**The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here) - Page 622 - Wrestling Forum : WWE, TNA, Debate League, Wrestling Videos, Women of Wrestling Forums

View Poll Results: Do Wrestlers Draw, Or Does the WWE Brand Draw?

Wrestlers Draw 251 39.53%
WWE Brand draws 384 60.47%
Voters: 635. You may not vote on this poll

Closed Thread

Old 09-27-2012, 04:38 AM   #6211 (permalink)
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Twisted14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,158
Twisted14 501 - 1000Twisted14 501 - 1000Twisted14 501 - 1000Twisted14 501 - 1000Twisted14 501 - 1000Twisted14 501 - 1000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

IMO the whole NFL ordeal has completely screwed up the Raw ratings to a point where it is hardly worth over analysing it this way. The breakdown seems to be all over the place to me. Even Cena being hyped up throughout the show did very little. It's clear that the NFL would have brought in a whole heap of people to see what would happen with their referees.

One thing I don't get is why you guys even have football on a Monday night anyway. That's just weird to me. With our main football league in Australia they play on Fridays, Saturdays and Sundays each week. With only one week in the year where they play on a Monday afternoon. It's solely a weekend thing otherwise.

edit: I'm getting ignored by Scott Steiner, that's awesome.
Twisted14 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 09-27-2012, 04:39 AM   #6212 (permalink)
Ho!
 
#BadNewsSanta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 13,948
#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000#BadNewsSanta 8501 - 9000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
When Punk loses viewers at 10pm it's brushed under the rug. When he gains at 9pm he's a mega draw. It's the hypocrisy that gets me tbh.
Punk losing viewers gets brushed under the rug? What alternate universe do you live in, Starbuck?

I don't disagree with your post. This doesn't prove Punk is a "draw", but certainly it proves that he's not an anti-draw which so many spout ridiculously. Punk's incredibly inconsistent, but he can draw big, arguably bigger than anyone else on the roster when put with a big draw (besides another big draw). When he's not with a big draw though, it's split with whether he draws well or not.

Actually, that intrigues me a bit. A few weeks ago I got together all the breakdowns up to that point from this year and saved them. What I'm gonna do for the fuck of it, is gather all the Punk segments where he wasn't with a proven draw (which at this point in WWE I'm only considering Cena, HHH, Rock, Undertaker, Lesnar and maybe Foley... though he's a legend I'm not sure how big of a draw he actually is in this day and age. I'd need to check his segments in breakdowns to see that for myself). I'll have to wait until Friday or Saturday to do it since that's where my laptop is, so if anyone else wants to beat me to it, feel free. I'm interested myself in seeing if he really has never drawn well with a proven draw. The one I was thinking of at first was the Punk "shoot" on Laurinaitis in January a couple of weeks before the Rumble, but then I remembered Foley was there at the end of it and was there for a good enough time where he'd have brought in viewers if he was going to.

But hell, Laurinaitis could be considered a proven draw as well when he was an authority figure because of just that... he was an authority figure.

Then again, today in WWE what really draws exceptionally isn't an individual wrestler, but a great storyline.
__________________
I've got some bad news...


Last edited by #BadNewsSanta : 09-27-2012 at 04:42 AM.
#BadNewsSanta is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 04:46 AM   #6213 (permalink)
Proud Coiner of Dub's Vituperative Moniker, He of the Duplicitous Mien
 
DesolationRow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: My own version of Frank Zappa's log cabin
Posts: 11,980
DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Starbuck, I agree with what you're saying about Punk and all of that above, but at the same time I think this whole storyline is in large part failing to draw what it ought to because of the taxing three-hour format. It's just too much. I think if we took a time machine to, say, 2006 and had Raw beginning in late July '06 start going three hours every week, we'd see even DX at the top impacted negatively by the format. It's the only cogent explanation for why Cena's drawing ability with viewers appears to be at an all-time low, in conjunction with no angle or personality who's regularly featured (Triple H deserves an immense level of credit for that showing from the Raw the night after Summerslam in the 10:00pm slot but he's a special attraction legend, no longer a star ala Cena or Punk or Sheamus or Miz or whoever who has to be in the trenches every week).

