[kokepepsi]

Originally Posted by Tnmore

^^^



Punk and the title is the entire focus of Monday night RAW and the overall viewership is the least since 1997. He is the main event storyline, Do you not get it?


GillbergReturns explained it ten pages before,







He's not interesting enough for the casuals. They dont want him to as the top guy, he is over-pushed, over-exposed, extremely forced, glorified mid-card act and the result is lowest viewership in 15 years.

And you don't get that the show is made up of more than 3 segments apart from the Overrun, 10pm and now 9pm segments. How is punk to blame when every single of these segments loses viewers. ALL OF THEM.

For him to make an impact he would need to gain 1million on average every week. He can't do that, NO ONE CAN.

BTW
HHH,Cena,Vince,Jericho,Rock have all lost viewers on the Overrun

[Gamblor]

KO Bossy, bringing logic to this thread as usual. It's really very simple to understand. No matter how well someone who's a draw does for a segment in the breakdown (and I'm not saying Punk is/isn't a draw, just to make that point as it's irrelevant whether he draws or not), as long as WWE puts out shit like what KO Bossy described, people will tune out in droves and the average for Raw will decrease severely. Now if it was Cena/Taker/HHH out there in those times besides Punk, would that segment do a lot better? Would the overall number be that much better? Let's just use this as an example:

Q1: 4,000,000
Q2: 3,600,000
Q3: 3,300,000
Q4: 3,100,000
Q5: 3,800,000
Q6: 3,600,000
Q7: 3,300,000
Q8: 3,000,000
Q9: 3,400,000
Q10: 3,300,000
Q11: 3,100,000
Q12: 2,900,000
Overrun: 4,100,000

Let's pretend for a second that is a Raw breakdown (realistic or unrealistic is irrelevant). The average viewership number for that is 3,423,000 (rounded). Now let's say HHH was there, and was in Q5 and the OR. Let's say Q5 and the overrun did 500,000 more than it did in that breakdown (which is more than it'd probably be anyway, but let's just keep it rolling). The average rating, despite those vastly increased numbers only goes up to 3,500,000. Let's even say HHH did a million better in each segment than Punk would. The average would be about 3,576,000, only 150,000 more than Punk. Now granted this isn't factoring in advertising for HHH, which would cause more people to tune in initially, but that is a whole other thing. This is assuming that they appear on the fly for a 15 minute segment, which is what's the case with Punk most of the time anyway. But even if they did advertise HHH for the show, it would just cause more people to watch his segment, but not necessarily the rest of the show, which is still the problem.

Hopefully that clears it up for some people. Even if Punk is 2-3 of the major key points, it's not like anyone else, even those who are draws, would be able to impact the show's overall rating that much if they were in his place. What makes this especially true is WWE is predictable, even I'm sure the casuals notice bigger things happen at the start of the show, at the turn of the hours and at the end of the show, so they'd know to only tune in at those points anyway.

KO Bossy's point (at least from what I got) wasn't that Punk is some super draw, just that he's not responsible for the show's decline solely. It's the filler crap that people will tune out during, not Punk (most of the time).

[JY57]

why do people like blaming a certain star or whatever? How about blaming the product in general.

[Dopesick]

Oh boy, Tnmore does it again.

[Wrestlinfan35]

Originally Posted by Tnmore

Nope. You still dont get it.

Main event storyline in key segments is always going to gain viewers.



Yes he is.

Dear God it's painful to read your posts.

KO Bossy at it again. With some actual logic and sense. And in the ratings thread, who woulda thunk it?

[KO Bossy]

Originally Posted by Tnmore

He's not interesting enough for the casuals. They dont want him to as the top guy, he is over-pushed, over-exposed, extremely forced, glorified mid-card act and the result is lowest viewership in 15 years.

This is ALL your opinion. Every single thing you said. They don't want him as top guy? No, you don't. Over pushed? You believe he is. Over exposed? Your opinion. Glorified mid card act? Your 2 cents.

