Mick screwed Mick

Are you sad that Mick proved his idle threats were just that?

Mick may be the poster boy for the Dirt Sheet Follower Fans.

Complain complain complain, but never leave.

I left

This is why I didn't make you the poster boy.

By the way, did you see that Wyatt bump through the table last night?

No did it look pretty cool? Post a gif.

I have no idea how. Just watch the show.

It was Xavier actually:

Smackdown viewership reaches record low

-wrestlinginc.com

Fun fact, TNA was averaging 1.17 rating with 1.61 million viewers in 2011. they literally reached TNA levels with smackdown last week

Considering WWE barely gives a shit about Smackdown, why should the fans?

Have you READ the spoilers? Someone is very strong! Ratings will be too!

Lol

Is this serious?

You guys should all be wrestling journalists. You are all qualified!

Real talk time with The CyNick. Smackdown was the 2nd most watched show in its timeslot on cable on Thursday.

<font color=goldenrod>SmackDown has been completely irrelevant for years. Nothing new or interesting happens on there and pretty much any good SmackDown match will be repeated on Raw anyway.

SmackDown has been that way since the brand split ended. It's just sorta "there" as opposed to advancing any kind of story.</font>

But when it moves to USA it will be really important for 1 week.

Raw was back up BTW

Football was down

Still trying to figure out of there is a correlation.

hmm so they were #3 overall, and #5 18-49.

In terms of viewers, still well below their average. If it wasn't for last week's disaster, this week would have been the new record low for some perspective.

8pm getting weaker and 10pm hovering around the sub 3 million levels is what has been hurting the ratings the most for this year.

In 2013, the WWE had a viewership of over 4 million viewers on 30 editions of RAW.

In 2014, RAW broke the 4 million plus viewership mark on 34 episodes of the WWE’s flagship program.

In 2015, the WWE has only had RAW episodes that had over 4 million viewers watching a total of nine times. Seven of the nine times happened during WrestleMania season, where the WWE peaked the night after WrestleMania with a 5.36 million viewership. After that, the only other shows to crack over 4 million viewers was the go home show to Extreme Rules (4.038 million) and the night after the Money in the Bank pay per view (4.11 million).

Yeah but WWE signed a deal with NBC which gave them a lot of money so that means WWE's product is good.

They are #3 for viewership virtually every week. Usually behind football and sportscenter.

The key is understanding what is happening to the viewers. If they are still consuming WWE but in another manner, it's fine. If they completely left, it's not as fine.

That said, television as a whole is seeing viewership shrink, they key is understanding how WWE compares with the rest of cable. WWE ratings could decline every year but if they are declining slower than the rest of cable, their TV rights fees will increase.

The most important stat that is rarely talked about by anyone other than me is that they added a ton of new advertisers in the latest upfronts. That's the biggest driver of rights fees. At the end of the day you want to generate the most dollars.

I don't care how much damn money they make as long as they put on a damn good show. Your the only one that talk about WWEs finances, no one else cares that KFC and Hardies are adverting on Raw.

It wasn't Sportscenter. They were behind a show called "Major Crimes".

But they dummy every competitor that isn't football. How can this be!?

RAW used to be #2 until very recently which might explain where some of the lost RAW audience has been heading off to.

For some perspective, NFL lost around 4 million viewers this week because of the poor MNF matchup and yet the WWE barely capitalized on that pool if the number this week is still lower than 2 weeks ago. They gained 200,000 viewers on average from last week but are missing another 100,000 from the week prior.

Now that you finally found it in you to give one of those awesome CyNick responses, let's break this down.

"I actually said in that thread that I thought it was lazy writing, but the issue was the talent screwed it up" is pretty much the most glaring example of how deep into the WWE apologist gimmick you are. Even when you can't think of an excuse to rationalize WWE's lazy writing, you still make it clear it was the talent's fault. You literally say "it's lazy writing but the issue was the talent screwed it up." What? A rational mind would say lazy writing is an issue. But even when admitting it, you try to pass off the blame as if it would all be fine if the talent could just perform the poorly written shit they're given well. Jesus.

