WWE Receives Bad News With Saturday Night's Main Event

[rko4life]

WWE Saturday Night's Main Event received a 3.4 fast national rating. This rating indicates that displaying wrestling on a major network did nothing to increase the interest in the product. The two-hour show caused NBC to place last among the four channels offering national programming Saturday night.

The expectations inside the wrestling industry was that the show would receive a much higher rating, and anything below a 5.0 would be consider a disappointment. However, those within the TV industry had much lower expectations, and the 3.4 fast national rating is below what they expected.

This is bad news for WWE, who were looking to secure more TV time on NBC. WWE sources are most likely going to attribute the low rating to the NCAA tournament.

[D Mac]

To be expected.

[The One]

Nick So Happy. Soon, very soon, McMahon will be forced to realise that his product is shit, and will change it around. History does repeat itself...so in like 3 years it will be entertaining again.

[Corkscrewed]

Didn't we say that three years ago? :p

[The One]

Yeah, and technically we still arn't down to the level of ratings that made McMahon stand up and pay attention in 1997...so we have some time to go still.

[Impeccable]

But we won't ever go down to the level of ratings that made him stand up and panic in 1997. There's no competition to watch. Sure, guys like us can boycott the product, but kids love it, and with nothing else to watch...?

[The One]

Oh I beg to differ. Pro Wrestling believe it or not does NOT have a large loyal fan base that will watch through anything. I would wager that most (please note the use of the word MOST and not all) of the fans watching today actually started before Attitude or after. Which means that those who started after will probably gorw tired of the product in due time and we will be left with only those who watched before Attitude, with many who watched before having decided to spend their time on better things, and a million or so from either Attitude or post Attitude as well...that means that in due time McMahon will feel the burn of shitty product, and once again will be forced to change his product.

[Impeccable]

I understand where you're coming from, but I got interested in Wrestling by one day flicking the channel and it was there. There will ALWAYS be an amount of churn in viewing figures. For everyone of us that stops watching it, a kid might change the channel and see it, and enjoy it and continue to watch it. That's the main problem with having no competition.

I mean, I live in England, and for the first time, I have seen Billboards here in England advertising Wrestlemania. And I mean HUGE billboards. If I was a young child and saw that, I'd be seriously interested in it.

I honestly can't see the product getting any better, regardless of viewing figures going up or down.

[The One]

Of course there will always be new viewers to a program. But the problem is, WWE is losing viewers much faster then it is making them. With or without competition, WWE is in danger of losing TV deals. Hell, they were more or less thrown off of Spike TV, and UPN moved them nights and now is even talking about canceling them all together. The fact is the ratings have been in a steady decline for years. Before Attitude (let's say pre-1998) the RAW ratings ranged from 2.0 to about 3.5...Austin gets big and BOOM, ratings hang out at around 6.0 to 7.5 and occasionally pass 8.0 (once even setting World records and breaking 10.0). Now where are we? Around the 3.0 to 4.5 standard. With the trends ratings have been showing, they will continue to go down. Competition or not, WWE continues to lose fans every day. You simply can't argue with cold hard numbers that show people are losing interest.

And as for the entire competition comments in general; RAW and Nitro both showed signs of holding similar ratings during the time when the other show was and was not on.

And as for the advertising argument...that is just reflective of how much McMahon is putting into advertising. Has nothing to do with how many people like the product or will continue to watch.

[Fox]

This is a hard hit for the WWE. I wonder if it's the last of Saturday Night Main Event for awhile?

[The One]

I am not sure, I think WWE already inked a deal to do more then one of these events...though I am sure if NBC wanted to back out they could find a way.

So what I am saying is, yeah, count on Main Event not being around for a while.

[Savio]

I thought SNME was good but with St. Pats day and the NCAA tourny I expected it not to be high.

[hb2k]

Regardless, if you are on NBC and can't even get a 4, that's a failure.

[Impeccable]

The One

I really enjoyed reading your arguments. You backed them up with figures too. I don't have access to these figures (I may, but I can't be bothered). Thanks for a good read.

