SUPER Smackdown 30/08/11

[The Total Package]

I don't understand why WWE seem to be in panick mode all fo a sudden about the ratings and expecting jumps. If they want the ratings to grow it'll only be by putting on a exciting, unpredictable and engrossing weekly show for a long term period and the ratings will slowly and steadily rise. WWE's reaction is always to just chuck "big" stars at the show and expect people to tune in.

 

 

I would normally agree with all that, accept its football (nfl) season, it doesnt matter what WWE do during this time, their ratings always take a knock.

 

Ratings = more ad money, nobody wants to put ads inbetween shows that have less people watching.

 

Also its not like this CM Punk storyline started last week, its been going for a good 2months, and the ratings were still crap, thats without football even being on at that time, so I can see why WWE have panicked and seem like they are going back into default mode and killing off this angle.

 

To me it just shows when you alienate your fanbase for years, they aint going to care so much to comeback, even when you do something new and interesting.

 

For me this whole thing peaked at MITB, Nash coming back was a welcomed surprise, but apart from that not much in it for me, I'm sure CM Punk will get the blame for these crap ratings, and I think he should get some of the blame, not all of it though, as Ian said some of the stuff he has being saying to TripleH would make you want to be on TripleH's side, I'm not sure thats what they want.

 

If Summer Slams numbers arent what WWE wanted either, then I think for sure CM Punks fun n games will be over.

[LaGoosh]

I guess that's fair, except when they end CM Punk's fun and games and ratings stay the same or get worse who's next in line for the blame?

 

The truth is that if they want to put the blame on a wrestler it should be John Cena. He has alienated a huge section of the fan base and they have ruined countless pushes and storylines just to keep him on top and make the little kids happy.

[Mr.Showtime]

John Cena doesn't write the show though, does he?

[Devon Malcolm]

The truth is that if they want to put the blame on a wrestler it should be John Cena.

 

What a shocker. He still hasn't sorted out that cancer business either, has he, the cunt.

[PowerButchi]

The truth is that if they want to put the blame on a wrestler it should be John Cena. He has alienated a huge section of the fan base and they have ruined countless pushes and storylines just to keep him on top and make the little kids happy.

 

I don't think you can blame Cena. He's only doing as he's told. Not the word "They" you use there. They ruined pushes to keep him on top and all that. He didn't take his cube head in there and book his own angles.

[RJ Impact]

La Goosh made a good point, they cant blame one person for not making rating jump up or whatever else, the rating & fans etc will come through time, patience and effort by wwe.

 

If they have pulled the plug on the Punk stuff then thats really short sighted and one of the reasons fans dont buy into wwe anymore cos they seen to change there mind before things get going.

 

Yes the Punk story has been going for a few months and ratings have'nt changed but that doesnt mean they want Cena to be the champ again, even if ratings have'nt changed the fans that are watching seem to be enjoying it for the most part.

 

I dont mind Cena but I can see why people wont watch him or wwe cos of it, I'd guess Austin or Hogan had the same affect to some fans but fans had other decent shows/companies to follow at the time.

 

On Topic I liked the show being live it gave the show and edge like Raw has which was good.

[LaGoosh]

I don't think you can blame Cena. He's only doing as he's told. Not the word "They" you use there. They ruined pushes to keep him on top and all that. He didn't take his cube head in there and book his own angles.

 

I know, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is when something doesn't work in the WWE the bosses tend to blame one of the wrestlers as opposed to blaming the self-destructive and illogical creative model they have created over the past 5-7 years. So if they are going to blame anyone for the WWE's faults and low ratings it should be John Cena, not CM Punk because Cena has been on top for 7 years and business has slowly but surely gone down.

 

Of course they should be blaming themselves, but they won't. They always shift the blame onto one of the wrestlers.

[ColinBollocks]

I know, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is when something doesn't work in the WWE the bosses tend to blame one of the wrestlers as opposed to blaming the self-destructive and illogical creative model they have created over the past 5-7 years. So if they are going to blame anyone for the WWE's faults and low ratings it should be John Cena, not CM Punk because Cena has been on top for 7 years and business has slowly but surely gone down.

 

Of course they should be blaming themselves, but they won't. They always shift the blame onto one of the wrestlers.

If WWE books interesting feuds between compelling characters, then people will watch. The problem WWE have is they panic and then rush matches on to PPV. Batista v Triple H was originally going to happen at Vengeance or something, until Triple H put his foot down.

 

Cena's character is stale but that's WWEs doing. Cena has proven what an incredible performer he can be when he's given the right opponent and material (I thought he was amazing during the Punk feud).

[LaGoosh]

I know that. What I'm saying is that when things go wrong WWE management blame the performer and not the booking or management. And going by their track record they will probably blame low ratings on CM Punk, not their own decisions and booking. It's fucked.

