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

KO Bossy · 10-03-2012, 07:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnmore

The hook for the show was from last week and he was the focus of the show. And No, AJ was not the focus of this week's show, punk was/still is, he was part of all the key quarters, he is the main event storyline. That is a pathetic excuse, blaming a diva AJ.

Your memory must suck because 3 months ago AJ was positioned as being ABOVE the WWE title, champion and #1 contender...

In fact, the hook from last week was Ryback, since he was the last one we saw on the show...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnmore

LOWEST IN 15 F*CKING YEARS? Can you even read?

Your denial is seriously amusing.

Lowest in 15 years. 2.7 rating. Down from the usual 3.0 we see weekly. What does that translate into, a loss of half a ratings point or something? Do you know how many viewers tuning out it takes to go from a 3.0 to 2.7? Hardly anything, its a minor drop in viewers. Couple hundred thousand.

Now the way you explain it, WWE has been consistently doing Attitude type ratings and Punk came in and lowered them to a 2.7. Were that the case, I'd be the first person to admit he killed them. However, that's a hypothetical situation. In reality, Punk being the main focus really hasn't lost that many viewers compared to what they had before. Thus, the lowest rating in 15 years argument really doesn't hold very much merit anymore.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tnmore

Yes he is. He cant draw as champion, as the focus of the show and he should take the blame. If mid card is responsible for ratings/viewership, drop or increase, then why is this guy the WWE champion?

So let me get this straight...

Steve Austin brings in a million viewers per segment he's in. Then, in between the segments, all the viewers he gained are lost by the Oddities, Al Snow, Hardcore Holly and Bart Gunn, all midcard guys. However, their colossal losses aren't their fault, its Steve Austin's fault for not bringing in more viewers to pad the ratings drain that these other guys are. Thus, since Steve Austin is WWF champion and the top guy in the company, he's the one to blame for the shortcomings of others.

Now, replace Steve Austin with CM Punk and the midcard guys of Attitude with midcard guys of today. This is the logic you're trying to push. If you seriously believe this, then I truly pity you because sorry to say, and I mean no offense when I say this, but your brain does not function properly.

**Starbuck** · 10-03-2012, 07:19 PM

at show topping 2.89 quarter. They just worded it funny lol. Nothing surprising here except Santino/Slater. DAT ONE MAN BAND. Show basically died after the whole Punk/JR/Ryback thing. ADR/Kofi probably didn't even have 3 million people watching it lol. That's insane. What's even more insane is that 1 half of this match contained a former Royal Rumble winner and 2 time WWE champ. Absolutely fucking ridiculous stat. Horrific overrun again. Just a horrible breakdown across the board.

KO Bossy · 10-03-2012, 07:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Falkono

Starbuck hit the nail on the head.

Naturally the Punk defenders will defend their king but logically look at it like this. After having pretty much three months of being the main focus and having the most air time is it a good sign that the ending is down a lot on the other hours? Change Punks name to wrestler x and think about it that way. If you invested nearly a year with wrestler x being the champ and at your anniversary show which will be the most viewed in years have him the main ficus by beating up two icons. Would you expect the lowest rating in 15 years? What does it mean?

It means that the main story/angle sucks so bad that people no longer tune in to see it. It means 99% of the guys on the roster nobody gives a shit about. And as much as Punk lovers will try and ignore that includes Punk. The two shows where Cena has not been in this year and Punk was the main guy ratings were terrible.

The overall product stinks and people have had enough. It isn't about the internet or other bullshit like that. Other shows do a lot higher ratings, the internet has not hurt them.
WWE is showing us nothing. There is little in the way of entertainment and 3hrs just drags the shit out even more.
Go back and look at the attitude era. Something interesting would happen every night. Not just at the end but all the way through. Even the jobbers had fun angles going on. Remember Kai Entai doing the indeed thing. Tajiri with Regal. The characters were developed and you gave a shit about them. You had a good tag division with actual tag teams not just putting two random guys together. There were factions and they were unpredictable.

Wwe right now is the master of its own downfall. It decided to go against the audience that made it popular and appeal to kids. It took away the tag division and hardly ever had factions or stables. When they do make someone interesting they ruin it ie Barratt. They make the show about one guy and forget everyone else. The writing is so shit it just doesn't work.

They have to go back to the old formula or they are dead for sure. When even kids no longer find it interesting then you got huge problems.

I agree. You have been one of the few people divert from the "this is 100% Punk's fault" path to conclude that its everything overall that sucks. That's what I was saying a few pages ago. The whole product is trash, and I absolutely agree, part of it is Punk's fault. Nowhere did I say it wasn't. I'm rebutting this asinine argument that its ALL his fault, because its not.

Falkono · 10-03-2012, 07:20 PM

So then Sheamus quarter was higher then Punks main event. Says it all.

**Mister Hands** · 10-03-2012, 07:24 PM

So Punk, JR, Hell No and Ziggler did okay, Punk and JR even topping the show (admittedly not hard) at an awkward time. Santino and Slater gained. Sheamus and Show gained, then Sheamus and Sandow lost. Everyone else lost. Del Rio and Kingston massively so. Let's blame Punk.

KO Bossy · 10-03-2012, 07:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mister Hands

So Punk, JR, Hell No and Ziggler did okay, Punk and JR even topping the show (admittedly not hard) at an awkward time. Santino and Slater gained. Sheamus and Show gained, then Sheamus and Sandow lost. Everyone else lost. Del Rio and Kingston massively so. Let's blame Punk.

Yeah, seems about that way around here, doesn't it?

That Del Rio and Kofi loss is like...inexcusable. Now Del Rio, THERE is a ratings drain.

Kabraxal · 10-03-2012, 07:28 PM

That breakdown is just damning for the show though. You only had a few jumps and only two that you can argue weren't because of the time period... one being baffling with Marella and Slater. But then, when the writing is so disconnected from the fundamental aspects of wrestling, this should come as no surprise.

What is really shocking though is that it's starting to get to the level where we can say TNA is competition... not because they are growing their audience in leaps and bounds, but because the WWE is hemmoraging its audience. It's quite possible that in 5 years the WWE could be on the verge of losing it's cable deal... what is sad though, I don't think any alarm bells are going off in the back that they are doing it wrong. Everything I read they are blaming something else other than horrendous booking for the dismal state of the product.