewing journals" for logging what we watched and when/how kong, etc. It is indeed very serious business.

[#BROKEN Hasney]

https://scontent-iad3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xfa1/v/t1.0-9/12143240_10206474449558956_7937991488388538706_n.jpg?oh=66dc0c7de4b7312fc1d43b5edb0bbce5&oe=56C747F7

[Big Vic]

Is being the 2nd most watched thing on cable on Monday a terrible thing?
5th

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="588"><tbody><tr style="height: 16.0pt;"><td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL</td> <td class="xl66">ESPN</td> <td class="xl74">8:15 PM</td> <td class="xl75">13.901</td> <td class="xl67">5.2</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">SPORTSCENTER: L</td> <td class="xl66">ESPN</td> <td class="xl74">11:39 PM</td> <td class="xl75">3.542</td> <td class="xl67">1.5</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2</td> <td class="xl66">VH1</td> <td class="xl74">8:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">2.753</td> <td class="xl67">1.4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">BLACK INK CREW 3</td> <td class="xl66">VH1</td> <td class="xl74">9:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">2.530</td> <td class="xl67">1.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">WWE ENTERTAINMENT</td> <td class="xl66">USA</td> <td class="xl74">8:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">3.600</td> <td class="xl67">1.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

[Big Vic]

Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they fall out of the top 20 anytime soon. Every thing is fine
Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they fall out of the top 30 anytime soon. Every thing is fine
Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they get canceled anytime soon. Every thing is fine
WWE moved to destination america, they weren't canceled. Do you have any evidence from someone who isn't a disgruntled employee, or a reporter who obviously has a vendetta against vince saying they were canceled?
The WWE Network is what the WWE needs to be on right now. More people are on the internet now than ever in history!

[hb2k]

I'll let him speak for himself, but he's suggesting a knee jerk reaction to a few ratings during football season.

Doesn't sound like long term planning

Not suggesting a knee jerk reaction at all, more just a musing about how drastically the business has changed. At a different time, questions would be asked, changes would be suggested, and they'd look in the mirror and ask what was wrong and go all-in on a different approach. Some hit, some missed. Now, a rating this bad is depressing, but the show will continue to be boring and they won't change the pat hand despite the numbers telling them something very clearly.

Not suggesting the world needs title changes every 4 to 6 weeks or anything, but that line about long term planning is the key - even if they do have a long term plan, you can't tell by watching, the product feels directionless. There is very little to be excited about, and the audience is slowly eroding in response.

Brass tacks, there is no way to convince anybody that the worst Raw rating in 18 years in a good thing. That's all.

[XL]

They're building to something further down the line. Ratings will continue to decline but soon *BAM* they pull a 4.4 out of nowhere. You have to be able to see the finer details to understand it.

[Big Vic]

when was the last time they got a 4.4?

is there a website that holds raw ratings?

[The CyNick]

5th

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="588"><tbody><tr style="height: 16.0pt;"><td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL</td> <td class="xl66">ESPN</td> <td class="xl74">8:15 PM</td> <td class="xl75">13.901</td> <td class="xl67">5.2</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">SPORTSCENTER: L</td> <td class="xl66">ESPN</td> <td class="xl74">11:39 PM</td> <td class="xl75">3.542</td> <td class="xl67">1.5</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2</td> <td class="xl66">VH1</td> <td class="xl74">8:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">2.753</td> <td class="xl67">1.4</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">BLACK INK CREW 3</td> <td class="xl66">VH1</td> <td class="xl74">9:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">2.530</td> <td class="xl67">1.3</td> </tr> <tr style="height: 16.0pt;"> <td class="xl65" style="height: 16.0pt;" height="16">WWE ENTERTAINMENT</td> <td class="xl66">USA</td> <td class="xl74">8:00 PM</td> <td class="xl75">3.600</td> <td class="xl67">1.2</td></tr></tbody></table>

Viewership:
13.9>3.6>3.5>2.8>2 5

[The CyNick]

Not suggesting a knee jerk reaction at all, more just a musing about how drastically the business has changed. At a different time, questions would be asked, changes would be suggested, and they'd look in the mirror and ask what was wrong and go all-in on a different approach. Some hit, some missed. Now, a rating this bad is depressing, but the show will continue to be boring and they won't change the pat hand despite the numbers telling them something very clearly.

Not suggesting the world needs title changes every 4 to 6 weeks or anything, but that line about long term planning is the key - even if they do have a long term plan, you can't tell by watching, the product feels directionless. There is very little to be excited about, and the audience is slowly eroding in response.

Brass tacks, there is no way to convince anybody that the worst Raw rating in 18 years in a good thing. That's all.

Rollins singles push started after 30. He won the title at 31. He's been champ since then. Sounds long term to me.

Lesnar-Taker has been a long term program (30 to now)

HHH v Rock had seeds planted at 31. Rumor is it culminates at 32. If not Rollins-HHH has been simmering and is clearly a direction eventually.

The whole US challenge has been a long term storyline that I think will start a new (day) chapter on Sunday.

Rrigns-Wyatt was a long term program

There's a difference between not liking the current programs and saying they have no direction.

[The CyNick]

They're building to something further down the line. Ratings will continue to decline but soon *BAM* they pull a 4.4 out of nowhere. You have to be able to see the finer details to understand it.

Why do they need a 4.4 when their current ratings makes them extremely valuable to USA Network. People don't watch TV like they did in 1999. Why is that hard to understand? If USA was threatening to cancel RAW or if RAW was just an average rated show when it was once consistently near the top, then I could see some cause for concern. But none of that is close to happening.

[hb2k]

Rollins singles push started after 30. He won the title at 31. He's been champ since then. Sounds long term to me.

Lesnar-Taker has been a long term program (30 to now)

HHH v Rock had seeds planted at 31. Rumor is it culminates at 32. If not Rollins-HHH has been simmering and is clearly a direction eventually.

The whole US challenge has been a long term storyline that I think will start a new (day) chapter on Sunday.

Reigns-Wyatt was a long term program

There's a difference between not liking the current programs and saying they have no direction.

Well that's completely missed the point of what I said.

I didn't once say they didn't have long term plans. At all. To the audience, even if they do, they clearly aren't hooked by the directions they've been going, because the numbers say so. That's it, the crux of my point in a nutshell.

Reigns/Wyatt has been ice cold for the vast majority of its run. Taker/Lesnar 3 has been promoted poorly considering the interest after the Summerslam finish. Rollins/HHH might be going somewhere eventually but they're doing such a balls up job with Rollins that people aren't itching for something to happen on that front by any means. You have no hot top heels and no babyface that feels on the cusp of a breakthrough, and for all the directions they've taken, they've bred a malaise in the audience that has resulted in the numbers falling to the lowest in 18 years. If you feel differently, I'm happy you're enjoying Raw.

