Wrestling Forum banner

Do Wrestlers Draw, Or Does the WWE Brand Draw?

  • Wrestlers Draw

    Votes: 251 39.5%
  • WWE Brand draws

    Votes: 384 60.5%
Status
Not open for further replies.

**The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

987K views 9K replies 852 participants last post by  Starbuck 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
For a list of the weekly rating dating back to January, please click here:

http://www.gerweck.net/tv-ratings/2012-tv-ratings/

RATINGS BREAKDOWN FOR THIS WEEKS RAW 4/9

Raw on 4/9 did a 3.10 rating and 4.29 million viewers. The show was third for the night on cable. The show did a 2.4 in Males 12-17, 2.7 in Males 18-49, 1.0 in Girls 12-17 and 1.1 in Women 18-49 with a 69.3% male skew. It was down 21% from the 5.46 million viewers of the week after Mania show last year, and last year there was no bombshell along the lines of the Brock Lesnar return on the night after Mania show.

In the segment-by-segment, Brodus Clay & Santino Marella vs. Dolph Ziggler & Jack Swagger lost 99,000 viewers.

Backstage with Laurinaitis with Miz an Cena, Marella looking for the Three Stooges and R-Truth vs. Cody Rhodes gained 255,000 viewers.

Lord Tensai vs. Yoshi Tatsu lost 415,000 viewers.

The mic work between C.M. Punk and Chris Jericho in the top of the hour segment gained 379,000 viewers to a 3.19.

Punk vs. Henry and the post-match with Jericho pouring beer all over Punk, as well as the quick Del Rio vs. Ryder match lost 169,000 viewers.

The Three Stooges in-ring segment lost 240,000 viewers and was the low point of the show at 2.90.

The Brock Lesnar interview gained 423,000 viewers.

And the Cena vs. Otunga match with Lesnar run-in gained 301,000 viewers, which is a very weak overrun number, finishing at 3.42.
 
#109 ·
Re: Ratings DON'T matter



They need to care about the ratings in order to see if people are enjoying the product. Also, that way the networks would want them to stay on. Look what happened to WCW Monday Nitro. The ratings sucked balls and no one wanted to keep the show on the air and then it got bought out. I'm sure if RAW gets ratings that are in the low 2.0s, it will be mayhem and the WWE will have a tough time finding a network to be on.
 
#111 ·
Re: Ratings DON'T matter

Exacally if they lose ratings, They potentially lose advertisers, May get thrown off the network you can argue the merchandise sales all you want but without good exposure merc sales will fall.
 
#112 ·
Re: Ratings DON'T matter

I think a lot of people are missing the point

1)Ratings should not matter to us. Your favorite wrestler being a draw or not does not make you a better fan nor does it make the person you like better than other people's favorite wrestlers. People always try to battle other people to see whos favorite is better.

2)Ratings to the WWE matters somewhat, but little can be done to improve it. And what can be done doesn't involve storyline or character changes. Most of the money is made on Merch/PPV purchases/Tickets
 
#114 ·
Last Week Segment Breakdown
Source: Wrestling Observer Newsletter

Raw on 12/26 did a 2.93 rating and 4.47 million viewers. The rating was almost identical with the prior week but there were 180,000 more viewers on a night when overall television viewership was down 7.7%, although that’s misleading because all the networks were in reruns. The show was 6th for the night on cable. The Atlanta Falcons vs. New Orleans Saints game where Drew Brees set the all-time single season passing yardage record did a 10.60 rating and 15.64 million viewers.

The big news is the curse of the second hour losing audience from the first hour ended. The reason is more that the first hour didn’t do well, then the second hour did well. In particular, Raw of late has been starting with a strong first quarter, but the C.M. Punk/John Laurinaitis first quarter did a only a 2.94, and the usual big drop didn’t happen. There were a significant amount of usual Raw viewers who either didn’t bother to watch the first quarter and turn it off like usual, or did watch it but turned it off in a minute.

The show did a 2.3 in Males 12-17 (down 18% from last week), 2.6 in Males 18-49 (up 4%), 1.1 in Females 12-17 (up 38%) and 1.2 in Females 18-49 (down 8%). Male viewership was 67.1% of total viewers.

In the segment-by-segment, Booker T vs. Cody Rhodes lost 149,000 viewers. Backstage stuff with John Cena and Zack Ryder, Big Show and Kelly Kelly, Laurinaitis, Show and David Otunga and Jack Swagger, Dolph Ziggler, Vickie Guerrero and Mark Henry gained 78,000 viewers. Ryder & Eve Torres vs. Tyson Kidd & Natalya and a Cena interview lost 67,000 viewers. Cena vs. The Miz and post-match R-Truth attack gained 325,000 viewers, which is below usual but better than in some recent weeks. Big Show vs. David Otunga with one hand tied behind his back and an Alberto Del Rio interview with the Bellas gained 34,000 viewers. Punk vs. Swagger lost 367,000 viewers. Punk vs. Ziggler gained 172,000 viewers to a 2.91 main event average. The Cena/Kane overrun gained 543,000 viewers to a do a 3.26. As far as the demo changes with Cena and Kane out last, Male teens went from 2.8 to 3.1, Men 18-49 went from 2.8 to 3.2, Women teens went from 1.0 to 1.3 and Women 18-49 stayed at 1.0.
 
#121 · (Edited)
Re: Ratings DON'T matter

I care more about being entertained than I care about the ratings.
Thank God I'm not the only one who makes sense.

On topic: Over the last few weeks the only thing ratings have been used for is to prove who is more over, or a draw. It's been mostly a fuel to use for people to bash CM Punk, which is stupid.

The rating's have been in consistent 3's ever since the Benoit double murder/suicide, and they don't seem to going back up to 4's unless something big happens, or UFC end's.

Merchandise, house show attendence, PPV numbers are still relatively strong, so the ratings may be lower than they were a decade ago, but WWE is still very profitable elsewhere. They there most profitable year in 2010, so it's not like their going out of business anytime soon. I think if the rating's ever get to consistent 2's, then there will probably be something done to raise rating,s but until then the ratings will probably remain in the mid-low 3's.
 
#119 ·
Re: Ratings DON'T matter

Let's face it, this issue only gets brought up because of the IWC's ultra blind/deluded assessment of CM Punk.

We never talk much about ratings before he got title.
you're wrong..........the same people who bash cena and orton when the ratings are low are the same ones quick to defend punk

"we should judge the overall product not just one superstar"
"give punk more time it took austin two years"
"punk is feuding with heels nobody cares about"

shut up already......fact is the guy isnt a draw
 
#128 ·
PWTorch:
WWE Raw on Monday, January 2, 2012 scored a 3.10 rating, up from a 2.93 rating the previous two weeks to close 2011. It was the first Raw above the 3.00 mark since the end of November.

Despite the encouraging rating, Raw's viewership was not as encouraging. Raw averaged 4.44 million viewers, down four percent from an average of 4.46 million viewers for the day-after-Christmas edition last week.

Most concerning was Raw's Fall 2011 problem resurfacing with viewership declining in the second hour despite a C.M. Punk WWE Title match, 1-2-12 reveal, and main event handicap match featuring John Cena.

The first hour averaged 4.53 million viewers and the second hour declined to an average of 4.34 million viewers, which was 250,000 viewers below the second hour average last week.

-- Looking at the demographic ratings, Raw saw week-to-week increases in every demographic except males 12-17, which scored the second-lowest rating of the last four months.

The key increases were in adult viewers. Among males 18-49 & males 18-34, Raw scored its highest rating in six weeks.

-- Last year, on Jan. 3, 2011 against ESPN's BCS bowl coverage, Raw averaged 4.49 million viewers with the reverse hourly pattern compared to this year's Week 1. Last year's first hour averaged 4.34 million viewers (identical to 2012 second hour) and the second hour averaged 4.66 million viewers.

Caldwell's Analysis: A mixed bag start to 2012 with the tough competition affecting viewership. It's not time hit the panic button yet, but WWE will probably start pushing for The Rock to become re-involved in the show somehow, even if he's not appearing in-person. Next week, Raw will be up against the BCS National Title game, so don't look for any viewership improvement until *potentially* two weeks from now depending on whether they can create momentum next week.
 
#131 ·
It's unusual how the opinions of the live audience seem to contradict those of the home audience...

While the 10,000+ people in the audience are giving Punk a huge pop, chanting his name and wearing his merch, the 10,000 watching at home don't seem all that interested in him. It would be interesting to see what would happen if they changed the participants of the Nielsen sample audience.
 
#140 · (Edited)
Re: Ratings DON'T matter

Its amazing how many people don't read the post and just glanced at the title.

I used to think like a lot of you and thought ratings measured how good of a wrestler someone was. Well they've pretty much made the whole roster champion in the last 2 years and NOTHING has changed. Casuals dont just watch when specific people are on, they think "Oh hey wrestling on Im going to go watch", not "Hey John Cena is in the main event, Ill tune in tonight for sure". Its just a neverending storyline that you tune into when the current plot interests you or if you have time, but the characters are all interchangeable.
 
#141 ·
This thread has so much face palm. Ratings are bad because:

1. WWE has spent the better part of 5 years, only pushing Cena and Orton. All the main eventers in WWE now were barely known before 2010.

2. Booking is terrible.

3. Wrestling isn't as cool now and most kids find out wrestling is scripted at a MUCH younger age now.

4. Our WWE champion is feuding with Ziggler. A guy who just lost the US title to Ryder and gets barely any reaction. Before this Punk feuded with Del Rio. Even worse.

There is a ton of factors to ratings. Not just " LOL Punk sawks! Rock is betta!! Bring back blood and cursing!!!"
 
#145 ·
Re: With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

There's no good reason for people in their late teens or early 20s to be clamoring for the past. If anything, we should be the first ones with the best ideas. WF should be a forum where fans brainstorm to talk about what should be different going into the future. Discussions on the board should be inherently progressive (even if said progressive ideas suck), but for some reason, it's just not.

The Attitude era, as nice as it was, is over. That era was grown out of Paul Heyman's creative revolution in ECW - where modern counter-cultures and sub-cultures of the early to mid 90s found it's home. It was the only company at the time in an industry that historically found it hard to move out of the presentation and aesthetics that worked in previous decades/eras, and Paul, at the time was, you guessed it, in his 20s. WWF ran with the concept and made it commercial. Now the question is, what's next? That's the only question that matters, and when you answer that question, don't answer like a wrestling fan. Answer like an artist. Answer like a visionary. Answer like a marketer, and whatever answer springs out of that will be a lot more valuable than bringing back the Attitude Era.

The AE was gaudy, tawdry and classless. As popular as it was, it was dumb. Now it's time for wrestling to get smarter.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top