Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 Are the numbers really that important anymore? Like buyrates / Ratings etc? I mean as long as they are doing better that TNA, WWE are fine. They are not going head to head with another "Major company" anymore, and as such surely it just doenst matter. I'm baffled! What a mental thing to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Jock Knew Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 Does newfangled technology not have a bearing on the low ratings for Raw these days? Personally, I think it's an indicator of the direction of the product just now as WrestleMania seems decent on paper but it is probably the least I've enjoyed the run-in since...well, ever. Â I'm finding it harder and harder to watch the live feed so I've taken to recording it and watching it at a later date. Surely other people doing this damages the ratings? Â For record, I think the higher-ups will be shocked at the buyrate this year. I reckon it'll be much lower than anticipated due to the year's build-up to the main event (and I'm not in any way someone who cares a jot about these things). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshC Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 For my money, they haven't done any killer angles this year. It's been almost all talking and video packages. Which was fine in the days of the syndication shows, but not now in the age of cliff-hanger television. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 Does newfangled technology not have a bearing on the low ratings for Raw these days? Personally, I think it's an indicator of the direction of the product just now as WrestleMania seems decent on paper but it is probably the least I've enjoyed the run-in since...well, ever. That would make sense, if not for the fact streaming and new technology was around last year, and 1.4 million less people are watching it than 12 months ago. Nobody is judging current business on how it was in a different era. If people were comparing it to, say, 2002, fair enough. But people are judging it over the last 3 years. The fact is at the minute, the star quality is very low compared to the last few years. WWE used to have Cena, Triple H, Undertaker, Shawn Michaels, Randy Orton, Batista, Jeff Hardy and Rey Mysterio dipping in and out of main events. All of who, the people loved or hated, but at least bought into. At the minute, the stars just arent there to keep the audience interested for the full year. Â WrestleMania will still do great business, but the bigger issue is the quality of stars they have at the minute. People watch to see the big name star performers. Kids want to buy Rey Mysterio masks, teenages want to wear those shite stockers on their arms and paint their face like Jeff Hardy, or buy DX glow sticks. The fact is, the business has always been about the stars. Post Mania, with Taker, HHH and Rock leaving again, WWE need to look at how should be making the step up. Either that or bring back some former names. And not Jericho and Foley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members LaGoosh Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 The thing is they've had years to build up new people, but have done absolutely fuck all and killed any potential big stars dead in water with shitty booking or just given up and forgotten that they are pushing someone. Â Vince and co. can make all the excuses they want but at the end of the day it's their fault and no one elses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members PunkStep Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 If Coke were still selling more than Pepsi, would it matter that their sales were significantly lower than the previous year? Of course it would. Heads would be chopped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 A 3.0 is still four and half million people in the states alone watching the product. With not knowing the (worldwide) numbers myself, I would estimate 20+ million people watch the product worldwide, yeah it's a big dip from previous years, but I wouldn't be too worried.. yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 29, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2012 If you wouldn't be worried then you would make a shit businessman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members neil's bitch Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 Are the numbers really that important anymore? Like buyrates / Ratings etc? I mean as long as they are doing better that TNA, WWE are fine. They are not going head to head with another "Major company" anymore, and as such surely it just doenst matter. I'm baffled! What a mental thing to say. Â As per my previous post, the numbers are important for income into the company as a whole, of course they are. But the numbers they are doing, are just fine. Are they trying to improve them, i would say so. Does it mean they are going to do "Attitude era" numbers, most likely not without a decent rival to play off of. Â Another poster sums it up very well: Â A 3.0 is still four and half million people in the states alone watching the product. With not knowing the (worldwide) numbers myself, I would estimate 20+ million people watch the product worldwide, yeah it's a big dip from previous years, but I wouldn't be too worried. Â What I was trying to say was, at 3.0 , regardless of circumstances, its still "Good" really, and anybody buying to much into buyrates/ratings like i've seen alot of, (Again stuff like ,"Oh god, the punk segment was down by X ammount, he is pure shite" or "The PPV's buyrate was lower than normal, it is shite") , is just stupid. Â Yes It may be lower than normal, but its still good.WWE are doing fine, and will continue to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 What I was trying to say was, at 3.0 , regardless of circumstances, its still "Good" really, and anybody buying to much into buyrates/ratings like i've seen alot of, (Again stuff like ,"Oh god, the punk segment was down by X ammount, he is pure shite" or "The PPV's buyrate was lower than normal, it is shite") , is just stupid. Yes It may be lower than normal, but its still good.WWE are doing fine, and will continue to do so.   Its that 'Im Alright Jack' attitude that has seen the death of many companies in the past and will do so again. Just look at what happened to Game amongst others. There has to be continual reinvention and rennovation or people will leave never to come back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