I love wrestling and will watch it forever, but the television show is flat, and I'm not suggested they get crazy reactionary, I'm just saying that doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is a well known definition, and it isn't of genius.

[NormanSmiley]

The problem becomes if they do get reactionary do you have confidence in the choices they will make?

I agree with cynick that there are programs that have time invested for better or worse.

I also agree there is a grave amount of staleness to most of the programs and what bothers me is im not seeing anyone pushing to breakthrough

[The CyNick]

It does indeed have an impact, but it's so miniscule that it's a point not really worth even arguing/making. Nielsen measures show ratings not just hour by hour, every 30 mins., every 15 mins., every 10 mins. No. nowadays in the 21st Century they measure minute-by-minute, sometimes second-by-second.This ensures as accurate a ratings databsse as is possible.

Ask someone who knows. My father and I wrre a Nielsen household within the past year-3 years, and we got those facts along with our "viewing journals" for logging what we watched and when/how kong, etc. It is indeed very serious business.

I understand how the system works.

My point is its very flawed.

You say it ensures as accurate a database as possible. Completely untrue. The technology exists to measure what everyone watches. But nobody wants to pay for that. So they created a flawed system when 1 person with a Nielsen box represents X number of households. When you do the math of how many people need to change the channel to represent a ratings point change, you can see how it is easy to get swings in viewership.

[The CyNick]

Big Vics futuristic post made me laugh

[The CyNick]

Well that's completely missed the point of what I said.

I didn't once say they didn't have long term plans. At all. To the audience, even if they do, they clearly aren't hooked by the directions they've been going, because the numbers say so. That's it, the crux of my point in a nutshell.

Reigns/Wyatt has been ice cold for the vast majority of its run. Taker/Lesnar 3 has been promoted poorly considering the interest after the Summerslam finish. Rollins/HHH might be going somewhere eventually but they're doing such a balls up job with Rollins that people aren't itching for something to happen on that front by any means. You have no hot top heels and no babyface that feels on the cusp of a breakthrough, and for all the directions they've taken, they've bred a malaise in the audience that has resulted in the numbers falling to the lowest in 18 years. If you feel differently, I'm happy you're enjoying Raw.

I love wrestling and will watch it forever, but the television show is flat, and I'm not suggested they get crazy reactionary, I'm just saying that doing the same thing again and again and expecting different results is a well known definition, and it isn't of genius.

You said they seem directionless

I am disputing that. I think your issue is that you dont care for the direction they are going. I think one of the problems is that WWE is on the cutting edge of technology, and their fans connect with them in ways beyond your father's cable TV. They are often first is a wide variety of social media outlets. If they were not connecting, those numbers would be low as well.

Specific programs are going to a matter of personal opinion. I'll give my take on some of the programs:

Taker vs Brock - If you go back to the angle they shot leading into Summerslam, that was one of the best angle WWE has done, maybe ever. The crowd was into it big time. I feel they have done a masterful job, of almost building their matches in a UFC style manner. Not the normal weekly face to face promos, just constantly reminding fans about the reasons why these guys want to fight each other. The program is a little hampered by the fact that Taker is limited, but if you just look at the marketing of the match, I think its been masterful.

Wyatt-Reigns. Almost the direct opposite of Taker-Brock. This is your classic modern day feud like a HHH-Rock or Cena-Orton, where it feels like they have fought 250 times over 4 months. I still the crowd gets behind them enough to justify the length of the program, especially. Reigns doing long promos is not smart, but that has nothing to do with this program specifically. From a long term planning perspective, I feel like this program was meant to keep Reigns away from the WWE Title picture and still keep him hot. In the meantime, for better or worse they put over a new talent in Strowman. We'll get the old school cage blowoff on Sunday.

HHH-Rollins. I think I'm one of the only people who can see the forest for the trees when it comes to this. All the way back to the booking of Sting-HHH, I think this program has been slowly simmering. When they do pull the trigger, and I dont think it will be anytime soon, it will be good stuff. Rollins using the Pedigree is a cool touch. Rollins beating Sting on his own. Rollins slowly starting to take matters into his own hands and win matches on his own. Its the right way to build a guy you expect to be a futue babyface headliner.

For me, I just dont expect wrestling writing to be as good as something like The Sopranos or Breaking Bad. Its simplistic. Its something to turn on once or twice a week, have some laughs, and move on. There are some guys I would like to see pushed a little more, but you can only push so many guys to the top at once. Right now its Rollins and Reigns turn. We'll see how they work out. Someone else will get the chance next year. When that starts to happen, I'l enjoy watching that journey play out.

[The CyNick]

The problem becomes if they do get reactionary do you have confidence in the choices they will make?

I agree with cynick that there are programs that have time invested for better or worse.

I also agree there is a grave amount of staleness to most of the programs and what bothers me is im not seeing anyone pushing to breakthrough

But like am I the only who sees where The Shield started and where they are now?

What about what Brock Lesnar has become since 30?

Do you not see that New Day is starting to poke their head up on the top floor?

Its not like every major PPV is some combination of Cena, Orton, and Batista. There are lots of guys who have moved from point A to point B. Maybe not as many as some people would like, but there has been movement.

[Big Vic]

When people start to move up more times then not something happens where "vince" just decide to start giving them meaningless losses. Or feeds them to Cena.

[hb2k]

Ahhhh go on, it's Friday afternoon, I'll bite

You said they seem directionless

I said that even though they have a direction, it feels directionless, because there's no energy and what they are doing isn't clicking. Of course it's personal opinion. It's also the personal opinion of everybody turning the channel.

I think your issue is that you dont care for the direction they are going. I think one of the problems is that WWE is on the cutting edge of technology, and their fans connect with them in ways beyond your father's cable TV. They are often first is a wide variety of social media outlets. If they were not connecting, those numbers would be low as well.

And that's the issue with any fan who gets bored and watches something else.

Social media means absolutely jack shit. They're worthless numbers. What money is derived from them? Nothing. Did it mean anything when it came time for the TV contract to be renewed? No. Does it help the Network? Not one bit. They advertised Austin's return only on Twitter, and it did a 2.2, the lowest in 18 years. Jack Shit.

Taker vs Brock - If you go back to the angle they shot leading into Summerslam, that was one of the best angle WWE has done, maybe ever. The crowd was into it big time. I feel they have done a masterful job, of almost building their matches in a UFC style manner. Not the normal weekly face to face promos, just constantly reminding fans about the reasons why these guys want to fight each other. The program is a little hampered by the fact that Taker is limited, but if you just look at the marketing of the match, I think its been masterful.

This match on Sunday? So Lesnar wants to kill him for costing him the title, gets robbed of a victory at Summerslam, wants to fight again, then walks away on Raw in the opening segment and that's the final angle. I've seen masterful promotion of a big match, and this isn't it. It's a shame, because right up until they announced the match was in October, it was great.

