Quote:
|
Originally Posted by BigDaddyCool
Yeah, I'm hesitant to use that way because of the following reasons:
1) I know of at least one case where Chris Jericho's girl friend bought him an action figure of himself (and someone else whose name escapes me) in one of those double action figure sets. Ir rang up as a Hulk Hogan action figurer thus adding to Hogan's merch sales. Now that is only one case, but that is enough for a seed of doubt.
2) Rating do not equal drawling by a particular star. Rating can be effected by a number of things. Now more accurately, what should be studied is change in ratings per segment. For example when Nitro announced that Mick Foley would be winning the title on raw and rating shot up, that increase was for Mick Foley.
3) Another reason ratings do not equal drawing ability of any one star is because ratings have a lot to do with last week or previous shows. It doesn't matter how hot tonights show is if the past few weeks have been piss poor and drove fans way.
4) The hardest thing about tracking drawing ability poor booking can hurt drawing ability. Imagine if Booker T who has worked through bad booking would finally get great booking, he could turn into an all time great. But it is hard to tell.
Plus again, with WCW i don't believe it was the payroll for the roster. It was bad booking, bad money management, wasting it on extras that weren't wrestling, and lack of any hierarchy. But I would love to see some hard number to prove it. I have read death of WCW a few times, but R. D. Reynolds and Bryan Alvarez couldn't read a financial statement to save their lives.
|
1. Merch sales of action figures are probably poorly tracked as few stores actually used PoS marketing, and I believe most manufacturers only deal in the bulk of it. So you might as well count action figures towards the Hogans and such, for all the difference it'll make.
2. Or the title change. It's possible that, in part, and the specific act were both part of it. The question I have is, do people keep the Quarter Hour ratings? I don't think Nielsen MEdia Research does.
One thing I'd like to point out is that while the ratings might not be indicative, longterm trends may appear. For example, for two years, Triple H's QHs would tank compared to the show. It's a good example, because he's somebody who's on TV whether you like him or not, and we were able to watch him for a long time in that case. Considering the people involved, even the feud itself, would be an important factor. MAybe when these two guys were on TV, ratings spiked, but neither of them along did anything.
3. Which is why QHs are so important. They're not the be-all, end all, but they give you a better level of fine tuning. If people are tuning out for a specific time, it's an indication. It's not perfect, and I agree with your "You're only as good as last week's show" assessment, but even within that, we can see trends.
4. I would factor this into the worth of the star to the company, though. If they're going to pay say, Booker T, a huge salary and then not use him, then they're wasting money just as much as if they had given Shannon Moore a seven figure salary.