You speak about Punk like we were getting ratings of 5.0 and 6.0 before and now we've taken this dive into the gutter. The ratings have been hovering around this point for a LONG time now. We're talking about a very slight dip compared to how the ratings looked like before and as it happened, it led to the lowest viewership in 15 years. Now you're acting like this is the worst thing ever. In reality, this is only a minor loss because the program itself has been doing extremely poorly in general, barely floating above this dreaded line you've created.

[Starbuck]

I think the point Tnmore is trying to make is that the main event feud is the main feature and focus of the show and it therefore props everything else around it up. When your main program isn't doing the business then naturally, everything else is going to blow chunks. The vast majority of people don't tune in to see the midcard acts because they're just that, midcard acts. People tune in for the 'main event' of the show with all the other feuds seen as sort of, extras I suppose and that's especially true in today's WWE where the main event is the only thing that gets any progression week to week if even. The main event program gets the major timeslots on the show in order to give Raw as a whole a chance to make better gains and get a better overall rating. More people tend to be watching at the start, at 9pm, at 10pm and at the end so segments are strategically placed to maximize viewership. The stronger the main event program and the people in it, the stronger the rating. The weaker the main event program and the people in it, the weaker the rating. That's why a lot of times we see breakdowns and overall ratings only to find out that a certain segment propped up a particular hour and impacted upon the show rating overall. Of course, it takes 2 people to have a feud and right now Punk isn't feuding with anybody. However, when Cena was around, their segments were still sucking and dropping every week anyways. People have been tuning out of the midcard acts for years now but now more so than ever. The difference is, more people were watching the main event program, whatever it happened to be, so the overalls weren't that bad. Now, less people are tuning in to even watch the main feud in the company so how can the 'extras' or midcard acts be expected to do any better?

Regardless of whether it involves Punk or not, when the main feud/segment on the show peaks at 4.2 million viewers (which it did last week iirc) then you have a serious problem. I just don't get how anybody can then go and claim that that makes whoever a draw. It doesn't. Overall viewership is at its highest when there is more than 1 thing to tune in for. When there isn't and there is only 1 main feud, that takes the responsibility of propping up the rest of the show as the central and focal point of that show. If that feud is failing to produce the goods then the rest is almost doomed to fail. If people aren't even bothering to tune in to watch John Cena or CM Punk feud over the WWE title, why in the hell are they going to bother tuning in for Kofi Kingston or Tyson Kidd in a match that means absolutely nothing?

[Cack_Thu]

TV : Punk cant draw a fly to shit.
PPV : Punk cant draw shit to a fly.

Inference: Punk cant draw shit or a fly

#hipstermode

[Mister Hands]

But it's also a little more complex than that, Starbuck, because now the main event is charged with propping up a whole extra hour of the meaningless stuff. Punk's position comes with a good deal of responsibility, sure, but considering how Cena-hobbled his run at the top has been, the general lack of interest in wrestling (outside of Brock/Rock/last year's shoot), and the near-complete creative bankruptcy of a WWE that's never had more TV exposure, it's also a position that'd be fairly untenable for all but the most bulletproof of draws.

[Starbuck]

Originally Posted by Mister Hands

But it's also a little more complex than that, Starbuck, because now the main event is charged with propping up a whole extra hour of the meaningless stuff. Punk's position comes with a good deal of responsibility, sure, but considering how Cena-hobbled his run at the top has been, the general lack of interest in wrestling (outside of Brock/Rock/last year's shoot), and the near-complete creative bankruptcy in WWE, it's also a position that'd be fairly untenable for all but the most bulletproof of draws.

No doubt the 3 hours aren't helping matters but not a single hour of Raw this week even reached 4 million viewers which has become the benchmark for the regular viewership in recent times. We have seen a pattern of people tuning in and then leaving in the third hour but they aren't even doing that anymore. The standard 2 hours of Raw this week still only amounted to a 2.5 overall. And I'm not even discussing Punk here. He just happens to be the guy in the centre of the storm because he's the champion, he's the focus of the show and he's getting the most airtime. Whether it's him in this position or not, the fact still remains and regardless of the extra stress the third hour brings, when the main program on the show isn't pulling in the viewers then you're already beat. That encompasses Punk, Cena and creative as a whole. Raw can't even sustain it's regular weekly viewers now. That's a pretty serious problem.