Wyatt-Reigns. Almost the direct opposite of Taker-Brock. This is your classic modern day feud like a HHH-Rock or Cena-Orton, where it feels like they have fought 250 times over 4 months. I still the crowd gets behind them enough to justify the length of the program, especially. Reigns doing long promos is not smart, but that has nothing to do with this program specifically. From a long term planning perspective, I feel like this program was meant to keep Reigns away from the WWE Title picture and still keep him hot. In the meantime, for better or worse they put over a new talent in Strowman. We'll get the old school cage blowoff on Sunday.

Using the word classic is being very magnanimous. Crowd gets behind them enough to justify it, huh. I assume you're not judging this on the boring chant the big babyface got two weeks ago. Or the boring chants that started popping up Wyatt's promos here and there since this feud began. They did better on Raw, but this has just existed for months.

HHH-Rollins. I think I'm one of the only people who can see the forest for the trees when it comes to this. All the way back to the booking of Sting-HHH, I think this program has been slowly simmering. When they do pull the trigger, and I dont think it will be anytime soon, it will be good stuff. Rollins using the Pedigree is a cool touch. Rollins beating Sting on his own. Rollins slowly starting to take matters into his own hands and win matches on his own. Its the right way to build a guy you expect to be a futue babyface headliner.

Before Raw he'd lost like 19 out of his last 20 matches. I'd love for the narrative to be that over time, the coddled Seth gets sculpted into a great champion, and ends up being too good for the Authority and Trips gets jealous, but Rollins is too good and beats him too. But that isn't the framing of this. At all, it's been inconsistent and a burden on the show, and using Kane to tell that story doesn't work, which the live audiences are making that abundantly clear. Using Sting to tell that story could work, if Seth didn't get pinned right before clean in the middle.

[The CyNick]

That's a pretty negative outlook. And that's coming from a guy who calls himself the CyNick.

You should really spend time on something else. You clearly have invested tons of time watching every fine detail of these shows and you are not getting joy out of it. Time to move on IMO.

[Big Vic]

He runs a podcast he has to watch it.

[The CyNick]

When people start to move up more times then not something happens where "vince" just decide to start giving them meaningless losses. Or feeds them to Cena.

Being fed to John Cena is success. You realize that, right? I really think you guys need to talk to Kevin Owens or Rusev or whoever and ask them if being fed to John Cena was a good thing for their career. The fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to work with a guy the calibre of John Cena is just baffling to me.

[The CyNick]

He runs a podcast he has to watch it.

Lol. Oh man that's rich.

[Big Vic]

You know whats even more of a success? Beating John Cena.

[Big Vic]

I don't think any ones goal as a WWE wrestler is to lose to John Cena. What you said in post #116 makes no sense.

[BigCrippyZ]

Being fed to John Cena is success. You realize that, right? I really think you guys need to talk to Kevin Owens or Rusev or whoever and ask them if being fed to John Cena was a good thing for their career. The fundamental lack of understanding of what it means to work with a guy the calibre of John Cena is just baffling to me.

Really? You can't be fucking stupid enough to believe this. Would Austin have said it was a success losing repeatedly and made to look pale in comparison to HBK or Taker? Would Rock have said it was a success being fed to Foley or Austin? Would HHH have thought he was successful if he continuously looked like he couldn't compete with guys like Rock and Austin? Compare their world title runs to Seth's and Seth's becomes a joke.

And yes, Owens and Rusev have gone on to such great things since being fed to Cena. :roll:

[The CyNick]

I don't think any ones goal as a WWE wrestler is to lose to John Cena. What you said in post #116 makes no sense.

First, Cena has put over lots of guys. Way more than he should.

If you are referring to guys losing to Cena, no it shouldn't be their goal to ultimately lose. However, if the peak of your career is you worked a back and forth program with one of the greatest stars in the history of the industry, you did pretty well.

The WWE would love for someone to outshine John Cena and TAKE his spot, but the only guy who came close had career threatening/ending injuries. Everyone else hasn't been able to take the spotlight from John. It would be a terrible idea for WWE to put every flavor of the month over John multiple times in a program. These guys have to prove they can take the spot and they all get it.

[The CyNick]

Really? You can't be fucking stupid enough to believe this. Would Austin have said it was a success losing repeatedly and made to look pale in comparison to HBK or Taker? Would Rock have said it was a success being fed to Foley or Austin? Would HHH have thought he was successful if he continuously looked like he couldn't compete with guys like Rock and Austin? Compare their world title runs to Seth's and Seth's becomes a joke.

And yes, Owens and Rusev have gone on to such great things since being fed to Cena. :roll:

You're mixing up issues.

Guys like Rusev, Owens, Wyatt, etc got to program with Cena very early in their tenure. No different that Cena had early matches with guys like Angle and Taker and lost. The difference is Cena elevated his game and surpassed those guys. The guys like Rusev, Wyatt, and Owens have yet to elevate their game.

Separate to that, no, true alphas like Hunter, Austin, and Rock wouldn't be happy just having a short dance in the spotlight, they wanted the entire spotlight. So they worked hard, proved to be better than their peers and they got the spot.

On the flip side there are plenty of very successful guys who made a living out of being a guy who worked with top guys, but was never a top guy themselves. Guys like Foley and Jericho fit this bill. They could never get over that final hump, but they had great careers where their highlights were basically making the elite guys looks better.

[Big Vic]

First, Cena has put over lots of guys. Way more than he should.

If you are referring to guys losing to Cena, no it shouldn't be their goal to ultimately lose. However, if the peak of your career is you worked a back and forth program with one of the greatest stars in the history of the industry, you did pretty well.
Who did Cena put over? Who WON a feud against Cena?

These guys aren't going back and forth with Cena, they are winning maybe one match then losing all the others.

[The CyNick]

Who did Cena put over? Who WON a feud against Cena?

These guys aren't going back and forth with Cena, they are winning maybe one match then losing all the others.

Look dude, you don't understand the business. Cena went 2-1 against Owens. If you think that should have gone any other way, I don't know how to help you.

Look at Foleys record vs Taker in their first run in 96. Look at Austins record with Bret. Look at Cena's initial run. All these guys got rubs by working with established top guys but ultimately counting the lights. The talent needs to elevate their game to get to the next level. The guys today don't know how or don't want to do that.

[Big Vic]

I was merely responding to things you have saidFirst, Cena has put over lots of guys. Way more than he should.
Who did Cena put over? Who WON a feud against Cena?
==============================
If you are referring to guys losing to Cena, no it shouldn't be their goal to ultimately lose. However, if the peak of your career is you worked a back and forth program with one of the greatest stars in the history of the industry, you did pretty well.


These guys aren't going back and forth with Cena, they are winning maybe one match then losing all the others.

