CM Punk, Mark Henry and television ratings *update*
 

Both Raw and ECW drew trhe same number of viewers this week as last week.

Can they keep this up? Will they continue to stay steady or will they plummet once the post-draft buzz wears off?

They can keep it up if they can keep a semi-decent quality of programming up. Viewership will rise as it gets better and fall as it gets worse...I don't know why its taken them this long to figure that out. Or I guess they just really thought that what they were doing all along was the best they could do.

Mark Henry is a draw vs. Tommy Dreamer.

This week's good rating is a jump from the CM Punk title win last week.

Last week's good rating was a ratings jump from the draft the week before.

The good ratings two weeks ago WAS the draft.


In this case, next week the rating will go down due to the shit show they put on Monday night.

lol Shit show? Well we all know you'll still watch next week. And then complain here on Tuesday.

I thought last weeks show was nice.

they've gotten me to start watching the last few weeks, if only because i'm a cm punk mark.

The only reason the show seemed so whack was because of the lame ass crowd who thinks its 98 and are waiting for an IF YA SMELLLL or glass breaking. I hate that shit. If i went to a WWE event, i would cheer/boo my ass off for everyone.

That's a good attitude to have attending a WWE event, but to be honest about things, a lot of the time the WWE doesn't give us a reason to care. It seems that is changing now, though, as there is more focus on mid-card areas of the product.

LOL.

Raw's ratings are already down from the Draft. So...Ummm....

Ok, so this past Monday's Raw rating dropped, presumably because of the Home Run Derby, but the Punk/Kane match was the highest rated segment of the entire broadcast.

On ECW, even though Mark Henry was not in the main event, the rating climbed due to the Hardys reunion.

Not only that but the ratings actually jumped for the match, and then dipped back down after it. They need to atleast keep Punk as champ after GAB just to see if it continues.

So are people content to believe the lies, or what?

Just curious.

I mean, is this one of those consensual reality things, like Benoit not having steroids in his system, where you folks believe it because you want it to be true, or is there hope for some sort of sense to be interjected here?

Lies? Explain yourself or shut up.

I'm confused as to what even needs explaining, but thanks for your interest.

People actually believe Benoit didn't have steroids in his system?

If they have their head screwed on (and let's face it, ratings can potenially = lots of monaayyyy - so they should), they'll continue to improve the product, so i do have some hope in this.

I'm confused as to what a discussion on televison ratings has to do with people believing lies. Did I miss something or are you just spewing venom again?

Yeah. A ton of people DEMANDED CNN and the "news media" apologise to WWE for their false accusations. And even recently, Afterlife and someone else (afterlife always sticks out; he has the best ridiculous statements) made comments to the effect.

Most people could probably find these things out with four seconds of research, but are content to believe that Benoit didn't do no drugs, Puk outpopped DX, and the ratings are stable.


Ah. There's the disconnect. I thought it was A to B that I was saying the ratings data was incorrect. You apparently thought me bringing up lies in a ratings thread had to do with the Moon Landing or something. I'm sure that's my fault, not the guy telling me to shut up and accusing me of spewing venom.

Seriously, man, it was a pretty simple concept. Your ratings appear to be bullshit, which is what I said the first time I posted here (indirectly), and what I was talking about when I asked if people really believed this shit.

What else would I be talking about in a ratings thread, praytell? For that matter, before you started in on me, did you ask that, or think for a second?

I'm willing to imagine that KK is going on about how the WWE's published ratings don't match the ones he uses...my big issue with this is why does everyone accept these ratings EXCEPT Kane Knight? Whatever.

"Everyone" doesn't, but then, I suppose I shouldn't believe Nielsen Media Research...

Have fun beleiving your LIES.

DIDNT ACTUALLY READ KK POST

(works both ways...cool)

Well I wouldn't want purposely mislead anyone, so instead of keeping the "truth" to yourself, how about you give me the real numbers then?

6/23 Raw (Draft) - 3.40
6/30 Raw - 3.5
7/7 Raw - 3.5
7/14 Raw - 3.2

http://www.wrestlezone.com//article....leid=218321497
http://rajah.com/base/node/13039
Now STFU KK.

Those are the inflated numbers.

Only number I can truthfully give atm is 7/7, which was 3.1 and 2.8, averaging to 2.95 (rounded to 3 even). So those numbers are wrong (though the general decline/rise is likely correct).

And Destor, it may be because KK gets them directly from Nielsen.

http://www.nielsenmedia.com/nc/porta...00880a260aRCRD

If I had to hazard a guess (assuming the inflated numbers are real - the ones on the dirt sheets I believe come from a WWE source) it's that they use multiple ratings companies, of which I know of no others.

I believe they also gather info from digital cable and satellite dish providers to come up with the "inflated" numbers.

You guys are fun to read

Why would someone lie about the ratings?

So you mean to tell that because the WWE uses more sorces to compile their information his number are more accurate? Seems the other way around...

I have no proof that they do that or not. Until I KNOW where WWE gets their numbers, Nielson is the only official source which can be trusted.