FurryHippie
Frankfurter
Level: 56
   
Posts: 142/788
EXP: 1373441
For next: 24744
Since: 29.10.02
From: New York
Since last post: 2458 days
Last activity: 1145 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
|  #1 Posted on 2.1.03 1146.28
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1147.57 | This was mentioned in another thread, but I thought I'd ask it here: Is there any site with a line graph of the ratings for 2002? It would be interesting to see, now that the year is over, how Raw and Smackdown have ended up in the ratings, on paper. Then we can all pick it apart and point to various events that triggered the slides. Could be interesting - anybody have an idea if these exist? | Promote this thread! |             | Mike Sweetser
Boerewors
Level: 41
Posts: 199/379
EXP: 475603
For next: 4546
Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, Washington
Since last post: 2562 days
Last activity: 2454 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #2 Posted on 2.1.03 1444.47
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1445.15 | Since I was bored, here you go - I found the ratings (courtesy of the Wrestling Information Archive), threw 'em into an Excel spreadsheet and whipped together a graph:
(image removed)
Highest Raw rating: 5.4 on March 25th (brand extension draft, main event of Stephanie vs. HHH vs. Jericho for the undisputed title)
Lowest Raw rating: 3.1 on November 11th (HHH vs. Booker T main event, week before Survivor Series)
Lowest non-holiday Raw rating: 3.3 on December 2nd (HHH vs. RVD, Michaels as referee) December 9th (Dudleyz/Trish v. Victoria/Christian/Jericho) and December 23rd (Ross/Lawler vs. Regal/Storm)
Highest SmackDown rating: 4.5 on February 21st (Triple H vs. Undertaker in the main event, Billy & Chuck win the tag team title from Tazz & Spike)
Lowest SmackDown rating: 2.0 on July 4th (Undertaker v. Kurt Angle for the undisputed title)
Lowest non-holiday SmackDown rating: 2.7 on August 8th (Brock v. Hogan, Edge/Cena/Rey v. Angle/Eddy/Benoit) and November 28th (WWE Champion Big Show v. Fabulous Moolah)
I still have the spreadsheet if you want some more number crunching 
Mike
(edited by Mike Sweetser on 2.1.03 1256) | redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 149
Posts: 1416/7527
EXP: 41053181
For next: 282054
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 2 hours
| #3 Posted on 2.1.03 1500.51
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1500.52 | Going back further in the numbers, the 'Push the Taker= kill the ratings' argument starts to become clearer. In the weeks and months prior to Taker returning in May 2000, the WWF/E was pulling ratings of high 6-low 7 consistently. After Taker returned, the ratings began to fall into the low 6 category. Once the TNN move was made, the ratings were into 5 territory. This held until the Taker post Mania push of 2001, where the ratings fell below 5 on a consistent basis. The 4 range was held (except on holidays) until the Taker push of 2002, when the ratings broke through the 4 barrier during the weeks leading to and culminating in his winning the World Title.
For SD, the Taker World Title Reign also weakened the ratings of that product. Thus, more than anyone else over the past 3 years, Undertaker has been a detriment to the WWF/E, even more so than Buff Bagwell. | fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 95
Posts: 421/2679
EXP: 8628917
For next: 39721
Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 2740 days
Last activity: 2740 days
|  #4 Posted on 2.1.03 1509.17
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1514.05 | When was it that they split the writing crews? It was after Austin left, so around July? Heyman's booking of Smackdown hasn't set the ratings on fire but it certainly stopped the bleeding and stabilized the show. That was even with the "Ratings Killer" Undertaker on top but that was the best I think I've seen Taker booked in YEARS.
