[wb1899]

Originally Posted by 777

Better ratings equals more money from advertisers.

The advertisers look only at the C3 ratings (=how many people watched commercials up to 3 days after they air) and on that number dependents how much money the channel gets.

And once agian for all the household numbers are meaningless.

[Brye]

Originally Posted by Brave Nash

Shut the fuck up I'm sick of people saying Batista was horrible he never was horrible I always enjoy his matches and I'm a punk fan too so don't bring up Batista because your arguments about him is irrelevant the casual loved him and he hold smackdown on his back and ratings were way better and higher than now. He had a great run when he was a heel, well if you dont like him than punk himself and others do respect him he have done alot for this business.

Batista's good stuff came from Triple H (Vengeance), Cena (2 of their 4 matches), all the Taker ones, one of the Edge ones, the occasional Finlay match and he was in a few good multi man matches. Not saying he didn't improve at all during his time in the WWE because he did, but I still don't think he was good. And I'll admit, he had a good match with MVP in '08 and I believe one with Morrison too. Just didn't find the guy tolerable at all on the mic until 2010.

And also, have you seen what he looks like now?

[Theproof]

Whether the ratings are high or low, who gives a crap? All that matters is if you liked the show not if a bunch of other people did. Not saying that we shouldn't be looking at the ratings but people put way to much into this. Ratings go up and down all the time and unless there is a significant change I don't really see why there needs to be a 10 page long discussion about it. The ratings are always awkward. I'm not a big fan of Punks current work but I'm not stupid enough to believe that he is a ratings killer when there are a lot more boring characters on RAW. When CM Punk has a segment, people stop to listen whether you like him or not. There's so many factors that go into ratings spikes and dips that it's almost impossible for any of us to really pinpoint why and discuss this intelligently because none of us are qualified enough to understand this topic fully. It's always just a bunch of people talking out of there asses.

[GreatKhaliFan666]

Originally Posted by Brye

Listen to the live audience plz.

And no, Batista was horrible. Had about 10 high quality matches in his career and 5 of them came from a guy who wrestles once a year now.

Yes but he had that true bad ass look that made him easy to believe in. Casual fans really aren't paying attention to how many great wrestling matches he had. The WWE has actually compromised with hardcore wrestling fans by having daniel bryan/cm punk in the spotlight. I don't think that it's translating all that well with casuals. Why so many cowardly bad guys too?

I'm not one that should judge punk as I'm pretty casual but he's just not that intriguing to me. He gets good reactions from audiences and meh reactions from others from what I've seen.

Loved umaga by the way!

[Brye]

Originally Posted by Theproof

Whether the ratings are high or low, who gives a crap? All that matters is if you liked the show not if a bunch of other people did. Not saying that we shouldn't be looking at the ratings but people put way to much into this. Ratings go up and down all the time and unless there is a significant change I don't really see why there needs to be a 10 page long discussion about it. The ratings are always awkward. I'm not a big fan of Punks current work but I'm not stupid enough to believe that he is a ratings killer when there are a lot more boring characters on RAW. When CM Punk has a segment, people stop to listen whether you like him or not. There's so many factors that go into ratings spikes and dips that it's almost impossible for any of us to really pinpoint why and discuss this intelligently because none of are qualified enough to understand this topic fully. It's always just a bunch of people talking out of there asses.

I don't think we always share the same opinion but I completely agree with that.

Originally Posted by GreatKhaliFan666

Yes but he had that true bad ass look that made him easy to believe in. Casual fans really aren't paying attention to how many great wrestling matches he had. The WWE has actually compromised with hardcore wrestling fans by having daniel bryan/cm punk in the spotlight. I don't think that it's translating all that well with casuals. Why so many cowardly bad guys too?

I'm not one that should judge punk as I'm pretty casual but he's just not that intriguing to me. He gets good reactions from audiences and meh reactions from others from what I've seen.

Loved umaga by the way!

