View Full Version : I just realised...
The One
12-20-2006, 01:10 PM
WWE RAW is pulling in the ratings that WCW Nitro did in it's dying days. :lol:
Volare
12-20-2006, 01:12 PM
Fuckin Conspiracy...Just Conspiracy
Meh...When you make a battle royale go 1 hour and have a retarded ending. You would think something like that might happen :lol:
Londoner
12-20-2006, 01:17 PM
You think that's bad? At this rate they will soon be doing the same ratings TNA have now.
owenbrown
12-20-2006, 01:20 PM
Irony..... pure irony.... :lol:
Yeah, but they're doing better than every year before 98...
It's interesting that looking though this (http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm) info, it seems that May 13, 2002 was the end of the boom ratings-wise. Not really relevant, just something to know.
M-A-G
12-20-2006, 01:30 PM
Hey, things turned out fine for WCW. They got bought out and now you can see their style of booking and promoting in WWE and....
...wait.
Jeritron
12-20-2006, 01:40 PM
Yeah, but they're doing better than every year before 98...
It's interesting that looking though this (http://www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm) info, it seems that May 13, 2002 was the end of the boom ratings-wise. Not really relevant, just something to know.
Thats somewhere around the time they had Hulk Hogan and Undertaker fueding for the WWE title......in 2002......while Booker, Jericho, RVD, Angle, Edge and Benoit were doing nothing.
Purely coincidence though....
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 02:06 PM
Well, WCW didn't really go off the air because of ratings, so some of these comments are nonsense, if amusing nonsense.
Well, WCW didn't really go off the air because of ratings, so some of these comments are nonsense, if amusing nonsense.
Well, not 100% because of ratings, anyway. If they were still hitting constant 4's and 5's AOL/Time Warner would have kept the franchise and fit it into the schedule.
It's really a combination of the money they were losing and the ratings, the money being the bigger issue.
addy2hotty
12-20-2006, 02:31 PM
Fuckin Conspiracy...Just Conspiracy
Meh...When you make a battle royale go 1 hour and have a retarded ending. You would think something like that might happen :lol:
Did the battle royal really go on an hour?!
Londoner
12-20-2006, 02:43 PM
^No he was exaggerating, it went on about half an hour.
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 03:00 PM
Well, not 100% because of ratings, anyway. If they were still hitting constant 4's and 5's AOL/Time Warner would have kept the franchise and fit it into the schedule.
It's really a combination of the money they were losing and the ratings, the money being the bigger issue.
Ratings may have been an excuse, but 3.0 ratings (Current WWE standings) are still nothing to sneeze at.
Ratings may have been an excuse, but 3.0 ratings (Current WWE standings) are still nothing to sneeze at.
It is when you had been getting 4's, 5's and 6's. Dropping a full point-plus isn't anything to sneeze at either.
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 03:53 PM
It is when you had been getting 4's, 5's and 6's. Dropping a full point-plus isn't anything to sneeze at either.
It's not great compared to those numbers, but "only" pulling in that kind of ratings on cable is still damn good.
It's not great compared to those numbers, but "only" pulling in that kind of ratings on cable is still damn good.
I agree.
The One
12-20-2006, 04:13 PM
Their ratings arn't anything to scoff at, what I find funny is people always joke about how no one wathed Nitro, and yet, here we are...
Jeritron
12-20-2006, 04:25 PM
Well the WWE ratings are way down, and to the point of WCWs late ratings. But it doesnt really matter since its not trailing another wrestling show
Mercury Bullet
12-20-2006, 04:32 PM
As low as they are THEY ARE STILL #1 so I imagine they really dont give a crap (you want proof they dont give a crap just watch any WWE programming) and as long as they are #1 they will continue to not give a crap. Well, at least until a #2 starts to get very close. TNA seems content to remain a distant #2.
As low as they are THEY ARE STILL #1 so I imagine they really dont give a crap (you want proof they dont give a crap just watch any WWE programming) and as long as they are #1 they will continue to not give a crap. Well, at least until a #2 starts to get very close. TNA seems content to remain a distant #2.
That's exactly it. As shitty as the programming is now, until someone, like TNA comes along and takes their audience (MNF has always been a factor), I really don't see them dropping much lower for years from now, no matter how shitty it gets. The core audience seems to be in the 3-3.5 area, as long as they don't drop below 2.5 or so they shouldn't have to worry.
M-A-G
12-20-2006, 07:44 PM
It is when you had been getting 4's, 5's and 6's. Dropping a full point-plus isn't anything to sneeze at either.
Tell Jamie Kellner that.
jindrak
12-20-2006, 08:45 PM
WWE RAW is pulling in the ratings that WCW Nitro did in it's dying days. :lol:
And without direct competition.
jindrak
12-20-2006, 08:46 PM
Is Edge's Liv Sex segment still the highest rated segment of the year?
