Sorry, Vince, you stole the wrong writers...

[Kane Knight]

I try and keep my ratings posts infrequent, but when I looked at the Neilsen top ten cable ratings, I had to laugh. WWE didn't even make the top ten with Raw, but 6 instances of Spongebob did. I'm guessing he hired the wrong writer from that show.

[Mr. Aristocrat]

Remember when RAW was the highest viewed cable television show and it was breaking all those records, now it's not even breaking top ten. I love how well the system works.

[Mr. JL]

The one thing that looked somewhat interesting was the Hardy-Nitro match, however, I definitely do not believe throwing Jeff back into ladder matches is an intellegent idea though. I guess they are hoping it will give them a ratings POP.

The rest of the show sucked, and there was WAY too much DX for me to handle. Plus, DX beat up like 1 third of the RAW roster and then made fun of whoever was left.

After watching last night I can understand why the ratings have taken a dive.

[FourFifty]

Vince will learn about this, and then he'll introduce Triple H as being from a pineapple under the sea.

[Londoner]

When one of the writers is apparently responsible for the worst storyline in the Sd vs Raw game(where your wrestler turns into a woman and edge speaks like dalvari) you know you've stolen the wrong writers. Vince really has lost his mind....

[addy2hotty]

Let's be honest, DX are pretty much Spongebob and Patrick at the moment aren't they? With Coach as Squidwood.

I wonder how they could seriously justify, business wise, to bring in Nickalodeon writers to the WWE. It's like asking Stephen Colbert to promote the Democrats, ain't gonna happen America.

[Fox]

"Who lives in a wrestling ring up in New York?"

DX! DX!

"They never do jobs, but they will always work!"

DX! DX!

"In a main event match, you will kick the bucket!"

DX! DX!

"They'll job your career, then tell you to suck it!"

DX! DX!

[Kane Knight]

Let's be honest, DX are pretty much Spongebob and Patrick at the moment aren't they? With Coach as Squidwood.

I wonder how they could seriously justify, business wise, to bring in Nickalodeon writers to the WWE. It's like asking Stephen Colbert to promote the Democrats, ain't gonna happen America.

But doesn't Spongebob worship his boss?

Oh, wait...He does...God.

[St. Jimmy]

http://www.unitedspongebob.com/pictures/spongebob/dustcollecting.jpg
"The fuck are you talking about, I never held Patrick down!"

[Kane Knight]

http://www.crems.com/Clearco/images/ty_new/new_spongebob.jpg

"Llllllllllllllllllllllet's get ready to SUCK IIIIIIIIIIIIT!"

[TerranRich]

http://i15.tinypic.com/42ko00i.jpg

ARE YOU READY??

[tucsonspeed6]

For the week of nov. 6th, the ratings included 6 episodes of spongebob, and two more of the spongebob movie. That left room for two football games in the top three.

At this point, I'm not really questioning what's wrong with Raw. I've got to wonder what the hell is wrong with television in general. Let's be realistic here. After seeing that scale, I can't help but figure that the only way WWE is ever going to get even close to the top 10 they're going to have to go in the opposite direction. Get rid of ECW. If you want real ratings, you're gonna have to have cartoon characters to get lameass kids to watch.

And six episodes of Spongebob? Those aren't even new episodes. At least five of them have to be reruns. And there are lots of really good entertaining shows out there that people could be watching instead. Couldn't a new episode of Mythbusters or Monk beat out the umpteenth time all the lardass 8 year olds of the world watched yet another rerun of some cartoon?

There's two ways you can interpret this data. 1: Every show on cable sucks, and people instead watch broadcast tv and sports instead, leaving a vast void of nobody watching anything except for a few kids who tune into cartoons each week. Or 2: The Nielson Ratings must be taken with a grain of salt because they're not a good measurment of what shows are actually entertaining, but instead nothing more than another wasted fact that wouldn't even make the most obscure of trivial pursuit cards.
Or it could be a combination of the two.

[Kane Knight]

For the week of nov. 6th, the ratings included 6 episodes of spongebob, and two more of the spongebob movie. That left room for two football games in the top three.

At this point, I'm not really questioning what's wrong with Raw. I've got to wonder what the hell is wrong with television in general. Let's be realistic here. After seeing that scale, I can't help but figure that the only way WWE is ever going to get even close to the top 10 they're going to have to go in the opposite direction. Get rid of ECW. If you want real ratings, you're gonna have to have cartoon characters to get lameass kids to watch.

And six episodes of Spongebob? Those aren't even new episodes. At least five of them have to be reruns. And there are lots of really good entertaining shows out there that people could be watching instead. Couldn't a new episode of Mythbusters or Monk beat out the umpteenth time all the lardass 8 year olds of the world watched yet another rerun of some cartoon?

There's two ways you can interpret this data. 1: Every show on cable sucks, and people instead watch broadcast tv and sports instead, leaving a vast void of nobody watching anything except for a few kids who tune into cartoons each week. Or 2: The Nielson Ratings must be taken with a grain of salt because they're not a good measurment of what shows are actually entertaining, but instead nothing more than another wasted fact that wouldn't even make the most obscure of trivial pursuit cards.
Or it could be a combination of the two.

Or 3: Spongebob is wildly popular, and generally, this wouldn't be an issue.

Shows like Psych and Monk do pull in ratings. Neither USA show is new right now though, is it? Sorry if I don't know for sure on Monk, but whatever, I rarely watch it except reruns. If WWE was making better shows, which has an obvious cause and effect relationship here, this would be another factor. However, reruns or not, Spongebob is hugely popular.

More to the point, the Neilsens are what ad sponsors listen to. It's funny, because in an era where cable companies can monitor their viewership, advertisers would rather subscribe to Neilsens. Why? Well, they're generally accurate, and in keeping with the actual viewership. So, let's go to Nielsen instead of collecting from each local market. Works great in most cases, except specifically local materials.

Perhaps, however, we should look at why broadcast is popular. Let's take "everyone and their mother gets it" for 1000, Pat. It's the easiest to get. Everyone has it. You don't have to worry about blacked out markets. Fuck, the Amish get cable, they just don't realise it. Those knitting needles...:shifty:

So broadcast>cable and everyone watches it because everyone has access to it.

In terms of quality, is dancing with the stars or survivor really quality? Perhaps it's not an indication of how the quality is, but how base the entertainment is.

In fact, I don't think either of your conclusions are even remotely conclusive, or even well founded, when you look at TV in general.

[addy2hotty]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/8c/Mrkrabs.jpg

After popularity for John Cena waned, and merchandise sales dropped, Mr McMahon had no alternative but to plead for assistance. WHERES ME MONEY GONE??!

[TerranRich]

Monk and Psych are both showing new episodes, and Psych is a relatively new show (came out earlier this year).

[Kane Knight]

Monk and Psych are both showing new episodes, and Psych is a relatively new show (came out earlier this year).

Psych was pulling in high 3s and low 4s through most of its 13 episode run earlier in the year, too. I don't know why it's not ranking this time around, save that people might not be aware it's back on (I wasn't).

[Kane Knight]

...And even then, with Monk being one of the most popular shows on USA, that excuse only goes so far.

[tucsonspeed6]

In fact, I don't think either of your conclusions are even remotely conclusive, or even well founded, when you look at TV in general.

That doesn't even make sense. My conclusions are conclusive? Did you really mean that my conclusions didn't make a final decision about the said topic or were you just looking for a way to end your arguement in a way that would make me look bad. Quit being a sarcastic prick. You never mentioned anything about demographics in your overly agressive reply, so maybe you should come up with a well founded and conclusive conclusion about why 8 of the top 10 spots were taken by a tv show whose focus demographic is such a slim minority of the general population, and what if any impact that has with the WWE. And you can do it using whatever sarcastic and demeaning language you want, because I'm not going to argue with you and your ego over it.

[Kane Knight]

It wasn't sarcasm. It wasn't an attack, no matter how much your panties are now in a wad.

Your conclusions are poorly founded, and not really conclusions. They're more a mid-point than the end-point.

I think you also miss some very large issues. In your rant at me, you ask me to come up with a conclusion to explain why a show with a demographic that is a slim minority. Already, we have a problem. Well, a problem besides your attempt to peg my statements as sarcasm.

Already, you're basically leading the findings. You've basically made a statement that is unfounded. In fact, it seems to contradict the trend in marketing understanding (And this is where I start with the sarcasm), but I bet you know better than them folks. In fact, I bet you have complete demographics up in the very same ass you pulled that statement from.

Seriously. You want me to be a sarcastic bastard? You want me to call you a fucking retard? I'm okay with that. I tried to keep the argument at the growed ups table, but you seemed not to be interested in that. You seemed to go looking for a reason to take offense, instead of actually read the content.

Oh well. Whatever. I'm a crowd pleaser. TS6, *ahem*

Oooooh, you're so brilliant! Yeah, I bet that's the problem, that Neilsens are just that unreliable. Your argument is so conclusive, it's a wonder advertisers haven't caught on to the fact that it's not indicative! I mean, aside from the fact that revenues on products seem to reflect this, as do local cable numbers, you fucking retard!!!!!!1111

...So...Was it good for you?

[TerranRich]

It's fun seeing people try to argue against Kane Knight. He lives on this stuff, man. Just call him a fag and end it now. :p

[NoJabbaNoBogRoll]

Even when the other guy is somewhat correct, KK still manages to make them look like an idiot.

Yet they still try. :nono:

[Kane Knight]

People always want to climb Mount Everest, no matter how many toes the last guy lost. ;)

[TerranRich]

Heh, that reminds me of the King of Queens episode where Doug has a book and makes up a story about himself from the book to Kerry's boss, where he lost his big toe climbing Mt. Everest.

But yeah, I rarely argue with KK if ever. I know better. :)

[owenbrown]

The first wise decision by the WWE would be to DROP the K-Fed/Cena angle IMMEDIATELY before it's too late.

[Schlomey]

Undertaker put it best in an interview

"Wrestling business is a series of peaks and valleys"


valley time is only temporary. Another boom is in the works within the next 5 years.

[Xero]

lol what the fuck?

[VSG]

I read the thread before the actual dates of posting, can't a poor thread rest in peace?

[Razzamajazz]

the 11th commandment: thou shalt not fuck with spongebob

[Xero]

Because he lives in a fucking pineapple.

A PINEAPPLE!