TPWW Forums - View Single Post - Was WWE(F) more popular during the hogan era, or the Attitude Era?

**The CyNick** · 12-29-2003, 11:42 PM

Its tough to go by TV ratings and PPV buys.

Fewer people had access to PPVs back in the day, so a high buyrate in 1987 is better than an equivalent buyrate today. Most sites talk about a number for buyrates such as Survivor Series did a 1.0 buyrate, which translates to a certain number of actual buys (in that case about 500K). However, like I said even if a site lists the actual number of buys, its still not fair to compare head to head with today's number, because like I said fewer people hadaccess to the shows.

On the flip side if say Wrestlemania III did a more impressive number for 1987 than Wrestlemania X-Seven did for the standards in 2001, one would still have to consider that during most of Hogan's run on top there were anywhere between 1 and 4 PPVs a year. Whereas Austin and Rock had to sell 12 PPVs a year. So in that sense Hogan had an advantage because people weren't exposed to as much of the product, and the PPVs back then were an easier sell then they are now.

Same thing goes for TV ratings. The WWE used to have exposure on NBC, a major US network, which they never had in the Austin/Rock era. Now one could argue that was because Austin and Rock weren't as big stars as Hogan was, but I dont see it that way. Then just like the PPVs Austin and Rock had to draw ratings for 2 first run shows per week, whereas Hogan got to build up to a major network show every 8 weeks or so, or whatever it was. So you can look at the fact that Hogan-Andre did a nuge number on NBC, but is that more impressive than the fact that Austin and Rock drew the highest numbers on cable week in and week out? Its hard to say.

In terms of live events, the most successful run in wrestling history (at least in the States) was the WWE's run under Austin and Rock where at one point they were averaging over 10,000 fans per live event. That was never accomplioshed in the Hogan era, but keep in mind they ran a much larger schedule back then, so naturally that would pull down the average.

Of course the most simple number to look at is dollars earned under each guy. Hogan did draw a lot of money for Vince, but he didn't make him an on paper Billionaire for a time like Rock and Austin did. Plus Austin has records for merchandise sold which out-paced Hogan in his heyday. So for my money, and actually Vince's money as well the Attitude era under Rock and Austin was a more lucrative period. I dont know if there is any other way to prove which era was more 'popular'.

12-29-2003, 11:42 PM	#3
The CyNick Make the IWC Great Again Posts: 8,922	Its tough to go by TV ratings and PPV buys. Fewer people had access to PPVs back in the day, so a high buyrate in 1987 is better than an equivalent buyrate today. Most sites talk about a number for buyrates such as Survivor Series did a 1.0 buyrate, which translates to a certain number of actual buys (in that case about 500K). However, like I said even if a site lists the actual number of buys, its still not fair to compare head to head with today's number, because like I said fewer people hadaccess to the shows. On the flip side if say Wrestlemania III did a more impressive number for 1987 than Wrestlemania X-Seven did for the standards in 2001, one would still have to consider that during most of Hogan's run on top there were anywhere between 1 and 4 PPVs a year. Whereas Austin and Rock had to sell 12 PPVs a year. So in that sense Hogan had an advantage because people weren't exposed to as much of the product, and the PPVs back then were an easier sell then they are now. Same thing goes for TV ratings. The WWE used to have exposure on NBC, a major US network, which they never had in the Austin/Rock era. Now one could argue that was because Austin and Rock weren't as big stars as Hogan was, but I dont see it that way. Then just like the PPVs Austin and Rock had to draw ratings for 2 first run shows per week, whereas Hogan got to build up to a major network show every 8 weeks or so, or whatever it was. So you can look at the fact that Hogan-Andre did a nuge number on NBC, but is that more impressive than the fact that Austin and Rock drew the highest numbers on cable week in and week out? Its hard to say. In terms of live events, the most successful run in wrestling history (at least in the States) was the WWE's run under Austin and Rock where at one point they were averaging over 10,000 fans per live event. That was never accomplioshed in the Hogan era, but keep in mind they ran a much larger schedule back then, so naturally that would pull down the average. Of course the most simple number to look at is dollars earned under each guy. Hogan did draw a lot of money for Vince, but he didn't make him an on paper Billionaire for a time like Rock and Austin did. Plus Austin has records for merchandise sold which out-paced Hogan in his heyday. So for my money, and actually Vince's money as well the Attitude era under Rock and Austin was a more lucrative period. I dont know if there is any other way to prove which era was more 'popular'.