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

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.

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

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.

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.

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

they have been decreasing during the summer as well.

He wasn't suggesting anything.

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.

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/201...9-2015/479602/

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

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

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.

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>

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.

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.

when was the last time they got a 4.4?

is there a website that holds raw ratings?

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

Big Vics futuristic post made me laugh

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

He runs a podcast he has to watch it.

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.

Lol. Oh man that's rich.

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

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.

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:

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.