I do, because I like to know what the future might hold for a television show, and I like to know what works and what is trendy, etc. I do a fair bit of work in the television industry (nothing glamorous, I'm not bragging like CyNick would), so I find the business itself very fascinating. That being said, ratings are important for wrestling fans who want to analyze the business.

You might think it is nerdy, but when a product has left us a bit dry and our fandom cries out for more, ratings are useful because it at least indicates whether or not something works for the general audience, even if we hardcores are left unsatisfied. That being said, we need to swallow a bitter pill when things are going down and our favorites are on top.

I'd be interested in ratings for Arrow in the same sense if I felt they were butchering this DC Comics character I enjoyed and I had this feeling that "No one is going to like this version of Green Arrow because they've fucked with him too much." If ratings were soaring, then it'd mean that my opinion is clearly out of sync with what audiences want. If ratings were going down the gurgler though, then it somewhat supports the suspicions my fandom has given me.

Also, generally television shows that keep losing viewers change something, and that the WWE loses viewers and keeps on the same path is incredibly frustrating and fuel for the hardcore fan/WWE love/hate relationship.

If you're enjoying the product, then I don't know why you'd bum yourself out with ratings. If you're not, there's something bittersweet about finding out that the general taste consensus is with you. It's the only authority a fan has to appeal to when they comes to disagreeing, cosmically, with Vince McMahon. And it's one that goes over even his head.

Guys, I know I have been a bit of a grouch lately, but you have GOT to tell me when a thread gets this good.

Touché.

Am I the only one who cracks up whenever I hear CyNick reference his intelligence? There are lots of smart people on this forum, brother. You got schooled by no less than three in this thread.

That insight there -- that's literally a Yahoo Answers response to the question about revenue vs. profit. This is the intellectual titan you are dealing with, folks. One week of business class and he thinks he's the Trumpster himself.

You talk about shifting goal posts, but you are the one constantly shifting them in order to stop BigCrippyZ from lodging that football so far up your ass it knocks your teeth out, son. You shift the posts in your last paragraph. I don't think you were being ironic.

BCZ pretty much explained that the data is manipulated to avoid other data. You can say it makes sense for a business to present itself in the best possible light all you want, but it doesn't change the fact that it is worked and doesn't address the overall health of the television product. That is right in line with "what you need to hear," right?

Jokes are supposed to make people laugh, and not betray a crippling sense of self-awareness in your own lack of arguments. Somehow I think that if you were a super-genius, you'd grasp that and be able to write wittier material. Maybe you can help Melania with her speeches? You seem proficient with Google.

This thread has been amazing. Thank you all. Please continue as CyNick believes he is trolling people, but doesn't actually get an emotional response out of anyone, and just gets logically dissected. Or as Vince McMahon would say "verbally eviscerated."

Well typically when you're arguing a point and stating it as fact you present proof that what you're saying is indeed fact.

If it's dio easy to find surely you'd have no issue proving your point. Unless you have no data to back up your claims and you telling me to look it up is a way to avoid admitting it.

No, I don't give a fuck because I don't have ego or arrogance that borders on narcissism.

Record breaking revenue in 2016.

Network subs up year over year. You mentioned hardcore fans, you would think The Network would be a solid indicator of what the hardcore fan thinks of the product.

TV ratings are down, yes, but they are still way above the average for both USA and Cable as a whole. What that will likely mean is a healthy new TV rights fees deal.

The issue for people like you, and Crippy falls into this category is you're just looking at television ratings for RAW and not grasping the larger context of what those numbers mean. The NFLs ratings are down, The Walking Dead's ratings are down (ask #1 fan), lots of things are down. However WWE continues to see growth in other areas, and have managed to grow a brand new revenue stream that will likely keep them profitable for decades to come. Until some of these metrics that actually matter (rights fees, Network subs, revenues, etc) start to decline, then the WWE will see a need to change. Right now things are going well. Guys like you don't seem to enjoy it, but the paying customer is enjoying, and they matter more than you.

Your goal posts comment makes no sense, when Crippy's lol WWE comment is what I was responding to in the first place. He didn't sufficiently explain why comparing the ratings for a show on cable is lol to compare it to the rest of cable. He made the comment because he didn't understand what he was talking about. Including a reference to ratings being over a year old but it's a year vs year chart. Again, he seemed to not understand what he was reading.

