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)

988K 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.
 
#6,943 ·
The thing is with WWE is that the peak of 5 million shows that the audience is still there. Raw 1000 shows that those numbers can be achieved (I know that was nostalgia, but the point is there).

It is not a case of the viewers have gone and are never coming back. In 3 months once Rock is back, three hours is back down to two and WrestleMania season is in full swing, the numbers will be back up.

Hopefully. I say hopefully because this year only did ~4.5 million. But this year's build was uninspiring to say the least.
 
#6,948 ·
This... wrestling is never truly "down". It might not always peak at the 10 million plus levels, but the niche audience is always there. All it takes is good consistent booking and we flock back to the product in droves. Hopefully some of those reports are true and someone finally got in McMahon's face and called him out for booking shit. Not the writers, not the wrestlers... but McMahon.

As you said... when something happens the numbers are there. It's just been that they make a noise then do nothing for months and expect people to stay watching now.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dan the marino
#6,961 ·
I'm sure Vince in a match with Sheamus or even Del Rio in the overrun could have done just as big, if not more. Punk gets no credit for this and he shouldnt.

Punk marks desperate as usual, with KO bossy being their leader.
And what makes you sure about that?

And what was so bad about what KO Bossy said about that number that Cena and Edge segment produced?
 
#6,962 · (Edited)
And what makes you sure about that?
I already have explained why. It was Vince Mcmahon in his first match since Mania that got the viewers hooked, you just need a heel who is over as a supporting act.

And what was so bad about what KO Bossy said about that number that Cena and Edge segment produced?
3 Hrs was not a permanent thing in april. It is desperate and pathetic to go find a low quarter that Edge and Cena did at the start of the show months ago, to prove "Punk can draw". No he does not, give it up. He's undeservingly over-pushed.
 
#6,963 · (Edited)
Punk isn't a draw. That is true. He is also majorly over-pushed for someone who produces the ratings he does but I think the way he was booked this year has a bit to do with that. Look at the year Punk has had. Always beating out his challengers with no real struggle or adversity to speak of.

Imagine a big buildup with some guy Vince decided to push to the big leagues FINALLY getting a title shot only to have the heel champ punch the ref as soon as the opening bell rang and getting DQ'ed, keeping the title and sending "the challenger" to the back of the line to start over again (Ryback v Punk at the next PPV? No HITC could be used in that equation though.). If milked right the audience would LOVE an underdog story like that. Instead we got WWE's formula of pushing a new talent by giving them the belt and hoping they succeed. The thing is at that point the audience has nothing to invest in, that is why this plan constantly fails. Punk winning the belt was the equivalent of reaching the top of the mountain (in WWE story-land) right at the beginning of his permanent move to main event land. Wouldn't it have been better to have Punk chase a strong heel that kept screwing him over to keep the belt from Punk? (Obviously that means he would have had to have been a face last year instead so no quitting/"shoot"/Cena feud. Some may disagree about the shoot but has it REALLY helped him that much given the facts as they are today?). That is a major reason SCSA/McMahon was successful. Even though Austin always won he was perceived as the underdog against the big bad boss. Seems like a no brainer to me but whatever.
 
#6,965 ·
My point was Vince Mcmahon and his first advertised match in two years is the reason for that big overrun gain, not punk. It didnt matter who he was against Del Rio/Sheamus/Punk, it was going to be a success regardless.

It wasn't to prove anything except that bonifide drawcards like Cena and (to a lesser extent) Edge could not always bring home the bacon on every occasion that so many here think top guys are guaranteed do.
Once again, RAW wasn't three hours on a regular basis back then, its totally different. Cena/Edge was never meant to draw big on that night. Raw has been three hours since the 1000th episode and Cena/Heyman few weeks ago drew the biggest 8pm rating.

I dont see why anyone needs to bring up a random QH rating from months ago involving Cena and Edge into this discussion at all? Clearly, the intention was to use that and make a desperate excuse for Punk's failure at ratings. Explain Why the sudden need to prove Cena or Edge cant 'always draw big'?
 
