So as I been saying for weeks it's very tough for shows to do big viewership numbers on cable networks. That don't have big consistent viewership numbers or aren't use to watching that programming channel for many years.
Well Smackdown on FS1 this week did 881,000 and .25 in 18 to 49 not going head to head with another wrestling show. You take away the bump WWE gets from being on USA for so many years. With those same casual fans who been watching wrestling for so many years. Or take them off major network that everything in prime time does near 2 million people. Well AEW numbers don't look so bad lol.
I didn't make this post to get this thread haywire again. Just posting some facts on the ratings and why they are the way they are. You put Smackdown on FS1 weekly the numbers are very close to AEW and they lose in demos. For all the reasons I mentioned above. End of discussion.
These aren’t really “facts.” You don’t get to end the discussion. It’s frustrating that people go into tirades about how I (and possibly some others perceived to think like me) allegedly act like our opinions are facts. Here you have someone
flat-out saying that what they think is a fact.
The average show on FS1 does 319k viewers. SmackDown did ALMOST TRIPLE that. On a channel it isn’t usually on, from a network whose viewers don’t necessarily have cable.
Those are “facts.” What’s wrong with those facts? When presented, they don’t make your opinion look so good, do they?
I don’t get why people think that longevity on television breeds success. Is there any evidence to support this suggestion at all? Raw has fun off MILLIONS of viewers. No one is obligated to watch it. It also had millions of viewers to run off, something AEW doesn’t have. It’s not necessarily going to get the chance to get so stale even if you want to argue that people are going to be robots programmed to stick with it in 27 years
Stop being so sensible pal, it's frowned upon here.
I think Dynamite's numbers have been consistently good (not great but far from bad) if you ignore the peak of the first few weeks and trough of the early pandemic era. It would be good to see some growth, getting to a million regularly would be an impressive start, but I can't see that without audiences and with competition. Hopefully 2021 gives them a better opportunity to do so.
The thing is, WWE are not going to let them go unopposed. Raw is too valuable to USA and WWE makes too much money to not be able to afford keeping that slot. They can afford to give NXT away for nothing (hypothetically) which makes them better value for the slot than Dynamite is to TNT.
If TNT decides to move Dynamite, the WWE can just move NXT or put another show opposite it. The WWE will know who attracts the best “demos” on their roster. You’ll have your Matt Riddle and Angel Garza on there. As well as likely some big stars that appeal to the hardcore fan — Daniel Bryan, Rey Mysterio, Kevin Owens, Sami Zayn. They’ll pop Roman on a few shows and get Brock and Ronda if they can.
Dynamite is toast in that situation. I know people want to compare 881k on FS1 and think it has a chance, but if they do just double USA’s average, they’ll be getting 2.5 million against Dynamite those first weeks. It seems to have a similar demo rating to Dynamite. It could probably get a 0.7 or something against Dynamite and it’s usual 750k/0.3. It won’t be a pretty story.
I don’t really see a clear path up for AEW. This is why they needed to be big and good out the gate. Their best advantage was going to be providing content that the WWE were just not going to, and galvanising the exhausted wrestling fan. Many fans seem exhausted
by them now (whether or not you agree with them or not, it’s hard to deny that there are lots of valid criticisms going around), and the content is getting similar to the point Mike Semperveve is going on Observer Radio and basically saying “This wrestling probably isn’t for everyone, it isn’t going to change, so please stop criticising it because it makes people sad.”