And if Vince thinks that just dropping an intense feud that's been showcased and built for months on TV and having them become friends again between shows with no explanation is "understandable", he's not just out of touch in his old age, he's borderline retarded. And if you think it is, you are too. I won't even do the PC "Well, I guess we just have different opinions" thing. It's retarded. There's no two ways about it. Luckily, I DON'T think you actually believe that though and instead you're doing what you usually do which is try to rationalize the best you can put as little blame as possible on Vince/the writers for being inept.

"And I dont think one angle being terrible means 'everything sucks'."

No. My point with bringing it up is to try to find angles that are so out there in the "shitty writing" department that even you can't come up with a bullshit rationalization for it. This wasn't an isolated angle. It wasn't just a rare lapse of judgment that pushed them to do something insanely ridiculous with one angle. Lazy shit like that is the norm. See the Wade Barrett vignettes where he actually had a personality that stood out as a badass bareknuckle fighter and immediately came back as the paint-by-numbers chickenshit that every heel not named Brock Lesnar plays because the writers probably can't even spell the phrase "character depth". See Chris Jericho coming back after weeks of mysterious videos, not speaking, crying in the ring and then the big mystery of why all this was happening just... ending. See the start/stop pushes that happen with the entire roster and prevent anyone from gaining momentum over time.

When they try to write something with some substance, it ends up being the most poorly written clusterfuck of a story on television. Maybe sticking to something more simple they can sink their teeth into like "Nattie farts a lot" is the way to go. I remember one week she started farting. And then the situations where she would fart would get more uncomfortable. Just a brilliant story arch. 5 stars. I think I'd actually take some Russo-esque dumb ideas over no ideas at all. (Though to be fair to Vince Russo, I don't think any idea he ever had was as bad as a diva who has uncontrollable gas.)

And as far as the "Victor Newman vs Jack Abbott" thing, I have no idea what soap they're even from. It's odd that you seem to have a decent understanding of their story over the years considering you said all you watch is WWE, The Walking Dead and sports. Feel free to give a brief explanation but forgive me if I don't look up every little detail of the relationship between two people on a soap opera that's probably been on my entire life. I'd be willing to be it's not as egregious as the Bellas thing though. I'd be very surprised if they were wishing death on each other in one episode and then best friends the next without even an attempt at an explanation. Mainly because even daytime soaps have higher standards than that level of "derp dee derp" writing.

I was really stoked about that specific Barrett return. Big fan of Barrett, but they definitely failed there :(

<font color=goldenrod>They've dropped the ball with Barrett so many times. It's sad. He can talk, he can work, he's got good size. I really don't know what else they could want from the guy.

Shocked to find he's actually 35 years old already. So he's likely closer to retirement than he is to getting a main event push.</font> :(

He's english, doesn't really connect with the fans.

The "Bad News" gimmick caught on, so they made him King of the Ring.

Yeah, Barrett needs to do the whole "Bad News" thing again. People loved that!

http://i.imgur.com/dPmlROY.gif

http://i.imgur.com/pV9KVzG.gif

https://38.media.tumblr.com/01e05009...vcs2o1_250.gif

You asked for things Cornette did and I gave them to you. Yes, Cornette is lying about the documented time he spent working for WWE. You are a hack troll and a cancer to logic.

And while I like Owens as a performer, he does seem like he would have been a twat to work with on the independent scene. I believe Cornette's side of that story more than Owens -- who I believe tells the truth as he sees it, but is just as stubborn as Corny and probably more of a mark for himself.

Wow. You cunt.

Lol, people talk to Meltzer. They've admitted to it. You troll cunt.

Barrett and Sheamus should be feuding with The New Day over the Tag Team Titles right now. Barrett & Sheamus -- Bad News -- WWE Tag Team Champions.

You cunt.


(you seem to have forgotten it that time.)

Oh, thank you, drave. You mad cunt.

Mad cunty mate, MAAAAAAD cunty.

Monday's WWE Raw television show (12/7) averaged 3.054 million viewers, according to Showbuzzdaily.com. Viewership was down from the 3.168 million average from last week (11/30).