Now RAW on the other hand, I don't think there's any clearer case for new writers and a different guy on top then this ratings graph. | asteroidboy
Andouille
Level: 89
Posts: 709/2241
EXP: 6821719
For next: 94209
Since: 22.1.02
From: Texas
Since last post: 907 days
Last activity: 778 days
| #5 Posted on 2.1.03 1513.01
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1522.22 | | The overall trend is what's interesting... RAW has lost about a point and a half, Smackdown about a half a ratings point. There are outliers, but that looks like the general trend. The "down cycle" (aka - deathwatch) continues. | Big Bad
Scrapple
Level: 141
Posts: 701/6492
EXP: 33711095
For next: 409003
Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 11 hours
| #6 Posted on 2.1.03 1601.42
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1603.10 | | Keep in mind that Smackdown's ratings have actually been stable in the fall months, when competing against Friends and Survivor. | OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 101
Posts: 929/3013
EXP: 10510933
For next: 206779
Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA
Since last post: 47 days
Last activity: 12 hours
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #7 Posted on 2.1.03 1911.52
Reposted on: 2.1.10 1912.44 |
Originally posted by Mike Sweetser
Lowest non-holiday SmackDown rating: 2.7 on August 8th (Brock v. Hogan, Edge/Cena/Rey v. Angle/Eddy/Benoit) and November 28th (WWE Champion Big Show v. Fabulous Moolah
Wasn't this the Thanksgiving show? | Stephanie
Landjager
Level: 61
Posts: 655/945
EXP: 1872608
For next: 3999
Since: 2.1.02
From: Madison, WI
Since last post: 21 days
Last activity: 12 hours
| #8 Posted on 2.1.03 2135.07
Reposted on: 2.1.10 2135.16 |
Originally posted by asteroidboy
The overall trend is what's interesting... RAW has lost about a point and a half, Smackdown about a half a ratings point. There are outliers, but that looks like the general trend. The "down cycle" (aka - deathwatch) continues.
I agree, the trend's the thing - especially the way RAW's been deflating of late. I refuse to call it a "deathwatch", though I believe a major "contraction" is coming.
Steph | Jakegnosis
Morcilla
Level: 52
Posts: 144/645
EXP: 1029470
For next: 54378
Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine
Since last post: 2339 days
Last activity: 2323 days
| #9 Posted on 2.1.03 2223.01
Reposted on: 2.1.10 2226.30 | | What I think is particularly interesting is that Smackdown actually beat Raw in the ratings several times since early September. Was that the first time this has ever occured? | Net Hack Slasher
Banger
Level: 98
Posts: 786/2805
EXP: 9571167
For next: 83220
Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind
Since last post: 3067 days
Last activity: 1487 days
| #10 Posted on 3.1.03 0053.08
Reposted on: 3.1.10 0057.28 | | The most obvious thing to me recently is how the ratings dropped instantly for SD when the Big Show went over to Smackdown and pushed for a world title main event spots. Check out Early November to late December a slow but steady drop, the only mark up was the week after a holiday (Thanksgiving) and that was still lower then 2 weeks ago rating. But the rating jumped back up slowly these next two weeks after Angle won the title. | Tribal Prophet
Bierwurst
Level: 84
Posts: 209/1933
EXP: 5473288
For next: 188688
Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 37 min.
| #11 Posted on 3.1.03 0118.52
Reposted on: 3.1.10 0123.15 | Looks like they lost a whole 0.3 of a ratings point from the Big Show. That's not exactly a warning light. I also don't think that "Undertaker was the champ" matters anymore. Since splitting the belt, neither one means anything. It's not like Big Show was "carrying the company" because he was champion. He was just the guy who had a belt. The shows would have sucked whether it was The Undertaker as champ or Angle. Shit writing is shit writing, no matter who acts it out.
Who was main eventing when they were losing fans left and right in july? The Fab 6? (Seriously, I don't know...)
Tribal Prophet | redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 149
Posts: 1417/7527
EXP: 41053181
For next: 282054
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 2 hours
| #12 Posted on 3.1.03 0758.19
Reposted on: 3.1.10 0759.01 |
Originally posted by Tribal Prophet
Looks like they lost a whole 0.3 of a ratings point from the Big Show. That's not exactly a warning light. I also don't think that "Undertaker was the champ" matters anymore. Since splitting the belt, neither one means anything. It's not like Big Show was "carrying the company" because he was champion. He was just the guy who had a belt. The shows would have sucked whether it was The Undertaker as champ or Angle. Shit writing is shit writing, no matter who acts it out.
Who was main eventing when they were losing fans left and right in july? The Fab 6? (Seriously, I don't know...)
