The Clint Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 That match at the top of the third hour was for the purpose of setting up that 7 on 4 tag. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 2, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 2, 2015 That match at the top of the third hour was for the purpose of setting up that 7 on 4 tag. Top of the hour is the place to hook channel hopping viewers. That main event was strategically placed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted December 2, 2015 Share Posted December 2, 2015 Miz TV has to stop. Period. No talk show segment can survive these days, whether its Jericho, Edge, Miz, whoever the fuck else is left... it's not gonna get ratings. Much like a contract signing. Always ends up in a fight so we all skip past them. Talk shows are always utter wankery Which parts of Raw do you think people don't skip past? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members IANdrewDiceClay Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 Vince isnt going to be to happy. WWE made the New York Post for their decline in viewership. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_mole Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 How much extra money did they get from adding a third hour to Raw? Presumably they should make more money when they go live with Smackdown but I doubt it would be enough to make up the lost revenue if they cut Raw back down to 2 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Benno Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) http://nypost.com/2015/12/02/is-wwe-down-for-the-count/ Is WWE down for the count? By Richard Morgan December 2, 2015 | 10:22pm Is WWE down for the count? Vince McMahon Photo: Getty Images Fans of Vince McMahon’s WWE are wondering if the 70-year-old pro wrestling impresario has run out of good storylines. Ratings for “WWE Raw,” the company’s Monday night show on USA Network, have fallen nearly 50 percent from their 2015 high amid a slew of complaints from fans that the entertainment has become too predictable. As one fan, Alex, posted on ratings blog “TV By The Numbers,” sagging ratings are the result of “too many matches with no storylines and a predictable and boring ending.” ADVERTISING Such opinions have been plastered over pro wrestling bulletin boards recently, which coincide with a months-long decline in the Monday night TV audience. For example, the audience for the Nov. 23 show slipped below the 3 million threshold — to 2.96 million — from a high of 5.36 million in March, according to WrestlingNewsWorld.com data. As recently as Aug. 31, the audience was still pushing 4 million — at 3.89 million. However, the last three months have seen a sharp fall-off. The audience for “Smackdown,” WWE’s Thursday night show on SyFy, fell to 1.65 million viewers on Thanksgiving Day, down 44 percent from its high-water mark on Jan. 29. Sources said the viewing pool was expected to be drained by WWE’s over-the-top offering, WWE Network, whose 1.3 million subscribers have 24/7 access to the company’s content. Despite the viewer slippage and storyline complaints, parent NBCUniversal is standing by its brute offspring. “WWE programming delivers one of the most massive live audiences in cable on a weekly basis and is consistently a top performer for our networks,” NBCU told The Post. WWE said it had nothing to add to that comment. Shares of the Stamford, Conn., company have been on a tear in 2015, rising 41 percent. They gained 2.1 percent on Wednesday, to $17.43. Shame the article is so rubbish. Bringing the Network into it, not mentioning the NFL or giving much context to a couple of the extreme ratings there. I know I can only see it because I'm a saddo who follows wrestling too much, but it makes you wonder about the state of everything else they're covering. Edited December 4, 2015 by Benno Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 How much extra money did they get from adding a third hour to Raw? Presumably they should make more money when they go live with Smackdown but I doubt it would be enough to make up the lost revenue if they cut Raw back down to 2 hours. I do agree that the third hour isn't helping but we need to be careful of thinking that removing it solves all of their problems. That's Vince Russo taking over WCW type thinking. Your average recent Raw would be better if it was 1 hour - but not good. Even at 2 hours, it would be fucking dire. Removing the third hour hurts revenue but if it's not solving any creative problem then it's pointless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) The issue with the third hour is they seem to stretch a potentially solid 5/10 minute segment to an overcooked 15 minutes or so (or a potentially rubbish 5 to an unbearable 15), or add another filler match with no emotional interest from their viewers. But that's exactly due to what rick is on about - creative is dire. The way they go about creative seems so counter productive to having so much content to fill in a week, leading to "fuck it, Ziggler v Barrett" for the 20th time since one person maybe cared. It