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.
 
#8,803 ·
So... it looks like Cena's drawing power really is dead. Granted, I do still think Punk on commentary back in the Cena/Show match in July helped it gain more than it would have, but not enough to figure the difference between what Cena/Show gained this week and what it would've gained back then without Punk. Clearly Cena's drawing power is in the shitter, and Ryback seems to be the biggest full-time draw they have at this point. '

Punk was in Q4 and the first 5 minutes of the 9PM and probably had something to do with that gain as well, and the Sheamus/Ziggler match was in part the last 5 or so minutes of the 9PM, with commercials in between. 9PM though had it's strongest gain and quarter hour rating since the Lawler/Punk/Heyman/Foley promo when Lawler returned.

10PM with Vickie/AJ, by today's standards wasn't a bad 10PM gain (since it loses half the time). Interestingly enough, the quarter hour rating for it was a 2.78, and last week with Vince/Vickie was a 2.73. Does that mean... AJ'S A BIGGER DRAW THAN VINCE!!!!???? 8*D

Overrun rating was the strongest it's been since Punk/Cena, and the gain is the biggest since Punk and Ziggler teamed up to face Cena and Ryback. The overrun was a crazy brawl and that definitely helped things. There was Cena, Show. Sheamus, Ziggler, Shield, Team Hell No, and Ryback (WITH DAT POP) all being out there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SerapisLiber
#8,848 ·
Re: Ratings obsession?

I care about the ratings.

Because saying the ratings don't matter is just the equivalent of closing your eyes, sticking your fingers in your ears and singing whilst the show you watch turns to shit.

Like it or not (and the apologists can claim ratings have only been in 'steady decline' all they want), the quality of WWE HAS dipped dramatically in recent years, and this year alone has seen some of the worst booking decisions and storylines in recent memory. Which is proven by none other than....the ratings.

A lot of people only bring up the ratings so much because some of the more obsessive fans on forums refuse to accept that there's anything wrong with what they're watching now compared to how things used to be....if you watched Raw and hated it and someone else argued with you and claimed it was a good show...but the ratings suggested that Raw lost half a million viewers, then it's at least factual evidence that Raw actually WAS crap and you weren't just imagining it.

It's also interesting to speculate on what aspects of the shows work and what don't (by checking the ratings) because fact is, whilst a minority of people will still continute to defend WWE to the hilt and say 'the ratings don't matter to me!', many more people ARE tuning out completely on a regular basis and if nothing drastically changes for the better, then things will only get worse.
 
#8,853 · (Edited)
Re: Ratings obsession?

I think ratings are important to all of us. if you're invested in the wrestling business as a long time fan, you don't want to see it fail, so seeing the ratings drop from 6.0-7.0 in the attitude era to 3.5 average as of last year, now to 2.5-2.7 on average, is a bit alarming. It took them 12 years to lose 50% of their audience from the ratings they were pulling in wrestling's boom period, and now going from 3.5 to 2.5 ratings they've lost almost 30% of their audience in only ONE year. And CM Punk isn't to blame, he didnt even headline PPV's for half of his title reign, its WWE's fault as a whole.

If you don't understand why ratings are so important.. the way TV networks make their money is ad revenue from airing commercials. Higher ratings = more money for the network and access to bigger names in advertising. On the other hand, when a show loses ratings, it will become less profitable for the network and risk having advertisers pull out, because they want their commercials seen by as many people as possible. If WWE's ratings get much lower they could lose advertisers and then have a real crisis on their hands, that could lead to USA network dropping WWE.

The reality is they're getting closer to TNA numbers than I ever thought possible. its a downward trend that can't be ignored.. they will rise a bit for RR through Wrestlemania, but then what? What happens next year if they're down to a 2.0 around this time? the ratings are a window into the quality of the product, theyre as low as they've ever been now which means the watered down PG product isn't keeping people watching loyally like it used to.

3 hour raws, kid-friendly content and and failure to make new stars is whats killing the business. Why do you think they're forced to bring Rock, Lesnar, HHH and others at the big shows? they don't have anyone else to headline them to make them feel important, and that's scary for WWE's future when these old stars can't go anymore.
 
#8,865 ·
Re: Ratings obsession?

The product is shit. The Shield is shit. CM Punk is shit. People look to ratings because that's the only thing that makes McMahon change his mind. WCW was bought for pocket change because it lost it's TV deal after repeatedly pushing 2.0's shows and not listening to fans - and that was with competition! WWE is pushing 2.0's - and not listening to fans, with no competition.