[Kane Knight]

I understand where you're coming from, but I got interested in Wrestling by one day flicking the channel and it was there. There will ALWAYS be an amount of churn in viewing figures. For everyone of us that stops watching it, a kid might change the channel and see it, and enjoy it and continue to watch it. That's the main problem with having no competition.

I mean, I live in England, and for the first time, I have seen Billboards here in England advertising Wrestlemania. And I mean HUGE billboards. If I was a young child and saw that, I'd be seriously interested in it.

I honestly can't see the product getting any better, regardless of viewing figures going up or down.

Do you know why they're advertising in England so much?

Because they're losing so many fans over here.

They've started touring overseas more, because tour revenues are down in the states. They're trying to recoup revenues overseas, through touring and adverts.

They're trying to tap a market that isn't sick of them. They've had to reduce venue sizes, have shorter (Or rather, less extended) tours, because they can't fill up arenas they used to be able to. They couldn't keep their Smackdown slot OR their cable partner for Raw, lost several hours of programming, etc.

Why? Because for every fan that turns it off, there isn't always one to replace it. And instead of trying to save their largest market, they're turning elsewhere.

That won't save them from losing footing in the US market, and if they lose here, they're pretty much fucked.

[Kane Knight]

Of course there will always be new viewers to a program. But the problem is, WWE is losing viewers much faster then it is making them. With or without competition, WWE is in danger of losing TV deals. Hell, they were more or less thrown off of Spike TV, and UPN moved them nights and now is even talking about canceling them all together. The fact is the ratings have been in a steady decline for years. Before Attitude (let's say pre-1998) the RAW ratings ranged from 2.0 to about 3.5...Austin gets big and BOOM, ratings hang out at around 6.0 to 7.5 and occasionally pass 8.0 (once even setting World records and breaking 10.0). Now where are we? Around the 3.0 to 4.5 standard. With the trends ratings have been showing, they will continue to go down. Competition or not, WWE continues to lose fans every day. You simply can't argue with cold hard numbers that show people are losing interest.

And as for the entire competition comments in general; RAW and Nitro both showed signs of holding similar ratings during the time when the other show was and was not on.

And as for the advertising argument...that is just reflective of how much McMahon is putting into advertising. Has nothing to do with how many people like the product or will continue to watch.

FTR, according to the stats I've seen on the Neilsen Media site, both Raw and Smackdown have had dips below 30. So we're more in the 2.5 to 4.5 range (And I'm yet to see a 4.5 on Neilsen Media).

The sad thing is, even places like PWInsider seem to openly inflate wrestling ratings.

[Impeccable]

You've presented your arguments so well. I guess I was thinking about it in a very 2d frame of mind, rather than taking the time to look at reasons and trends. So you guys are right...I'm wrong.

How often do you see THAT on the internet?

[Boondock Saint]

Wow, that's pretty poor.

[UmbrellaCorporation]

You know, for the ratings to be so abysmal, I was really pleased with SNME.

[Stickman]

Did anybody actually expect huge ratings for SNME? I didn't think they'd do any better than Raw. Just because it's saturday night prime time doesn't mean people will watch. There has to be a reason to, and there wasn't.

[Vermaat]

It was a poor time slot and it was not properly advertised. Also as the article mentioned, the NCAA was on and it ruined the rating.

[Xero]

It was a poor time slot and it was not properly advertised. Also as the article mentioned, the NCAA was on and it ruined the rating.
How is 8 o'clock on a Saturday on a top four national TV network a bad spot? I agree it wasn't advertised properly, but the original SNME had numbers twice and three times that at a later slot.

[Scarface]

A nice long Triple H title run will fix all of this...

[PullMyFinger]

I'm happy that WWE scored a crap rating for SNME. I knew it was going to happen. WWE is a rather shite product nowadays, and no one cares for it anymore.

It won't get that good again until there's real competition.

[Rob]

Do you know why they're advertising in England so much?

Because they're losing so many fans over here.

They've started touring overseas more, because tour revenues are down in the states. They're trying to recoup revenues overseas, through touring and adverts.

They're trying to tap a market that isn't sick of them. They've had to reduce venue sizes, have shorter (Or rather, less extended) tours, because they can't fill up arenas they used to be able to. They couldn't keep their Smackdown slot OR their cable partner for Raw, lost several hours of programming, etc.