[The CyNick]

Punk, Bryan, Lesnar

If you don't think Cena put all those guys over STRONG you're a moron. Which could be the case

[Heisenberg]

Still remember the Cena/Lesnar match at Extreme Rules. Very underrated match told with violence and stairs

[Big Vic]

I thought you said earlier you were against name calling but ok

I'll give you Lesnar and Bryan although I will say Bryan and Cena didn't have a real feud and just a match. But he did put him over in the match.

Punk and Cena always were about about equal in there feuds, but yes in 2011 Cena put over Punk at MITB and then (cleanly?) at summerslam and look what it did for punks Career. He became the number 2 guy in the company.

Bryan wins a match against Cena and then doesn't have it sullied with 3 consecutive losses to Cena after and he is made into a star. (The WWE decides to fuck that up in the Fall but that's a different topic).

---------------------------------

If I was in charge I would have done that with Rusev at Mania. then He beats Cena again at Extreme Rules. I would have Rusev be the top heel in the company and have him only been taken down by the next rising face of the company.

[The CyNick]

I thought you said earlier you were against name calling but ok

I'll give you Lesnar and Bryan although I will say Bryan and Cena didn't have a real feud and just a match. But he did put him over in the match.

Punk and Cena always were about about equal in there feuds, but yes in 2011 Cena put over Punk at MITB and then (cleanly?) at summerslam and look what it did for punks Career. He became the number 2 guy in the company.

Bryan wins a match against Cena and then doesn't have it sullied with 3 consecutive losses to Cena after and he is made into a star. (The WWE decides to fuck that up in the Fall but that's a different topic).

---------------------------------

If I was in charge I would have done that with Rusev at Mania. then He beats Cena again at Extreme Rules. I would have Rusev be the top heel in the company and have him only been taken down by the next rising face of the company.

Consider it me giving you a rub by calling you a name. My apologies. I'm sure you're not a moron.

The point of contention was Cenas role in putting guys over. As I have demonstrated he did that many times. How they got over after that had zero to do with Cena.

No offense but that booking makes no sense. Rusev was already essentially the number 1, maybe number 2 heel. He was up against the top babyface in a high profile championship match at Mania. If he beats Cena, where does he go from there? Cena never beat him like he was some JOB guy, Cena let Rusev shine in their matches. As should be the case in sports entertainment, the babyface went over in the end.

Besides, if Cena had lost that program, Lesnar dominating him at Summerslam would have meant very little, becuase it would have been like "yeah Cena just got dominated by Rusev too, big deal"

[Big Vic]

I stated in a thread months ago (probably when you weren't here, also it was before Brock re-signed) that I felt Rusev should have been the one to go over Brock sometime before Mania. Beat Cena at Mania, while Reigns beats Brock at the same event). Setting up for Reigns to be the one to topple Rusev at SummerSlam, if Reigns was ready to be the top guy, and then Reigns would beat Cena at WM32.

Cena would be putting 2 guys over that could carry the company well on into the future..... Too bad Reigns can't cut a promo to save his life.

As should be the case in sports entertainment, the babyface went over in the end.My outlook on this is different, I feel Heels should be the ones dominating and faces should have the short runs. That is not WWEs vision but other territories followed this.

[The CyNick]

I stated in a thread months ago (probably when you weren't here, also it was before Brock re-signed) that I felt Rusev should have been the one to go over Brock sometime before Mania. Beat Cena at Mania, while Reigns beats Brock at the same event). Setting up for Reigns to be the one to topple Rusev at SummerSlam if Reigns was ready to be the top guy, and then Reigns would beat Cena at WM32.

But don't you think it's a waste to put all that effort into building Brock (breaks the streak, dominates Cena, plows through everyone for 8 months) only to lose to someone (Rusev in this case) "sometime before Mania". Seems anti climactic.

And you've now beaten Brock AND Cena multiple times to get to Rusev v Reigns. Maybe that would have worked, although as we've seen, the crowd isn't ready to embrace Reigns add the number one babyface. Imagine promos leading up to a big match where Rusev is essentially silent and Roman is trying to fumble through his lines. I bet you look to get the belt back on Cena ASAP.

I go back to the US Open Challenge. Look how strong Cena has made that belt. Some people say is just as important as the WWE title. When was the last time that happened? That all stated by Cena winning the program with Rusev and acting like it was a big deal.

Rusev had stumbled since then, but part of that was the injury derailed him and this love quartet angle was misplaced. To make matters worse Lana probably screwed them both with her big mouth. Hopefully he can be built back up but with me dimension to his character.

[The CyNick]

My outlook on this is different, I feel Heels should be the ones dominating and faces should have the short runs. That is not WWEs vision but other territories followed this.

Diffrrent strokes. To me WWE is vastly superior to all other sports entertainment companies. I would take their booking logic to the bank.

If babyfaces fail right after they succeed they are lousy babyfaces. Hard to imagine those people drawing. Imagine if the Heath Ledger Batman ending with him blowing up the two boats of citizens and inmates. Batman just shrugs into the camera and goes "oops" as credits role.

[Big Vic]

But don't you think it's a waste to put all that effort into building Brock (breaks the streak, dominates Cena, plows through everyone for 8 months) only to lose to someone (Rusev in this case) "sometime before Mania". Seems anti climactic.

And you've now beaten Brock AND Cena multiple times to get to Rusev v Reigns. Maybe that would have worked, although as we've seen, the crowd isn't ready to embrace Reigns add the number one babyface. Imagine promos leading up to a big match where Rusev is essentially silent and Roman is trying to fumble through his lines. I bet you look to get the belt back on Cena ASAP.
It wouldn't have been at waste of putting 2 people over Brock at that time, WWE was not sure Brock was going to be staying with the company until like a week before Mania. when I say some time before Mania I am thinking Survivor Series or rumble not a minor PPV like TLC.

The crowd didn't openly reject Reigns until he won the rumble If he gets tossed out of the rumble, he wouldn't be catching so much flak.

But he still can't cut a promo, I thought he would have been ready by now. You could continue with Rusev being a dominating champ like HHH in 2003 with losing some title matches here and there until someone who can carry the company dethrones him.
I go back to the US Open Challenge. Look how strong Cena has made that belt. Some people say is just as important as the WWE title. When was the last time that happened? That all stated by Cena winning the program with Rusev and acting like it was a big deal.
He made the Belt look very strong, but not the people he is facing. It would be on thing if Cena beat some people easily and then had really close matchs with other guys. But if your having really close matches with everyone then it doesn't do anything for anybody.

[Big Vic]

Diffrrent strokes. To me WWE is vastly superior to all other sports entertainment companies. I would take their booking logic to the bank.

