Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 13, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 This hasn't quite come out as clear as I'd like. It's the average Raw rating by month. The red, where possible, highlights the start of a new year   The drop off through 2001 and 2002 was pretty drastic. There have been pockets of resurgence in the last few years but they've failed to capitalise on them.  The 5 lowest rated Raws since 1998 are:  2001-12-31 = 2.4000 2011-07-04 = 2.4000 2007-12-24 = 2.5000 2007-07-30 = 2.5100 2007-12-31 = 2.6000  There was a Neilsen glitch on 30th July 2007, all the others are standard low-rating dates, 4th July, New Years eve or Xmas eve.  15th September 2007 did a 2.7. That's the lowest rating I can find where there was no special occassion, glitch or pre-emption of any sort. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 13, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Found numbers for Nitro now. Interesting analysis of year on year averages: Â 1995: raw 2.97 nitro 2.42 Â 1996 nitro 3.14 raw 2.66 Â 1997 nitro 3.68 raw 2.73 Â 1998 nitro 4.42 raw 4.35 Â 1999 raw 6.02 nitro 3.70 Â 2000 raw 5.88 nitro 2.71 Â 2001 raw 4.64 nitro 2.27 Â Nitro actually "won" 1998. Just reinforces how stupid Bischoff had to be to ruin the company in 1999. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magnum Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Does anyone else think this is a huge contributing factor? I think PPV numbers will fall year on year regardless of the quality of product (Not saying that it's at its best by any means). It's getting easier and people are becoming more aware of how to watch these shows online for free. Why would people pay for something they don't need to? Look at the drop off in music sales.  WWE could come out with an amazing product and the buys will never be what they were in 99-00 etc. Same with the ratings, too many different ways to watch the product. I for one mostly watch Raw on the internet.  I've had this debate many times, and I'm not arguing by any means that it's not a contributing factor - in fact, it's one of the main reasons I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Total Package Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Don't WWE PPV's start at between 6-9pm in the states? For family entertainment on a nice Sunday afternoon I think that's an ok time to start, if you're talking about us stuck in the UK and elsewhere then obviously not, but they haven't cared about us since 1992 so whats new. Â I agree they should drop their prices for their B level PPV's, 6 pounds sounds alright,how easy it is to get music for free? Well yes it is, but music has dropped price big time compared to what it was to buy a song or album in the past, instead of messing about trying to find a torrent of some music that is not popular mainstream music, thus harder to find, I just pay for the song, about 50-70p, its not something you even think about. Â Streaming only works if you're watching it on your own, which sadly I guess for most modern day wrestling fans in their late 20's 30's and 40's is probably the case. Â I'm not at Uni or College anymore, but I think even in the UK most of that age group would be watching UFC, I wonder how my younger teenage self would be responding to how WWE has been for the last 4 years or so, I think I would probably not give it the time and day and be watching some sort of MMA. Â I'm not sure there is a market for that many PPV's in a year anymore, most of them just seem pointless to me, Vengeance it might be good or not, but its way too soon after the last one and then not long after that you got SSeries, it might just be after the last boom WWE are paying the price for putting too much out there and need to cut back a little, and work on making their product better. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrasslin Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Does anyone else think this is a huge contributing factor? I think PPV numbers will fall year on year regardless of the quality of product (Not saying that it's at its best by any means). It's getting easier and people are becoming more aware of how to watch these shows online for free. Why would people pay for something they don't need to? Look at the drop off in music sales.  WWE could come out with an amazing product and the buys will never be what they were in 99-00 etc. Same with the ratings, too many different ways to watch the product. I for one mostly watch Raw on the internet.  I've had this debate many times, and I'm not arguing by any means that it's not a contributing factor - in fact, it's one of the main reasons I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Is it just a case of the product needing to be 'cooler' so that it's something you wouldn't mind watching with your friends? Essentially, yes. And even at its height, wrestling wasn't cool enough for anyone to think they could pull off a pay-per-view on a Saturday night. Doing it now would be commercial suicide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Nitro actually "won" 1998. Just reinforces how stupid Bischoff had to be to ruin the company in 1999. That very misleading. Nitro was on three hours, therefor had an extra hour on Raw where everyone was watching until Raw started. And Nitro was in the lead the first four months. Post April, WCW was swimming upstream. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 13, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Nitro actually "won" 1998. Just reinforces how stupid Bischoff had to be to ruin the company in 1999. That very misleading. Nitro was on three hours, therefor had an extra hour on Raw where everyone was watching until Raw started. And Nitro was in the lead the first four months. Post April, WCW was swimming upstream. It's not misleading at all. WCW were still getting great numbers into 1999: Â nitro 1998-12-28 = 4.6200 nitro 1999-01-04 = 5.0100 nitro 1999-01-11 = 5.0200 nitro 1999-01-18 = 4.8600 nitro 1999-01-25 = 4.9900 nitro 1999-02-01 = 4.6600 Â By May they were in the low 3's. Bischoff was a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 It's not misleading at all. WCW were still getting great numbers into 1999:Â nitro 1998-12-28 = 4.6200 nitro 1999-01-04 = 5.0100 nitro 1999-01-11 = 5.0200 nitro 1999-01-18 = 4.8600 nitro 1999-01-25 = 4.9900 nitro 1999-02-01 = 4.6600 Â By May they were in the low 3's. Bischoff was a tool. Whats your point exactly? You said "Nitro actually in 1998". Of course its misleading. They were getting battered in every area of business by a juggernaut that arrived four months into the year and never looked back. Its like saying Liverpool lost more games than Man United in 2009. Doesn't make them the better team. WCW had the one hour lead-in in 1998. Thats why people were watching it. If it was two hours vs two hours, WCW would have been getting destroyed every single week. How does WCW winning in 1998 explain their buyrates going down, WWF's merchandise being on a completely different level and the start of a dwindling house show business. 1998 was the start of a rut, which nobody drug them out of. Bischoff probably could have dragged them to a level better than they were at, if they hadnt had that NBC deal taken off them by Time Warner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 13, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Whats your point exactly? Well it's fucking obvious what the point is. For the hard of thinking: WCW actually averaged more viewers than the WWF throughout 1998. WCW had a massive viewership, great income streams and large PPV revenue. Just because they weren't the #1 company, only the #2 company raking it in, they chucked all that away for no good reason. Hence: Bischoff is a tool. Â The Liverpool/United comparison is retarded. The aim of football is to win the Championship. The aim of being a business is to make shitloads of money. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators PowerButchi Posted October 13, 2011 Moderators Share Posted October 13, 2011 The average ratings take into account the unopposed first hour I think is the point being made. WCW's full rating is a composite of the three hours. So say WCW get this:- Â Hour 1 (unopposed) - 4.5 Hour 2 - 3.5 Hour 3 - 3.5 Â It'd be a composite rating of 4.16 Â Say Raw on the same night got: Â Hour 1 - 4.0 Hour 2 - 4.0 Â It'd be a composite of 4.0 Â Nitro's composite would mean they'd win the head to head, despite having less viewers for the hours they are on Head to Head, as I understand it. Could be wrong though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted October 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Well it's fucking obvious what the point is. For the hard of thinking: WCW actually averaged more viewers than the WWF throughout 1998. WCW had a massive viewership, great income streams and large PPV revenue. Just because they weren't the #1 company, only the #2 company raking it in, they chucked all that away for no good reason. Hence: Bischoff is a tool. Your point is absolutely pointless then. WCW "winning" in 1998 is irreverent. They ended the year being battered by a far more marketable, cooler, watchable and critically acclaimed show. WWF over took them in 1998. You say they chucked it away for "no good reason", but there obviously was a good reason because there was a far better product on the same time as them which had tapped into a far bigger market than they had. That "massive viewership" had a lot to do with WCW having three hours and WWF only having two hours. Everyone watched WCW for that first hour. Not everyone stopped to watch for the following two though. Â Bischoff made mistakes, but so did Vince McMahon. Is he a tool? And Vince didn't have higher ups pulling his strings, like when WCW positioned their whole 1999 business model around a NBC deal which got pulled out from under them. Which is ALWAYS forgotten about when the story of WCW is told. WWFE in 2001 lost more than WCW did under Bischoff. Â The Liverpool/United comparison is retarded. The aim of football is to win the Championship. The aim of being a business is to make shitloads of money. I never said anything about the difference in aims between a football club and a wrestling promotion. I was using your "WCW won!!!" comment as an example of how little that moral victory actually meant to WCW. Or indeed Liverpool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Devon Malcolm Posted October 13, 2011 Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Rick might as well have entitled this thread, "I haven't had a good moan about Eric Bischoff for a few weeks, so..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted October 13, 2011 Author Paid Members Share Posted October 13, 2011 Rick might as well have entitled this thread, "I haven't had a good moan about Eric Bischoff for a few weeks, so..." No moaning required. Facts are there for all to see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PepperPlunge Posted October 13, 2011 Share Posted October 13, 2011 Whats your point exactly? Well it's fucking obvious what the point is. For the hard of thinking: WCW actually averaged more viewers than the WWF throughout 1998. WCW had a massive viewership, great income streams and large PPV revenue. Just because they weren't the #1 company, only the #2 company raking it in, they chucked all that away for no good reason. Hence: Bischoff is a tool. Â The Liverpool/United comparison is retarded. The aim of football is to win the Championship. The aim of being a business is to make shitloads of money. Â I think clubs are putting more focus on being 'brands' now. Like with Liverpool's idea to individually seek out distribution rights for their matches overseas as they feel it's unfair that it's all equal despite, for example, Bolton not being as big a draw as Liverpool. And Arsenal seem to have focussed more on being a financially stable club than being the top team in England for a while now. Anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.