The third hour has become poison in terms of building a solid rating and viewership number throughout the program (lol, "program"... with the overrun the typical Raw clocks in at about ten minutes shorter than fucking Schindler's List, and with about 10,000x the padding, filler and overall puerile crappiness that Schindler's List is free of) unless they have something truly magnificent lined up like for Raw 1,000 or something that at least approaches that magnitude in terms of name and star value. It's just too damned long. It's not like the late '90s when Nitro went to three hours because now every other wrestling fan seems to giddily check it all out on YouTube the next morning or next day or next week or whenever instead, or they're recording it or whatever. I'm not trying to give them any excuses, that's not in my interest, but it figures that bloating the program to three hours is only going to hasten this already-existing phenomenon. Simply put, Raw at three hours loses the last shreds of "must-see TV" it still boasted as the premiere professional wrestling program on cable television.

Every year in late September there seems to be a nadir they reach, and sometimes it extends into the first week of October or so, so I don't know how much this is a simple rehashing of that phenomenon (a mixture or perfect storm if you will with MNF back, new fall shows back, kids going back to school and a billion other slight, minor factors to perhaps be considered or not considered). That Cena with his busted arm can't attract more fans to the product at that point in time than that speaks volumes of how much this whole current format is ostensibly preventing them from hitting any high notes in the final hour or even overrun, week after week now. Fans have caught on to the early hour at eight, but the third hour has paid a heavy price for that, it would seem.
__________________
DesolationRow is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 04:58 AM   #6214 (permalink)
Proud Coiner of Dub's Vituperative Moniker, He of the Duplicitous Mien
 
DesolationRow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: My own version of Frank Zappa's log cabin
Posts: 11,980
DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandrone View Post
Punk losing viewers gets brushed under the rug? What alternate universe do you live in, Starbuck?

I don't disagree with your post. This doesn't prove Punk is a "draw", but certainly it proves that he's not an anti-draw which so many spout ridiculously. Punk's incredibly inconsistent, but he can draw big, arguably bigger than anyone else on the roster when put with a big draw (besides another big draw). When he's not with a big draw though, it's split with whether he draws well or not.

Actually, that intrigues me a bit. A few weeks ago I got together all the breakdowns up to that point from this year and saved them. What I'm gonna do for the fuck of it, is gather all the Punk segments where he wasn't with a proven draw (which at this point in WWE I'm only considering Cena, HHH, Rock, Undertaker, Lesnar and maybe Foley... though he's a legend I'm not sure how big of a draw he actually is in this day and age. I'd need to check his segments in breakdowns to see that for myself). I'll have to wait until Friday or Saturday to do it since that's where my laptop is, so if anyone else wants to beat me to it, feel free. I'm interested myself in seeing if he really has never drawn well with a proven draw. The one I was thinking of at first was the Punk "shoot" on Laurinaitis in January a couple of weeks before the Rumble, but then I remembered Foley was there at the end of it and was there for a good enough time where he'd have brought in viewers if he was going to.

But hell, Laurinaitis could be considered a proven draw as well when he was an authority figure because of just that... he was an authority figure.

Then again, today in WWE what really draws exceptionally isn't an individual wrestler, but a great storyline.
Your experiment sounds fascinating, but I think you may be missing Starbuck's point, which is, point of fact, Punk by himself is not a draw. Even at his hottest like in the summertime of 2011, he was paired with John Cena, Vince McMahon and Triple H. Although he has drawn well otherwise against guys like Daniel Bryan, Chris Jericho and if memory serves even Alberto Del Rio in one or two segments in the past, he's wildly inconsistent. He'll never get an ounce of credit for, say, the overrun to Raw 1,000 even though he was the central focus, because Cena and Rock were out there with him. So until he can hold his own by himself on a consistent basis in segments that are focused either solely or at least dominantly around him, and draw and make programs against lesser names bigger by simply being present in them, it's questionable how much of a "draw" he really is.

Of course, I think WWE's entire approach to this has been wrongheaded in the extreme. They had John Cena tell the world and CM Punk to his face that his 300+ day WWE Championship reign was completely irrelevant. WWE is determined to have Punk be the heel. But the problem is, to ensure that he draws heat, they have to strip anything that is even remotely noble or even arguably "cool" about him away from him, reducing him to a whiny, sniveling bitch who's upset because nobody gives a damn about his irrelevant ass. I mean... let's face it, that is not the best way to make someone out to be a star that people should flock to see and wait to watch any time they show up on television. The whole way they've gone about this angle has actually damaged both Cena and Punk, because Punk is an irrelevant WWE Champion only relevant now because Cena has him in his crosshairs, but the audience has been so thoroughly conditioned into not only accepting but anticipating Cena's inevitable victory over all, that how dramatic can a face-off be between the all-powerful Superman and Mr. Irrelevancy?