[LeeVilenski]

They really need to come up with a different name. They'll get to the point they always do, that 3 months down the line, when they are still doing 'supershows', it'll just change back to 'Smackdown!' but keep the date, and lose the brand extention. What was so Super about the last few months?!

 

But, the show was good, tbh. Solid show, some good matches... I just wish they wouldn't burry Christian so much. He'll be feuding with Swagger after Night of champions now!

[CleetusVanDamme]

I know, that's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is when something doesn't work in the WWE the bosses tend to blame one of the wrestlers as opposed to blaming the self-destructive and illogical creative model they have created over the past 5-7 years. So if they are going to blame anyone for the WWE's faults and low ratings it should be John Cena, not CM Punk because Cena has been on top for 7 years and business has slowly but surely gone down.

 

Of course they should be blaming themselves, but they won't. They always shift the blame onto one of the wrestlers.

 

 

So, basically what you're saying is that it IS alright to blame the wrestlers, just as long as it's not one of your favourites?

 

The truth is that if they want to put the blame on a wrestler it should be John Cena. He has alienated a huge section of the fan base and they have ruined countless pushes and storylines just to keep him on top and make the little kids happy.

 

 

It's more bollocks picking and choosing the facts. Cena's "alienated" a fanbase?. Okay then, when WWE's ratings dropped almost in half between 2000 and 2004, who ALIENATED the fanbase then*?, Brock Lesnar?, Chris Benoit?, Eddie Guerrero?, Chris Jericho?. It has to be someone right?, because the only way people would ever stop tuning into a tv show is because of their intense dislike of one character?

 

 

 

Cena didn't alienate a fanbase. He brought in a new one, after the old one had long since tuned out. People try to act like the boom period ended the second after Cena won the title. When in reality, whatever business has dropped between 2005 and now is minimal compared to the dramatic drop before Cena's push started. Who do you blame for that?.

 

 

 

* Just kidding, I know it was HHH.

[tiger_rick]

* Just kidding, I know it was HHH.

Phew. You had me worried for a second.

[Dirty Eddie]

Cena didn't alienate a fanbase. He brought in a new one, after the old one had long since tuned out. People try to act like the boom period ended the second after Cena won the title. When in reality, whatever business has dropped between 2005 and now is minimal compared to the dramatic drop before Cena's push started. Who do you blame for that?.

WWE RAW was doing 3. somethings throughout the post-boom/pre-Cena years (2002-2005), which is pretty much what they are doing now. In fact, on average, 2002, 2003 and 2004 all seem to have a higher average RAW rating than now.

 

The person to blame for the overall slip from 2000 levels to what we have now is WWE's head of creative throughout that period, Stephanie McMahon.

 

Thankfully, WWE decided on massive international expansion over these same years, which has kept them strong as a business despite domestic business being down.

[LaGoosh]

So, basically what you're saying is that it IS alright to blame the wrestlers, just as long as it's not one of your favourites?

 

No that's not what I'm saying at all.. What I'm saying is that if ratings don't pick up then management will most likely blame CM Punk as he is the newest "big star" when what they should be doing is blaming themselves for their poor creative decisions over the years.

 

It's like during the Muhammed Hassan angle where they blamed it all on the performer and not the stupid fucking creative decisions they made with the character.

[jimufctna24]

If I recall correctly, the only time during the Cena era that RAW has had a consistant run of ratings that suceeded 4.0 was when Edge first won the belt in early 2006, that lasted for around 5-6 weeks, during his reign and after he dropped it of to Johhny boy, to see the rematch and the fallout. In Edge the 18-35 demagraphic had someone they could tune into see, as much as I love Punk he hasnt done that, which is a shame because unlike other ratings killers like Orton and Jericho I felt he had a decent chance.

 

I think 2004 around the Summer and Autumm was when ratings, buyrates and attendence were at its worst. Then came the red hot Batista/HHH angle and other stuff that spiked it up again. The storytelling in that angle in hindsight was legendary, HHH finest work as well getting such a limited performer at the time over.

 

Ratings now are more the less the same than they were last year, when the put the belt on Orton at this time the ratings went down to the level they are now. From what I read yesterday, WWE top acts like Punk, Cena, HHH and Nash all draw acceptable ratings in their slots it is just the mid card were the ratings go shit and end up bringing down the whole number, that is why they have drated in the Smackdown brand to combat it.

 

I think ratings will spike up to around 3.5, when The Rock turns up. Really outisde of Punk and Cena at the merchadise stand, he is the only guy he has a serious effect of ratings and buyrates these days and he is a part timer.

 

As a longtime fan in his twenties, I switched of after Mania and have only tuned in for the Punk stuff, now that angle is faltering commercially, I feel things will go back to the same formula and Punk will take a place as upper mid carder and occasional main eventer once it is all over. I had hope Punk would usher in a new era, but now I see that isnt going to happen anytime soon. WWE will continue to make a tidy profit overall, so my viewership doesnt really matter, but for now am switching off again, until Dwayne turns up of course.