Thread: Ratings Thread
View Single Post
Old 03-27-2019, 09:46 AM   #503
Mr. Nerfect
 
Posts: 60,919
Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)Mr. Nerfect makes a lot of good posts (200,000+)
I’ve gotten into an argument with people on here before about this, but I have no doubt that FOX and USA have it written in that if WWE underperforms they can opt out. They’re paying for a service, and that’s a predictable number of viewers to sell time to advertisers. If the advertisers hold because they are doing better than most things on television, it may not be an issue, but there is potential for a Jamie Kellner-like issue here, where WWE’s faster-than-the-industry trend of performing worse than TV, comparatively, becomes a bone of contention.
Mr. Nerfect is offline   Reply With Quote