Thread Tools

kingfunkel · 10-02-2012, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn Morrison

OH yeah, lets totally complain about an awesome heel who puts on gold promos every week, while being the WWE Champion with a really long reign. Is there anything wrong with him getting spotlight? oh and Raw IS Cm Punk and i hope it stays this way.

"We need longer, lengthier championship reigns"

"The champion should be the centre of attention"

The WWE fans get what they want, then complain when they get what they wanted. WWE can't win no matter what they do. If they listen everybody complains, if they ignore the fans....they still complain.

What entertains 1 person, bores another fan. How can you win?

**YoungGun_UK** · 10-02-2012, 11:41 AM

...and because of that Raw is watchable. He's the best thing they've got and rightly fills up most of the time, the show is so fucked without him and Cena it's hilarious.

The problem also is that with the new schedule for 5-6 Legends it feels like the show is just filler until they return to participate, casuals could quite easily tune out right now safe in the knowledge that nothing really important is going to happen till Survivor Series or the build to Royal Rumble.

**greendayedgehead** · 10-02-2012, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pagi

When did Raw turn into the CM Punk show? This is not a hate thread, just an observation. This guy is getting a TON of airtime. He is easily the #2 guy in the company right now in the eyes of the Fed.

Far, far too late. This should have been happening months ago, but I'm glad it's happening at all.

You know they've booked him bad when I asked a casual fan a couple of days ago "who is the current WWE champion" and they say, John Cena. It's the fact that they said it with so much certainty that made me laugh, but it's seriously telling of how they'd been booking the show the past 300 days or so. I hope this isn't just because Cena is out with an injury, because this is what RAW should have been like every week since after Extreme Rules and before the RTWM.

**Hamada** · 10-02-2012, 03:18 PM

Punk makes RAW just about watchable. People complaining about Punk and AJ getting too much airtime? Didn't people want Punk and AJ to be a heel couple not so long ago?

WWCturbo · 10-02-2012, 03:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Happenstan

If given half the push Punk has gotten the past year:

Daniel Bryan
Dolph Ziggler
Damien Sandow

Hell even THE Ryback would draw more than that tattooed sellout if given his push.

I agree (except for Sandow maybe). DB and Ryback would definitely be a bigger drawing power.

Cack_Thu · 10-02-2012, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by THANOS

Your do know that WWE makes most of their money these days off merchandise right?

And I will tell you why ratings don't phase them too much in today's wwe, because you obviously don't understand. The answer is YOUTUBE, Hulu, and all other engines on the internet that can be used in this technology age to view segments you want to see.

There is a reason wwe has a youtube channel and had every other channel blocked from posting their videos, and its because the sheer amount of money they bring in on every "hit" their videos get. Guess which guys generally have the most youtube hits for their segments on youtube? If you haven't guessed yet, its Punk and Bryan, with Cena just behind them.

So yes ratings from a Neilson Box that doesn't even encompass a huge percentage of their fanbase since most boxes are in the southern states (casual hotbeds), isn't taken as seriously by the wwe these days as it was in the attitude era. There are other tools just as relevant to the wwe when evaluating drawing ability.

?????????????

Why do you,Evil Peter and co.insist on passing off your personal opinion as "Did You Know" Facts?Get a clue.

Year 2012.First quarter.
Merchandise,other sales(licensed) accounted for 29% of WWE's revenue.YOUTUBE and other digital media accounted for a mere 6% .Yes, ONLY 6% .TV and PPV events however hog 61% of their total revenue.What does it infer?

PPV/TV Ads,Sponsors,Investors are majorly responsible for keeping the WWE brand afloat and NOT the IWC hipsters who watch Punk,Bryan's videos on Youtube - each day,every hour. WWE is heavily dependent on TV,PPV but you just stated the contrary.

Check.Verify.
http://corporate.wwe.com/company/financials.jsp

Bork Laser main evented SummerSlam. Result = Best Summerslam buy since 2008

The Great One main evented Wrestlemania 28 . Result = Creates History.

Despite the availability of secondary means such as live streams,Youtube for viewing TV,PPVs events,people are willing to spend money to watch Bork,Guan Sena,HHH,Big Shoe,The Rock Live on PPV .Ratings increase when the said stars make their presence on TV.

On the other hand people would rather see guys like Doll Jiggler,Punk,Bryan on Youtube than on TV.That's probably why people switch off their TV or change channels when their segments are shown.
Youtube = 6% revenue .

Guys like Punk,Jiggler,Bryan compete for the 61% revenue pie every week .Sadly the net total revenue is dwindling each year.No profit .Low rating implies less revenue from Ads,sponsers .WCW eventually shut down its business 'cause ultimately they couldnt sustain themselves.

Again ,from the bigger picture i.e from a business(revenue) standpoint, TV rating means everything for WWE (and wrestlers), contrary to what you've stated .

