Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 Seeing as Pitcos mentioned it, how bad have ratings been since 'Mania? Â No surprise to hear they've declined seeing as they are on an impressive run of underwhelming shows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gadge Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 The Rollins promo at the end sounded like the last rites on his title reign to me. Summerslam I now expect Lesnar vs someone else for the title, and Rollins vs Kane. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WyattSheepMask Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Have they decided not to go with Rollins v HHH for Summerslam then? Or was that just all hearsay anyways Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Seeing as Pitcos mentioned it, how bad have ratings been since 'Mania? Â No surprise to hear they've declined seeing as they are on an impressive run of underwhelming shows. Â Apparently they haven't had a segment draw 4 million viewers or over for a month, though they could be putting red hot shows on at the moment and I doubt it'd matter, everything is so stale about the format of the shows nobody would care anyway, they'd have to risk some massive changes and they (completely understandably) won't do that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ian 86 Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Have they decided not to go with Rollins v HHH for Summerslam then? Or was that just all hearsay anyways  well it's all speculation, no-one knows for sure.... but Rollins vs HHH would be no worse off without the Title.  My concern is more Lesnar going stale.This time last year the Lesnar segments were the highlight of Raw for me but now it feels like it's just the same promo over and over with the odd bit of 'oh look how strong and scary he is' thrown in. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Your Fight Site Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why is RAW three hours these days? From the sounds of it, WWE are really struggling to fill those three hours with an engaging show that is performing poorly ratings-wise too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr.PeterVenkman Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 Why is RAW three hours these days? From the sounds of it, WWE are really struggling to fill those three hours with an engaging show that is performing poorly ratings-wise too. Â USA Network pretty much demanded it, I can only assume none of them actually bother watching the show, though in fairness Raw being 3 hours wouldn't be that bad if Smackdown wasn't still going, 5 hours of supposed A-shows a week is just ridiculous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) Why is RAW three hours these days? From the sounds of it, WWE are really struggling to fill those three hours with an engaging show that is performing poorly ratings-wise too.USA Network wanted 3 hours. WWE aren't going to say no to the extra ad revenue, even if it's causing long term damage. The best thing could happen right now is for the ratings to continue declining and USA dropping the third hour. Edited July 15, 2015 by Jizzlobber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members gadge Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) EDIT: RE Rollins vs Kane, That was speculation on my part based on the on screen happenings. I don't follow the backstage hearsay too closely. It's more fun this way. Edited July 15, 2015 by gadge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members Sergio Mendacious Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015  Why is RAW three hours these days? From the sounds of it, WWE are really struggling to fill those three hours with an engaging show that is performing poorly ratings-wise too.USA Network wanted 3 hours. WWE aren't going to say no to the extra ad revenue, even if it's causing long term damage. The best thing could happen right now is for the ratings to continue declining and USA dropping the third hour.   That could totally knacker them financially, though? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members ColinBollocks Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited)   Seeing as Pitcos mentioned it, how bad have ratings been since 'Mania?  No surprise to hear they've declined seeing as they are on an impressive run of underwhelming shows. Apparently they haven't had a segment draw 4 million viewers or over for a month, though they could be putting red hot shows on at the moment and I doubt it'd matter, everything is so stale about the format of the shows nobody would care anyway, they'd have to risk some massive changes and they (completely understandably) won't do thatTa. Surprised to read that, seeing as Lesnar is back. Suppose not even the might of Lesnar can overcome the Rollins apathy. He really is a terrible WWE champion. On the 3rd hour, I remember Triple H saying "you guys have no idea how difficult it is writing that 3rd hour" or something similar. It's clearly too much content for all involved. However, it's too much money to turn down. Edited July 15, 2015 by ColinBollocks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
King Pitcos Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 USA make fuck all money directly from WWE, because advertisers aren't interested in spending money on the inbred poorhouse morons who watch wrestling. That's why WWE are getting sued over their claims the 2014 TV contract would be an untold fortune. USA pretty much break even on the new deal, but the value is in where the Raw ratings puts USA on the overall cable stats. So the third hour is important to them. And their money is keeping Vince's head above water. Â Plus we all cried about everything when it was two hours anyway, so it's silly to think going back to that would be a magic fix. They could incorporate every bringbackoldthings suggestion ever put forward and it'd make nary a difference to the amount of complaints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dart Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 This is a quote talking about Raw going to 2 hours in 1997. Sounds like Pitcos wrote it. Same opinions as when it went from 2 to 3: Â "as this match joins the others tonight in going on for longer than it needs to. It is becoming a problem for Raw now that it is two hours every week, and the snappy feel of the show has gone. At least in the early days of Raw the pointless or unappealing matches would be brief, but now everything goes 10-15 minutes." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jizzlobber Posted July 15, 2015 Share Posted July 15, 2015 (edited) USA make fuck all money directly from WWE, because advertisers aren't interested in spending money on the inbred poorhouse morons who watch wrestling. That's why WWE are getting sued over their claims the 2014 TV contract would be an untold fortune. USA pretty much break even on the new deal, but the value is in where the Raw ratings puts USA on the overall cable stats. So the third hour is important to them. And their money is keeping Vince's head above water.  Plus we all cried about everything when it was two hours anyway, so it's silly to think going back to that would be a magic fix. They could incorporate every bringbackoldthings suggestion ever put forward and it'd make nary a difference to the amount of complaints.  I'm under no illusion that the product would suddenly be perfect if they went back to 2 hours. They'd still do stupid shit, only it might last five minutes rather than ten. With two hours, maybe they wouldn't feel compelled to give away every fresh match up on free TV. Maybe every character on the roster wouldn't feel over exposed. Maybe I'd actually be able to sit through an entire episode and recommend it to a lapsed fan. There's no way I'd recommend Raw to anyone right now. I often get asked what Raw's like these days and my reply is usually along the lines of "Terrible, three hours is impossible to sit through. Don't bother". Even during these terrible stretches people have been saying it "could have been a decent 2 hour show". And how is anyone supposed to get into wrestling when the flagship show is THREE HOURS long every single week?  In theory, despite what I've just said, I'm not fundamentally opposed to three hours. I am opposed to uninspired, asinine booking. The three hours helps facilitate this. Edited July 15, 2015 by Jizzlobber Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members tiger_rick Posted July 15, 2015 Paid Members Share Posted July 15, 2015 This is a quote talking about Raw going to 2 hours in 1997. Sounds like Pitcos wrote it. Same opinions as when it went from 2 to 3: Â "as this match joins the others tonight in going on for longer than it needs to. It is becoming a problem for Raw now that it is two hours every week, and the snappy feel of the show has gone. At least in the early days of Raw the pointless or unappealing matches would be brief, but now everything goes 10-15 minutes." That's brilliant. It's true an' all. As great as Raw was in 1997, you'd still have to sit through some tedious shit with DOA, NOD, Mero, Godwinns and other shitty arses. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts