2019 superbowl was th lowest rated in 11 years????


https://www.cnbc.com/2019/02/05/supe...e-nielsen.html

2018 world series down 23%




https://variety.com/2018/tv/news/wor...18-1202994171/

Its almost like tv is a dead medium.

Those YouTube numbers are gpod metrics. More of those

I do like how dip shit in that tweet compaired the wwe to entire networks thinking that made any sort of sense.

Lets say a show airs at 2am and draws a .012 and next year it still airs at 2a and still draws a .012. Well fuck thars a 100% retention rate.


Network is clearly killing it.

With facts like that he needs a blue check mark.

We need a better way to track viewership

Best we have right now is a failing relic from last millennia

CBS almost dropped Nielson in december (because it doesnt work anymore) but nielson caved on price. This trend will continue until eventually Neilson wont make enough to sustain itself. Its a ticking timbomb. 5 years tops. Whole thing will implode.

We're one half decent idea away from the entire ad industry turning on its ear

But im the mean time we'll update this thread twice a week a jerk each other off like any of these numbers have any meaning at all...i guess cause we're smarter than they are.

Where is the direct comparison to the WWE in those numbers?

now comparing raw numbers thats one thing, i didnt do that ftr just drawing a parallel between declining viewership being wide spread problem, but stats based off a 24 hour network vs a 3 hour show? Thats not how percentages work and its a radically different scenario for a statistical analysis comparison.

Very, VERY dishonest math manipulation there.

It would be just as dishonest as comparing NBCs total views to RAW numbers and saying the WWE is failing.

(Which despite that accusation I did not do)

You posted network viewership numbers in a thread about WWE ratings while trying to defend WWE’s rating decline. Not gonna get into a whole wordplay discussion about what constitutes a comparison. Is it or is it not fair to bring up the viewership of an entire network when discussing the viewership of WWE? Or is your problem just that he introduced percentages into the mix?

Found it interesting that Smackdown had the bigger PPV bump but its still a pretty tiny number compared to the usual 100k-200k range WWE gets for these bumps in recent years.

Stomping Grounds was a disaster in terms of driving interest for this week's set of shows.

The problem is percents yes. Absolutely. Didnt realize that needed to pointed out. Thats creating lies through math. Its one of the first things you go over in statistical analysis courses. Its very easy to create very misleading comparisons using percentages (like that tweet did.) It pretends that the pie is equal when the pie is is literally 1/12th being weighed against 1 whole.

Alarmingly dishonest.

Next week Taker could cause a slight bump -- but one trend lately has been RAW doing decent YT views and SD's YT views dropping consistently (since the Wildcard Era and brand blue essentially becoming RAW 2.0).

I always wonder how the USA Network views the 24/7 Title situation since it was one of their ideas to counter ratings sliding - and it plays great on social media but hasn't really moved RAW up on TV.

If you ever see someone averaging percentages take a second to check their math they're most likely trying to pull a fast one.

I’d say there’s some dishonesty in just showing the numbers and saying “down is down” and leaving it at that.

If someone took those networks, broke them down by every show, and then compared each individual show to WWE, would those be fair comparisons to you? It would eliminate the 24 hour vs 3 hour dilemma.

Lets say we did a survey on whether people like or do not like wrestling and the results are that 90% of children like wrestling however only 60% of adults like wrestling. So, can we claim that 75% of the population ( average = (90%+60%)/2 = 75% ) like wrestling?

This cannot be correct; we do not know anything about the sample size. Let's say there are 100,000 children and 400,000 adults surveyed. From those, 170,000 people do not like wrestling, while 330,000 like wrestling. Here, we can confirm that 90,000/100,000x100% = 90% of the children, and 240,000/400,000x100% = 60% of adults like wrestling.

So we are left with two answers. 66% (accurate calculation), and the 75% (inaccurate calculation). The averaging percentages can provide inaccurate results, and this is exactly what the tweet tries to do. Its awful math being masqueraded as a rebuttal when if you follow the math (and weight it against comparable data) it proves the opposite is true.

Also, the World Series, Super Bowl, NBA Finals numbers you posted on the last page... pretty dishonest.

The Youtube stuff has been a pretty good indicator of revealing what's been interesting from WWE but somewhat useless for actual tv. The biggest problems being its way easier to digest clips that are a few minutes long than watch a whole 3-hour show live. Another big problem is the bulk of WWE's Youtube views typically come from India (and China) which is meaningless for tv since WWE can't transition it into additional viewers nor are they generating huge sums of money from those views.