If babyfaces fail right after they succeed they are lousy babyfaces. Hard to imagine those people drawing. Imagine if the Heath Ledger Batman ending with him blowing up the two boats of citizens and inmates. Batman just shrugs into the camera and goes "oops" as credits role.
Well with the batman analogy Joker takes out the cops, judges, etc before facing the rising star of batman. Batman wins. Bane comes in a crushes Batman, dominates Gotham for a long awhile until <s>Batman comes back and beats him</s> Cat woman comes back and beats him.

[The CyNick]

Well with the batman analogy Joker takes out the cops, judges, etc before facing the rising star of batman. Batman wins. Bane comes in a crushes Batman, dominates Gotham for a long awhile until <s>Batman comes back and beats him</s> Cat woman comes back and beats him.

I'm sure cat woman will be as big of a draw as batman

[Big Vic]

I didn't book it, Chris Nolan did.

[The CyNick]

It wouldn't have been at waste of putting 2 people over Brock at that time, WWE was not sure Brock was going to be staying with the company until like a week before Mania. when I say some time before Mania I am thinking Survivor Series or rumble not a minor PPV like TLC.

The crowd didn't openly reject Reigns until he won the rumble If he gets tossed out of the rumble, he wouldn't be catching so much flak.

But he still can't cut a promo, I thought he would have been ready by now. You could continue with Rusev being a dominating champ like HHH in 2003 with losing some title matches here and there until someone who can carry the company dethrones him.
He made the Belt look very strong, but not the people he is facing. It would be on thing if Cena beat some people easily and then had really close matchs with other guys. But if your having really close matches with everyone then it doesn't do anything for anybody.

You may not have been sure Brock was leaving, but I believe WWE was 90% certain he was staying

As it stands Brock is still strong. I think he will make more money for WWE over the next few years than Reigns would have. As he's shown recently, he's not ready to be a top baby

[The CyNick]

I didn't book it, Chris Nolan did.

Either way, I would trust the guy I know can draw.

[Big Vic]

Cena doesn't draw like he used to, it's time for someone new.

[The CyNick]

Cena doesn't draw like he used to, it's time for someone new.

Network subs have been increasing year over year. Mania has sold out huge arenas every year with him on top. I dunno, what are the metrics that prove his time isn't now?

That said, WWE is clearly trying to find the next guy. They spent the better part of a year laying the groundwork for the Daniel Bryan run and through a fluke that didn't pan out.

Before that they spent countless months trying to get Punk over as a headliner. He got to a certain level and couldn't maintain and ultimately burnt out.

Roman Reigns has been pegged as a guy to potentially take over, but he hasn't gotten to the level they need.

I'm sure this year they will try again (maybe another shot with Reigns, maybe someone else). And we'll see if that guy can fill John's boots.

There should be no rush to push him aside just for the sake of doing it though.

[Big Vic]

Not saying do it tomorrow, no one can fill his shoes on the main roster, as of right now. But WWE should know the answer by WM32. If that answer is still "Cena" then I will continue not to watch.

[The CyNick]

Not saying do it tomorrow, no one can fill his shoes on the main roster, as of right now. But WWE should know the answer by WM32. If that answer is still "Cena" then I will continue not to watch.

Classic case of promising a stip you won't deliver on

[Big Vic]

I haven't watched for over a month so far...

[Rammsteinmad]

You haven't missed anything.

[hb2k]

So CyNick didnt answer a single point I made. Look at it his way.

My outlook isn't negative, its realistic. Social media doesn't mean shit for WWE and the rating is down. But I enjoy so much about the world of wrestling and WWE, and with doing the podcast I love wrestling maybe more than ever because we get so many different opinions of so many different topics that its fascinating to me. But I'm also well aware that fans like us here on a forum are the minority. And if the crowds were going wild for the current stuff, you'd be right to tell me to get over it and move on. But we're in the middle of either a transitional point in storylines, or, as it feels to a lot of people clearly, at a stage where there just isnt a lot to be excited about until Rumble time when things will be important again.

[The CyNick]

So CyNick didnt answer a single point I made. Look at it his way.

My outlook isn't negative, its realistic. Social media doesn't mean shit for WWE and the rating is down. But I enjoy so much about the world of wrestling and WWE, and with doing the podcast I love wrestling maybe more than ever because we get so many different opinions of so many different topics that its fascinating to me. But I'm also well aware that fans like us here on a forum are the minority. And if the crowds were going wild for the current stuff, you'd be right to tell me to get over it and move on. But we're in the middle of either a transitional point in storylines, or, as it feels to a lot of people clearly, at a stage where there just isnt a lot to be excited about until Rumble time when things will be important again.

People consume entertainment online, dont know if you heard. That is clear from the WWEs wildly successful social media numbers. If social media doesn't matter why does just about every company engage in it? Who told you social media means shit to WWE? You sound like another negative Nelly with a podcsst that I know. You don't see WWEs internal data on how social media impacts their other revenue streams, yet you make a blanket statement about how it doesn't mean shit. You would think someone with a podcast would automatically understand the business aspects of WWE.

The WWE You Tube page shows various clips from WWE shows, and at the end guess what it promotes? A little thing called the WWE Network. Do you know how many people watched those clips and decided to order WWE Network? I'll answer for you, you have no idea. You read some 4 point newsletter and think you understand how WWEs revenue streams work. Its hilarious to me.

If you enjoy sorts entertainment then great, but you, and just about everyone on this sad sad place sound like you hate it. Maybe change your podcast to something you are excited about. I mean that's just me. I would never want to spend so much time on something I'm not enjoying like you guys do. But if you enjoy it, that's cool too.

[The CyNick]

I haven't watched for over a month so far...

I'll catch you in this lie at a later date.

[Savio]

I'll catch you in this lie at a later date.
Classic case of a promise you won't deliver on

[Savio]

If you enjoy sorts entertainment then great, but you, and just about everyone on this sad sad place sound like you hate it. Maybe change your podcast to something you are excited about. I mean that's just me. I would never want to spend so much time on something I'm not enjoying like you guys do. But if you enjoy it, that's cool too.
Maybe he enjoys other shows like NXT, ROH, CHW, TNA, or NJPW

[hb2k]

People consume entertainment online, dont know if you heard. That is clear from the WWEs wildly successful social media numbers. If social media doesn't matter why does just about every company engage in it? Who told you social media means shit to WWE? You sound like another negative Nelly with a podcsst that I know. You don't see WWEs internal data on how social media impacts their other revenue streams, yet you make a blanket statement about how it doesn't mean shit. You would think someone with a podcast would automatically understand the business aspects of WWE.

Actually I did in the last post and you chose to ignore it. Any time they chose not to plug Lesnar on TV but did on Twitter, it meant nothing for ratings. And, as I said before and you ignored, the only place they plugged Steve Austins first Raw in 4 years was Twitter, and it did a 2.2. So how does that work for them?