How any of this is a basis for a feud that culminates inside Hell in a Cell is beyond me. At this point, I think I'd rather see Punk feud with Mick Foley than anything else, based on this past week's Raw. That's sad.
__________________
DesolationRow is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 04:59 AM   #6215 (permalink)
Best For Business
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,555
Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

^^^^ Yup. I said that sometime this week, that the way they've gone about presenting Punk to us for the past 9 months or so, the damage that was done during that time, well, we may be seeing now that the results are unfixable so to speak. They can't promote somebody as second or third best for 9 months and then expect people to believe he's the shit in month 10. It doesn't work like that and in a way, that bit really isn't his fault is it?

Quote:
Originally Posted by The Sandrone View Post
Punk losing viewers gets brushed under the rug? What alternate universe do you live in, Starbuck?

I don't disagree with your post. This doesn't prove Punk is a "draw", but certainly it proves that he's not an anti-draw which so many spout ridiculously. Punk's incredibly inconsistent, but he can draw big, arguably bigger than anyone else on the roster when put with a big draw (besides another big draw). When he's not with a big draw though, it's split with whether he draws well or not.

Actually, that intrigues me a bit. A few weeks ago I got together all the breakdowns up to that point from this year and saved them. What I'm gonna do for the fuck of it, is gather all the Punk segments where he wasn't with a proven draw (which at this point in WWE I'm only considering Cena, HHH, Rock, Undertaker, Lesnar and maybe Foley... though he's a legend I'm not sure how big of a draw he actually is in this day and age. I'd need to check his segments in breakdowns to see that for myself). I'll have to wait until Friday or Saturday to do it since that's where my laptop is, so if anyone else wants to beat me to it, feel free. I'm interested myself in seeing if he really has never drawn well with a proven draw. The one I was thinking of at first was the Punk "shoot" on Laurinaitis in January a couple of weeks before the Rumble, but then I remembered Foley was there at the end of it and was there for a good enough time where he'd have brought in viewers if he was going to.

But hell, Laurinaitis could be considered a proven draw as well when he was an authority figure because of just that... he was an authority figure.

Then again, today in WWE what really draws exceptionally isn't an individual wrestler, but a great storyline.
By his marks. I'd love to live in a alternate universe where double standards and hypocrisy didn't exist but what fun would that be? I'm pretty sure that when Punk's segments bomb there are no Punk marks to be found in this thread yet if they don't there'll all here proclaiming him as some super draw and having a go at Randy Orton lol.

Did you even read that before you posted it? You basically said Punk can draw when he's with somebody else who draws better than him and if not then he can't lol. What point are you trying to make?

I don't even know why you would want to do all that tbh. Why waste your time? You just said the only people you consider to be draws in WWE right now are Rock, Cena, HHH, Lesnar and Taker. If you want to call Punk a draw then you're putting him up there with these guys and he isn't. It's as simple as that. But hey, if you want to trawl through a bazillion breakdowns to make yourself feel better about Punk's drawing ability then be my guest lol. It still won't prove anything. He isn't consistent, the times he has done really well he's been paired with a bigger name and he has flat out bombed in a few instances too which doesn't help his case. A few months back I remember calling Punk a semi-draw but I'm starting to take that back now tbh. I understand that there is more to consider than just 1 guy and of course, the 3 hour shows aren't helping thing but sooner or later you have to wonder just what it's going to take. I suppose they have one last shot with Rocky heading into the Rumble and if that doesn't work then I really don't know.

@Deso - You are right about the new format and I touched upon that above. The thing is though, this is the way it is now. At the beginning we didn't know how things were going to turn out but by this stage we've been able to establish some patterns etc. This is what Raw is and this is the format in which they have to build their stars now. So far it most certainly isn't working because week after week the losses are coming and coming, especially in the third hour which really is killing them. But when even your main program involving Mr WWE himself John Cena and your invigorated WWE Champion can't pull back the viewers then you're in trouble. HHH is one example but I'm curious to see how other big names will perform when we get them on the show in the coming months. I guess that's the only way we'll be able to know for sure, if it's truly the 3 hour format or if it's the current talent/direction/creative/whatever. If Triple H can still manage to get over 5 million people to watch him then I reckon Rock will be able to best that. If so then what does that tell us? It is still possible but only with the right people.
__________________

~Nemesis~

Last edited by Starbuck : 09-27-2012 at 05:02 AM.
Starbuck is online now  
Old 09-27-2012, 05:21 AM   #6216 (permalink)
Proud Coiner of Dub's Vituperative Moniker, He of the Duplicitous Mien
 