USA Network probably views the 24/7 stuff as a success since it means one of their ideas actually works even if it supposedly was the "least bad one" given. WWE just needs to find a way to transition it into becoming additional tv viewers that stick around.

Again not direct comparisons. Trends. Clear objectively verifiable trends. Major television staples are losing nearly 25% of their total audience year to year. With some rough math WWEs decline looks to be between 9-13% less than its key demo competitors but i havent (and dont even sort of have the time to) done anything exhaustive.


The problem is the data collection. Neilson is a dead metric. This is cavemen that havent discovered fire yet.

I really like youtube though as an analytic. If they would chop up entire shows and upload them in segements they would know exectly what was drawing eyeballs. I dont know how theyre using that tool but theres so much info YouTube offers them that advertisers would be very interested in.

How are attendances at sports games tracking?

The dishonesty lies in pointing out one year and calling it a trend. We're also 4 years removed from the highest rated Super Bowl of all time. If I had pointed that out as a "trend" 4 years ago (clearly the decline of television started much more than 4 years ago) then I assume you would have called that ridiculous.

The 3rd highest rated NBA finals game of all time happened a year after that. If I'd pointed that out as a "trend" 3 years ago, then I assume you would have called that ridiculous.

The World Series... Well, yeah there's not much to say about that. People don't care about baseball like they used to.

Also, quit trying so hard to distance yourself from "direct comparison-making". You literally just compared the percent of WWE's decline to the percent of other major television staples. You're participating in the direct comparison making whether you deny it or not. lol

The World Series is the 3rd most watched sporting even in the last 3 years only behind the Olympics and the Superbowl. Game 7 of the 2016 World Series was the most watched game in World Series history since 1991.

But Baseball World Series ratings have slipped since 1984. Spiked in 2016 because of the Cubs.

Not at all. The trend exists all over all of television. each network is down in annual views over a 5 year span. Its everywhere and the networks themselves, whi entire profit structure for 30+ years has been based off Neilson, are all acknowledging this. If you want to gloss over that so be it but when CBS drops neilson altogether because THATS how useless they view them you should take notice.


And I've objectively not directly compared them expect when i specifically directly compared and acknowledged that accordingly.


TV has no future and this is a mainstream concept wrestling fans are stubbornly refusing for some reason.

Its a broken metric. We dont know if viewership is down or not. technology has moved on and we havent updated our analytics. What i do know is the wwf is the 8th most subscribed YouTube channel. Thats real. Thats modern. Thats how most 15 and unders consume media. Not nielson boxes and watching usa.

Not a single viewing habit of mine is trackable by neilson analytics. The growing trend for 18-34s is to have never had cable. Even once. That trendis projected to be rule in the next 10 years.


How much of your viewing is trackable by Neilson. I bet very little. Why are you still following these numbers?

://variety.com/2019/digital/news/2019-cord-cutting-data-1203194387/


34% of US customers will cut the cord by the end of 2019. If you think this isnt where the viewership is going please offer the hot take. Im all ears.

I’m not glossing over anything. I’m not even arguing TV being a dying medium. I’m saying your sports comparison is insanely dishonest. Not only for the reasons I mentioned but ALSO because comparing the ratings of a single game from one year to the next and calling it a “trend” to make the point that major television staples are down around 25% is a asinine.

You realize the NFL’s ratings in general were actually UP last year. Sunday Night Football’s ratings were UP last year. Monday Night Football’s ratings were UP last year. Now if I tried to say “The NFL’s ratings were up last year while WWE’s continued to drop”, Im guessing you’d object to the comparison. Yet you think it’s totally fine to look at the championship games from one year and use those numbers to say...

You see the issue here?

Clearly i needed to spell things out more clearly. Thats a failure in my part.


When i post those numbers what is in my head is are we panicking about the failing ratings? Theyre huge numbers. Do we think the nba is about to fold? No. We dont even notice. Why do we not notice when we can pull at near random any set.of numbers from tv and see declining ratings but when rae does literally the same thing at a reasonably similar pace we think abandon ship?


Shows flawed. Has huge problems. These numbers are fucking JANK THOUGH. This isnt abnormal. Why are we worshiping nielson? Its dead. These numbers dont tell us anyrhing anymore. Theuve basically become a lottery at this point.


Nfls digital streaming was up 86% last year. Viewers havent left. We just lost track of them.

Well tbf viewers might have left who fucking knows. Point is nielson isnt an indicator if they have or havent.

Other than "we always have" is there any reason we're still using this in 2019?