Completely agree on cowardly bad guys. It's a good gimmick for a few guys to have (worked awesome with JBL because he did everything he could to make the crowd hate him) but we see it far too much and even Henry lost some of his luster now.

And same, really wish he got a big title at one point but he had an awesome career.

[swagger_ROCKS]

Originally Posted by Brye

Why exactly does it matter to me what a guy that I like draws for ratings. From what I've heard, HBK didn't draw shit yet he's still one of the best all time. Ratings don't dictate whose good.

I don't understand when ratings became more important than enjoyment. Using them as a scapegoat is fucking lame. If you don't like it, say that. But if you have to try to bring ratings into it then you really don't have an excuse.

I don't care about the ratings because I don't happen to own stock in the company and there's no legitimate threat to the WWE. If they're doing what I like, why should I complain? They should know by now that if they change all their ideas around last minute they're not going anywhere.

I think the last part is what he was getting at, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to apply to you thou. If Swagger was champ, and ratings where going down and there was a CMpunk fan who would get on his case about how the title should be taken off him because he just isn't attracting viewers would be their comments most likely. But if the title is on your fave star even though they aren't bringing in viewers then just because it's your fave star it doesn't matter?

I have noticed a lot of people say that the way Swagger won the world title has ruined it for them. And the fact that he jobbed prior to winning it and then all of a sudden wins the title out of nowhere, and is beating people like Orton and Jericho. Then I read DB fans saying that they don't care about how he won the title or how he was booked before he won the title as long as he has it, I am happy. Some people don't seem to understand what they are saying when they say it. They are pretty much saying if my fave star is at the top nothing else matters, but if it's someone I truly dislike, then it's all there fault the product is shit.

[D.M.N.]

December 26th, 2011 - Breakdown
Q1 - 4.42 million / 2.90 rating
Q2 - 4.27 million / 2.80 rating
Q3 - 4.35 million / 2.85 rating
Q4 - 4.28 million / 2.81 rating
Q5 - 4.61 million / 3.03 rating
Q6 - 4.64 million / 3.05 rating
Q7 - 4.27 million / 2.81 rating
Q8 - 4.45 million / 2.92 rating
OR - 4.99 million / 3.26 rating

Q7 would have been from 22:30 to 22:45, I'm not sure how many commercials that quarter had, but not good when it features the WWE Champion as it was the joint lowest of the night.

[Brye]

Originally Posted by swagger_ROCKS

I think the last part is what he was getting at, that doesn't necessarily mean it has to apply to you thou. If Swagger was champ, and ratings where going down and there was a CMpunk fan who would get on his case about how the title should be taken off him because he just isn't attracting viewers would be their comments most likely. But if the title is on your fave star even though they aren't bringing in viewers then just because it's your fave star it doesn't matter?

I have noticed a lot of people say that the way Swagger won the world title has ruined it for them. And the fact that he jobbed prior to winning it and then all of a sudden wins the title out of nowhere, and is beating people like Orton and Jericho. Then I read DB fans saying that they don't care about how he won the title or how he was booked before he won the title as long as he has it, I am happy. Some people don't seem to understand what they are saying when they say it. They are pretty much saying if my fave star is at the top nothing else matters, but if it's someone I truly dislike, then it's all there fault the product is shit.

I just think people use the ratings as an excuse and it's a very poor one. As for the DB situation, I loved that he won the title but I'm still not a fan of how it happened. But it does suggest that it's leading to a heel turn which then might make us look back and think differently. Swagger's reign was unfortunately booked horribly from even before he won MITB. I get what you're getting at though but I still hardly think that in this day and age the top guy is responsible for the rating.

There have been people I dislike that have won the belt and occasionally it can actually end up being a good reign. I think people don't set their differences aside and look past their dislike for someone.

Sorry if that makes no sense, it's 4 AM.

[DubC]

Wow that is some horrible numbers but what can you expect when the writing is shit? The mentality in that place needs a huge overhaul.

[Coffey]

Batista was incredible. Pretty much the embodiment of what you want that sort of wrestler to be.