Why? Because for every fan that turns it off, there isn't always one to replace it. And instead of trying to save their largest market, they're turning elsewhere.

That won't save them from losing footing in the US market, and if they lose here, they're pretty much fucked.

Mate, they are losing even more in the UK. Percentage wise, they have lost more viewers here from the company's peak than they did at the peak in the U.S.

I don't even know one person who still watches on a regular basis now.

[The Genius]

nbc cant win with the wwe these days. the xfl, now bad ratings for snme.

[The One]

FTR, according to the stats I've seen on the Neilsen Media site, both Raw and Smackdown have had dips below 30. So we're more in the 2.5 to 4.5 range (And I'm yet to see a 4.5 on Neilsen Media).

I was giving them the benfit of the doubt, and it was more of a statement on their average score. As for the 4.5, during Edge's Title Reign the ratings went up to that point.

January 2 - 3.7 - John Cena's last RAW with the Title
January 9 - 4.3 - Edge's First RAW as champ
January 16 - 4.3
January 23 - 4.5
January 30 - 4.5 - John Cena's first RAW as champ again
February 6 - 4.5
February 16 - 3.3

And from there we continue to stick around the high 3's low 4's.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I do not feel sorry for the WWE. I will not be buying WrestleMania if it doesn't have Paul London & Brian Kendrick on it, yet Torrie Wilson & Candice Michelle make the card.

Hopefully the WWE LEARNS from this, and develops a better idea of where their product is heading.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I was giving them the benfit of the doubt, and it was more of a statement on their average score. As for the 4.5, during Edge's Title Reign the ratings went up to that point.

January 2 - 3.7 - John Cena's last RAW with the Title
January 9 - 4.3 - Edge's First RAW as champ
January 16 - 4.3
January 23 - 4.5
January 30 - 4.5 - John Cena's first RAW as champ again
February 6 - 4.5
February 16 - 3.3

And from there we continue to stick around the high 3's low 4's.

So, this may not be the constant rule, but title changes boost ratings? The 4.5 mark is obviously within reach of the WWE, but they don't draw in that viewership unless something is going on.

Do you think the WWE should do more title changes? A top period in the WWE was when The Rock & Triple H traded the WWE Championship between them a few times. Maybe having the title change hands frequently (every month or so), even if it is between just two guys, is the way to go?

A good product may help as well.

[The One]

So, this may not be the constant rule, but title changes boost ratings? The 4.5 mark is obviously within reach of the WWE, but they don't draw in that viewership unless something is going on.

Do you think the WWE should do more title changes? A top period in the WWE was when The Rock & Triple H traded the WWE Championship between them a few times. Maybe having the title change hands frequently (every month or so), even if it is between just two guys, is the way to go?

A good product may help as well.

I think there is a lot to say about title changes boosting ratings in the short term. However, when you go overboard (WCW) it not only loses the shock value but also devalues the title itself. I think WWE has made a huge mistake lately. They have been handing out single title reigns. That is bad, it makes the guy who held the title look like a fluke, and it doesn't allow the fans time to grow a true foundness for them as the number one guy, it also makes a lot of former champs running around which on a whole takes away from the value of the title if it seems every flash in the pan gets the title...let's look at how many people have only held the title once (post-WrestleMania 1)...

Andre The Giant (who never even needed the BS title reign to be a draw)
Sgt. Slaughter
Diesel
Kane
Chris Jericho
Eddie Guerrero
JBL
Edge
-----If you count the World Heavyweight Title-----
Goldberg
Chris Benoit
Batista

Do you notice when the ratings are the lowest (Slaughter & Diesel reigns & now) it's when guys only get one shot with the gold. I would rather WWE continue to promote the former champs and put them over instead of giving someone a title reign, then jobbing them out to their next popcorn Champ. John Cena recently became the first WWE Champion since Brock Lesnar to have more then one run with the belt. Anyone see a problem with that? It makes the Champs look like flavor of the months, and takes away from the value of the title.

