Originally Posted by Rock316AE
From the quote earlier, that was in April about the gains and overall audience:
The point of that is when people pretending that X person drew Y number of people for the segment when in fact, he had nothing to do with it because the audience was there before his segment and a bigger X would have done a bigger number than he did in Z time slot. There are people who bring the overall up and there's people who are just "there" taking a TV spot in that specific show. Which is why you can't call a 148k gain in the top of the hour a huge success for the people in it even if it did a 5.0.
Anyway, in the peak years, the pattern was always a huge gain in the second quarter, a complete opposite from the pattern that started in mid-late 2010 that this spot is mostly a killer.
But at the same time, people would've tuned out if they didn't want to see the following segment, and people wouldn't of watched. If people kept watching for Blue Meanie, then by all means give Blue Meanie credit for keeping the interest. If he's with Austin, at least he wasn't an anti-draw.
I get your point, but it's just as flawed as basing things based off of the overall number. Raw 1,000 proves this. There was no massive gains besides the 9pm from what I remember, but even the lowest quarter hour can be considered a success to some degree as they kept more than the average number of people watching (average compared to an ordinary Raw, not Raw 1,000).
Of course if a segment loses 800,000 viewers, even if the overall rating was still high it could be considered a success or failure depending on how you look at it. There are so many different variables to consider when saying a segment is a success or not. Punk/Henry gained, and KEPT the viewers from the previous segment. That's why it's a success. Had it lost 800,000 viewers, it wouldn't have had that high of a rating.
But it's all just a giant mind fuck. You have to consider everything and every reason the viewers might've tuned in. Even Punk on commentary for the Show/Cena main event, which I know you would never do. I mentioned this but Punk's presence surely added to the match. Do I think Cena/Show would've been a success without Punk? Absolutely I do. Do I think Punk added to the success? Yes I do, and I most certainly don't think he deterred on it. It wasn't like he was just sitting on a chair at ringside. He was doing commentary, and some people may have found that a reason to watch the match.
But yeah... a whole lot of stuff to consider. I'm not saying your view is wrong, just that it's flawed (and I'm not saying mine isn't flawed), but it all just goes in a circle.