WWE You Tube page shows various clips from WWE shows, and at the end guess what it promotes? A little thing called the WWE Network. Do you know how many people watched those clips and decided to order WWE Network? I'll answer for you, you have no idea. You read some 4 point newsletter and think you understand how WWEs revenue streams work. Its hilarious to me.

I know how many subscribers they have because they announce them. Of course I don't know YouTube conversion, and neither do you, its completely speculative. But ratings and house shows being down, and the Network being below what they have always said their original break even point is, while their social media is high doesnt correlate. I don't need to read a newsletter to figure that out, thats common sense.

If you enjoy sorts entertainment then great, but you, and just about everyone on this sad sad place sound like you hate it. Maybe change your podcast to something you are excited about. I mean that's just me. I would never want to spend so much time on something I'm not enjoying like you guys do. But if you enjoy it, that's cool too.

Maybe you should learn to read. Multiple times I've said I am loving following wrestling, and my initial post you jumped on I didnt even hint that I wasnt, I simply made an observation about how the WWE doesnt react to ratings much the way they used to, and it shows how much wrestling has changed. You completely misinterpreted the point, as you constantly have in this thread. Savio above me clearly understands, as have others. You're jumping to conclusions that everybody is negative, when it isnt hating everything the WWE does to make a post in a wrestling forum that the lowest rating in 18 years isnt a good thing.

[The CyNick]

You're trying to change the argument.

You said social media means shit. Which I know where you got that idea from but you won't admit it. Aside from that you made the fair point that advertising Austin's return solely on social media didn't bump television ratings. But I never argued that it would. What I think it BS is stating social media doesnt mean shit to WWE. Without access to WWE internal data you would have no idea about what benefits WWE gets from their highly successful activities on social media. Would television ratings have been higher if they promoted Austin on TV, maybe a little, but maybe the shock will have an impact down the road. Either way its irrelevant to the point that "social media means shit".

As for The Network, it's increasing year over year. In business when you start a new venture you expect losses at first, but long term it pays off. The Network is still in its infancy. From a revenue perspective they are futher ahead now vs pre network with just ppv. Again, my earlier post was just tying the fact that social media likely does not "mean shit" to the success of the Network growth.

As for your enjoyment of the product, I believe most people here like wrestling more than they let on. I think you fall into the category of people who like to cater to the negative crowd who want to spend 3 hours a week watching RAW and then get together and go this is shit. My belief is you enjoy it, but to be a cool kid in the IWC podcast world you have to be negative like your overlords who you try to emulate.

But I could be way off. I'll give your podcast a listen and see if any of your arguments sound familiar.

[hb2k]

Didn't get the idea from anywhere, like I said, that's common sense as far as I see.

And Network revenue isn't ahead of pre-Network PPV revenue now at all, that's just a outright lie.

As for my general opinion on things, think it's pretty cut and dry, not a negative bastard for the hell of it, but when something bad happens, got to call it like it is.

[Bad News Gertner]

Kevin Sullivan brought up a great point. The company keeps bringing back old stars to boost ratings, but ends up reminding the audience that the current roster sucks.

Could you imagine if when Hogan and Savage were first brought in if Vince kept bringing up Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Bruno in big roles. Hogan and Savage might have never gotten so over.

[Ruien]

Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick from the year 2016 View Post
Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they fall out of the top 20 anytime soon. Every thing is fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick from the year 2017 View Post
Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they fall out of the top 30 anytime soon. Every thing is fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick from the year 2018 View Post
Try looking at the viewership. NO chance they get canceled anytime soon. Every thing is fine
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick from the year 2019 View Post
WWE moved to destination america, they weren't canceled. Do you have any evidence from someone who isn't a disgruntled employee, or a reporter who obviously has a vendetta against vince saying they were canceled?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The CyNick from the fall of 2019 View Post
The WWE Network is what the WWE needs to be on right now. More people are on the internet now than ever in history!



I don't feel like adding all the quotes like Savior did but this is post of the year worthy.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Kevin Sullivan brought up a great point. The company keeps bringing back old stars to boost ratings, but ends up reminding the audience that the current roster sucks.

Could you imagine if when Hogan and Savage were first brought in if Vince kept bringing up Pedro Morales, Bob Backlund and Bruno in big roles. Hogan and Savage might have never gotten so over.

This is a very good point. I feel that when they have older stars involved in the product, they should be going out of their way to give the current generation and stories a rub. And can a guy really get to A1 if John Cena is still in the A-class babyface group? Cena taking some extended time off to allow the next guy a chance, or even turning heel, might be the best way to transition the people behind the new guy and his merchandise.

[Mr. Nerfect]

If babyfaces fail right after they succeed they are lousy babyfaces. Hard to imagine those people drawing. Imagine if the Heath Ledger Batman ending with him blowing up the two boats of citizens and inmates. Batman just shrugs into the camera and goes "oops" as credits role.

But that's what they do with guys, CyNick. This has been a large point of contention with you that you've either ignored for argument's sake, to troll or because you don't understand it. In fact, they often don't give the face a chance to succeed before they start failing.

Cesaro and Ambrose spring immediately to mind. I think Cesaro has beaten Rusev twice since he split up from Tyson Kidd. He's not being positioned as a Batman. Isn't it weird he isn't getting over? Ambrose constantly chokes when he gets a chance to put his hand on his nemesis, and then he just meanders around the wastelands shrugging. He's not being positioned as Batman.

And, for that matter, no one is The Joker. Seth Rollins has been presented as fucking Kite Man.

[Big Vic]

I'll catch you in this lie at a later date.
Still waiting for you to catch me in this "lie"

[The CyNick]

Still waiting for you to catch me in this "lie"

What was your favorite match at Hell in a Cell?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think CyNick thinks he's got you trapped, Vic...

[Big Vic]

lol i didn't watch.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Very craftily avoided, Vic.

[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]

Still waiting for you to catch me in this "lie"

What was your favorite match at Hell in a Cell?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.
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.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CSfJMUaWEAAOjt_.png

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]

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]

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]

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.

<font color=goldenrod>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.</font>

[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]

<font color=goldenrod>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.</font>

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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. :y:

[Big Vic]

I think WWE should have created 2 WWE Network plans. $9.99 for regular streaming w/o PPVs and $12.99 for PPVs included.

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.
CyNick will catch you in that lie shortly

[Big Vic]

I think WWE should have created 2 WWE Network plans. $9.99 for regular streaming w/o PPVs and $12.99 for PPVs included.

SOMEONE is probably going to tell me that 12.99 is a bad idea because its over the 10 dollar mark etc.

[The CyNick]

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

Lol you completely missed my point. Don't worry about it.

[The CyNick]

SOMEONE is probably going to tell me that 12.99 is a bad idea because its over the 10 dollar mark etc.

Right now they don't want to have multiple price points. It's easier to be able to advertise "$9.99"

At some point I'm sure they will raise prices, but I think the business model works better at one price point for the whole thing.