#6,966 · (Edited)
My point was Vince Mcmahon and his first advertised match in two years is the reason for that big overrun gain, not punk. It didnt matter who he was against Del Rio/Sheamus/Punk, it was going to be a success regardless.
So why say it would've been bigger with those two than it would be with Punk?

I dont see why anyone needs to bring up a random QH rating from months ago involving Cena and Edge into this discussion at all? Clearly, the intention was to use that and make a desperate excuse for Punk's failure at ratings. Explain Why the sudden need to prove Cena or Edge cant 'always draw big'?
Because a lot of people need reminding that even the big dogs (although Edge wasn't quite in that same echelon as Cena) are not always going to rope in the services of company viewers. That the top guys aren't going to shit out gold week in and week out. That this notion of drawing is only a side of things that takes our fandom onto new levels of ignorance when we stick up for or deride our favourites/most hated.

By the way, I'm not saying Punk shouldn't be a draw. That's a ridiculous notion that only his most blindly deluded mark would adhere to when talking about the business side of things. He needs to be a commodity as he's the champ and one of the top guys in the company. I'm of the belief that he isn't a standalone name and has only scratched the surface of being a true drawcard. What you said about Edge/Cena segment drawing low being due to the novelty of 3 hours is also likely an accurate one that I too agree with.

What continues to amuse me (and anyone with a semblance of intelligence) though is that people will try to justify their love or hatred for an individual that will only ultimately be used by the company as they see fit. They don't even see the business side spectrum outside their Nielsen ratings system mindset. Someone described it as a weekly pissing contest and I couldn't agree more in some of what's been posted.

Someone in this thread also described ratings as the 'god' of television some time ago. While there's a lot of truth to that (unfortunately) it's a sentiment shared and utilised by too many that can't get their heads past the dreaded 'weekly numberz' and argue and argue and argue about stuff that won't even eventuate from their own opinion.

The real smart guys in this thread will discuss, speculate and conceptualise ideas relating to viewership patterns and numbers, trends and the overall appeal of wrestling personalities pertaining to what happens weekly. The stupid guys will lurch around throwing numbers they don't know the meaning of to support their dumb fandom and try to (unsuccessfully) strip others of theirs.
 
#6,968 ·
Nobody full time is a draw. Cena hasn't been a big draw since they wen't full retard in 2008 with his booking.

Interesting Angles are what draw viewers in. Shit Angles result in shit ratings.

End of discussion.
 
#6,969 ·
Punk isn't over because come the end of the summer of Punk he still had not been put over he beat Cena twice in inconsistent circumstances and lost too Triple H on a C level PPV Punk should have beaten Triple H at Wrestlemania its that simple the feud was their and could have made itself the heat and real fire between the two that was first felt at comic con where the seed was planted and it was wasted and Punk was put second to Triple H, Nash, Rock and Cena.
 
#6,974 ·
Good grief, Punk. fpalm

2.5, 2.7 numbers can't give you any more excuses.

Take out Cena and the legends, who had been carrying his 97 lb ass in gaining viewership, from his vicinity and he's just as much as draw as Diesel was.

Remember the 5k - 10k gains with Daniel Bryan and AJ with their twilight-esque angle? Except Robert Pattinson was so much more intimidating than Punk and Bryan combined.
 
#6,986 ·
next week will be brutal for RAW. Their competitions: Bears vs Lions, final presidential debate between Obama vs Romney, potential game 7 of Giants vs Cardinals, sitcoms & dramas, 3 hours too long, etc etc. And this is the go home show for HIAC.

It will be interesting to see how much effort they put into next week. I am not sure even Vince can save them from getting 2.5 (hell maybe even lower) again.

So he better hope this week he increased (or at least maintained a 2.8) rather than decrease.
 
#6,992 ·
final presidential debate between Obama vs Romney
Agree with this, 58 million tuned in to the first debate and the final debate should get more. They're used to dealing with 16 million watching the football on Monday nights, not over 50 million as competition.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top