Hour 1 = 3.270 million
Hour 2 = 3.042 million
Hour 3 = 2.850 million

more info on the ratings:

So... was Raw shit on Monday?

Half a million TVs switch off before his final segment, people noticeably filing out (according to reports) before the end, and almost one year later, they are still forcing Roman Reigns into positions he shouldn't be in. Defies all logic and belief and makes me depressed tbh.

That final segment was horrendous. I about fell asleep on it and the tater tots stuff wasn't funny. The first time it might have been worth a chuckle but after he continued to call Sheamus a tater tot it just got silly retarded. The fact that they even out Reigns in there to start out with is dumb. We're going to have the ring crew set up all this stuff for Reigns even though the Authority hate the guy. It would have been a bit better had Reigns filled the ring up with tables, ladders, and chairs before he got in the ring. Reigns even pointed out that the fact that Sheamus called him out and that he was the only one there wasn't right. If Reigns wins at TLC I think I'll have to stop watching til after Mania or he drops the title, just don't want to see Reigns in the main event picture at all.

Do Triple H, Vince, or Steph feed Vince with info? Does Dave reach out to them to verify his stories? No. Because he's a bottom feeder "journalist".

If you wanted to know what an NFL team was planning in terms of their talent would you speak to the head coach, the GM, or a kid who collects the footballs after practice?

One funny thing Ive noticed from the thread on here that quotes things from the Observer, but there was a note about Lesnar v Owens NOT being a match currently on the lineup for Mania. If Dave or any of these guys had actual inside info they would know the top 4 matches for Mania. But they don't know shit so they can't say this is what is currently on the schedule.

Sorry to burst your bubble about him.

How did football do? Was it up week over week?

I didn't care for the tater tots line but the crowd was with him. Read a report from a live fan who said he was massively over. Looks like what they are doing is working in the arenas.

Got back the 4 million or so from last week.

Biggest gainer was Family Guy in terms of rankings. Outranked the 9pm and 10pm hours of RAW.

Did you verify if the live fan was actually at the event via ticket confirmation or confirmed with Vince or security? Or did you just read another "report".

Reigns has been getting more over with the crowds in recent weeks because crowds themselves have started to bail en masse before his main event matches and segments. Last Smackdown and yesterday being big examples of both.

From someone at RAW last night before the main event:
http://i.imgur.com/z3g0Vrs.jpg

Doesnt matter, dudes not a main eventer and will turn fans away from the product if continued to be pushed as he is now.

The much maligned CyNick appears to have begun half-assing the gimmick and isn't really trying to defend shit anymore. Fun's over. Time to pack it up, guys.

Yeah, with all the posts you've made since your ill-fated return to the boards, you're in no position to call anyone else out as a "bottom feeder", dude.

Is that same same fan that took a picture of people leaving the arena?

I've heard more about Dave Meltzer from CyNick than I have from any other poster. To not like the guy he sure knows a lot about him. No one actually brings up Meltzer except him.

all I seriously know about Meltzer is that he feuded with TNARick and /r/SquaredCircle loves to link his radio/opinion pieces


If he is of any importance I'd like an explanation. Otherwise, he's just another fan

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Meltzer

I take every report I read online with a grain of salt, but Meltzer's been reporting on Wrestling/MMA a lot longer than most of us have been watching, and he does have a rapport/following/standing/presence with people within the industry.

I'm not saying he's alright spot on and his "reports" can sometimes be pretty vague, but I'd take Meltzer's word over CyNicks any day.

But CyNick got his info from a fan at the show, sure CyNick didn't cite anything but he doesn't have too.

We'll see

To me he's talented, if the babyface thing doesn't work, he can still work as a heel.

He's in a tough spot being thrusted into the top spot at a time when the roster has never been thinner.

Have I presented myself as an insider, or someone with inside info?

I like the product, which makes me a villain here in bizzaro world

I don't know. You would have to ask the guy.

Ive said before I reference him because his publication is referenced the most on this site.

I'm not in a competition. I don't come on here saying I have scoopz.

I just provide an opinion.