Tribal Prophet
During that time period, the show revolved around Taker as World Champ, Steph/Steph being named GM and trying to keep Trip on the show, and the last weeks of Hogan. And of course, preparation for a gay wedding. | skorpio17
Morcilla
Level: 51
Posts: 236/618
EXP: 967398
For next: 46547
Since: 11.7.02
From: New Jersey
Since last post: 1887 days
Last activity: 1887 days
| #13 Posted on 3.1.03 1155.30
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1159.02 | I still might do a more in-depth ratings analysis for my next column. But here's some neat stats, from a stat-freak.
Average:
2002 Raw Rating: 4.04
Raw (1/02 - 6/02): 4.47
Raw (7/02 - 12/02): 3.62
Average:
2002 Smackdown! Rating: 3.52
Raw (1/02 - 6/02): 3.72
Raw (7/02 - 12/02): 3.32
Raw Rating with Champion of:
Jericho 4.57
Triple H 5.02 0.45
Hogan 4.43 -.59
Undertaker 3.82 -.61
Rock 3.92 0.10
Triple H 3.54 -.38
HBK 3.43 -.11
Triple H 3.40 -.03
Smackdown! Rating with Champion of:
Jericho 3.96
Triple H 3.88 -0.08
Hogan 3.38 -0.50
Undertaker 3.36 -0.02
Rock 3.24 -0.12
Brock Lesnar 3.49 0.25
Big Show 3.37 -0.12
Kurt Angle 3.35 -0.02
This shows that Jericho's title run wasn't that bad for ratings. And while Taker killed Raw's rating, he didn't do that much damage to Smackdown! On the other hand, Hogan's title run managed to ruin the ratings for both shows.
| redsoxnation
Scrapple
Level: 149
Posts: 1424/7527
EXP: 41053181
For next: 282054
Since: 24.7.02
Since last post: 12 days
Last activity: 2 hours
| #14 Posted on 3.1.03 1159.55
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1201.28 |
Originally posted by skorpio17
I still might do a more in-depth ratings analysis for my next column. But here's some neat stats, from a stat-freak.
Average:
2002 Raw Rating: 4.04
Raw (1/02 - 6/02): 4.47
Raw (7/02 - 12/02): 3.62
Average:
2002 Smackdown! Rating: 3.52
Raw (1/02 - 6/02): 3.72
Raw (7/02 - 12/02): 3.32
Raw Rating with Champion of:
Jericho 4.57
Triple H 5.02 0.45
Hogan 4.43 -.59
Undertaker 3.82 -.61
Rock 3.92 0.10
Triple H 3.54 -.38
HBK 3.43 -.11
Triple H 3.40 -.03
Smackdown! Rating with Champion of:
Jericho 3.96
Triple H 3.88 -0.08
Hogan 3.38 -0.50
Undertaker 3.36 -0.02
Rock 3.24 -0.12
Brock Lesnar 3.49 0.25
Big Show 3.37 -0.12
Kurt Angle 3.35 -0.02
This shows that Jericho's title run wasn't that bad for ratings. And while Taker killed Raw's rating, he didn't do that much damage to Smackdown! On the other hand, Hogan's title run managed to ruin the ratings for both shows.
But remember: Hogan's entire reign revolved around his impending match with Taker. Thus, the Taker Factor has to be taken into consideration during the Hogan Decline (this is not meant as a defense for Hogan in any manner). | Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 105
Posts: 1216/3272
EXP: 12033606
For next: 228694
Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ
Since last post: 592 days
Last activity: 592 days
| #15 Posted on 3.1.03 1328.58
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1329.01 | Also, you hver to remember that Taker was defending his title on Smackdown that month (against Rock/Angle) so there was no championship feud on Raw at all.
-Jag | pieman
As young as
he feels
Level: 107
Posts: 775/3431
EXP: 12988416
For next: 102937
Since: 11.12.01
From: China, Maine
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
| #16 Posted on 3.1.03 1331.58
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1337.04 |
If this was your stock portfolio, you wouldn't be a very happy camper. | Rick
Tocino
Level: 18
Posts: 10/56
EXP: 26988
For next: 2910
Since: 9.1.02
From: Babson Park, Ma
Since last post: 3020 days
Last activity: 2940 days
| AIM: |  |
| | |
| #17 Posted on 3.1.03 1657.21
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1659.02 |
How does the analysis change when you use actual number of viewers watching? Isn't there a difference between how cable ratings are calculated and how network ratings are calculated?
