**The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here) - Page 911 - 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 01-04-2013, 11:41 AM   #9101 (permalink)
Little Poppa Pump
 
roadkill_'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: The WWE Universe
Posts: 2,216
roadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new hereroadkill_ better hope they're relatively new here
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Because it affects the decisions management takes. And some serious decisions need to be taken.
__________________


www.manlymovie.net
roadkill_ is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 

Old 01-04-2013, 12:26 PM   #9102 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Evil Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 991
Evil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by roadkill_ View Post
Because it affects the decisions management takes. And some serious decisions need to be taken.
I don't know if it means that though. Raw being three hours is something that lowers the ratings but it also increases the profit for WWE. Punk gets criticism for not increasing the ratings as a champ but WWE has obviously seen enough value in him to have him champ for over 400 days. That only makes sense if you think that WWE gives out long title reigns just because they are nice. The ratings have constantly been going down for several years and they still aren't making any changes to their biggest star, Cena, either. On the contrary there were reports from Meltzer that Cena and Punk were the only two guys WWE had full confidence in, despite that they aren't changing the downward trend.

So I don't see anything drastic WWE is doing due to the ratings. Bringing in guys like The Rock would have been done anyway. It just looks like WWE is doing their thing without any significant changes, which makes it look like the fans are more panicked about ratings than they are.
Evil Peter is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:06 PM   #9103 (permalink)
Asking SCOTT STEINER for Wrestling Advice
 
SerapisLiber's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Abydos, Egypt
Posts: 362
SerapisLiber needs to take rep more seriousSerapisLiber needs to take rep more seriousSerapisLiber needs to take rep more seriousSerapisLiber needs to take rep more seriousSerapisLiber needs to take rep more seriousSerapisLiber needs to take rep more serious
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Yeah, they value dollar signs over ratings. Sure, they'd love it if ratings were higher, but as long as profits are around the same or even higher, they see no need to change.
SerapisLiber is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 01:48 PM   #9104 (permalink)
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Defei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,471
Defei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Peter View Post
I don't know if it means that though. Raw being three hours is something that lowers the ratings but it also increases the profit for WWE. Punk gets criticism for not increasing the ratings as a champ but WWE has obviously seen enough value in him to have him champ for over 400 days. That only makes sense if you think that WWE gives out long title reigns just because they are nice. The ratings have constantly been going down for several years and they still aren't making any changes to their biggest star, Cena, either. On the contrary there were reports from Meltzer that Cena and Punk were the only two guys WWE had full confidence in, despite that they aren't changing the downward trend.

So I don't see anything drastic WWE is doing due to the ratings. Bringing in guys like The Rock would have been done anyway. It just looks like WWE is doing their thing without any significant changes, which makes it look like the fans are more panicked about ratings than they are.
I thought the only reason Punk is the WWE champion is because the Rock wants the title? Thats what the report said last month.
__________________

Defei is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 02:26 PM   #9105 (permalink)
Getting over in the mid-card
 
bigdog40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Philadelphia
Posts: 6,697
bigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missedbigdog40 probably won't be missed
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by SerapisLiber View Post
Yeah, they value dollar signs over ratings. Sure, they'd love it if ratings were higher, but as long as profits are around the same or even higher, they see no need to change.



The WWE makes far too much money and their product has more than enough distrubition that it doesn't really that much about the ratings as they did back during the monday night war. Before the monday night war, nobody cared what the ratings were and what they met.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by new_guy View Post
People complain about newer talent not getting over, but what they mean is that their favourite isn't getting over, everyone else can go to hell. I'm for as many people getting over as possible, it would improve the show and the more over people there are, the more avenues there are to push new talent, yes, your favourites are more likely to get pushed if there are more over people to feud with.
bigdog40 is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 04:25 PM   #9106 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Evil Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 991
Evil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defei View Post
I thought the only reason Punk is the WWE champion is because the Rock wants the title? Thats what the report said last month.
I can't pretend to know what's going on backstage but Punk doesn't have to be the champ in order for Rock to become champ, Rocky can beat anyone if WWE wanted someone else as champ. From what I've read The Rock wants to wrestle Punk though, and he's set up to face the champ at RR, so that is obviously a factor in that Punk will go into RR as the champ. They could have taken it off him previously during the year and have him gotten it back though, but they chose to give him a record breaking run. I don't think you do that with someone you don't have confidence in, regardless of opponent at RR.
Evil Peter is offline  
Old 01-04-2013, 08:44 PM   #9107 (permalink)
Acknowledged by SCOTT STEINER
 