Ftr with the championship games i literally picked those at random. i knew nothing about their ratings this year. i knew what the data trand was and rolled the dice. Every search i made "just happened" to back my play. A stunning coincidence? Or predictable data acts predictably?


I bet if we made a game of it and put 50 current shows in a hat ans you got points when a shows viewership year to date wasnt shrinking the winning score wouldbe less than 10

Nelson ratings have always been a misrepresentation. It takes a very small percent of the audience, and then assume that the viewing pattern of that small sample size would equate exactly to the viewing habits of the entirety of the United States.

Nielson has roughly 40,000 households with boxes that monitor viewing habits. Nelson estimates there are 120 million households with tvs, and about 305 million people that watch tv.

They take those 40,000 houses, break it down to age groups and census data for the number of people living in the houses, then use whatever formula they use to determine how much each person in the household means to their rating, i.e. a house with 5 people will count as 5 viewers, since they can't actually say who in the house watched a specific show, then they multiply those numbers by a percentage to represent that 305 million, and that gives you a rating.

So when Nielson says a show gained or lost 200,000 viewers, it's probably about 30 people who watched one week but not another.

It is a very small sample size that networks base so much on.

It's why they have evolved to look at other factors.

It's why Fox's deal REALLY isn't as big as everybody makes it seem. They bought 520 hours of live tv for just over a $Billion. That is roughly $2 million per hour of TV.

That is rock bottom prices for a network show, let alone a live one which in this day and age is more desirable.

Fox will have no overhead with Smackdown, they will cut a $4million check every week for 2 hours of TV they don't have to worry about or put any real effort into.

Yeah thats what a survey is. Problem is now we're doing a survey with a dead medium.


Imagine tracking phone usage and only using landlines.


Would you use that information to determine phone habits of girls 10-24? Coursenot. Youd a fucking idiot to do so.


Why are we turning to neilson to tell us what men 18-34 are watching? How the fuck would they know?

100% this. I literally watch nothing but live tv, which is wrestling and sports. Everything else I watch on Netflix, Hulu, and Prime Video. Even the news, I'd rather just read it online than watch CNN or Fox News.

Earlier this week someone said the movie "This is the End" was on FX. I love that movie so I decided to watch it. Did I watch it on FX??? Hell no, I watched it from my Prime Video library, uncensored, no ads, streaming on a Roku.

Point is I still actually watched the movie even though IF I had a Nielson box it would have not have counted me in the rating FX got for showing the movie that night.

Exactly. And theres a huge ammount of people that are consuming media this way. Especially inside their key demos where id wager more are doing this than arent

When i think of the single 20-something males i know i cant think many that are watching cable. Addmitedly thats confirmation bias but i dont think if we increased the sample size that the trend wouldnt present itself.

Thats just how we do it now. We all do, dont we?

And if we all do then doesnt that force us to ask some serious questions about how seriously we value this data?

"Surely, you can't be serious?"

Just add sixty-six and two-thirds <s>ch-</s> percents.

I am serious, and dont call me Shirley

Prob'ly the easiest would be to make the wrestling show a wrestling show instead of, as it was phrased in Wrestling Isn't Wrestling, "a show about a wrestling show". But that would be too much like work. And also make sense.

While WWE is on cable, they're playing the Nielson game. That's how their TV is going to be judged. If you don't want to be judged by your cable presence, get off cable, lol. It's true that people are cutting chords, and if the estimate is that 35% of cable's audience is going to cut, then you'd look at Raw's ratings, comparatively, with that in mind. Which is what most people do.

I don't know why WWE performing badly on a dying medium alleviates criticisms of its dwindling popularity. Being in a dying medium is itself a problem.

And yet those in the industry, whos entire business models have been based on neilson for decades, are moving away from Neilson.

And if you "look at RAWs ratings comparatively with the 35% drop off in mind " then viewership isnt down at all. You cant do that though because youd be averaging nonsequitor percentages and weve already been through the math on that.

For example wrestling has always done well in the south and the south is cord cutting less so without any data there's no reasonable way to ascertain what % is watching through other platforms. Its reasonable to conclude is less than 35% given historical data...but what do we actually know?

The only we can clearly say is they had a youtube video this week seen by twice the audience who watched the live show within 3 hours of the upload.

So something seems a bit off

I just dont understand how you lot arent questioning ratings when the entire industry is. There's a loyalty that is completely unearned.

And before im taken out of context again thats not a claim that theyre ratings are down 50% of the actual. Im meerly saying these numbers seems suspicious and objectively i feel like im missing a lot of data. Enough so that i wouldnt be so bold as to draw conclusions from either.

