Quote:
Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ
I already have. The same reason why it's "lol at WWE for showing cable ratings". It's not an accurate reflection on the valuation of their TV rights nor overall financial health.
Plus a ratings audit is very much a real thing. Just not in the way you're thinking or misrepresenting it.
Any negotiations dealing with WWE's TV rights will require performance and presentation of at least 2 audits, (one provided by WWE and one by the negotiating network or an independent auditor) of which the audits will include among many other things, WWE's TV ratings data compared to ALL other networks/shows. The Nielsen ratings data provided by WWE in their audit will be compared to the Nielsen ratings data gathered by the network or independent auditor to see if there's any falsifications or mistakes in WWE's presentation of the Nielsen data. This ratings data will then be reconciled or accepted and used to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights.
|
I didn't bring it up, you did. Its coming from a third party, they can just go to the third party to get the data, and the data is available to the public on tons of websites. All I'm saying is the numbers WWE posted are perfectly legitimate. There's no dispute that WWE used accurate numbers in the presentation. You seemed lost in your first post claiming they were using over a year old data, but it's a year over year chart, including Q4 2016 data.
The only way the WWE having ratings that are nearly double the network's average wouldn't be a positive to their ability to get a good rights deal would be if the network couldn't sell and space during the show. As I mentioned, this is why WWE was far worse off in the Attitude Era, even though the ratings were double or more what they are today. As has been documented from recent up fronts, WWE programming has generated a long list of new A list sponsors, which makes them even more valuable.
If you want to dispute that, you've got an uphill battle. But I appreciate your gumption.