Thats what I've been saying, he has potential but not as the joke cracking smiling babyface. He should be a badass that Handel's his business and says a few words.

Hes in the tough spot because he's not ready for the top. Like I've said he should have been ripping through the mid card and possibly have held both the IC and US titles by now. I feel the roster is fine, its just underutilized. You have a lot of talented guys that don't do anything. If the rosters thin it WWEs fault. Hell, they have Somoa Joe setting in NXT, if the rosters thin call him up.

That's exactly the kind of person I'd want to depose as a testifying expert witness or at least as a non-testifying consulting expert in order to explain the intricacies of an unusual subject like the backstage goings-on of pro wrestling to me.

Clearly the guy's a bottom feeding joke and a hack though who doesn't know anyone in the business, have any legitimate sources or know anything. :roll:

No. That's not the point.

The point is anytime anyone with even a modicum of credibility comes out with info that may be potentially damaging to the company or your opinions, you claim the person has no credibility or are bottom feeders, etc.

You claim that because they aren't Vince or HHH or didn't get their info directly from Vince or HHH, these reporters or sources aren't credible. You do this despite the fact that you, 1. usually have no evidence that the reporter's sources were or weren't Vince or HHH, and 2. you don't know who their sources are.

No one's saying that guys like Meltzer are always right or that we take their reporting as 100% or gospel. In fairness though, I'd say Meltzer is probably the most credible and in a VERY small class of "legit" and credible pro wrestling reporters, in terms of length of reporting, accuracy over the years, etc.

Maybe I'm wrong, but you seem like the kind of client that would at trial, yell and argue over top of the expert witness testifying against you about their lack credibility or knowledge. All the while your lawyer keeps telling you to shut up and that he'll handle it.

well he's also a troll committed to a character.

I stopped reading The Observer long time ago, but found this on a newz site, which credits The Observer:

"Regarding WWE SmackDown moving to the USA Network in January, there is said to be at least one significant change in the works. This could have something to do with commentary or the look of the show as it appears there are no plans to bring bigger names to SmackDown."

This is the man you say is a super JOURNALIST. There will be at least ONE change, but we have no idea what it is. Why dont you just ask your source? You would think this source would have all the scoopz. Anyone could just guess that there will be changes when a show moves networks. Maybe Frank Deford should reconsider his ridiculous opinion.

I just dont accept info that is fifth hand, when the people who make the decisions could be reached out to, or at least have conducted interviews where they address a lot of the criticisms about the product. To me they are all the same. They write BS stories that they pass off as legit news. I have never said anything bad about him writing about the history of the business.

I'm actually really calm, and nothing like what you claim (I'm not sure who you feel is the "expert" in this scenario). If you read my posts, I rarely use foul language when addressing people. I enjoy reading other people's opinions, I just dont happen to agree that the product sucks right now. This whole thread is about ratings, and Ive just pointed out that TV is changing, and yes, RAW is down in ratings, but so are a lot of shows, most shows in fact. And at the end of the day, the show is still among the most watched things in its timeslot (usually top 2 or 3), and from an advertising perspective, things have never been better. Those things seem to get ignored by everyone who isnt me, because the people who are frequent posters on here, dont feel the product is catering to their whims. I look like the ugly girl at the dance because I'm the guy who actually enjoys what I'm watching.

Is the idea that WWE is going to change something re: commentary or production/presentation for Smackdown but won't be bringing in bigger names when they move to USA not news? It's certainly news to me. I had no idea.

Now I'll agree it's not necessarily exciting news. Maybe his source is only in a position currently to know that there are plans to make changes to Smackdown and that those plans don't involve bringing in bigger names.

Should he not report that because it doesn't meet your standards of "quality" pro wrestling journalistic integrity? I'm all for having strict journalistic standards, especially as it relates to potentially damaging someone's reputation or causing inappropriate outrage or hysteria. I.e., accusing someone of a crime, making sure you report the facts accurately when reporting on criminal activities and the accused, important political, legal or policy issues, etc.