Why would you bring Network ratings into a chart about the health of a cable property. It would be worse to include Network ratings in the total number because it would be comparing apples to oranges. My guess is you don't understand the difference between the two anymore than Crippy does. Which explains why you think he's winning the debate.

I realized CyNick is doing Stephen Colbert's old gimmick. it's awesome

Record breaking revenue and yet their net profits are lower than pre-Network years. They simply are spending way too much money to the point they needed around a $200 million emergency loan to help cover costs late last year I believe.

Even the Network numbers are deceptive since they are only in the break even range and have to stay within it per month. WWE completely whiffed on their estimates since it was supposed to be around 2 million within a year and 3-4 million by now.

Also your last paragraph is barely true at all. If it wasn't for tv fees, WWE would be posting net losses and not net gains. Everything else outside of the tv revenues is down and has been trending that way the past several of years.

They do have a chance to improve their net profit for this year because of the tv fee being higher than last year but that can easily be eaten away by another Network based show if the stuff about the UK guys ends up happening.

This is my favorite thing about CyNick. Not only is he a condescending asshole, but he refuses to confirm any of his information.

Funny, since a while back he was all about people citing sources for rumors from the sheets. At least you're consistent, Nick!

Ouch at RAW's numbers this week since it hit 1997 levels of bad for significance.

Lol. Who the hell was sticking around for Charlotte and Bailey?

Raw would do so much better if their main events were as good as Smackdown.

The three hours is a killer. You have to wonder how much that extra money is worth it when they keep burning out their audience. You've lost 33% of your audience at this point -- maybe it's time to get them back and spending money on merchandise, live events and the Network? A big problem with WWE is that if you work out you can miss it and it doesn't matter, why watch it at all?

I'm curious. Where are you getting your break even numbers for the network? Take a look at their financial statements, it clearly shows the networks contribution to the bottom line. And it's positive. Stop reading BS reporting from people who don't know the business.

The $200M wasn't anything out of desperation, it was part of long term planning to grow various areas of the business. You have to spend money to make money. If the street would have seen that loan as a desperate move, the stock would be tanking. Instead it's nearing its nearing its all time high.

Another wrong statement about everything being down. Everything other than TV is not down. Network is up. Venue merchandising was up. Liscencing was up. WWEShop was up. Revenue in just about every segment of the business was up. But hey, don't let facts get in the way of an ignorant post.

Try to come back after you actually went through their numbers. Then we can discuss like gentlemen.

How many shows on cable did a better number?

A problem facing literally all forms of entertainment in TV. People still watch, they just use other means than cable. WWE generated the most revenue they ever did in 2016. That means people are shelling out their money to consume WWE.

Take a look at UFCs ratings in FS1, they are not great. But they are great for FS1. Therefore UFC will make a shitload in their next TV deal. Ratings for them are far worse than the Chuck and Randy days, but the money they get for a fraction of the ratings is much higher today.

Your arguments on this subject have been dismissed constantly. It is well established that you cannot be reasoned with. Goodbye, troll.

#1 - WWE and other financial related sources stated that was their break even number around the lead up to the Network's launch. Its a number that needs to be maintained for a long while because the WWE spent way too much money for the Network's launch. Also a big chunk of their monthly earnings goes to MLB and maybe others.

#2 - Kind of funny you use the WWE's exact words for the loan. Their stocks did tank a bit because ta da, the "streets" who are way smarter than you exactly saw it as a desperation move because of the very large amount asked, the very small window WWE was asking for the money, and some shenanigans related to the terms of it.

They were already spending a ton of money to begin with because of the Network and stood a risk of running out of usable funds for the quarter/period or having to cut back on a lot of spending. The biggest downside to the loan wasn't to the WWE but instead to investors who saw their stock value drop because it was likely cheaper for the WWE to just issue stocks than pay it back the normal way.



WWE's biggest non-sports juggernaut Love & Hip Hop 7 was one.

Wrong.

It's because you guys don't read financial statements, or understand how to read them, and just generally ignore facts. When I provide facts, like the WWE stock is nearing an all time high, I get a response of "the stocks did tank a bit". I don't know how a stock tanks a bit, but if you look at any stock ticker, they are currently sitting about 50 cents of their 52 week high. They have over $250m in gross profit and 82m in EBITDA. They have more free cash than debt. There's no tanking there.