High ratings = More people are watching = Entertainment = Good revenue for WWE

Phil and his sloppy whinny ass = Low ratings

@Pro_Royka

If i could explain in PG terms this is how it goes.
RAW these days is like a plain Plumcake(for good reasons).Cena/Show represent the choco toppings over it - main attraction for viewers .Punk represents other goodies in plumcakes.Every Monday Night Raw people check-in searching for chocolates but alas they dont find it hence many people go away.Few people settle for goodies like punk and thus he gains comparatively higher ratings than rest of the roster.The moot point here is that each week the consumption of WWE's cake is getting less and punk is unable to convert himself into chocolate to attract many viewers .To make matters worse people are getting fed-up with just goodies and the absence of chocolate toppings in plumcake

#1Peep4ever · 10-02-2012, 04:04 PM

i have no problem with that tbh

Evil Peter · 10-02-2012, 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cack_Thu

McDonald analogy is flawed.Rating means everything to WWE whether you disagree or no-sell.That is why Vinnie Mac once upon a time was a billionaire.

Raw as a whole is a product manufactured by WWE.Guys like Punk,Guan Sena,Big Show,Hulk Hogan,The Rock are its commodities.TV ratings indicate the marketability of WWE's product.If nobody buys the commodity then your product is doomed to fail.If your product fails then eventually TV Co. will look for alternative products that have marketability.It is all about revenue and revenue sharing.

Essentially ,Attitude ERA was all about ratings,no?Who lost the ratings war and had to close business?

Ratings = Entertainment! CM Phil = Low ratings

That is why i used the ROH,indy company reference in my previous post.Once again, it's World Wrestling Entertainment and NOT Ring of Honor,right?

Ratings doesn't mean everything, since that would logically mean that merchandise sales, PPV sales etc mean nothing.

And my analogy works. McDonald's makes money through trying appeal to the large masses. If they started only selling quality food (of course that's a more objective thing than a quality wrestler, but it's not hard to understand the point) they wouldn't have as many customers, but why would I care if I'm a person that cares about quality food? There are other restaurants that stay alive with far less turn-over so McDonald's wouldn't go bankrupt either. The same goes for WWE, who certainly aren't anywhere close to going out of business. Ergo I don't have to worry about that.

Ratings mean absolutely nothing to me as a viewer, especially since the biggest star currently on the roster is catering to kids, and I'm an adult. What matters to me is to be entertained, which depends on my personal preferences, and I'm not such an insecure person that I base what I like on other people's opinions. If you think it's important how popular something you consume is, you should logically do it with everything; food, music, movies, cars etc. That will lead to eating crap food, listening to formulaic music, watching formulaic movies, driving cheap cars etc.

So the bottom line is that WWE are the ones that have to care about ratings, since they make money off of that. I, on the other hand, only have to worry about entertaining myself. If the show draws great ratings but I find it to be bad, I go watch something else.

**SoupBro** · 10-02-2012, 04:30 PM

Who else could be the focus of Raw. The Ryback who cant be involved in 5 min matches or hasnt cut a 2 min promo despite being pushed for months and fed to the wwe universe. With Cena out only ppl I think could carry raw would be Daniel Bryan, Punk, maybe Sandow especially with last nights great match and Orton.

Oh wait Dean Ambrose could carry Raw

Cack_Thu · 10-02-2012, 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Evil Peter

Ratings doesn't mean everything, since that would logically mean that merchandise sales, PPV sales etc mean nothing.

And my analogy works. McDonald's makes money through trying appeal to the large masses. If they started only selling quality food (of course that's a more objective thing than a quality wrestler, but it's not hard to understand the point) they wouldn't have as many customers, but why would I care if I'm a person that cares about quality food? There are other restaurants that stay alive with far less turn-over so McDonald's wouldn't go bankrupt either. The same goes for WWE, who certainly aren't anywhere close to going out of business. Ergo I don't have to worry about that.

Ratings mean absolutely nothing to me as a viewer, especially since the biggest star currently on the roster is catering to kids, and I'm an adult. What matters to me is to be entertained, which depends on my personal preferences, and I'm not such an insecure person that I base what I like on other people's opinions. If you think it's important how popular something you consume is, you should logically do it with everything; food, music, movies, cars etc. That will lead to eating crap food, listening to formulaic music, watching formulaic movies, driving cheap cars etc.

So the bottom line is that WWE are the ones that have to care about ratings, since they make money off of that. I, on the other hand, only have to worry about entertaining myself. If the show draws great ratings but I find it to be bad, I go watch something else.

You're in denial mode.Refer to my last post on the breakdown of WWE revenue ,what TV ratings mean to WWE and then get back to me.Myself not interested in shadow boxing.Facts speak for themselves.