In fairness I have no idea re: the quality of Meltzer's reporting on other sports like MMA and UFC. I'd be willing to bet that his reporting on UFC, etc., might be a little more thorough re: the inner workings because 1. there's no "creative" story line planning going on that can change at any time, 2. its easier to get direct access to the competitors, their agents, UFC executives, etc. through more regular press conferences, etc., and 3. it's not "entertainment" but actual sport so there's less need to be secretive.

You're criticizing journalistic quality of people reporting on the inner workings, plans, outcomes and politics of a scripted and predetermined dramatic television show on the premise of athletic "competition". Seems to me like you take your pro wrestling "news" a little too seriously.

Vince and HHH cannot just be reached out to nor would they tell the truth. Remove your head from your ass

They do interviews. Vince did a shoot interview with Bob Costas and with Michael Lansberg. Vince rightfully doesnt see the dirt sheet writers as reporters. But I highly doubt the dirt sheetz reach out to either of them or Steph or Dunn. Again, like I said, they are happy being fed BS from the guy who collects the balls after practice.

Also both HHH and Vince did shoot interviews with Austin and I didn't see Austin pull any punches in terms of questions. Jericho also did a lengthy interview with HHH. Again, they covered a lot of stuff. That's what I'm saying about getting the info from the horses mouth instead of the guy who reports things like "there will be SOME change to Smackdown". How is that reporting? How about "Brock v Owens isn't on tap for Mania". Okay cool, if your sources are on point you should have the top matches or at least what Brock's match is. But he doesn't because his sources are garbage.

If you read his stuff week after week its literally littered with that kind of stuff. Then when he's flat out wrong about something, it's "plans changed". That's why as s "journalist" I rank his stuff along side those Weekly World News publications they used to have in grocery stores.

Kinda like the Cesaro Big show feud right?

If the story is "no big names will be used" and he has a credible source, sure that's news. But being so vague proves to me his sources are junk and makes everything else in the story suspect.

He's kinda irrelevant when it comes to MMA journalism in my onion. Helwani gets all the big interviews and Front Row Brian is a better source for what I would call behind the scenes info. His website isn't what I would call must visit when it comes to MMA info. He can't play the same game with UFC that he does with WWE.

I don't care what he does. People who are dumb enough to spend 12$ a month to hear his quarter truths can do what they want. But he passes himself off as a journalist, so I think it's fair to question his practices. Especially when much of what he "reports" is just flat out wrong or can't be proven.

What's this about now?

You predicted a Cesaro and Big Show feud.

"Plans changed".

Completely ignore the fact that you're evidence that Vince & HHH will do interviews with anyone who tries hard enough to get an interview is based on the fact that they've done a few interviews in the past with two guys who 1. worked for and were big, successful stars for the company, 2. probably had relatively good/close relationships with them and 3. who are basically celebrities outside of wrestling now too that also have big followings of non-wrestling and wrestling fans. Let's say that you're presumption is true, anyone who tries hard enough to get in touch with HHH or Vince or Stephanie or Dunn, would be able to do so, even a legit reporter or someone from a dirt sheet.

I've yet to hear Austin or Jericho (or even someone from an actual non dirt sheet news publisher like NYT, Sports Illustrated, etc.) ever ask someone in the position of Vince or HHH, "So, what are the main event plans for the next PPV or the next Mania?" or "What are the future creative plans for Superstar X?". Let alone have I heard them ever answer a question like that. That's because Vince, HHH & co. have no incentive to 1. tell them the plans and 2. be truthful about the plans. What would be the point? They'd be giving away the outcome and costing themselves potential revenues. Not to mention the fact that they can (and likely do) change the plans as needed or desired.

I agree that simply saying there will be SOME change to Smackdown isn't as much news as rumor or speculation.

The point is, he didn't just say there will be some change to Smackdown, he qualified that by saying there will be some change to Smackdown but it won't involve bringing in bigger names to the show and it likely will involve a change in production or commentary. In addition, you have no idea who or how credible his sources may or may not be simply because you don't know who they are.