Defei's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 1,471
Defei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsDefei should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Peter View Post
I can't pretend to know what's going on backstage but Punk doesn't have to be the champ in order for Rock to become champ, Rocky can beat anyone if WWE wanted someone else as champ. From what I've read The Rock wants to wrestle Punk though, and he's set up to face the champ at RR, so that is obviously a factor in that Punk will go into RR as the champ. They could have taken it off him previously during the year and have him gotten it back though, but they chose to give him a record breaking run. I don't think you do that with someone you don't have confidence in, regardless of opponent at RR.
That would weaken the title match. They probably considered taking it off several times but since the Rock wanted the title, and considering the plan for Mania seems to be Rock vs Cena II they let him hold it through till Rumble.
__________________

Defei is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 04:47 AM   #9108 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Evil Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 991
Evil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Defei View Post
That would weaken the title match. They probably considered taking it off several times but since the Rock wanted the title, and considering the plan for Mania seems to be Rock vs Cena II they let him hold it through till Rumble.
It's The Rock coming back, it doesn't really need everything to be perfect in order to attract a ton of attention. We can't know but I don't really buy that wouldn't have taken the title off Punk if they were unhappy with him in that position.
Evil Peter is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 09:51 AM   #9109 (permalink)
Humbled
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 2,098
hardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postshardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postshardysno1fan should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Evil Peter View Post
I don't know if it means that though. Raw being three hours is something that lowers the ratings but it also increases the profit for WWE. Punk gets criticism for not increasing the ratings as a champ but WWE has obviously seen enough value in him to have him champ for over 400 days. That only makes sense if you think that WWE gives out long title reigns just because they are nice. The ratings have constantly been going down for several years and they still aren't making any changes to their biggest star, Cena, either. On the contrary there were reports from Meltzer that Cena and Punk were the only two guys WWE had full confidence in, despite that they aren't changing the downward trend.

So I don't see anything drastic WWE is doing due to the ratings. Bringing in guys like The Rock would have been done anyway. It just looks like WWE is doing their thing without any significant changes, which makes it look like the fans are more panicked about ratings than they are.
Didn't Vince sack the head writer like 3-4 months ago stating he wanted results or resignations? I'm sure the ratings are a concern. Its true profit is the bottom line but reduced popularity is never a good thing. Lets say Final Fantasy produces yet another crap game and it gets torn to pieces by critics. It still makes a ton of money but the producers have to worry about the next in the series. How many ppl do you know who aren't embarassed to admit they like WWE? How many ppl do you know who know it has changed from WWF? The decline of popularity is a long term concern.
hardysno1fan is offline  
Old 01-05-2013, 10:19 AM   #9110 (permalink)
Getting ignored by SCOTT STEINER
 
Evil Peter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 991
Evil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 postsEvil Peter should be embarassed if they have more than 50 posts
Default Re: **The Official Raw Ratings Thread** (Discuss Ratings In Here)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hardysno1fan View Post
Didn't Vince sack the head writer like 3-4 months ago stating he wanted results or resignations? I'm sure the ratings are a concern. Its true profit is the bottom line but reduced popularity is never a good thing. Lets say Final Fantasy produces yet another crap game and it gets torn to pieces by critics. It still makes a ton of money but the producers have to worry about the next in the series. How many ppl do you know who aren't embarassed to admit they like WWE? How many ppl do you know who know it has changed from WWF? The decline of popularity is a long term concern.
Yes, that's the only real change I've seen them do. They did that, but obviously never took the strap off Punk when they were looking for reasons for the decline, which again says something about how WWE views Punk (which is different than what his haters so desperately try to make it look like). Lower ratings are of course never something positive, even though it doesn't affect the company's earnings much at the moment. It will be more relevant the next time they are renegotiating their TV deal, but of course they are also earning more money with three hours despite that everyone knows that it lowers the overall ratings.

As for people I know that are embarrassed to say they like WWE, there's no one. That has little to do with WWE itself though and more that the people I know aren't afraid of what other people might think. Then again it's always been uncool to watch wrestling in Sweden, regardless if it's the current era, the Attitude era or something else, so no matter how it is now it won't be much of a comment on WWE's current state.
Evil Peter 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