Spaceman Spiff
Banger
Level: 99
   
Posts: 2098/2865
EXP: 9891597
For next: 108438
Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs
Since last post: 23 days
Last activity: 13 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #1 Posted on 18.10.05 2112.29
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2112.42 | From Meltzer (wrestlingobserver.com)
Raw: 3.7
UFC: 1.1
So, Foley, Austin, Kane, and the McMahons were hyped as appearing on the show, and it only did a 3.7? Maybe people don't want to see the McMahon's on TV? Nah, that couldn't be it. | Promote this thread! |             | OMEGA
Lap cheong
Level: 80
Posts: 1573/1747
EXP: 4614557
For next: 168432
Since: 18.6.02
From: North Cacalacky
Since last post: 1425 days
Last activity: 1393 days
| #2 Posted on 18.10.05 2123.04
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2124.53 | I really thought that the intrigue of last week's Jim Ross angle would lead to another 4.0 or so for this week. I'm suprised by this rating.
Oh well, we know what this means: MORE STEPHANIE~! | redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 149
Posts: 4883/7528
EXP: 41092119
For next: 243116
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 13 hours
| #3 Posted on 18.10.05 2211.55
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2213.35 | | I guess going back to USA from Spike wasn't the magic cure for the ratings. I'm sure they believe that the bump the first night back was due to the appearance of the entire McMahon family, but, perhaps, it was because they had the matches set prior to the card, thus allowing build-up for the night, rather than people having to tune in to find out what, if any matches there would be. | ScreamingHeadGuy
Frankfurter
Level: 55
Posts: 717/743
EXP: 1301659
For next: 12539
Since: 1.2.02
From: Appleton, WI
Since last post: 232 days
Last activity: 232 days
| #4 Posted on 18.10.05 2245.06
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2246.36 | So, they went from a 4.4 to 4.0 and now 3.7. That's a definate trend. Well, maybe hemmoraging viewers will eventually lead to the WW getting their crap together. (If they can actually realize this, rather than coming up with excuses to explain the ratings.)
| Hogan's My Dad
Andouille
Level: 85
Posts: 1432/2022
EXP: 5753078
For next: 145486
Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 15 days
| #5 Posted on 18.10.05 2328.10
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2328.18 | Don't forget USA promoted the hell out of homecoming.
Still, this obviously screams that saw nothing on that big show that made them feel the need to return. A huge swerve angle or something to hook the viewers might have been nice. | Monte
Mettwurst
Level: 29
Posts: 111/172
EXP: 137430
For next: 10456
Since: 27.3.03
From: Montauk, New York
Since last post: 1166 days
Last activity: 1164 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #6 Posted on 18.10.05 2338.54
Reposted on: 18.10.12 2339.28 | That is BAAAAD...
| Quezzy
Knackwurst
Level: 103
Posts: 1922/3145
EXP: 11371065
For next: 100380
Since: 6.1.02
From: The Moon
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 14 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #7 Posted on 19.10.05 0354.21
Reposted on: 19.10.12 0354.37 | | Personally, I didn't mind the McMahons that much, the reason I haven't watched since Homecoming is because the Triple H attack on Flair was ridiculously long, the hyped Angle/HBK match was not very good, and Bischoff was in the main event. Heck yeah I'm going to watch the Astros possibly go to the World Series for the first time ever over Monday Night Raw. | Snookum
Kishke
Level: 42
Posts: 359/413
EXP: 505523
For next: 15843
Since: 19.6.03
From: Louisville
Since last post: 2122 days
Last activity: 2103 days
| #8 Posted on 19.10.05 0500.53
Reposted on: 19.10.12 0500.54 | I doubt the return of the McMahons was the lynchpin to people turning off RAW. In fact, I do know people who said they've started watching again now that at least Vince is back.
"Great! Vince is back! The show is always better when he's around."
Honest.
I would worry more for UFC and SpikeTV, to be honest. Trading off even a 3.7 for a 1.1 is not something you want to take to your investors. "See, we didn't get along with WWE, so we got you this nice fighting show that's tanking in the ratings instead while we traded our one strong ratings horse to a competitor. Why aren't you happy?"
Knowing SpikeTV's history of dropping shows as soon as they start to do poorly in the ratings, I wonder how much longer UFC will stay on Mondays. If TNA does continue to hold on at .8 (barely beating out Saturday morning WWE repeat programming at .6, mind you), then I wouldn't be surprised if SpikeTV eventually cuts back UFC, throws TNA on with it and hopes for a 1-2 punch of the programming against RAW at some point. Yeah, it'll tank just as readily as what they have now, but I wouldn't be surprised if they pull that stunt.
Either way, USA and WWE can live with a 3.7 and see what they can do to raise it back up again. It's SpikeTV and their 1.1 that is the bigger problem here, just from the networks' standpoint. | too-old-now
Bockwurst
Level: 47
Posts: 377/545
EXP: 744683
For next: 21526
Since: 7.1.04
Since last post: 782 days
Last activity: 91 days
| #9 Posted on 19.10.05 0846.44
Reposted on: 19.10.12 0846.44 | Spike fully expected the ratings drop when it replaced WWE with UFC. Since UFC costs them a ton less than WWE did - remember WWE took most of the advertising revenue - it wouldn't surprise me if Spike does better financially if they actually get to keep the advertising revenue.
What good did WWE do for Spike when they kept all the advertising revenue themselves? From Spike's point of view, having most of the advertising dollars associated with a 1.0 share is way better than none of the dollars that come from a 3.5 share.
As far as Raw's ratings drop, attribute it to the fact that USA promoted the heck out of the homecoming, they have both baseball playoffs and MNF to contend with for their target male audience. The real measurement will be let's see what's happening three to six months from now.