[Big Vic]

I think they should have started with multi price points.

[Sepholio]

No way should they have multiple price points that regulate how much of the content you can view. Look at Netflix for example. The multiple price points govern how many devices can stream simultaneously and what not; they don't lock out content based on which type of account you have. And considering they are the gold standard of streaming services I'd imagine their approach is probably the one to go with, at least for the time being.

I just don't see that many people being interested in WWE Network without the PPV option. If they added a second tier at 12.99 or whatever it would be that included the PPVs while the standard 9.99 did not.....then I feel you'd lose subscribers and that everyone would feel like it is a scam just to raise rates while giving the appearance of a choice.

[Big Vic]

I just don't see that many people being interested in WWE Network without the PPV option. If they added a second tier at 12.99 or whatever it would be that included the PPVs while the standard 9.99 did not.....then I feel you'd lose subscribers and that everyone would feel like it is a scam just to raise rates while giving the appearance of a choice.There would be some sort of drop of if initially it was $12.99 for PPVs instead of $9.99. But I think the extra $3 would make up for the low percentage of people who wouldn't subscribe.

[Big Vic]

There would be some sort of drop of if initially it was $12.99 for PPVs instead of $9.99. But I think the extra $3 would make up for the low percentage of people who wouldn't subscribe.
I have no evidence for my claims, BTW

[Mr. Nerfect]

Lol you completely missed my point. Don't worry about it.

No, you completely missed mine, but don't worry about it.

[hb2k]

Third hour this week fell below 3 millions viewers.

Nothing wrong, guys.

[The CyNick]

Never good to see a big decline, but I'm sure the fact that it was taped had an impact. I usually dont like reading RAW spoilers when they are overseas, but in this case I was eager to get them because I wanted to see how the tournament was laid out. Of course I'm just one person.

the first hour was higher than last week, and when you take the average its not really a huge decline. And at the end of the day, even the third hour being so low, that hour was still only behind two shows in terms of viewership on Cable on Monday.

MNF was down week over week by 1 million viewers. Which means RAW's overall viewership declined by about 2% WoW and MNF viewership was down 8% WoW.

Like I said, not great to go down, and maybe 3 million is some kind of panic number, but looks like people were just tuning TV out this week.

[#1-norm-fan]

The Monday Night Football numbers were down because the matchup was the drizzling shits...

Raw had the WWE champion for the past 7 months being stripped of the title and the "intrigue" of a tournament for a new champion beginning.

But it was just because people decided to not watch TV. Yes. It was TV's fault. Because faith in McMahon.

[Emperor Smeat]

For some comparisons, last year's UK Raw show had around a million more people watching for the 3rd hour. Almost a million more also watching for the average viewership.

Drop this week was pretty large even by taped RAW show comparisons.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Well that's only because of something to do with what the internet fans wanted causing a rating's drop. I'm sure of it.

[The CyNick]

As usual you guys can't debate an actual point.

MNF matchup two weeks ago was nothing to write home about. This week was bad as well, and the number dropped more significantly than WWE.

We're any of you guys more interested than normal in getting the spoilers? I was. As a result I watched less of the show because I knew the outcome. Rather than saying whether or not you were more or less interested in spoilers than a run of the mill UK show, you ignore the point. Cool way to debate.

And even if you don't agree with any of that, the number was only down a couple percent week over week.

[Evil Vito]

<font color=goldenrod>Guys, stop acting like The CyNick is a real person.</font>

[Droford]

It's quite obvious that peoples attention spans can't be kept glued to one tv channel for 190 minutes straight anymore unless it's football.

[Heisenberg]

I'm just tired of the NFL and WWE going PG/PC, that's why I don't consume every second of their events. There are other modes of entertainment that don't have a restrain and people are figuring it out.

[Savio]

Porn?

[Heisenberg]

That and the whole layout to a Monday night. Survivor Series being dedicated to Undertaker is pretty choice though

[The CyNick]

Mods, please change thread title to Smackdown ratings highest in 3 months. Crisis is over. The product is great again. Neilsen justified that belief.

[Simple Fan]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpki8RQGZNJrU3JgZt7RJOV-kp2o0MJgTvV8irEc4ircrhzBrxzw

[The CyNick]

http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSpki8RQGZNJrU3JgZt7RJOV-kp2o0MJgTvV8irEc4ircrhzBrxzw

who is this now?

[Simple Fan]

who is this now?

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxaXCs8ifnZRA_fSbUS5wpGmNeRAObusKEhixC0kgYFcgcFjRGvA

[The CyNick]

http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQxaXCs8ifnZRA_fSbUS5wpGmNeRAObusKEhixC0kgYFcgcFjRGvA

Yikes. A new low :(

[rob11]

Raw dropped under 3 million viewers last night.

http://pwinsider.com/article/98053/raw-drops-below-three-million-viewers-lowest-audience-in-years.html?p=1

[Simple Fan]

Probably had something to do with DirecTV DVRs not recording Raw, didn't notice it wasn't recording til 9:30

[#BROKEN Hasney]

Probably had something to do with DirecTV DVRs not recording Raw, didn't notice it wasn't recording til 9:30

Or people saying "fuck this noise" after watching/reading about Survivor Series.

[slik]

I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you that Sheamus/Roman Reigns are not ratings super magnets

Monday's episode of WWE (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/news/wwe-news/) RAW, with the fallout from Survivor Series (http://wrestlinginc.com/wi/events/2015/304/wwe-survivor-series-2015/) and new WWE World Heavyweight Champion Sheamus, drew 2.964 million viewers. This is down 10% from last week's 3.293 million viewers and a new non-holiday record low. It is also the first time that the show has done below 3 million viewers since the show permanently went to three hours in July of 2012.

[rob11]

Probably had something to do with DirecTV DVRs not recording Raw, didn't notice it wasn't recording til 9:30
The 3rd hour fell to 2.7 million people. I wouldn't be surprised if it keeps falling until they bring Lesnar back.

[rob11]

I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you that Sheamus/Roman Reigns are not ratings super magnets
Neither can draw. I'm sure they are trying to get Cena back ASAP because at least he would bring them above 3 million although not by much.

[Simple Fan]

Or people saying "fuck this noise" after watching/reading about Survivor Series.

Could be but really Sheamus was their best option. Did not want to see Reigns holding the title trying to be John Cena on the mic. A lot more people would have tuned in had Ambrose won the title.

[rob11]

They don't want to give Ambrose the ball and not being able to elevate newer stars is going to cause ratings to keep falling until Royal Rumble when they typicality rebound. The question is how much lower can they go before Vince thinks about trying something different than what he's been doing in not elevating certain talent. Ambrose may not be able to draw at first, but he's not been given the proper time to be a household name.