Would that mean that more people are watching smackdown now than raw? | fuelinjected
Banger
Level: 95
Posts: 432/2679
EXP: 8628917
For next: 39721
Since: 12.10.02
From: Canada
Since last post: 2740 days
Last activity: 2740 days
| #18 Posted on 3.1.03 1700.27
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1701.10 | | Yes, more people watch Smackdown now then RAW. | Mike Sweetser
Boerewors
Level: 41
Posts: 200/379
EXP: 475603
For next: 4546
Since: 2.1.02
From: Seattle, Washington
Since last post: 2562 days
Last activity: 2454 days
| AIM: | |
| | |
| #19 Posted on 3.1.03 1801.54
Reposted on: 3.1.10 1802.57 | Knew I'd be happy I kept that spreadsheet.
According to stats from the National Cable & Telecommunications Association, as of July 2002 (when they take the year's stats):
Basic Cable Households (July, 2002): 73,559,550
US Television Households (July, 2002): 105,444,330
Which makes the findings of the spreadsheet graphs even uglier for Raw:
(image removed)
Raw beat SmackDown a total of THREE times in 2002:
March 25th: Brand extension draft, main event of Stephanie vs. HHH vs. Jericho for the undisputed title
April 29th: Regal vs. Hogan, including the awesome Hulkamaniac promo by Regal
July 1st: Undertaker v. Jeff Hardy ladder match for the undisputed title
On SmackDown those three weeks:
March 28th: Vince/Angle v. Flair/HHH, last show before the extension
May 2nd: Jericho v. Hogan for the undisputed title
July 4th: Undertaker v. Angle for the undisputed title
The first win was more than likely because of the draft itself, and the third win was because of the bad timing of SmackDown being on July 4th. The April/May win also looked to be more of SmackDown going way down than Raw going way up - the rating went down immediately following Hogan winning the undisputed title, and didn't go back up till May 9th with the start of RUTHLESS AGGRESSION. Which means one thing, ladies and gentlemen.
John Cena saved SmackDown.
Okay, maybe not
EDIT:
Oh, and since I thought it'd make things interesting, here's two other graphs - the same graphis, but broken down by whoever was the champion at the time:
(image removed)
(image removed)
Mike
(edited by Mike Sweetser on 3.1.03 1620)
(edited by Mike Sweetser on 3.1.03 1630) | Tribal Prophet
Bierwurst
Level: 84
Posts: 210/1933
EXP: 5473288
For next: 188688
Since: 9.1.02
From: Winnipeg, MB, Canada
Since last post: 19 days
Last activity: 37 min.
| #20 Posted on 3.1.03 2246.46
Reposted on: 3.1.10 2250.34 |
Originally posted by redsoxnation
Originally posted by Tribal Prophet
Looks like they lost a whole 0.3 of a ratings point from the Big Show. That's not exactly a warning light. I also don't think that "Undertaker was the champ" matters anymore. Since splitting the belt, neither one means anything. It's not like Big Show was "carrying the company" because he was champion. He was just the guy who had a belt. The shows would have sucked whether it was The Undertaker as champ or Angle. Shit writing is shit writing, no matter who acts it out.
Who was main eventing when they were losing fans left and right in july? The Fab 6? (Seriously, I don't know...)
Tribal Prophet
During that time period, the show revolved around Taker as World Champ, Stephanie being named GM and trying to keep Trip on the show, and the last weeks of Hogan. And of course, preparation for a gay wedding.
Thanks, THAT'S the kind of stuff that matters. It doesn't matter who the champ is. What matters is "what reason do people have to watch". It's a number of things going on, and how much each of them has a "I have to see what they do next week!" feel to it, like the NWO and Austin/McMahon used to.
Tribal Prophet | | ALL ORIGINAL POSTS IN THIS THREAD ARE NOW AVAILABLE |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