Nielsen also measures viewers on most digital and streaming services including Netflix, Hulu, Youtube TV, Prime Video, etc.

Also, Nielsen's cost ($10 million for CBS for example) vs measurement accuracy has been criticized in the TV industry for over a decade, but only by broadcasters who claim it under counts viewers, particularly in certain local markets, and thus result in lower ad rates being paid. Unless and until most or all of the ad agencies also stop using and paying Nielsen to determine what they charge broadcasters, Nielsen's impact on and importance to TV isn't going anywhere.

I don't have any stake in Nielsen or care what happens to them. I also don't doubt that their audience measurement ability is flawed or imperfect and that viewers are going and going to continue to move to streaming services and Youtube, etc. However, to say that Nielsen just lost track of viewers who are dropping cable, etc., and that's why TV and WWE's numbers are dropping, thus Nielsen is flawed and irrelevant, is just uninformed and incorrect.

Hell most of the posts on this past page about Nielsen are wrong based on uninformed speculation about what and how Nielsen works. See no further than: Nielsen data is missing = Nielsen numbers are suspicious = Nielsen is fatally flawed, no longer relevant, and shouldn't be trusted. Of course data is missing, you have to be a paying customer to get access to it.

According to netflix Neilsons claims are bullshit and raw frequently is the chart topper in the "social content views" and twitter engagement analytics. So which numbers are good? The tv rating, which is bad, or the social media, which is good?

Also neilson data is public you dont have to pay to get it. You pay to have the study done.

And if you really think neilson isnt going anywhere you arent paying attention. At all. Thats a powerfully uninformed srance ya got there.

Neilson stock in 2014 was 48.42 today it sits at 23.41

Income is down 40.28% ytd
Net profit is down 38.48% ytd

yeah there's no underlining problem at all...

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/zL48...-is-fine.0.jpg

TL;DR using cable ratings in 2019 should embarrass your math teachers.

I'll admit, i love coming into this thread and seeing that the rating went down because i quit watching the product because i think it's shit. so it's nice to see them on their ass.

However, i know that TV ratings is not the end all be all in 2019. The E has so many other avenues of revenue AND ways to watch their programming now and days that the TV rating really doesn't give you the whole picture. hell you can pretty much watch the episode of RAW from the night before by watching 9 clips on You Tube . That's what i do now. I'll read the results, see what was decent and pull up You Tube.

What i would like to see sf the ticket sales numbers I think that's a better # then tv ratings. That PPV in Washington last week looked like they didn't sell shit. that's a more jarring number then the tv rating decline

I always have enjoyed, whether they are up or down, seeing the ratings, social media views, tickets sold, etc.

Just one of those things I've always personally been interested in, across all the metrics.

Kind of related but I was thinking about yesterday a story of how Generation Z doesn't really watch movies (supposedly). It was from a NY Times interview with filmakers iirc. I found it a little odd since I can't see why they wouldn't watch Netflix, Hulu, etc if they had access to them and I've seen tons of people under 18 at the movies, in particular big event things like The Avengers, Pixar, Crazy Rich Asians, horror flix, etc. A lot of filmakers mentioned how they have had to change cinematography on other films now since they realize a lot of people will watch them on their phone vs a big screen.

Anyways, where I was going w/ that is it talked about how Generation Z is more likely to watch YouTube, IGTV (Instagram TV), Snaps, TikTok, etc -- essentially either someone cutting a promo to quick cuts (YT) or short-form videos like the other things listed. It got me to wondering how WWE and wrestling in general will be able to fit into that concept more as time goes on.

Anyone w/ kids -- do your offspring watch more stuff on their phone than TV?

^ Oh yeah I love this thread, so definitely keep on posting. it's one of my fav threads to come to every week haha.

I don't know if i believe they don't watch movies as much as the article was alluding too, but i do believe there's a definite uptick in people just watching clips or summaries on you tube or whatever vs watching an entire program. Heck, I am in my 30's and do it all the time. It's hard for me to sit through and hr or 2 of anything anymore. I only really watch movies on planes. i can't remember the last movie i watched at my house. Probably Birdbox lol

The thing is, they really don't have a lot of successful revenue streams. They're reliant on that TV rights money. I suppose the Saudis pay big too. Everything else is down and I think it's accepted that if they didn't have that TV money, WWE would not be turning a profit.