For many of the casual fans that gradually tuned out over the past 2-3 years, they came back to a heavily promoted RAW to see more of what made them decide they don't need to watch every week.
If the WWE was counting on Austin's return to keep ratings high, they may want to think again. While it was entertaining, him giving the stunner to Linda probably helped dissuade more viewers from returning than it hooked back in. To top it off, his return to the ring in a match will be against Coach? Who has Coach ever beaten? | JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 124
Posts: 1166/4806
EXP: 21544738
For next: 291924
Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
| #10 Posted on 19.10.05 1446.27
Reposted on: 19.10.12 1446.28 | Good post ...
Originally posted by toooldnow
Since UFC costs them a ton less than WWE did - remember WWE took most of the advertising revenue - it wouldn't surprise me if Spike does better financially if they actually get to keep the advertising revenue.
... and another thing is that UFC is getting this reputation as the hot new cool thing on the rise, while WWE is still programming for people who live in toilets. So regardless of the big gap in audience, UFC attracts much more upscale advertisers.
Selfishly and self-destructively I'd kind of like to see UFC bomb just because I'm so sick of the hype. And so Spike would get behind TNA even more.
(edited by JustinShapiro on 19.10.05 1550) | Matt Tracker
Scrapple
Level: 118
Posts: 1276/4456
EXP: 18019372
For next: 363596
Since: 8.5.03
From: North Carolina
Since last post: 1 hour
Last activity: 27 min.
| #11 Posted on 19.10.05 1457.59
Reposted on: 19.10.12 1457.59 | I think we should also look to the return of hockey, Monday Night Football and baseball playoffs for the RAW ratings.
But look at this week's show. Cena didn't wrestle and his mic work was too soft to hear. Kane was obviously pegged to win that battle royale, and his big return offered nothing new. Austin stunned nobody. The diva team match ended after one tag. Hunter didn't wrestle. Your two big matches were Carlito/Shawn and Edge/Show. This was not a strong show to compete with. Angle wrestled early for three minutes against a foe who had no chance.
The WWE can't argue about wrestling cycles of mainstream interest when it seems like they don't even try to steal the thunder of sports targeting their demographic. | Hogan's My Dad
Andouille
Level: 85
Posts: 1435/2022
EXP: 5753078
For next: 145486
Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 29 days
Last activity: 15 days
| #12 Posted on 19.10.05 2212.47
Reposted on: 19.10.12 2212.47 | Originally posted by JustinShapiro
and another thing is that UFC is getting this reputation as the hot new cool thing on the rise, while WWE is still programming for people who live in toilets. So regardless of the big gap in audience, UFC attracts much more upscale advertisers.
Um, what? UFC attracts upscale advertisers? Like who? I don't really put the badmouth on MMA too much, but I only know a few people who watch it, and I know many who think that it involves someone being beaten almost to the point of death. You're telling me it doesn't carry that stigma with advertisers? | JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator
Level: 124
Posts: 1167/4806
EXP: 21544738
For next: 291924
Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
| #13 Posted on 20.10.05 0025.15
Reposted on: 20.10.12 0027.47 | | It used to, to their huge detriment, but as of late it's starting to be considered more of a sexysexything for 18-34 males more akin to mainstream sports than pro wrestling or freak novelty stuff. "Much more upscale" was a bad choice of words since it implies a level of prestige that can truly only be attained by a dog show, but there are advertisers who are going for UFC but won't touch WWE. I wish I could think of a good example besides "cars," but my head is foggy from Benadryl so maybe someone with more UFC product knowledge can help me out. | CRZ
Big Brother
Administrator
Level: 205
Posts: 6981/15437
EXP: 124072510
For next: 1396366
Since: 9.12.01
From: ミネアポリス
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 7 hours
| #14 Posted on 20.10.05 0854.03
Reposted on: 20.10.12 0854.43 | Originally posted by JustinShapiro
It used to, to their huge detriment, but as of late it's starting to be considered more of a sexysexything for 18-34 males more akin to mainstream sports than pro wrestling or freak novelty stuff. "Much more upscale" was a bad choice of words since it implies a level of prestige that can truly only be attained by a dog show, but there are advertisers who are going for UFC but won't touch WWE. I wish I could think of a good example besides "cars," but my head is foggy from Benadryl so maybe someone with more UFC product knowledge can help me out.
BEER | Tribal Prophet
Bierwurst
Level: 84
Posts: 1156/1937
EXP: 5494205
For next: 167771
Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Since last post: 3 days
Last activity: 8 hours
|  #15 Posted on 20.10.05 1914.55
Reposted on: 20.10.12 1916.01 | Originally posted by JustinShapiro
I wish I could think of a good example besides "cars," but my head is foggy from Benadryl so maybe someone with more UFC product knowledge can help me out.
I don't have any more UFC knowledge than... well, anyone really, but I will say that I remember back in the day where the only talk you'd get of UFC was when they were on talk shows trying to defend that it wasn't just a blood bath where guys fought to the death like in Bloodsport. They were fighting even for the right to air in on PPV and to be allowed to even give adults the right to watch it. It was right up there with Cock-Fighting or Hobo-Fights.
Since then they've managed to get on TSN regularily (so I assume their parent company ESPN airs it in some way) as well as being allowed to have shows in more and more states. Now that they're on in prime time, cable or not, I think it's another sign that they *are* winning at least some people over. Whether or not it's the dawn of some MMA Golden Age or not who knows, but the evidence is there that they're making progress, even if everyone I know still thinks of Bloodsport.
Tribal Prophet | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