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 09:21 PM
That's exactly it. As shitty as the programming is now, until someone, like TNA comes along and takes their audience (MNF has always been a factor), I really don't see them dropping much lower for years from now, no matter how shitty it gets. The core audience seems to be in the 3-3.5 area, as long as they don't drop below 2.5 or so they shouldn't have to worry.
Well, keep in mind the ratings were pretty consistantly 3.5 last year. In the last 6 months, the ratings have dropped off half a point, which is still good, but should worry them. Small dips could be blamed on MNF or similar programming, but when you're consistantly down, it's time to stop playing the blame game and ask how you can get your audience back.
Realistically, you and I know WWE won't do that. Which brings me to the real point here: If they can lose half a point so easily, another half a point isn't unfeasable, and honestly, we're partway there, with the ratings dipping belowe 3.0 Several times in the last couple of months.
Mr. Nerfect
12-20-2006, 10:21 PM
Too bad there's no longer an empire in professional wrestling to buy them out.
RAW's ratings aren't pathetic bad, but it certainly shows a dip in the industry, and the interest with professional wrestling in general. It's a shame the WWE let things get this way, as the decline is similar to Nitro's.
But once again, they don't have any bloodthirsty competitors out there to drive a stake into their heart when they fall off the tightrope. They can just climb back up at their own pace.
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 11:00 PM
Yup.
Though I wonder: Would they still blame smarks and bad apples if there was a WCW, or if TNA was actual competition? Would they still be bringing in pop culture wannabes (Ironically, another obvious WCW comparison) or forcing things down our throat? Does Vince only not care because he's the only game in town?
Probably, but it's an interesting question.
Innovator
12-20-2006, 11:01 PM
Basically this means that the rating RAW was doing equals the number of people who've stopped watching wrestling.
Kane Knight
12-20-2006, 11:39 PM
Scary, init?
Innovator
12-20-2006, 11:44 PM
kinda is
I think everyone who still sits through the show deserves a round of applause
Kane Knight
12-21-2006, 12:11 AM
I dunno. I think they deserve our support, but our pity as well. Kinda like our troops. You know, they're stuck in a quagmire...
Jeritron
12-21-2006, 05:34 AM
Its hard to hold it up to the standard of the attitude boom. The era is over and interest just isn't there until something new comes along.
Technically they're still doing well, especially considering they're the only show in town. Comparing current ratings to an attitude era Raw is like comparing the ratings of a regular season football game to a postseason one.
Kane Knight
12-21-2006, 07:48 AM
But they're comparing it to decline-era WCW, not Attitude Era WWE.
Jeritron
12-21-2006, 08:14 AM
Yea, which was at the same time.
The WCW ratings were because they were trailing a show that was above them. WWE is not. They're not doing attitude business, but they're still doing quite well.
WCWs ratings only killed them because they were in a distant second, not because of the overall ratings.
With WWE, they're in a commanding first.
Londoner
12-21-2006, 09:01 AM
With WWE, they're in a commanding first.
But at this point in time, that's not really anything to be proud of considering there's fuck all competition.
Jeritron
12-21-2006, 09:24 AM
Didn't say they were anything to be proud of. But the shows the top rated wrestling program by far and the company is doing decent business. Of course its shitty compared to the wrestling boom period, but anything is.
Kane Knight
12-21-2006, 12:00 PM
Yea, which was at the same time.
irrelevant
Jeritron
12-21-2006, 12:10 PM
You can't compare current WWE based on decline WCW. It all comes down to WWE being the top dog regardless. WWE is simply not doing AS well, doesnt mean they're not doing well.
WCW lost because they got their ass kicked by WWE and were doing terrible business. They were not doing well.
Kane Knight
12-21-2006, 12:47 PM
WCW lost because of management decisions that actually had little to do with wrestling or ratings. It was primarily a financial decision.
If you're going to argue how the comparison is invalid, try and at least be relavent. Otherwise, you're substituting bullshit for bullshit (No offense).
A similar analogue would be Stargate SG-1, which is still doing well in the ratings, but is on the chopping block primarily because of financial issues and a corporate leadership that makes Eisner's Disney look competent. I believe you were talking about SG-1 in another thread, which is why I bring it up. Did Stargate lose its following? Not really. Did they lose their slot? yes. Nothing to do with ratings. Well, little to do with ratings...I am realistic.
addy2hotty
12-21-2006, 01:00 PM
A similar analogue would be Stargate SG-1, which is still doing well in the ratings, but is on the chopping block primarily because of financial issues and a corporate leadership that makes Eisner's Disney look competent. I believe you were talking about SG-1 in another thread, which is why I bring it up. Did Stargate lose its following? Not really. Did they lose their slot? yes. Nothing to do with ratings. Well, little to do with ratings...I am realistic.
*sigh*
The movies look quite good though, one concluding the Ori storyline and the other about Ba'al.
Dunno if you ever watched B5 but they are doing a few DVD movies of that as well.
(off-topic, so sue me)
Kane Knight
12-21-2006, 02:28 PM
Oh? Hopefully they're better than Crusade was.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.