The W
Views: 97799446
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
30.7.14 0010
The W - Pro Wrestling - RATINGS- What will WWF do now???
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(12984 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (31 total)
Mixxer
Tocino








Since: 18.4.02
From: Minneapolis, MN

Since last post: 4441 days
Last activity: 4381 days
#1 Posted on
Let's see now, Smackdown had the lowest ratings EVER on UPN.
Now Raw delivered a 4.4 rating last night, its lowest figure so far this year.
As much as I love what the split has done(and many on here are in agreement), I must admit I'm concerned about WWF doing the old Russo Reset-it-and-Forget-it. Hopefully, they will just ride this out, without going overboard...
So, what do you think they WILL do, and what do you think they SHOULD do?

I think that they will try more sensationalism in storylines, more crossovers(ugh), verging on crash tv. I hope I am wrong on this.
I thing they SHOULD do more to develop the undercard, especially on Raw, where the cruisers AND tag teams are non-existant. They SHOULD have cruisers on one, and tags on the other, for some good variety...
Hey, just my opinion...



Promote this thread!
DMC
Liverwurst








Since: 8.1.02
From: Modesto, CA

Since last post: 3390 days
Last activity: 3384 days
#2 Posted on
I dont know how much you can make of occasional low ratings. This time of year people are out and about doing other things--having spring get-togethers, getting ready for weddings, finishing up school, etc. While I wouldn't put money on it, I would bet that wrestling ratings and perhaps TV in general usually take some kind of dip around this time of year. Once people get the bugs out of their butt and realize that it's just another spring, they will go back to TV.

DMC



Live the dream - www.dmcnews.com
Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4448 days
Last activity: 4437 days
#3 Posted on
The ratings have been stable for a while.

RAW has lost roughly half a ratings point from a year ago. That is, instead of low 5s, it gets high 4s. If RAW can maintain its current numbers they only drop to the upper 3s this summer. I suspect we'll be closer to 3.0 tho.

Smackdown! has also looked to have lost that half-point in the ratings from a year ago. SD! struggles to get 4s now. I fully expect them to draw some 2s this summer.

This 0.5 drop has been consistent pre and post split, so either that is bad because ratings haven't picked up or that is good because the ratings haven't tanked.

The longer the top of the card remains stale, the worse this will get IMHO. Just think, "the next generation" of Hart, HBK, etc, came and went and Flair and Hogan are -still- being offered as the answer????
Net Hack Slasher
Banger








Since: 6.1.02
From: Outer reaches of your mind

Since last post: 3504 days
Last activity: 1924 days
#4 Posted on
I always find ratings discussion kind of interesting, especially with the "sky is falling" mentality that goes around the internet hacks.

Television numbers now can't be compared to the numbers of even just 3 years ago. In the past few years numbers across the board has fallen from top cable shows to sports to top 10 network shows. The reason for this is because in the last few years digital cable and dishes have been used by a lot more households. So viewers have more choises. There the television pie is being split more. This being said the top shows, every show is being seen by less people because more people are watching more different programs.

Before the Osborns phenomonin, Raw was first place on many occasions and at worse second on cable. Smackdown week in and week out is first on UPN .Remember when Buffy and Enterprise first started and challenged Smackdown as number one show the hacks all stated "uh oh the sky is falling" well that didn't last long and Smackdown is again number 1. Thursday's the toughest night of the week and they usually finish forth after overnights ahead of Fox and WB

For right now, you have Basketball and hockey playoffs. I'm even having trouble chosing at times. The sky isn't falling, they are doing okay. Could they do better? Sure they can. I thought this weeks Raw sucked (I didn't get Stratusfied)on many levels, I'm kind of glad with the number. And I still think they are under using there mid-card talent on Smackdown.

As for what the WWF is going to do. JR said it himself, he fully expects to take a step backwards to step forward. Some changes need to be made to the show, like always.




I don't get it, everyone loves rats. but they don't want to drink the rat's milk?
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#5 Posted on
I think that the step backwards to take a step forward is the right thing to do. It's what the WWF did when it rebuilt itself around Austin, Foley, DX and The Rock. I don't know if that's what the WWF is going to do as they often hit the panic button to soon. NO compition is probably hurting them a bit.

The funny thing is I'm enjoying RAW more than I have in a long, long time. Smackdown isn't doing anything for me, and I'll often skip shows and just catch CRZ's recap, but I've been looking forward to RAW lately.

I don't know if that means anything to the WWF though as I'll usually catch one of their shows no matter how bad they've been.



Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4448 days
Last activity: 4437 days
#6 Posted on
re: net hack slasher

The WWF still basically has the #1 cable show. Have they lost a cushion they might've once had over the rest of the top 5 the last couple of years? If they have, that would be evidence this is more than the fault of viewers having more choices.
Papercuts!
Potato korv








Since: 3.1.02
From: Springfield, Mo.

Since last post: 4380 days
Last activity: 4290 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00

    Originally posted by Mixxer
    Let's see now, Smackdown had the lowest ratings EVER on UPN.
That said, it still makes them UPN's first or second rated show (I'm not sure how Enterprise is doing). So your statement really doesn't equate to much. The network is still happy with them and that's what's important.
    Originally posted by Kokolums
    The WWF still basically has the #1 cable show.
I'm curious to know what you mean by "basically," but Raw has not been the number one cable show in some time. I believe the current champ is The Osbourne Family Show (I wonder what you'll say to try and invalidate that) and prior to that, a number of other shows and first-run films and specials beat it out as well. It hasn't been a consistent number 1 performer in the past two years. Anyway, RAW still is one of basic cable's top performers.



--Jason Baldwin
Writer of Stuff About Comic Books
Spaceman Spiff
Knackwurst








Since: 2.1.02
From: Philly Suburbs

Since last post: 27 days
Last activity: 18 min.
AIM:  
#8 Posted on
Should do: more wrestling, push younger guys, no more 20-minute promos

Will do: McMahons, McMahons, McMahons!



Matthew: You would've loved it, David. A week in a foreign country, strange people, strange customs...
Dave: Oh, I know what you mean. I've been to Canada.
mskj
Summer sausage








Since: 10.1.02
From: Tennessee

Since last post: 883 days
Last activity: 642 days
#9 Posted on
"I'm curious to know what you mean by "basically," but Raw has not been the number one cable show in some time."

I looked up just the last eight weeks (it was all i could find) and before Ozzy took the number one spot for the last three it was all RAW on top. At least five weeks in a row and possibly more. And it isn't like they have fallen very much. Most top rated cable show get low 3's or high 2's. It's just that Ozzy is pulling in huge numbers now too.

Also a UPN (or any of the basic networks) rating point equals more viewers than a cable point. If you rated this weeks RAW by basic tv ratings (about 1.06 million viewers per point) it would end up around a 3.6 or 3.7. So the difference isn't so big between the shows. It's calculated different.

The ratings don't mean very much right now at all. When Raw isn't number one on cable (let alone TNN) it is two or at worst three. Smackdown is the highest rated show on UPN almost every week and will probably outlast the station. As long as there is UPN though, there will be Smackdown. If the ratings for either show get into the low or mid 2's then the WWF should get really concerned.



RIP The Rock's Show.
April 29, 1999-April 4, 2002.
HBK 2002
Linguica








Since: 17.2.02

Since last post: 4243 days
Last activity: 4236 days
#10 Posted on
Basing the WWF's success on the fact that Raw is one of the highest rated cable programs is misleading. In 1995, Raw had very good ratings, and business was terrible.

Three years ago this week, Raw scored a 6.4 rating. Two years ago this week, Raw scored a 7.4! That's what makes this week's 4.4 rating disappointing -- a 41% ratings decrease in two years. Who cares if Raw beats Emeril, or Ozzy, or O'Reilly? Instead, the WWF should concentrate on winning back the 41% of the TV households that have turned away from Raw.

The main event mix is beyond stale. The WWF needs to create new stars fast. And not Tajiri, Hurricane-level stars (though both could be money players). Not even Jericho, Angle-level stars (though both *should* be money players). The WWF needs new, fresh main event players. Right now, I feel like I'm watching the Von Erichs battle the Freebirds in 1986.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 113 days
Last activity: 113 days
#11 Posted on
Remember also, (somebody who has the correct info can back me up on this), but they redid the ratings scale to include more households per ratings points. So all the cable ratings took an automatic dip because of the change. Comparing today's ratings to those of a few years ago needs to take that change into account.

-Jag



"You gotta hate somebody before this is over. Them, me, it doesn't matter."

"Hate, who do I hate? You tell me."

"Who do you love?"

-Wintermute to Case in William Gibson's Neuromancer
drjayphd
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 22.4.02
From: Long Island

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 6 hours
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#12 Posted on

    Originally posted by Papercuts!

      Originally posted by Kokolums
      The WWF still basically has the #1 cable show.
    I'm curious to know what you mean by "basically," but Raw has not been the number one cable show in some time. I believe the current champ is The Osbourne Family Show (I wonder what you'll say to try and invalidate that) and prior to that, a number of other shows and first-run films and specials beat it out as well. It hasn't been a consistent number 1 performer in the past two years. Anyway, RAW still is one of basic cable's top performers.