[Emperor Smeat]

I for one am shocked, shocked I tell you that Sheamus/Roman Reigns are not ratings super magnets

Sheamus has a really bad history of being a ratings drainer especially as champion or the focus of a show. Was one of the big reasons why people complained at him winning the MitB case since it was more likely nothing good would happen in the end.

When quarterly or segment breakdowns used to be revealed, him and Orton were almost always the big droppers in terms of stars. Think Sheamus still owns the record for worst segment drop at almost a million a few years ago.

[slik]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p lang="und" dir="ltr">2.16</p>&mdash; Wade Keller (@thewadekeller) <a href="https://twitter.com/thewadekeller/status/669272277977079809">November 24, 2015</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

[Innovator]

You guys are a bunch of Nielsonphobes

[Simple Fan]

WWE's Survivor Series, particularly the event's finish, was widely met with negative reviews and utter disappointment from observers. Not only did the company put forth mundane matches that failed to captivate the audience -- those in attendance in Atlanta and others watching around the world -- it replicated a clunky finish from a pay-per-view just one year earlier. The end result -- a new World Heavyweight Champion in Sheamus that no one desires to see as part of the main event picture -- left many shaking their heads.

Count former WWE champion and one of the company's most popular performers this century, Mick Foley, among those displeased with WWE's creative direction. In a 400+ word Facebook post, Foley said matter-of-factly that he is "on the verge of becoming a former WWE fan."

I'm tired of being told through Raw, Smackdown and PPV's that WWE superstars I have rooted for - from Ziggler to Cesaro to Kevin Owens aren't top stars - no matter how strongly crowd reaction seems to disagree. I'm tired of NXT stars getting their big "break" in WWE, just to be treated like jokes.
Foley specifically notes how WWE has completely failed to capitalize not only on the male wrestlers drawing positive reactions from the crowd but also female performers who are promoted well on the company's NXT developmental show but hardly given any time to "get over" with the crowd on major WWE shows like Monday Night Raw and Smackdown.

"I think I can get used to watching football games on Monday night again," wrote Foley, referring to his changing the channel from Raw this past week. "If I leave, it's not just one disgruntled former fan; finding something else to do on Monday nights. Instead, losing a long-time, die-hard fan like me might well be an indication of a larger exodus from WWE."

Bang. Bang.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

You guys just don't understand the business

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah, but what successful wrestling territory has CBS Sports ever booked? Or Mick Foley? Or that 10% drop? This is the most successful revenue year in the WWE's history, and we all know the WWE Network will definitely be en vogue for years to come.

[Mr. Nerfect]

This is somehow Cesaro's fault for being boring.

[ron the dial]

network subs aren't really a great indicator of why people are signing up. is it for new content or the old content? to use that as an indicator of anything other than revenue, we'd need the number of views on the videos available.

yes, having a successful network is great for business, but how much is based on nostalgia and how much on the current product? i'd be more interested in knowing that.

[Simple Fan]

You know if WWE wanted to make more money off the network they should sell timeslots to promotions they good with. Promotions like Reality of Wrestling and Evolve would be great in the network. Probably won't but its just a thought I had.

[Emperor Smeat]

For some comparisons, this was last year's viewership for the same week:

RAW November 24th, 2014
Hour one - 4.73 million
Hour two - 3.99 million
Hour three - 4.01 million
Average - 4.23 million

Massive drop even by the usual comparisons (around 250k-500k drop average yearly).

[Black Widow]

Ha!

I hope they keep dropping.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

network subscriptions though guys. It makes up for all of it. ALLLLLL OF IT

[Mr. Nerfect]

I watch NXT on TV over here. If they dropped it, I'd probably just stop watching. Sincerely can't stand WWE's main product more than I love NXT. Vince and Kevin Dunn pretty much plucked all the talent I was really invested in from NXT anyway.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I couldn't even bring myself to watch Survivor Series for free on Sunday.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I’m going to quote an article from July, 2014, called “The Sad Case Of Zack Ryder” in which I wrote: “Eventually, people get tired of finding out that the WWE Superstars they have supported with their cheers, their signs, their purchases, their follows, and their likes aren’t real Superstars – and, little by little, those fans lose interest in WWE, find other interests, and become former WWE fans.”

I am one of those people on the verge of becoming a former WWE fan. I’m tired of being told through Raw, Smackdown and PPV’s that WWE superstars I have rooted for – from Ziggler to Cesaro to Kevin Owens aren’t top stars – no matter how strongly crowd reaction seems to disagree. I’m tired of NXT stars getting their big “break” in WWE, just to be treated like jokes.

Six months ago, my son and I traveled 12 hours – from Eastern Tennessee to Orlando, Florida to watch Sasha Banks wrestle Becky Lynch at ‪#‎NXTTakeover‬.- One of the greatest women’s matches of all time. Last night, in what I believe was their first singles match on ‪#‎RAW‬ Sasha and Becky were given four minutes. At a time when WWE desperately needs to make new stars – when they need to give wrestlers with talent the opportunity to break through – they gave Sasha and Becky four minutes. I turned the channel, and watched a pretty good football game instead. I think I can get used to watching football games on Monday night again.

I will be watching RAW this Monday. Maybe, as is often the case in relationships, they will give me just enough to remind me why I love wrestling – just enough to keep me coming back. Maybe they will even give Sasha and Becky a rematch – and a legitimate chance to show the world what they can do.

There is an old saying in politics : as Ohio goes, so goes the nation. Think of me as the Ohio of wrestling fans. If I leave, it’s not just one disgruntled former fan; finding something else to do on Monday nights. Instead, my leaving might well be an indication of a larger exodus from WWE.

I want to stay. I really do. So please WWE – next week on WWE Raw… Just give me a reason.

I pretty much agree with all of this -- right down to Sasha Banks vs. Becky Lynch being one of the best women's matches I have ever seen. It is probably my favorite match from this entire year. I am far more into Becky's character than Bayley's.

Calling Becky up to the main roster has been bittersweet. Sure, it's great to see her making money on the big stage; but it felt like she had so much left to achieve in her program with Sasha Banks. I would have loved to have seen them get to compete in the first-ever women's Ladder Match officially sanctioned by the WWE, or in the Iron Man Match.

But anyway, what does Mick Foley know about wrestling, right?

[Mr. Nerfect]

On a happier note, here's a picture of Noelle Foley:

http://i.imgur.com/Jlt5lK3.jpg

[Corporate CockSnogger]

Wrestling has become the most predictable thing ever. Even the most diehard fans of "technical wrestling" can't only watch for well executed hammerlocks? Actual storytelling is still needed and there doesn't seem to be any anymore. So it's no surprise their ratings are dropping.

I've not watched an episode of Raw in years, and I've seen only 2-3 Ppv matches in about 3 or 4 years. Yet I watched Survivor Series after hearing there'd be a tournament plus a Taker "anniversary match" and I knew who was going to win every match. There's nothing of interest happening.