Fucking PG-Era/Punk marks. I bet the OP only started watching wrestling 2 years ago.
 
#8,869 ·
Re: Ratings obsession?

Nielsen ratings aren't accurate anyways (a 1.0 rating is about 1% of the 100m+ tv watching households) and this has been proven before as not everyone has a Nielsen box (Breaking bad is apparently suffering in ratings too). Add into the fact that the majority of Punk's fans are old enough to work the internet and probably download the show rather than sit through 3 hours.

I just think it's a (very successful) troll on the fanatic Punk marks. I'm a fan of the guy myself but the lengths people go to protect his name on a forum like this is quite amusing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dgeneration-nexus
#8,875 ·
I see a huge "why do you care about ratings?" topic merged to this and I'm gonna leave my 2 cents here. Unsurprisingly, it's from the same guy who made that "Why do you hate Punk?" topic a day or two ago. Like I gave a real response to that one, I'm gonna do so here too.

The reason I care about ratings is just because of pure curiosity. If I "obsess" over them currently, it's because I absolutely despise the shows and refuse to watch them, so when I read about the ratings being low, it makes me happy and gives me hope that there'll be a change in direction. To those who say "JUST ENJOY THE FUCKING SHOW!", I'll just repeat what Hawksea said. You aren't seriously SUGGESTING me to enjoy a show which has CM FUCKING PUNK as its champion for over a year, are you? I almost feel insulted by that. And don't get it twisted, I don't decide who my favorites and least favorites are based on who draws the most amount of viewers in their segments. That's a fucking stupid misconception that was started by some butthurt Punk mark last year and it's become the norm to say when it's a ratings discussion.
 
#8,876 ·
DAT MERGE :brock

"JUST ENJOY THE FUCKING SHOW!"
Those that say that too also annoy me. I can understand if they say it to someone who bitches about absolutely everything and won't accept anything on the show, yet still is a fan and yet continues to watch it and post in the live discussion threads. A majority of people it is said to however, are merely making fair criticisms. It is as if someone can't form their own opinion. When someone says this for CM Punk being champion "JUST ENJOY HIM AS CHAMPION AND THE SHOW", it really annoys me. You should never HAVE to like someone, that's taking away what makes opinions opinions(and this forum in itself).
 
#8,892 ·
One thing that should be noted from either viewpoints of the "bring back old talent vs improve the current show" argument is how so many believe it's simply a matter of doing so and everything will be fine. Well, it's not totally implausible, although I highly doubt viewers will come flooding back in a short matter of time. Quality shows don't necessarily mean an immediate increase (not talking about what one's definition if 'quality' is, anyway), nor is bringing back talent like the Rock going to fix the haemorrhaging all the damn time.

What WWE needs is patience and diligence. I think they're showing signs of both recently, but we know how the word 'sustainment' hasn't been apart of their vocabulary in recent times. Patience is something a lot of this forum's posters should have as well, as I worry that all this talk about ratings and so forth drives them into this philosophy of "why isn't this wrestler/angle drawing viewers NOW!? Scrap the thing, it obviously ain't working three weeks into its duration!"

Things have to take time, particularly now when viewers have been told what to expect of the current talent pool and have looked to be fairly unimpressed all throughout the board. This 'improvement' will require work, so don't expect instantaneous results to appear overnight.
 
#8,927 ·
That's great for them. Thankfully in an episode where the ratings killer only made one appearance.
I don't remember Orton making an appearance.


Nice numbers. Funny how these numbers look godly compared to what we're used to, when a year ago they were just "meh".
 
#8,977 ·
No doubt there's no full-time draws left anymore (not even Cena) but saying Punk is NOT a factor in them going down when he has the spotlight for a large portion of the show is just being in denial. He may not drive away viewers single handedly but he doesn't help anything whatsoever. It's the overall viewership that matters, not who gains from the already present fans. Obviously Punk is going to gain viewers weekly since he actually gets character/story development in reliable spots with legends that make one-off appearances while Alberto del Rio vs Zack Ryder Part 315081835 will lose viewers because it's a pointless squash match with two lengthy commercial breaks surrounding it.
 
#8,992 ·
Solid post.

The way a lot of people are defending Punk's numbers are the kinds of arguments you use to defend a midcard wrestler's impact on the ratings, NOT a 400+ day reigning WWE champion who's getting tons of mic time, and a very large portion of the total story development each week.