So I think they shouldn't have year long title reigns, and I think they should get a few guys who they can rotate the title between. By the end of the year, I think Edge, Hunter, and Cena should all get another title run, and they shouldn't hand the belt over to the next new guy...bu odds are Hunter will win, then RVD, then Carlito, and we continue with the paper champs. Whatever I don't even know what my original point was, I am just pissed with how WWE is handling their title belts as a whole.

[Mr. Nerfect]

I think there is a lot to say about title changes boosting ratings in the short term. However, when you go overboard (WCW) it not only loses the shock value but also devalues the title itself. I think WWE has made a huge mistake lately. They have been handing out single title reigns. That is bad, it makes the guy who held the title look like a fluke, and it doesn't allow the fans time to grow a true foundness for them as the number one guy, it also makes a lot of former champs running around which on a whole takes away from the value of the title if it seems every flash in the pan gets the title...let's look at how many people have only held the title once (post-WrestleMania 1)...

Andre The Giant (who never even needed the BS title reign to be a draw)
Sgt. Slaughter
Diesel
Kane
Chris Jericho
Eddie Guerrero
JBL
Edge
-----If you count the World Heavyweight Title-----
Goldberg
Chris Benoit
Batista

Do you notice when the ratings are the lowest (Slaughter & Diesel reigns & now) it's when guys only get one shot with the gold. I would rather WWE continue to promote the former champs and put them over instead of giving someone a title reign, then jobbing them out to their next popcorn Champ. John Cena recently became the first WWE Champion since Brock Lesnar to have more then one run with the belt. Anyone see a problem with that? It makes the Champs look like flavor of the months, and takes away from the value of the title.

So I think they shouldn't have year long title reigns, and I think they should get a few guys who they can rotate the title between. By the end of the year, I think Edge, Hunter, and Cena should all get another title run, and they shouldn't hand the belt over to the next new guy...bu odds are Hunter will win, then RVD, then Carlito, and we continue with the paper champs. Whatever I don't even know what my original point was, I am just pissed with how WWE is handling their title belts as a whole.

I remember thinking about this when Edge was getting his rematch after losing the Royal Rumble. I prayed that they just put the title on Cena so they could get him into multiple reign category, and that Edge would win the belt back, so he would also be a two-time WWE Champion. Then, if they wanted John Cena to be WWE Champion heading into WrestleMania, do another match at Saturday Night's Main Event with John Cena winning, making him a three-time WWE Champion.

I think booking like this does work, and whilst long reigns have a place, when you're just keeping the belt on a guy in hopes someone will see them and take notice of them, it doesn't work out a lot of the time. You also have two rosters, which allows you to experiment with a steady Champion on one brand, and an exciting trade season on the other brand.

I don't think they should have new guys win the belt, but I do think that there should be more title swaps between the guys that have held the belt. On RAW, anyway. On SmackDown!, I think Kurt Angle is going a great job with the World Heavyweight Championship, and I would keep the belt on him until Batista returns and wins it back.

It's kind of sad that the only person who has held the World Heavyweight Title more than once in its four year lifespan is Triple H.

[The One]

I think booking like this does work, and whilst long reigns have a place, when you're just keeping the belt on a guy in hopes someone will see them and take notice of them, it doesn't work out a lot of the time. You also have two rosters, which allows you to experiment with a steady Champion on one brand, and an exciting trade season on the other brand.

THANK YOU! Do you realise that since the roster split, the title changes have been nearly perfectly in sync!

Survivor Series 02 - HBK wins the WHC, Big Show wins the WWE

Armaggedon 02 - Hunter wins the WHC, Angle wins the WWE

Early '04 - Benoit wins the WHC, Guerrero wins the WWE (around a months difference)

WrestleMania 21 - Batista wins the WHC, Cena wins the WWE

January '06 - Angle wins the WHC, Edge wins the WWE (within the same 5 days)

There has been 10 Title changes for each belt since the brand split...and to have 5 of them be around the exact same time...:Shifty: come on.

[Mr. Nerfect]

THANK YOU! Do you realise that since the roster split, the title changes have been nearly perfectly in sync!