simonworden Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 The ratings are still important to the people who pay them tons of money each year, the TV Stations and Advertisers. If they fall too low then Raw or SD could loose there slots and that would reduce both of the monies paid here. Â While advertising companies may be swayed to pay them more for online advertising etc if WWE can show the hits/ tweets/ sign ups most major advertisers still want TV and will pay the most for TV so if this goes too low and WWE (Hypothetically) were pushed to say a much later 1 hour slot for RAW it could cripple them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members neil's bitch Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 What I was trying to say was, at 3.0 , regardless of circumstances, its still "Good" really, and anybody buying to much into buyrates/ratings like i've seen alot of, (Again stuff like ,"Oh god, the punk segment was down by X ammount, he is pure shite" or "The PPV's buyrate was lower than normal, it is shite") , is just stupid. Yes It may be lower than normal, but its still good.WWE are doing fine, and will continue to do so.   Its that 'Im Alright Jack' attitude that has seen the death of many companies in the past and will do so again. Just look at what happened to Game amongst others. There has to be continual reinvention and rennovation or people will leave never to come back.  I'm just saying the product is still good, as i mentioned before I personally think its the best its ever been really. The overall production is top notch, the merch the put out is great and other wise everything is awesome. Numbers are down, but as a company they are actually trying to improve this by doing stuff like Rock/Cena, getting guys out on talks shows etc.  Whatever I say doesnt reflect on the company, as in when I say "oh well 3.0 is still good", it doesnt mean WWE are doing the same thing......they of course know all the relevent impacts of this. I'm pointint alot of people i've seen on this forum say stuff like "Buyrate/rating is down, man is proves this thing sucks", when again I personally think its the best its ever been. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baz Windham Posted March 29, 2012 Share Posted March 29, 2012 I'm not an expert on the subject by any means, but I guess comparing it to ratings that other shows on now are getting is perhaps more reflective than looking at figures from years ago. If the states is anything like over here with more choice/internet etc people just watch less TV. If you were to compare any long running shows figures over here to those down the years they are bound to be lower now, look at the crazy figures shows got here in the 80's to see that. Â Obviously if you are shedding viewers week on week it's not good, but WWE isn't. From what I gather a 3.0 is around the lower end of the span of ratings they've been getting for some time now so yeah in the week before Mania it's not good compared with last year, but it will be more concerning if some of those are just tuning in for Mania season because then they'll shed even more after Mania. Or maybe there are less casuals watching this year and the 3.0 is much of their core audience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted March 29, 2012 Moderators Share Posted March 29, 2012 As per my previous post, the numbers are important for income into the company as a whole, of course they are. But the numbers they are doing, are just fine. Are they trying to improve them, i would say so. Does it mean they are going to do "Attitude era" numbers, most likely not without a decent rival to play off of. Â Another poster sums it up very well: Â A 3.0 is still four and half million people in the states alone watching the product. With not knowing the (worldwide) numbers myself, I would estimate 20+ million people watch the product worldwide, yeah it's a big dip from previous years, but I wouldn't be too worried. Â What I was trying to say was, at 3.0 , regardless of circumstances, its still "Good" really, and anybody buying to much into buyrates/ratings like i've seen alot of, (Again stuff like ,"Oh god, the punk segment was down by X ammount, he is pure shite" or "The PPV's buyrate was lower than normal, it is shite") , is just stupid. Â Yes It may be lower than normal, but its still good.WWE are doing fine, and will continue to do so. Â If you think it's all fine because 3.0 is still 4.5m ppl, which sounds like a big number to you, then bear in mind that it is down from 3.8, which represents a loss of 1.2m viewers. (that is also a big number). (the 'm' stands for million). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Chilly McFreeze Posted March 29, 2012 Paid Members Share Posted March 29, 2012 * March 27, 2000 - 6.6 * March 26, 2001 - 4.7 Â That seems like a mighty big drop considering 2000/01 was the peak of WWF/E's popularity as far as I knew. Â Was that indicative of the ratings over the year? Anyone know why it was so different? It seems especially odd when you consider the build up to WM17 main event was perfectly executed (bar the whole Debra thing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.