That doesn't prove anything of the sort. If anything it proves that his sources MAY be junk. Or it could prove that like most journalists he is protecting his sources and himself. It could also just as likely be evidence that his sources told him "Vince is constantly changing his mind, so who knows if this info will be good in a week, but here's what I've heard..." The point is you don't know and you're making a huge presumption that Meltzer and his sources aren't credible.

Again, I think you take your pro wrestling news a little too seriously.

Maybe his sources are credible, maybe not. Maybe plans will change, maybe not. Either way, it's pro wrestling news, not political world affairs, a criminal accusation or anything remotely similar. We're all taking it with a grain of salt.

Meanwhile you're just complaining that it's not credible because the reporters may or may not be getting credible info (with little actual proof to the contrary other than presumptions) while making a living/money off of it. News flash. There are lots of journalists (and I'd argue most) making as much or more money than guys like Meltzer, who are reporting on much larger, more important and consequential stories with sources that are just as credible/non-credible.

I think whoever posted it earlier was possibly onto something. Sounds like you're jealous and bitter at the dirt sheet reporters.

Most watched because? It surely isn't because MORE viewers are tuning in, it is just the "best" of crap programming. I understand a top slot is a top slot, regardless. An overall drop in viewership is still a net loss.


So you tune in for the adverts? I watch for the actual show and the content of said show. Just confused on that statement I guess.

No one is debating that Reigns moves merch, just that there are people who find other wrestlers much more entertaining and they would rather watch. This is indicated by people leaving the main event at recent shows when Reigns is prominently involved. The average viewer doesn't care how much merch wrestler X sells, just that they keep the viewer entertained. THAT is the biggest point here, Reigns simply doesn't entertain the average long-time viewer that is now in their 20s or later.

CyNick doesn't take fifth hand information. Only takes H and Vince's opinion as fact.

Cites a Twitter post and report from a fan supposedly at Raw this past Monday.

Yeah.

First, it's not opinions I'm concerned about. Everyone has opinions. Each as worthless as the next.

I'm talking about facts about the inner workings and decisions that have been made. H, Vince, Steph, Dunn would have those. When they speak, I listen.

The fan report I mentioned was a FIRST HAND ACCOUNT. The guy claimed he was at the show and reported what the crowd responded to. Dirt Sheetz would get a quote from that guys 2nd cousin's pool guy, who overheard the 2nd cousin talking to someone else and saying the show was not very good, even though he didn't see it.

First, Im not claiming to be an insider. We all understand that, right? I'm just a regular guy.

Second, I never said I thought that was set in stone, I just predicted based on how I saw Cesaro being positioned on TV that he was going to get a push, and I thought overcoming Big Show would be a start.

Cesaro also got hurt and Show is off TV. So kinda tough to run that angle.

So did you verify If he was actually at the show? How did you confirm it? And what say you to the other FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS and PHOTOS of fans filling out of the arena prior to Roman's main event segment?

Correct, Cesaro got injured about 2 months after the big show match, hard to start a feud within those 2 months.

Well that other guys first hand account doesn't agree with CyNick so he's wrong.

So the guy with the photographs of people leaving before the main event and his claims that there were very few people left in the crowd for the main event Reigns segment and even fewer who actually seemed entertained by it, his opinion doesn't carry as much weight. If so, why? Is it because it fits into your own personal narrative and bias that the product is good and we're all wrong?

I tend to find the guy with the photographic support to be more credible and put more weight behind his first hand observations as he has photographic evidence to support it.

That's the problem. We don't care that you enjoy the current product. Have fun. Enjoy away.

It's your marginalization that those of us that aren't enjoying and are critical of the quality of the product, that we are some small, insignificant portion of the viewing audience so our opinions and the facts we back them up with (like lower ratings and live attendance figures) aren't credible or relevant.

CyNick never cited from which dirt sheet he got the report of the fan who said the pop for reigns is great.

True. Honestly though, I never did and don't expect him to.

So your citing a source notorious for taking reports from Meltzer's site and rewriting them as their own? Brilliant.

Everything is relevant to varying degrees.

I watched RAW, I heard the crowd pop for Reigns' promo. I heard multiple tater tot chants, which tells me the fans were with him. That was confirmed by the dude who provided the live report.

