[Gunner14]

Its true its worse in the TNA section Like who cares if less people are watching wrestling i only care about if 1 person enjoyed the show and thats me. If i like something in a show i couldnt careless about the rest of you. I dont watch wrestling thinking god i hope the guys on wrestleforum are enjoying this...

[The-Rock-Says]

Shaking hand held camera.....trying to a do joker.

[@MrDrewFoley]

It's been ingrained in wrestling fans since then that ratings are all that matter. Apparently it's not wrestling or entertaining, it's how many people happen to be watching the channel (or just have the channel on), and who happen to have a nielson(sp?) box. It's incredibly subjective and hardly indicative of anything. Over here they used to do samples audiences of 5000 people or so and multiply the results for the country. That's how television ratings were done. I still find it hard to believe that 20 million people used to watch Coronation Street. That's nearly a third of the fucking country.

It's also enforced by shoot interviews where old bitter wrestlers complain that they could "draw" and others couldn't. Plus, people listen to Kevin Nash far too much.

I personally could produce a tiny enough shit to give.

What I find funny is that people complain that the booking is erratic. If the WWE booked everything based on the previous weeks ratings then Christ knows what would be going on. Imagine Cole going "Last week Kofi Kingston defended his intercontinental championship, however, during his entrance, 40 people switched over. Therefore, he's been stripped of his title and a new match made between The Great Khali and Hornswoggle after they drew the highest segment of the first hour"

[roadkill_]

The product is shit. The Shield is shit. CM Punk is shit. People look to ratings because that's the only thing that makes McMahon change his mind. WCW was bought for pocket change because it lost it's TV deal after repeatedly pushing 2.0's shows and not listening to fans - and that was with competition! WWE is pushing 2.0's - and not listening to fans, with no competition.

Fucking PG-Era/Punk marks. I bet the OP only started watching wrestling 2 years ago.

[Cliffy Byro]

And that's why i love roadkill_..

[RVP_The_Gunner]

The ratings debates on here especially are f*cking manic. Biggest example i can give is C.......M....PUNK, haters of punk will say "well he can't draw and the ratings are his fault" and punk lovers will say "it's not his fault, its the writers/ WWE creatives fault", people will put their own spin on it to suit themselves. What nobody can deny or mess with is the fact the Mark Henry is an absolute boss, all about dem ratings for the man that brought us the hall of pain.

[dgeneration-nexus]

I don't understand why ratings matter as much in 2012 as they did in 1990. Maybe I'm been a bit stupid.

Whenever I see people talking about Raw's ratings, they rarely take into consideration the DVR numbers. It comes up a lot when I listen to the PWTorch live cast, Wade Keller will spend 10 minutes talking about falling ratings and that the third hour is killing Raw. Now in principle I agree that three hours is too long, but the sake of a ratings discussion could it not just be that more people are either:

A) Recording Raw to watch later so they can skip through the adverts and replays,
B) People are watching the first two hours, deciding they've had enough and recording the third hour for later.

Why does Vince care how or when people are watching the show as long as eyeballs are on it? PPV buy rates are still fairly consistent with last year despite the extra hour on Raw and the introduction of Main Event, so people are still watching enough of the product to want to pay for the PPVs. And in the case of buy rates, in 2012 couldn't it just be that more people can't afford the prices and are watching on streams?

Genuine question, I'm not trying to argue with anyone, I just don't understand why live ratings are a big deal.

[ChickMagnet12]

Nielsen ratings aren't accurate anyways (a 1.0 rating is about 1% of the 100m+ tv watching households) and this has been proven before as not everyone has a Nielsen box (Breaking bad is apparently suffering in ratings too). Add into the fact that the majority of Punk's fans are old enough to work the internet and probably download the show rather than sit through 3 hours.

I just think it's a (very successful) troll on the fanatic Punk marks. I'm a fan of the guy myself but the lengths people go to protect his name on a forum like this is quite amusing.

[swagger_ROCKS]

Originally Posted by The-Rock-Says

Shaking hand held camera.....trying to a do joker.

Hopefully Ambrose tones his character down a bit, or it might might not be received quite well by the WWE universe. But I think he has, because I remember watching DB vs Ambrose at a live event on youtube, and the dude recording the show didn't really understand his character the way it was being portrayed in the ring so they pretty much laughed at him. Dean is a pretty deep character, and I guess it just depends on how people take it in.

[nevereveragainu]

Originally Posted by RVP_The_Gunner

What nobody can deny or mess with is the fact the Mark Henry is an absolute boss, all about dem ratings for the man that brought us the hall of pain.

until Mark brings thenumbers back to those of times gone by that statement is a bust, just like Marks career as a whole