Well, the Osbournes is over in a week anyway, but there's one minor detail people seem to be forgetting when they blame the Osbournes.

They don't compete with any wrestling program.

Tuesday is traditionally the night off for televised wrestling (correct me if I'm wrong, but it would more likely only be a localized situation anyway). The Osbournes is on Tuesday at 10:30. What's the WWF doing then? Taping Smackdown. I know of plenty of people (myself included) who watch both WWF shows and the Osbournes. They aren't mutually exclusive. The WWF's in a slump and has been for a while now. The important thing to remember (and it looks like most of you know this already) is that this isn't the end of the WWF.

Even though WCW had plummeting ratings, they were owned by Turner, and when AOL/Time Warner dumped WCW, that was it for them. The WWF is not accountable to any larger corporation; in fact, their only responsibilities to others are their shareholders, who aren't even a majority of the WWF's ownership. They can keep doing this until Vince says stop. However, their current programming is fundamentally flawed. We can keep on debating what they specifically need to do, but it is obvious they need to change their programming to pull out of the slump. Does Vince know this? I would hope he hasn't forgotten the mid-90's.
Yun
Salami








Since: 2.1.02
From: Just outside Dudleyville

Since last post: 3160 days
Last activity: 3108 days
AIM:  
#13 Posted on

    Originally posted by HBK 2002
    Three years ago this week, Raw scored a 6.4 rating. Two years ago this week, Raw scored a 7.4! That's what makes this week's 4.4 rating disappointing -- a 41% ratings decrease in two years. Who cares if Raw beats Emeril, or Ozzy, or O'Reilly? Instead, the WWF should concentrate on winning back the 41% of the TV households that have turned away from Raw


And risk alienating the 59% who stuck with them?

The problem with all the "solutions" being tossed around is that they all are not what the general public wants to see but what the person posting wants to see. It doesn't matter how good their match is Tajiri and Kidman quite frankly don't put asses in the seats. As much as I can't stand him Stone Cold puts asses in the seats. Whether you like it or not, Hogan puts asses in the seats. Ask the assclowns yelling "What?" at Lillian Garcia if they think Stone Cold is stale?

If you want to fantasy book go ahead, but don't pretend that the average fan gives a $#!^ about whether or not the cruiserweights are being "used properly."



Everything's cool when you're Yun [point] Cheol [point] Su [point]
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 18 hours
Last activity: 18 hours
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.42
I think you can still use Austin to retain that 59% while changing his character a little. Just because the fans watching now like "WHAT" doesn't mean that any other incarnation of Stone Cold would be a ratings/drawing flop right now.



Caring is the first step towards disappointment.
BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 6 hours
Last activity: 4 hours
#15 Posted on
The 41% that is being tossed around is most likely the trendy fan that comes around every 5 years or so. What the WWF should be looking at is not that 41%, but the leftover Nitro audience that didn't cross over. Granted up to half could have been watching both, but still the WWF didn't just scoop up those viewers like many of us expected.



Kokolums
Linguica








Since: 21.2.02

Since last post: 4448 days
Last activity: 4437 days
#16 Posted on
re: Yun

This is not a question of not having enough wrestling as your Tajiri VS Kidman comment seems to suggest. This is about keeping the main-eventer's personnas fresh to prevent a slump.

re: drjayphd

No one is blaming the Osbournes. We are noting that the WWF isn't holding the #1 ranking among cable TV shows. The way the WWF is structured I would think a big drop in ratings would kill them. Their financials now depend on TV. A drop would cause them to start hemorraging cash I suspect. They'd either go under or get bought out by a Ted Turner or whoever.
HBK 2002
Linguica








Since: 17.2.02

Since last post: 4243 days
Last activity: 4236 days
#17 Posted on
Well, of course Tajiri and Hurricane can't put asses in seats now. You have to *book* somebody properly for that to happen. If they jobbed out Undertaker or Triple-H and played them for comedy, they couldn't draw, either. If UT started doing "Planet 'Taker" and got squashed by Regal and Lesnar, he would be as good as done.

I like Stone Cold. I don't want them to get rid of Stone Cold. I don't want them to change his character. Stone Cold belongs in the Main Event because 1) the fans love him, and 2) he usually delivers in big matches. I'm not saying get rid of anybody...