That said, I also saw the photo of a few fans leaving. So clearly some fans didnt care for the final segment. But we already knew a segment of the fanbase is determined to reject Reigns as a headliner. Just like those same fans who show up to every arena to chant Cena Sucks.

Devil is in the detail. You said "very few people were left in the arena". For that to be true if they had say 8000 in the building to open the show, i would say you need to have at least 3/4 of the fans to leave. I don't think that one image of one part of one section tells that story.

The problem is you guys who think the product sucks refuse to look at the aspects of the business that are doing well. Ratings are important, but if RAWs audience is declining at a slower rate than the rest of the prime time shows on USA its likely a by product of changing behaviour vs definite decline in intetest. Especially when you look at their numbers on social media and VOD, which are through the roof.

Can you not read? It was a FAN sending in a report. Dave's site does the same thing. I'm not working off an oped piece written by the editor of tpww.

I think it's a common misconception that WWE makes any direct money from the advertisers on RAW and Smackdown. Not to be confused with WWE's direct sponsors, the advertisers pay NBC Universal/USA Network to run the commercials. In turn, WWE is paid a television rights fee based on a negotiated contract out of the advertising revenues that are paid to NBC Universal.

It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn and could potentially have incredibly successful weeks/quarters versus average weeks/quarters.

As of the last quarterly financials WWE released, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers.

WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, eventually that contract ends, and if they only perform well in their the last year of their contract, people are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat, happy and comfortable again.

It wasn't a priority. You don't want to have Show lose so quickly after they built up a big match with Lesnar.

Again, this whole thing is comical in that it was just an idea I presented as a possibility to give Cesaro something to do. I never once said I heard it would happen. Hell I've never ever claimed I have any inside info on anything. But now that it didn't happen you're using it as some type of slam against me.

Comical really.

Nobody who understands the business things WWE makes money off ads ran during RAW.

You're so off base in your thinking that is not even funny. WWE had double or triple the ratings in the Attitude Era, but monetarily they didn't maximize TV rights fees because advertisers wanted no part of the show. Today, even though ratings are far lower, they are doing better financially in large part because WWE has reinvented itself as a respobsible corporate citizen. Now you have a lineup of advertisers looking to buy airtime from USA. That wasnt even happening 3 years ago. USA recently came out and responded to the declining ratings by touting how successful WWE is for them.

Further, as I've explained many many times, if ratings across the board on down, advertisers will still pay top dollar for the shows that draw the most of the right type of viewer. RAW week in week out is a top 3 viewed show on Monday. Therefore advertisers will still pay top dollar.

Pretty sure you made claims like that Cesaro/Big Show feud was "obvious" or whatever. But I'm too lazy to look for it and don't really care.

Because we don't care about their financials

Their main event segment on youtube has a little over a million views, that is not "through the roof"

So you are now citing a report sent from a fan to a site that regularly publishes dirt sheet news? And how do you know the fan was actually there? Was there any confirmation?

If you think Meltzer is some hack why are you citing an even less credible wrestling website known for ripping off the work of others? I thought you only go to the source for facts? Is the main page now a legitimate source?

He still didn't even cite it he just said "www.tpww.net"

Wish I could have done that for school reports

Citations:
"New York Times"
"Fox News"

I'm not talking about currently. I'm talking about the impact of declining ratings next time WWE's contract is up.

Regardless of whether or not ratings across the board are down in the future, if WWE's ratings are consistently down compared to where they were when they negotiated the current deal last year, even if they're attracting the same "quality" advertisers in the future that they are today, WWE's rights fees are more likely to decline as well. Sure everyone's rights fees might be down too because the lack of viewers over all and WWE may still be getting top dollar.

When WWE makes 40% of their revenues from television rights though, and those rights fees are due to audience size and ratings, any drop or potential drop in that revenue or audience/ratings size is a huge risk. Not only to their financial bottom line but also to their ability market their other products, i.e., Network subs, merch, live events, etc. For example, according to WWE, RAW DVR viewership has stayed stagnant at only an additional 10-12% of the live audience size.