Survivor Series 02 - HBK wins the WHC, Big Show wins the WWE

Armaggedon 02 - Hunter wins the WHC, Angle wins the WWE

Early '04 - Benoit wins the WHC, Guerrero wins the WWE (around a months difference)

WrestleMania 21 - Batista wins the WHC, Cena wins the WWE

January '06 - Angle wins the WHC, Edge wins the WWE (within the same 5 days)

There has been 10 Title changes for each belt since the brand split...and to have 5 of them be around the exact same time...:Shifty: come on.

Holy shit! I've never really thought about that. The WWE should try and have some range with their World Title booking.

[Kane Knight]

You've presented your arguments so well. I guess I was thinking about it in a very 2d frame of mind, rather than taking the time to look at reasons and trends. So you guys are right...I'm wrong.

How often do you see THAT on the internet?

Counting that time?

...One...

...You blew my fucking mind.

[Kane Knight]

I was giving them the benfit of the doubt, and it was more of a statement on their average score. As for the 4.5, during Edge's Title Reign the ratings went up to that point.

January 2 - 3.7 - John Cena's last RAW with the Title
January 9 - 4.3 - Edge's First RAW as champ
January 16 - 4.3
January 23 - 4.5
January 30 - 4.5 - John Cena's first RAW as champ again
February 6 - 4.5
February 16 - 3.3

And from there we continue to stick around the high 3's low 4's.

Actually, almost every instance I could compare Neilsen Media with the ratings sourced everywhere else, the Neilsen Media ratings were lower. For example, I know Jan 16 and 23 were both back at 3.7, despite claims to the contrary. There was even a thread in which I got people to concede the issue.

I don't know about Jan 30, because they didn't post figures that week on Neilsen Media's site, but several of the other ones are patently false. It makes me doubt the other ones too.

[DaVe]

http://www.steveswrestling.com/info/rawratings.html

This is the reference I always use, though it hasn't been updated for a while. I should probably put up that page on my site and get it up to date, when I've got the time.

[loopydate]

I know a grand total of zero people in my area (central Michigan) watched it, since it was pre-empted for a Pistons game.

[RGWhat316]

I know a grand total of zero people in my area (central Michigan) watched it, since it was pre-empted for a Pistons game.
It was on WB20 in Detroit, but I dunno if that counted in the ratings.

[loopydate]

We got a 1 PM Sunday replay. I don't know if we got it on WB on Saturday, since I was out of town and set my VCR, only to get back and see the first quarter of the game.

[Kane Knight]

There's a legit possibility it wasn't just WWE's programming. However, I understand there were only 3 matches on this big "PPV" style booking. That's a big deal?

[FourFifty]

I'd like to see WWE put on something LIKE Saturday Night's Main Event... But not on Saturday. The show wasn't really worth staying home on Saturday when the bars are open (albeit everything with Mickie James is awesome). While "Saturday Night's Main Event" has a nice ring to it, how about put it on Sunday, or any other day? Do this the week of the dog show on USA. Hey, maybe putting it on Sunday might make it seem like a PPV, do this twice a year, and I'll be good.

[Mr. Nerfect]

Yeah, in retrospect SNME had nothing going for it. John Cena & Triple H vs. Kurt Angle, Randy Orton & Rey Mysterio has nothing to attract in new viewers. I really think the whole 3-on-2 concept would repel people away from the product. Questions like "Why are there two guys on one team and three on the other?" and "Why are they all fighting each other now?" would have been popping up frequently.

Trish Stratus & Mickie James vs. Victoria & Candice Michelle? Hot women, but if it isn't porn, good chance is that horny guys have something better to do.

Shawn Michaels vs. Shane McMahon was a great match, and for people who know what Shane McMahon is capable of, they would have bought into this, but a lot of people would see a metrosexual looking man and think "as if he's got a chance". Oh wait, they're both metrosexual looking. Um, the guy in the suit. It just doesn't scream "Watch this or die!".

Booker T vs. The Boogeyman. No one feels comfortable sacrificing their Saturday nights for a guy who wears facepaint.

If I were booking the show:

-Kurt Angle & Triple H vs. John Cena & Rey Mysterio
-Randy Orton vs. Chavo Guerrero
-Shawn Michaels vs. Shane McMahon
-Booker T vs. The Boogeyman
-Trish Stratus & Mickie James vs. Victoria & Candice Michelle
-MNM vs. Paul London & Brian Kendrick