But Stone Cold, Triple-H, and UT need new *credible* opponents. It is clear to anyone who watches that those three are heads and shoulders above everybody else. Even when somebody else -- Angle, Y2J, or Hogan -- is champ. Triple-H did not get over until they established that he was *equal* to the other main event players. His first title reign, when he was clearly slotted below Austin and the Rock, did not get Triple-H over. Hell, marrying the bosses daughter and reforming DX didn't get him over! What got Triple-H over was battling toe-to-toe with Foley and the Rock. Watching Triple-H in those matches, you believed that he could win without something screwy. Imagine, however, that Angle had Triple-H, Austin, or UT in the ankle lock. Does anyone -- ANYONE -- believe that Angle will win? Does anyone -- ANYONE -- believe that Jericho can pin one of those guys without help? No. And so the WWF brings back the same matches we have seen over and over again for the last three years.

Oh yeah, and Hogan puts asses in seats? How many asses did he put in WCW seats in late 1999 and 2000? How many asses did he put in seats at the last PPV? He was a one-time thing. Kind of like seeing Styx or Journey for the first time in 10 years. But you won't see them if they come to town every month.

(edited by HBK 2002 on 2.5.02 0611)
WTF13
Boerewors








Since: 22.1.02

Since last post: 4375 days
Last activity: 4374 days
#18 Posted on
I think a lot of the people who were tuning in during this last big wrestling boom have tuned out just because they're tired of wrestling. I don't know if there's anything that can be done to get the ratings up. We're definitely in a period of wrestling bust now, as opposed to the wrestling boom that was going on for the last few years.

I agree that it would be smart if they would not try to reinvent the wheel and just continue the way they had been, with the viewers who have been there all along. Low ratings for the WWF are still head and shoulders above other programs on cable [I heard someone who did a cable program say that they were pleased if they got a 1, much less a 4.] but it doesn't seem like they're doing that. Instead they're following the WCW path of booking-on-the-fly, following trends, and ignoring what made them sucessful in the first place. I'm still hoping it's temporary...

The thing about cruisers is that most of the time I don't think they really appeal to anyone other than the smarks, and the smarks don't pay the bills.



HUSS! HUSS! HUSS!
HBK 2002
Linguica








Since: 17.2.02

Since last post: 4243 days
Last activity: 4236 days
#19 Posted on
In reality, Shawn Michaels was a cruiserweight. And I'm pretty sure he put a few asses in seats. It's all about how you're booked!

I don't think people turn away from wrestling as a genre. People get tired of wrestling because they get tired of seeing the same people on top. New stars or concepts -- Austin, the Rock, the nWo, Goldberg -- cause people to spend money on wrestling. Consider this analogy:

The Drew Carey show was a big hit during the late 1990s. Now, the show is struggling. Are people tired of watching SITCOMS, or are they tired of the characters and situations presented on the Drew Carey show? Obviously, people are not tired of sitcoms as a genre. Otherwise, Everybody Loves Raymond wouldn't be such a big hit.

The same logic applies to wrestling. New stars generate ratings and excitement. That's why wrestling has boom-bust periods. New star: boom. Stay with the star too long: bust. New star comes in: boom again. As WCW proved in 1996-1998, *old* stars in *fresh* situations can work, too. That's what the WWF has tried with Hogan and, to a lesser extent, the nWo. But until somebody appears EQUAL to the current main eventers, the fans won't care enough to pay to see what happens.

The same logic applies to TV Shows. Do you remember the Poochie episode of the Simpsons? Or have you visited the jump the shark website? Shows add new characters when they're struggling. Sometimes it works. But usually it's too late. That's what the WWF needs to do -- create some new characters before it's too late.
ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 86 days
Last activity: 9 days
#20 Posted on
I never believed that it is simply how you are booked. Guys get monster pushes all the time that go nowhere. The wrestler still has to take advantage of the opportunity (and some are simply just not good enough to be at the top). Shawn Michaels has charisma, the kind of charisma I really don't see in either Tajiri, Hurricane, or Billy Kidman. And if I remember right, it's not like they split Shawn away from the Rockers one night, and the next night he was booked to be in the main event. It was more of a natural progression.

BTW, isn't it a little unfair to compare ratings to the 7.4? That had to be one of RAW's highest ratings ever. It's not like they were getting that number week in and week out.

Wrestling has always had a fad quality to it. There has always been peaks and valleys. Currently, they are in a valley. But the encouraging thing has to be this valley doesn't seem as deep as the one before, and the last peak was larger than the one before it. That tends to be a sign of a general upward trend over the long run.
Pages: 1 2 Next
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: Lou Thesz and Wahoo McDaniel passings ignored: what does this mean?
Next thread: WWF Attitude (the show)
Previous thread: Who will king of the ring 2002?
(12984 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Which is a shame, since Doug had a few matches on Velocity and showed some good stuff. But of course, they have to shoe-horn him into a jobber team where he's only in the ring 1/2 the time, and can't show off what he can do.
The W - Pro Wrestling - RATINGS- What will WWF do now???Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.44 seconds.