Zeruel
Thirty Millionth Hit
Moderator
   
   
     
  
Since: 2.1.02
From: The Silver Spring in the Land of Mary.
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 9 hours
|  #121 Posted on 20.7.11 1539.31 | Instant Rating: 7.67 | Is a rating point the same now as it was then? I'm sure that one rating point is worth more than it was back in 98, so a 3.2 now could be more estimated viewers than a 4.0 back then.
-- 2006 Time magazine Person of the Year --
-- July 2009 Ordained Reverend -- | superfurry
Bauerwurst
Since: 18.7.10
From: Worcester, UK
Since last post: 45 days
Last activity: 1 day
|  #122 Posted on 20.7.11 1539.32 | Pay-per-view buy rates are much more important than ratings. They had been declining for the past two years, while the ratings have been around the same level for near enough a decade now.
I'm pretty certain that Money In The Bank will draw a higher number than last year's show. By how much is the key, and if the numbers can continue to be above last year through Summerslam and onward.
For what it's worth, I predict MITB will draw in excess of 500,000 buys, which would be a great result for all concerned. | Broncolanche
Sujuk
Since: 2.6.03
From: Littleton, CO
Since last post: 647 days
Last activity: 583 days
| #123 Posted on 20.7.11 1546.22 | Instant Rating: 2.08 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Is a rating point the same now as it was then? I'm sure that one rating point is worth more than it was back in 98, so a 3.2 now could be more estimated viewers than a 4.0 back then.
One more thing to consider is that DVRs weren't as widely used back then (certainly not in 1998 since the first DVR devices weren't launched until March of 1999) as they are now.
(edited by Broncolanche on 20.7.11 1447) | CajunMan
Boudin blanc
No longer registered
Since: 2.1.02
From: Give me a Title shot!
Since last post: 582 days
Last activity: 382 days
| #124 Posted on 20.7.11 1550.43 | Instant Rating: 1.57 | Originally posted by superfurry
Pay-per-view buy rates are much more important than ratings. They had been declining for the past two years, while the ratings have been around the same level for near enough a decade now.
I'm pretty certain that Money In The Bank will draw a higher number than last year's show. By how much is the key, and if the numbers can continue to be above last year through Summerslam and onward.
For what it's worth, I predict MITB will draw in excess of 500,000 buys, which would be a great result for all concerned.
Have you seen what they have been charging? COX down here charges $54.99 now for a WWE PPV. I miss the days of $19.99 WWE PPV's. | thecubsfan
Scrapple
Moderator
Since: 10.12.01
From: Aurora, IL
Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 3 hours
| #125 Posted on 20.7.11 1551.30 | Instant Rating: 9.63 | Originally posted by Zeruel
Is a rating point the same now as it was then? I'm sure that one rating point is worth more than it was back in 98, so a 3.2 now could be more estimated viewers than a 4.0 back then.
Right. A rating point is the percentage of the total television universe, which has expanded over the years. Neilsen has a graph showing the expansion, and says they recalculate the percentage every August.
Originally posted by Broncolanche
One more thing to consider is that DVRs weren't as widely used back then (certainly not in 1998 since the first DVR devices were launched in March of 1999) as they are now.
Neilsen does add in viewers from DVRs (provided they watch the show within seven days.) For whatever reason, WWE TV is said has a relatively low amount amount of added DVR viewers.
For what it's worth, I predict MITB will draw in excess of 500,000 buys, which would be a great result for all concerned.
That would not be a great number. That would be an unbelievable number. Recent buyrates are much, much lower. Extreme Rules had 65,000 buys. Last year's MITB did 99,000. Page 5 of this PDF has a pretty line graph if you want to dig in to it, but a 150,000 buy rate would be great in today's environment.
(edited by thecubsfan on 20.7.11 1556)
thecubsfan.com - luchablog | 2P4E
Boerewors
Since: 4.1.05
From: SE12, London, UK.
Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| #126 Posted on 20.7.11 1633.53 | Instant Rating: 8.00 | | What portion of WWE's overall money intake is dictated by US TV advertising? I know keeping TV viewers as high as possible is important for the knock on effects in terms of exposure, merchandise, live shows etc, but the recent use of Khali and Mahal on SD has made me wonder generally about courting more foreign audiences (I'm guessing India has a fairly huge and growing TV audience) as well as the relative number of people watching in America compared to the rest of the world. | Alex
Bratwurst
Since: 24.2.02
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 day
| #127 Posted on 20.7.11 1805.24 | Instant Rating: 2.00 | | 7. Paul Heyman not caring if your ring has four sides, six sides, eight sides, etc. I can't for the life of me remember the context though. | Mr. Boffo
Scrapple
Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI
Since last post: 4 days
Last activity: 4 hours
| #128 Posted on 20.7.11 1943.03 | Instant Rating: 5.87 | Originally posted by thecubsfan
Neilsen does add in viewers from DVRs (provided they watch the show within seven days.) For whatever reason, WWE TV is said has a relatively low amount amount of added DVR viewers.
But of course the 3.2 wouldn't include any DVR, because the week isn't up yet. I would guess at the very least Raw wouldn't get many DVR viewers because it is live, and if you watch it later you've "missed out".
Originally posted by 2P4E
What portion of WWE's overall money intake is dictated by US TV advertising?
Domestic Television Rights Fees was the single largest revenue source in 2010. It breaks down like this (all numbers in millions):
Domestic Television Rights Fees - $81.6
Worldwide Pay-Per-View Revenue - $70.2
North American Live Event Revenue - $64.7
Consumer Product Licensing - $51.7
International Television Rights Fees - $45.4
International Live Event Revenue - $39.9
Home Video - $32.1
WWE Studios - $19.6
Venue Merchandise - $18.4 (btw, how much of that do you suppose is Cena-related?)
WWE.com - $14.9
WWEShop - $14
Magazine Publishing - $11
Television Advertising - $5.9
WWE Classics On Demand - $4.6
Other Consumer Products - $2.6
Other Live and Televised - $1.1
I'm going to be walking in the National Kidney Foundation Kidney Walk in September, and I'm supposed to ask for donations. Links is at http://donate.kidney.org/site/TR/Walk/Wisconsin?px=1851193&pg=personal&fr_id=4180 | lotjx
Knackwurst
Since: 5.9.08
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 1 hour
| #129 Posted on 21.7.11 0731.51 | Instant Rating: 0.71 | They make $4.6 million from OnDemand? That has to be money given from the cable or dish companies, because I refuse to believe that many people have that service. In all honesty, I thought the merchandising would be in the top three of revenue. I guess people really like their WWE DVD collections or fans of the older stuff.
The Wee Baby Sheamus.
Twitter: @realjoecarfley its a bit more toned down there. A bit. | Spank E
Kolbasz
Since: 2.1.02
From: Bristol, UK
Since last post: 213 days
Last activity: 1 hour
| #130 Posted on 21.7.11 0757.05 | Originally posted by Alex
7. Paul Heyman not caring if your ring has four sides, six sides, eight sides, etc. I can't for the life of me remember the context though.
I think that was Kurt Angle issuing an open challenge to any competitor.
 | ekedolphin
Scrapple
Since: 12.1.02
From: Indianapolis, IN; now residing in Suffolk, VA
Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 20 hours
| #131 Posted on 21.7.11 2133.09 | Instant Rating: 2.23 | Y'know, last week Punk did assure Cena that he wouldn't have to worry about getting fired. ("Let's take you back to the last time you got fired, and it lasted all of about seven days. It's not gonna happen. So you don't have that to worry about.")
"Lord, give me patience, or I will strangle this creature of yours!"
--Anonymous Customer, NotAlwaysRight.comFan of the Indianapolis Colts (Super Bowl XLI Champions), Indiana Pacers and Washington Nationals Certified RFMC Member-- Ask To See My Credentials! Co-Winner of Time's Person of the Year Award, 2006 | Dionysus
Italian
Since: 10.7.11
Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 3 hours
| #132 Posted on 21.7.11 2328.39 | I was pretty excited to see Vince finally losing his Chairman powers. For about a decade now, WWE has been marred by the fact that a villain character was in control of the company. There was some good symbolism in having a dude wearing an Austin shirt be behind Vince McMahon's downfall.
Another aspect of the Vince-firing that I liked, was that it was largely due to him losing control of the WWE Champion under Montreal-like circumstances. An implication there is that Vince's character would have been removed from his post in 1997 if he had not screwed Bret back then. If this really was the permanent end of Mr. McMahon's reign, then I appreciate how they had him come full circle back to the situation his character was at in the beginning.
John Cena's allusion to TNA/Immortal was a bit of edginess that I was surprised to see from him. Good stuff.
It was a fun show overall. | | Pages: Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thread rated: 5.77