must seem like such a burden when you're going week to week with one rough idea (Roman wins) and the boss is constantly changing his mind or acting the cunt because he sensed you were thinking about sneezing. It's mental that the one thing WWE don't do well is creative, despite being so incredibly well run in a lot of other areas. Edited December 4, 2015 by ColinBollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ambulance Chaser Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The issue with the third hour is they seem to stretch a potentially solid 5/10 minute segment to an overcooked 15 minutes or so (or a potentially rubbish 5 to an unbearable 15), or add another filler match with no emotional interest from their viewers. Exactly right. New Day taking the piss out of country music for 10 minutes should have taken 3, then Heath Slater doing the exact same thing, a segment which had no place at all on any show. The issue being they have lots of time, but no stars. Yes they have loads of 6 or 7 out of 10 guys, middle of the range, everything is so wishy washy, they need 3 or 4 guys that are stand out, superstars amongst a sea of mediocrity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boytoy Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The issue with the third hour is they seem to stretch a potentially solid 5/10 minute segment to an overcooked 15 minutes or so (or a potentially rubbish 5 to an unbearable 15), or add another filler match with no emotional interest from their viewers. Yes they have loads of 6 or 7 out of 10 guys, middle of the range, everything is so wishy washy, they need 3 or 4 guys that are stand out, superstars amongst a sea of mediocrity. And that remaining 3/10 in almost all cases is mic work (bar Ambrose and Owens who will not/cannot improve their look). The worst thing for the future is that it isn't like there are loads of guys out there who can come in and improve things either. You look on NXT and the pool is very thin at the moment. Enzo is entertaining but is way too small, Zayn is a better actor than most wrestlers which helps, but other than that there is nobody. Crews and Balor both have brilliant looks but neither have shown that they can cut a promo to save their life… Corbin has the charisma of a sponge and has that Randy Orton ‘everyone knows he is a heel in real life’ thing going on. I can’t think of anyone out there on the indies either. Their only solution is to work with what they have and try to find out why the talent are finding it so difficult and make the necessary changes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 One thing I'm surprised they haven't taken from NXT to fill time is squash matches. No-one wants a return to Raw of 1994 but the approach they take on NXT where they have semi-regular jobbers who are basically auditioning and/or are recogisable indy names. Don't go over the top, don't compromise the show but use it to give guys a breather from matches where one of them must lose. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) With the right guy, they still work great too. Ryback and Rusev were both highlighted as monsters and it led to a sense of anticipation to see them have a proper match with a decent name. Somebody like Barrett or even Sheamus would be greatly boosted by doing a few squash matches over the next few months. Instead they've traded wins with everybody. Edited December 4, 2015 by ColinBollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 (edited) Presumably there's a fear that squash matches are even worse at retaining the audience than bland work rate matches are. I wonder if that's true, though. If you've got ten minutes to fill, Ziggler vs Barrett for 10 minutes doesn't seem more appealing to me than say, Ziggler squash, Tyler Breeze interview, Barrett squash, Neville vignette. Long, reasonless matches should be the exception, not the rule. I doubt they're very appealing in their own right ratings-wise, they make everyone look like a mediocre loser, and they definitely destroy the midcard's chances of ever being interesting on pay-per-view. Edited December 4, 2015 by King Pitcos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Carbomb Posted December 4, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted December 4, 2015 I always hated the early 90s programmes, because they were almost exclusively squash matches. I stand by that, but I do think they're under-utilised these days. If mixed in with matches between regulars (with storyline, obviously), it would give some much-needed texture and interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Briefcase Posted December 4, 2015 Share Posted December 4, 2015 The squash matches or unbeaten streaks never have a pay off. Rusev was undefeated for like 6 months then loses to Cena and then to everyone else afterwards. I would have loved to have watched WCW during the Goldberg's streak but doubt that will ever happen again on that level. Speaking of Goldberg I'm surprised he hasn't been tempted back, his name alone would probably up the ratings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts