Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:21:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 20:36:21 GMT -5
not to mention that for the better part of 6 months there has been at least AN HOUR a night devoted to womens wrestling which is literally the single worst & most boring thing that has ever existed in pro wrestling. if they are trying to get an all-female & all-children audience, it's working....and guess what, women & children aren't going to watch the same show every week for a year.  I laughed harder than I should've at that |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:21:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 20:55:41 GMT -5
Ha! That's interesting...and my brother got a real kick out of hearing that...
|
|
phenomkiller91
Jobber
Joined on: Nov 28, 2013 5:01:41 GMT -5
Posts: 10 
|
Post by phenomkiller91 on Oct 20, 2015 21:16:54 GMT -5
yeah i dont get it, if the viewership number is higher how do you get a lower rating number, doesn't viewership equal ratings?
|
|
|
|
Post by The Yes Man on Oct 20, 2015 21:17:29 GMT -5
Holy shit.
They should have promoted Austin as actually being on Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by Mr. PerpetuaLynch Motion on Oct 20, 2015 21:18:25 GMT -5
I wonder if the fact that even having Brock, Taker, Austin, Flair, Shawn Michaels, etc on Raw still didn't help the ratings is going to actually have any effect on how they operate.
|
|
jakksking1
Main Eventer
Joined on: Feb 2, 2011 14:45:41 GMT -5
Posts: 2,843
|
Post by jakksking1 on Oct 20, 2015 21:51:45 GMT -5
So there were more viewers this week compared to last week but the ratings overall were lower? I don't fully understand how exactly the ratings work. The actual rating is a percentage of people who are watching the show at that time. Even though more people watched on Monday, more people were watching or had access to other programs ( Giants Game, World Series), thus diluting the rating to be lower than the week before. It's stupid |
|
|
|
Post by Todd Pettengill on Oct 20, 2015 22:25:50 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by The Natural Eddy Valintino on Oct 20, 2015 22:28:48 GMT -5
Last week's RAW to me was pretty much the same thing we've seen for the past month except with legends. Oh, and for some of the dirtsheets that love to blame other shows being on for the low rating (same thing they do with TNA), people didn't stop watching because there was an important game on. There were important games on for many years, even when wrestling's ratings were at an all time high. The reason RAW gets bad ratings is because the show is not really worth watching and people preferred something else.
|
|
|
|
Post by jayrod2009 on Oct 20, 2015 22:39:27 GMT -5
Last week's RAW to me was pretty much the same thing we've seen for the past month except with legends. Oh, and for some of the dirtsheets that love to blame other shows being on for the low rating (same thing they do with TNA), people didn't stop watching because there was an important game on. There were important games on for many years, even when wrestling's ratings were at an all time high. The reason RAW gets bad ratings is because the show is not really worth watching and people preferred something else. No it wasn't the football game... It was the Star Wars trailer. |
|
Deleted
Joined on: Nov 17, 2024 15:21:10 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 20, 2015 22:49:11 GMT -5
Cancel Raw.
|
|
|
|
Post by JC Motors on Oct 20, 2015 23:02:09 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Word™ on Oct 20, 2015 23:11:20 GMT -5
I tuned in for the final hour.. Saw what the main event was.. And then tuned out..
WWE is ridiculously stubborn.
|
|
|
|
Post by A-Rob on Oct 21, 2015 1:22:19 GMT -5
Vince will be back on TV in no time.
|
|
|
|
Post by punksnotdead on Oct 21, 2015 8:45:42 GMT -5
I didn't even know any of the Legends were going to be on the show. I just tuned in like normal, via DVR, and there they were. I thought HBK really added to the show this week and loved everything he did with Rollins. Austin got a cool pop, and at least Brock and Taker were in the same vicinity of each other. Flair was a bit of a waste but then you have to be careful with him anyway. Again though, if you don't advertise those guys, how are people supposed to know to tune-in and see them? I mean maybe they were advertised and I just didn't see it. Meh.
I thought the show was pretty entertaining this week. New Day is the unicorn of WWE, magic. I didn't really care for the finish on the main event but that goes back to how WWE books matches prior to PPVs, which is an entirely different set of problems.
Baseball playoffs, Monday Night Football and waiting for the Star Wars trailer, Blindspot, Minority Report, and I sporadically flipped over to the hockey game a few times too. That's what WWE was fighting against with me as a viewer on Monday. It's definitely not easy for them right now.
|
|
RV F'N D
Main Eventer
Joined on: Mar 13, 2012 21:34:37 GMT -5
Posts: 4,046
|
Post by RV F'N D on Oct 21, 2015 8:49:56 GMT -5
Good. Desperation is the only thing that will bring change.