DesolationRow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: My own version of Frank Zappa's log cabin
Posts: 11,980
DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000DesolationRow 14501 - 15000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Well, that is what I'm getting at with my point about the three hours being too much, Starbuck. If even Cena has seen his drawing superpowers diminished by this format, then anyone who's not a legendary part-timer who the audience can't get burned out on simply because they're so seldom around (Triple H, Lesnar, Rock, Taker) is probably going to suffer. Now the part-timers like those aforementioned four gentlemen are the "special events"; and this line of thinking is hugely reinforced by the move to three hours, because like I say, it has, simply put, reduced the emphasis on WWE's Monday Night Raw as being "must-see television" for wrestling fans, and of course casuals are the first ones to become... more... casual... in their viewing habits. It's probably going to take a Triple H or an Undertaker or a Rock showing up for a 10:00pm segment or an overrun segment to truly compel most audience members and the vast majority of casuals to either stay around in the first place throughout the run of a program or at least to tune in for them.

It's a phenomenon that is somewhat difficult to fully explain, but it does remind me of of the WCW Nitro situation when they moved to three hours. Although to be perfectly fair, one thing TNT did was replay Nitro right after Nitro finished airing, and at least USA isn't doing that with Raw. It should also be noted that WCW started up the Goldberg push in the weeks following the move to three hours, and Ryback's push on Raw sort of fits in that general timeline with WWE's move to three hours on Monday nights.
__________________
DesolationRow is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 05:45 AM   #6217 (permalink)
Best For Business
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 19,555
Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000Starbuck 26501 - 27000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Cena's powers have been diminishing long before the 3 hours though. And while he isn't as dominating as he used to be, he still manages to pop very impressive numbers now and again. The match vs. Big Show a while back being one of them iirc. I just wonder how they will be able to NOT burn people out on particular guys with a weekly 3 hour show. They sort of did it this week with Cena only appearing for 15 mins at the end but if they do that every week will that result in more people tuning in to see him when he's on because they miss him or more people tuning out because he's not there lol? I really don't know what they can do. If you have 3 hours of TV to fill every week, it's most definitely going to be harder to keep guys fresh and intriguing because people will get burnt out a lot quicker. One has to wonder if they can truly create must see TV given the length of the show and the current environment for wrestling right now. We haven't seen somebody come along who has truly captivated the masses to the point where they tune in no matter when they appear or how many times. I wonder if it's still possible tbh. They haven't made things any easier on themselves by switching to 3 hours that's for sure.
__________________

~Nemesis~
Starbuck is online now  
Old 09-27-2012, 06:02 AM   #6218 (permalink)
In Jericho, we trust
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: g'day
Posts: 2,060
-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000-Skullbone- 2501 - 3000
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

It seems the general consensus found between Starbuck and DesolationRow's posts is shared by the majority of viewers, posters here and likely management themselves:

3 hours is too long to sit through.

One positive that may emerge, however, is how this unflattering format may urge the big boss and his cronies to step up their creative game for the product and for their network's benefit. They have to fight to get people to stay tuned in this time around instead of resting back on their laurels, hands on heads and chortling amongst themselves about those schmucks stuck in TNA .
-Skullbone- is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 06:06 AM   #6219 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Posts: 773
Hazaq 251 - 500Hazaq 251 - 500Hazaq 251 - 500
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

I think the only effective way to prove punk is a draw to the internet fans is with PPV buys. Ratings are not going to help in that case, even if he can draw over million viewers at top of the hour or overrun occasionally, its gonna get dismissed as a one night deal and forgotten because thats how the Internet Community operates. But if he can manage to show strong PPV numbers main eventing with a lesser star, it can be factually proved that he is a draw. Just my opinion on the matter.
Hazaq is offline  
Old 09-27-2012, 06:20 AM   #6220 (permalink)
Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
 
Grass420's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 357
Grass420 101 - 250Grass420 101 - 250
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

so looking at the break downs..

i wonder if the CM Punk haters will stfu now lol.

CM Punk is the only thing that gained viewers
Grass420 is offline  
Closed Thread



Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


VerticalSports
Baseball Forum Golf Forum Boxing Forum Snowmobile Forum
Basketball Forum Soccer Forum MMA Forum PWC Forum
Football Forum Cricket Forum Wrestling Forum ATV Forum
Hockey Forum Volleyball Forum Paintball Forum Snowboarding Forum
Tennis Forum Rugby Forums Lacrosse Forum Skiing Forums
Copyright (C) Verticalscope Inc Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2
Powered by vBulletin Copyright 2000-2009 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
vBCredits v1.4 Copyright ©2007, PixelFX Studios