This is why Punk needs to be blamed most. It's a fact that's going over a lot of people's heads for some reason. It doesn't matter if his segments don't lose viewers (or many viewers) or even gain a bit after the previous segment tanked in viewership. His segments aren't interesting enough for peple to stick around in anticipation of something exciting happening that they don't want to miss. That's the job of people who are getting most of the air time and significant story development.

Mid-carder ratings logic can only take the argument so far before you just start thinking about how he's just barely keeping his own segments above the falling ratings for the rest of the show. How can you possibly look at that and actually defend it as a good thing? Compared to the first half of the year (rather than the rest of the show each night), Punk's segments are also getting shitty ratings.
 
  • Like
Reactions: LovelyElle890
#8,991 ·
:lmao :lmao :lmao Punk fans are hilarious.

Punk appears in another segment with a legend = Look at that 500k plus gain Punk had!! :punk

Punk appears with a wrestler from this Era = Why the hell did they have to stick Punk with this ratings vacuum?! :punk3

I admire your conviction in your God. Still not as devout as us Itachi fans though, but bless your hearts for trying.

Oh yeah and the usual Yata Mirror tanks your argument and Totsuka Sword to blitz, GG.

8*D
 
#9,010 ·
How would you raise ratings?

There are many concerns that ratings are tanking, the product is too child friendly, to much pandering to celeb/twitter/casual.

I am curious how would you turn WWE around? What are your ideas to bring in ratings/money for the company? How would you take the company back to the top?

The first thing I would change is the over saturation of the product. I would have Raw Monday 2 hrs, Smackdown live on USA Fridays. ScyFi is not a big enough and is not wide enough range for the WWE. and I looked at the next 3 months to see whats on friday night on usa? SVU reruns, smackdown can get better ratings than that.

I would get rid of Superstars and main event, and if you wanna keep them put them on youtube or hulu, if the match is good enough it will get the hype. I would keep Saturday morning slam but not with new matches, I would have it review the shows and do the fluff pieces that they show on raw, Like the old superstars.

The next thing is to get rid of some PPV , the economies down and the internet streams then illegally now.. 13 wont work I would say 8, 10 tops. stories will be force to be used to sell and will get more people wanting too


With the actual product? I would bring back height classes, I turned on Raw 3-4 times in the last 2 months with people who used to watch but now dont. They all said the same thing, this is so unrealistic, he is so small. no one really thinks rey, sin cara and the likes of them can beat kane and tensai.


There are a few more things but what do you think shuld change to take wrestling to the top again
 
#9,048 ·
Re: WWE RAW Draws Its Lowest Rating In Over 15 Years

lol punk in the main event "its all punks fault he cant draw"
cena in the main event "excuses excuses excuses"

you can't have it both ways folks, if your going to blame punk when hes the focus you also need to blame cena when its his main event as well, lol at cena always getting excuses and spinning it to other crap

fact is though the product sucks, plain and simple
its time to build new stars that can wrestle and solid on the mic, ziggler is on the verge on main event star, ambrose could be in that position later in the year if built properly
turn cena heel at mania vs rock or taker, punk can continue doing what he does
bring back mid carders like shelton/mvp/morrison to give a much needed boost to mid card and upper mid card
unify the titles and make raw the focus show while smackdown focuses more on tag team title and a tv title or smackdown title where great wrestlers not great on the mic can wrestle every week and give power to each title
 
#9,049 ·
Re: WWE RAW Draws Its Lowest Rating In Over 15 Years

lol punk in the main event "its all punks fault he cant draw"
cena in the main event "excuses excuses excuses"
It's actually the other way around.

*Punk's segment gets low rating*
"IT WASN'T THE MAIN EVENT!"
"HE'S TREATED LIKE A COWARD HEEL THATZ WHY HE CANT DRAW!"
"WRESTLING INTEREST IS DEAD!"
"ITS FANS FAULT THEY DIDNT WATCH!"
"BUT ALBERTO DEL RIO AND SANTINO LOST MORE VIEWERS!"

Cena has lost his drawing abilities in the recent months, it's no secret. But fact still remains that Punk is horrible for ratings and has been from the moment they started pushing him. (even though I found him entertaining back in the 2011 summer)
 
#9,060 ·
Re: WWE RAW Draws Its Lowest Rating In Over 15 Years

Is VM Punk still even the champ? I'm guessing he is, therefore I deduce that the show will feature him heavily. So I'm (even less) inclined to watch.

It'll be back up soon with The Rock, retiree quick-fix.
He was in one segment for about 5 minutes lol.

Keep this shit in the ratings thread please where the people who care can read it.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top