These conversations with you people reminds me of when I was doing my undergrad in business and I would take electives and have debates with people taking useless degrees like history or women's studies about business matters. Because I was alone in a group of like minded individuals, they all thought I was wrong, and evil. But when I would go and recount the debate among my peers in degrees that actually require intelligence, they would laugh at how ignorant those people were to real facts.

lol you do not provide facts. You present information as fact, then say: "You guys just don't get it. Go look it up on the Internet." These are not the same.

Interesting you said "one", because it was the only show that did a better rating in the 18-49 demo. RAW was number two. But let's dig into the numbers a little too get a better representation. RAW did a 0.86 among women in that demo and was soundly beaten by LUSH at 1.75. with men, RAW was 1.43 and LHH was 0.64. when we look at total viewers, RAW easily beat LHH by nearly a million viewers. Now, for the sake of transparency, RAW was not #1 in total viewers, it was bested by some news programs on Fox News, but the vast majority of that audience is in the far less desirable 50+ demo, whereas RAW's big numbers come from the most desirable group men 18-49.

As an advertiser, RAW is far and away the most attractive property on cable that night.

I just provided a bunch of facts. You think I made those numbers up? I'd like someone to refute any of those numbers with actual proof that I'm wrong. Don't waste your time, I'm right.

Why is it on anyone else to prove you wrong? If you're so sure of yourself, why don't you provide the proof?

For example, if I were to say "WWE made more gross profit in 2016 than 2015" I would show this from NASDAQ...

http://i.imgur.com/mNMgfFV.jpg

...instead of being a dick and saying "look it up and get educated." It's really not that hard.

LOL meatball ate him alive and then he only responds to the final sentence.

Wish I remembered what site or source it was that broke down the weekly demographics outside of the Observer for wrestling because for a long time now, RAW's valuable 18-34 demo even for men was leaning heavily towards the end part.

Think the average viewer is in the 40s now and been growing older every few years. Has to do with WWE being unable to get Cena's massive youth base they spent years building to carry over as the new future base for the WWE.

This week's numbers sort of show how much stronger WWE's older base is compared to its younger one which is going to be a serious problem once Cena really goes away.
http://www.showbuzzdaily.com/wp-cont...eb-13.MON_.png

If something is so easy to obtain as doing a Google search, I'm not going to take my precious time to post an image. I feel like my reputation is strong enough here that my readers who are intelligent will take my word for it.

But hey, thanks for validating that I'm right.

So you'd rather just be an asshole who ignores anything that goes against you (i.e. the majority of Smelly Meatball's post up there).

Good to know!

Good post.

The thing is if you look at males 12 - 34 WWE they are still far and away #1 on cable, so you still have a healthy mix of young people watching the product. In terms of 50+, they do well, but other shows outperform them in that demo. If anything what that chart tells me when you look at his they colour code the demos, WWE does very well across all demos. Most shows like a LHH only really appeal to young women, they do okay with men and terrible with old people. Fox News has the old people cornered, but does average to below average numbers with young people. It's a testiment to hire WWE has managed to create a variety of characters and storylines that appeal to different folks.

I don't think that demo well disappear if Cena leaves. You can see they are still trying to create kid friendly babyface characters like Bayley.

People get their backs up when someone is right as often as I am. They are intimidated by people with more knowledge on a subject. If you were to analyze my posts on a scale of accuracy, you would see my numbers would be huge. My detractors are like the left wing media; fake news, and trying to insult me rather than debate me. It's the cross I carry for all of you to have access to my brilliance.

Since "anyone can look it up," you aren't really proving your intelligence/knowledge on anything other than how to use a search engine.

But as long as you're having fun, do the thing!

I love how Cynick ignores all of this, in particular the convertible note aspect. Granted, I'm not surprised, because most people here don't know or fully understand the intricacies or consequences of a convertible note, especially the one referenced here. Cynick claims to "truly understands the business" but doesn't address this critical aspect of it because he can't refute it and in fact doesn't "truly understand the business". So great. :lol:

Funny how he complains about not being debated while ignoring big points for debate.

Keep having fun doing you, Nick!