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.
 
#61 ·
Honestly, at this point, which this is a huge statement that many will disagree with, but I think the TV shows would be better if they just did away with the wrestling entirely.

Hear me out!

Think about it, what are the weakest parts of the show? Other than bad comedy which does come to mind, I think of commercial breaks mid-match, bad commentary, Divas matches and over-exposure. If there aren't any matches on TV it will do a few different things: It'll help hide the weaknesses of the people that aren't stellar in the ring, especially the women like Kelly Kelly. Michael Cole won't have to do play-by-play. You can have more segments dedicated to getting an angle over. The Pay-Per-View matches would mean more and thus (I would think) more people would pay to watch them. Or, coming in a couple of months, need WWE Network to view them.

What exactly are free TV matches doing for us right now? Killing all the potential fresh matches before a PPV happens? Making us grow tired of our favorites wrestlers relying on the same tried and true spots? Sitting through bad commercial breaks mid-match to get back to bad commentating leading into a fuck finish because they won't change titles on TV?

Maybe I'm crazy but I would rather watch C.M. Punk have his own Piper's Pit style segment than watch him wrestle The Miz, Alberto Del Rio, Jack Swagger or Dolph Ziggler again. I would rather see Kelly Kelly in more segments like she had with The Big Show backstage than her wrestling and doing stinkfaces. I would rather see Michael Cole as a backstage interviewer again, trying to troll wrestlers to their face instead of trolling the entire listening audience for the entire duration of each and every program.

You could still have a main event. The paying audience will want something, for sure. But you can give them dark matches while showing stuff to the TV audience and then giving an actual, legit match at the end of the night that had real consequences and impact on the damn angles that they're trying to portray, instead of a last-minute six man slapped together for no goddamn reason. Old school NWA on TBS Ric Flair title matches like Clash of the Champions.
 
#63 · (Edited)
1) Get some decent commentators. Keep Cole if you love him that much Vince, but for the love of god, EVERY FAN wants to hear Jim Ross on their television sets every Monday nights. The guy is a legend, he knows how to put talent over, he knows how to properly hype a show or a PPV, so why not have him on? Add to the fact that Cole and Lawler have ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE chemistry together, and babble on about things not related to wrestling or whats going on in the match. I'm sure I'm not the only one who changes the channel when Cole and Lawler start arguing about stupid things. Move Cole to SmackDown, honestly, he's decent with Booker and Josh, but terrible with King. Even a three way booth at RAW is fine, just add Ross to it.

2) Get out of your own bubble Vince. Stop forcing terms like "WWE Universe", "WWE Championship", "Patented Punt", "The Viper". The terms are fine, and I get Wrestlers have their own little gimmicks and nick names that the WWE wants us to get behind, but everytime I watch WWE Programming, it just feels like Cole is reading out a custom made dictionary created by Vince for the sole purpose of forcing and annoying the viewers. It's a little thing, but I'm sure I'm not the only one bothered by it.

3) Book the Diva's better and get Diva's who can actually wrestle, and have the looks. They're honestly not that hard to find, ala Trish, Lita etc. To my knowledge, Kharma wasn't losing viewers when she came out, so you know WWE, it helps if you actually build up some diva's and help us give a shit about them. Keep Kelly on my TV screen if you really want, but please don't have her wrestling. Have her managing or something OTHER then wrestling. Just because Kelly made the Maxim magazine cover, don't spend the next 50 weeks pushing her down our throats.

4) Please have Cena ease of on some of his campy jokes. And have him show weakness like every other wrestler would. It's because of Cena dependency that WWE is failing right now. Now all the viewers don't really give a shit about ANY other wrestler other then him mainly because WWE has put over Cena at the expense of the entire roster. If anything, book him like Orton. The guy's still over, and yet when he has to, he loses clean like to Mark Henry. He shows weakness, and puts over talent like Rhodes and Barrett. Not saying Cena doesn't put over talent, he does in a more indirect way, but the way Orton does is definitely more effective. I've noticed lately Cody Rhodes is becoming a bigger of a threat in the eyes of the audience, with the crowd noticing him more and such, as opposed to lets say, 4 months ago. Cena being the superman has ruined the credibility of the rising star in Wade Barrett, not just Barrett but alot of other people as well. It's because of the audience being Cena dependent that the Cena get's fired angle didn't play out as it should have last year. It's because of Cena being the superman that no one will ever take anyone seriously until the guy retires. And even that's a stretch because if Cena doesn't put over the "next big thing" before he retires, or even gets a career ending injury, the WWE WILL lose tonnes of money. Get the Superhero quality out of Cena, and stop forcing him down our throats, and then the product will be guaranteed better.

5) Get a decent tag division, and everything else will work itself out. When guys like Miz, Bryan, Show, Kane are out of a main-event feud, or just got out of a high profile one, team them up until it's their turn again to engage in a feud. I've noticed the WWE was noticeably better back whenever they DID have a good tag division rather then when they didn't. The reasoning being is that it keeps some of the main-event superstars busy without them losing any steam until they're ready to go into a high profile feud again.

Follow these 5 steps, and WWE will be right back on track.
 
#73 ·
once football season is over ratings will go back the way they were its no Jericho and Punks fault
 
#75 ·
Two things -

1) Put Cena in a good storyline, he will draw. I think having him in a tag team match every week and the filler storyline with kane is hurting his drawing ability and thats not a good thing.

2) Chris jericho will never draw, forget it. Keep him away from punk.
 
#78 ·
With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

I thought PG was here to stay for a long ass time, but with ratings slowly, but gradually declining over long term, do you see them doing any drastic changes? Another 6 months and I bet ratings will be in the 2.6-2.7 range. Let me make it clear that I don't care at all about ratings because they don't affect the fans whatsoever, but they do affect WWE.
 
#79 ·
The first Raw SuperShow of 2012 garnered a 3.1 cable rating, with 4,438,000 viewers. Viewership, however, declined during the second hour for the eighth time in nine weeks as the first hour scored a 3.2 before dropping 6% to 3.02 in the second.
So it was 3.2 then 3.02
 
#81 ·
Re: With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

no
 
#84 ·
Re: With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

really its not a major effect on the WWE, they still make money off the kids, i would love and i mean love the attitude era back giving wrestlers more off a freedom on what they can say,do,blood etc but mcmahon is making alot off money, i dont even think he cares about us to be honest
 
#86 ·
Re: With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

attitude is still no good with lackluster storylines. Just having random hardcore matches or sex scenes for no reason with no thought given as to 'why' they are happening is just as irritating as the way they just throw together matches now.
 
#89 ·
Re: With ratings gradually decline longterm, do you see RAW going back to Attitude?

They've been declining since 2002 when Raw was getting the same ratings as it is now. Unless they reach a point lower or reach iMPACT levels ratings won't make them do anything drastic. Now record low attendance, more cancelled house shows and buyrates on top of 2.0 ratings might.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
You have insufficient privileges to reply here.
Top