Despite what Destor's saying, WWE needs its TV, which means the metrics that measure it are the most important thing. I don't understand the red herring of "Nielson isn't the best indicator of what kids are doing." It's irrelevant to the conversation. They get their money from NBC Universal and FOX. Their standing with them matters. If the kids aren't watching because they spend more time on their phones, then that's its own issue, and it is an issue, and I don't see how that helps WWE at all, considering what they want are viewers so that their TV is valuable.

If these amazing social media numbers were somehow translating to ticket sales, Network subscriptions or merchandise sales, it would be a lovely point about how WWE's business strategy is changing -- but it's not and they're still very much reliant on that TV audience that just isn't there.

Unfortunately, because I also like seeing them get their just desserts, I have a feeling that with Bonnie Hammer heading up the NBC Universal streaming app, WWE producing live content every week is going to be useful for that, and they're going to get paid out the ass next time that contract is up to provide content that can go on that as well as on Hulu and USA Network through the death rattle of cable. The one thing Destor said that is a pretty good point is that we are one idea away from everything changing. It's possible that WWE begin making money in an entirely new way and can keep paying big juicy dividends to their investors. Except the problem is that they are facing a popularity issue (as reflected by not only TV metrics, but those other failing revenue streams). The product is bad and people are getting sick of it. Fewer people are watching. The WWE is burning out more and more people. It's not some loyalty to Nielson that has people blinded.

:lol:

Wow.

Um... ad agencies and cable and broadcast networks literally pay an annual data licensing fee (that's literally the defined term and usually the 3rd or 4th heading in their contracts) to get way more data and analytics than are released to the public. It's a part of every Nielsen agreement, both the purchasing analytics and the viewing analytics contracts, and is typically based on the size of the customer. It's their core business model and product.

Also, the data licensing fees (and thus Nielsen's revenues) have been dropping because Nielsen's competitors (especially among broadcasters) have been offering apparently "more accurate" data at less cost.

Ratings for RAW are in:

Pretty good weekly increase along with it taking all Top 3 spots for demo rankings.

Even the 1st-to-3rd hour decrease was a lot better than in recent months.

Live RAW ratings delayed until tomorrow due to 4th of July.

That's one of the smallest 1st to 3rd hour drops in a long while.

Also one of those Good-Bad weeks in the sense it did a good job of retaining viewers throughout the show but did a bad job of generating interest for more viewers to latch on during it.

That proves that the 24/7 title is a draw.

Bit surprised the 3rd hour did that well considering it had the really bad women's 4-way match going on for a good chunk of it and then the start of a potential Miz-Ziggy feud nobody asked for.

It doesn’t mean people liked those things. They may not be back after sticking around and getting rewarded with *that*.

Even if those math teachers are using common core?

The ratings grab worked, first time in a long time RAW cracked 3 million Live TV viewers:

For some reference, last year's RAW 25 special did around 4.5 million for its average.

WWE probably going to exploit RAW Reunion's number big time for their upcoming investor's meeting this week. They desperately needed a strong number this week to show as proof Vince can fix RAW's ratings woes even if it won't last.

Them timing the meeting to happen this week and not next week when RAW likely is going to suffer a big drop is also very beneficial to them.

Yeah, they'll drop like 600k viewers next week since they failed to give people any reason to tune in for the next show.

This weeks Raw Ratings:

Pretty bad number overall since not only did it lose all of last week's bump, which was expected, it also managed to be lower than the week before in terms of regular shows.

Also lost out on the coveted #1 hour ranking to blood rival Love & Hip Hop show.

just shows you how little people value the current product.

Roman attacked by crates? Is the star power on the roster so thin that guys are feuding with inanimate objects now?

"Roman attacked by crates" is probably the nicest thing you could say about that segment last night.

Easily a strong contender for worst ever ending to a WWE show and everything about it was pretty terrible.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/8i6tEi_zmyA" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Missing from that video is the production botch at the start and Reigns awkward walk away at the end.

Not surprised that people watched the Raw Reunion and didn't come back. Heard Raw was pretty good with some Heyman ideas. It's a shame.

Up this week:

Bit surprised the 2nd hour did that well. Personally thought it was bad overall outside of the 6-man tag. 1st hour was a lot more interesting in terms of content.

If usual yearly trends follow, next week is likely going to be the last big week of the year for RAW.

SDLive

Big jump for RAW

Depending on the reception to the KotR tournament, that's probably the final high mark for RAW this year based on annual trends. Survivor Series tends to be the weakest of the Big 4 shows when it comes to generating a bigger than usual post-PPV bump and football starts next month.

Raw had 2.53 million viewers

Even with the excuse of the NFL pre-season starting, an almost 200k drop is still pretty bad considering all of the hype for the start of the KotR.