It was a better Raw than we've had in a long time, but still nothing great. I don't think they promoted the legends being there very well. I really wanted more from Austin's segment. Had he stayed in the ring and interviewed Taker maybe it could've been something interesting. I did like HBK's interaction with Rollins though.
|
|
|
|
Post by T R W on Oct 21, 2015 9:02:35 GMT -5
I could list all of the things wrong with RAW and why people are tuning out, but I feel like I have been down this road too many times lately, and I don't feel like writing a book about, though I certainly could.
|
|
|
|
Post by J12 on Oct 21, 2015 10:27:23 GMT -5
So there were more viewers this week compared to last week but the ratings overall were lower? I don't fully understand how exactly the ratings work. Ratings are super confusing. I learned this in a broadcast media class in college, but had to do the research again to completely remember it. The rating is supposed to be the overall percentage of people watching compared to 100% of the total number of households with access to the program (regardless of whether or not their TV is even on.) So, a 2.2 rating means 2.2% of all households in America with access to USA Network are watching Raw. Viewership is where it gets confusing, and honestly, it's hard to tell sometimes where these sites are pulling their numbers from. I'll do my best to explain how this portion works, but it's a bit of a mess. Viewership is related to the program's "share." The share is calculated by looking at the total number of homes actually watching television during a given program, and figuring out how many of them were tuning into said program. So, you take the number of people watching Raw and divide it by the total number of people watching television when Raw is on. That gives you a percentage, or share. Using that percentage, you get your viewership number. So, depending on the total number of homes watching TV during Raw, you can end up with a higher number of viewers, but a lower percentage than the week prior. If the number of viewers increased marginally, but the total number of people watching television in general increased dramatically (which makes sense, given the Star Wars/MNF deal), you'll have a lower rating, even though more people were watching. So, for example: Last week: 1500 people watched Raw, and 100,000 homes were watching television when it was on (500/100,000) = 1.5 This week: 2000 people watched Raw, and 150,000 homes were watching television when it was on (2000/150,000) = 1.3 More people, smaller piece of the overall pie. |
|
|
|
Post by Mark Martin on Oct 21, 2015 12:47:49 GMT -5
So there were more viewers this week compared to last week but the ratings overall were lower? I don't fully understand how exactly the ratings work. Ratings are super confusing. I learned this in a broadcast media class in college, but had to do the research again to completely remember it. The rating is supposed to be the overall percentage of people watching compared to 100% of the total number of households with access to the program (regardless of whether or not their TV is even on.) So, a 2.2 rating means 2.2% of all households in America with access to USA Network are watching Raw. Viewership is where it gets confusing, and honestly, it's hard to tell sometimes where these sites are pulling their numbers from. I'll do my best to explain how this portion works, but it's a bit of a mess. Viewership is related to the program's "share." The share is calculated by looking at the total number of homes actually watching television during a given program, and figuring out how many of them were tuning into said program. So, you take the number of people watching Raw and divide it by the total number of people watching television when Raw is on. That gives you a percentage, or share. Using that percentage, you get your viewership number. So, depending on the total number of homes watching TV during Raw, you can end up with a higher number of viewers, but a lower percentage than the week prior. If the number of viewers increased marginally, but the total number of people watching television in general increased dramatically (which makes sense, given the Star Wars/MNF deal), you'll have a lower rating, even though more people were watching. So, for example: Last week: 1500 people watched Raw, and 100,000 homes were watching television when it was on (500/100,000) = 1.5 This week: 2000 people watched Raw, and 150,000 homes were watching television when it was on (2000/150,000) = 1.3 More people, smaller piece of the overall pie. That actually helps it make a lot more sense, nicely done sir. |
|
|
|
Post by Joe/Smurf on Oct 21, 2015 13:42:47 GMT -5
There's no such thing as a "new" record. Once it's the record the old one doesn't exist anymore. Just a grammar gripe. WWE clearly needs something besides bad ratings to force them to shake things up, either a colossal injury to someone or Vince to retire from the writing committee or SOMETHING. Last Monday was better than the week before... But not much.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Sexy Psychotic on Oct 21, 2015 13:52:23 GMT -5
3 hours is killing the product, relying on the old guard is killing the product, its been said a million times before but not pushing your new talent is killing the product.
The product is dying; wrestling is still popular, look at the Network, people still buy it and watch it religiously - Im one of them, I watch the Network daily, but I haven't watched a current Raw I think since around maybe WM30 or the lead up. Seriously, why should I though, why should anyone?
I personally got sick of Cena 7 years ago, much like the rest of the fanbase, Im sick of seeing Taker have these poor excuses of a "match" and being around literally once to build them up, hell Lesnar's been having effectively the same exact match for over a year now (suplex, suplex, suplex, wah wah wah, suplex, suplex, ect); there is no reason to watch, no build up happening, nothing to entice me to watch. Its the same show, every week and anything new that happens and gets over, well they need to somehow be paired with Cena and gradually shown to be inferior to him.
I've said it before, but to be blunt: Cena is killing the WWE in this day and age.
Austin, Hogan, Hart, Bruno, Michaels, all these guys were THE man and all of them helped grow the company and when their time was up they realised and walked out or took a back seat when the time was right....Cena, well hell Cena should have done this at latest 2 or 3 years ago.
|
|
