The W
Views: 101450573
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
19.12.14 1735
The W - Pro Wrestling - re: audience, is this correct?
This thread has 2 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 5.91
Pages: 1
(1902 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (14 total)
RYDER FAKIN
Six Degrees of Me








Since: 21.2.02
From: ORLANDO

Since last post: 20 days
Last activity: 20 days
AIM:  
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.17
From Alvarez, this weeks F4W:

The WWE/WCW merger was a disaster for the wrestling business. In fact, it marked the end of the wrestling business as it had been for nearly 100 years. Post-2001 is a different world, similar in some ways to what pro-wrestling used to be but also very different. WWE fell off a cliff in 2002 and it took years to recover, and it could be safely argued that the Monday Night Wars were, in reality, the worst thing to ever happen to the wrestling business as a whole. They were great for WWE in the sense that they allowed the company to go public and amass a war chest that will keep them in business for the foreseeable future, but there are fewer people interested in pro-wrestling today than at any other point in the history of wrestling. Could the same happen to MMA now that UFC has bought their top competition?

I agree with most of it, but I can't buy the part in bold type. just doing the basic match, in the early 90's WCW was drawing maybe 1K people / WWE around 3k and some bingo hall about 1k. Factor in the buys for PPV and the television audiences and it still doesn't seem to add up to 5+ million for RAW watch week, full arenas, TNA, etc

If someone can back up that statement, I'm all for it. I think in making a point, Alvarez got too caught up for his own good

FLEA


(edited by RYDER FAKIN on 19.3.11 1912)

Demonstrations are a drag. Besides, we're much too high








Due to not believing IN THE LAKERS, Frosty is walking around with $20 of my money!
Promote this thread!
StingArmy
Andouille








Since: 3.5.03
From: Georgia bred, you can tell by my Hawk jersey

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 2 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
When "Eddie Edwards" is trending worldwide on Twitter, I can't help but think that statement is falser than false.

- StingArmy
redsoxnation
Scrapple








Since: 24.7.02

Since last post: 536 days
Last activity: 536 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.89
If he had argued that this is the longest period of stagnation, he might be correct. Late 50's/mid 80's could be argued, but you would have hot territories and cold territories, just nothing major nationally. Early 90's stagnation was minimal between the 80's boom and the mid/late 90's explosion. This has been a decade where the audience dropped, leveled, and then stayed in the same range.
Monday Night Wars could be argued as a bad thing in that it was fools gold. They hit at the right time in the right atmosphere in the right economy.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.23
I think trending on twiter has more to do with a generation so bored, anything new tha happens, it automatically goes up. Plus, if we had Twitter back in the 80s how many wrestlers would be trending now, Glacier would be trending for almost a month. I don't think this is the lowest point ever. Its probably not even the lowest point in the modern era. The early 90s were really bad. WWE almost went under during the steriod trial and WCW was a giant mess. TNA and WWE are not in any real danger of going under. Even after TNA's Main Event, they posted one of their better ratings of the year on Thursday.

However, if you look at the ratings and compare them to 2002, its not pretty. Its also pretty obvious Cena, Edge, Orton and even Miz are not going to be accepted as champs as Hogan, Flair, Savage, Sting, Rock, Foley, Austin and to some degree HHH were during their time. Those guys were able to tap into the fans and gain mainstream acceptance. The ratings Raw has been getting since 2006 is their base fanbase, that rating is usually 3.1-3.5. Those are the people that not matter what are going to watch. Its really only been since Rock and Austin coming back as the rating moved towards being in close 4s. Once Rock leaves, I expect the ratings to go back down to the 3.1-3.5 level. Its still a great rating for cable, but its not what it was.

Wrestling will be at this level until a new wrestling group comes along with gobs of money as well as interesting storylines and wrestlers or Vince shakes things up to the point he fires even family members. Until this time, we will continue to be live on the straight line that wrestling is on. Only going up and down very slightly, but never moving in a downwardspiral or a giant upward motion.

BigDaddyLoco
Scrapple








Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 21 hours
Last activity: 3 hours
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.00
It's hurt that those two companies were so big that they pretty much cleared the map of any regional competition. The days of bringing in a new face, but one who knows his trade from years of wrestling like a Junk Yard Dogg or Ted DiBiase are more or less over in the US.

Now the wrestling business essentially does what the NBA was doing in the late 90's early 00's, which is calling up young guys with talent who in a lot of cases just are not ready for prime time.

Seeing the WWE bring in guys like Del Rio and Mystico is a positive sign. Now that size seems to matter a little less they can go out and bring in guys like Punk and Bryan. These guys just have to learn the 'WWE Style' instead of everything.

I'm also not sure that there are less people interested in Pro Wrestling. There are less bandwagon fans than in the Austin/Rock/nWo years, but are we counting them? I'd say a lot of wrestling fans are less interested in the product being presented to them than less interested in wrestling in general.

We also need to factor in the internet. The last wrestling boom happened when the internet was still figuring out what it was and not everybody had instant access to it. The two companies were still shilling their telephone 900 hotlines for inside info and a new face showing up on a different show was still a surprise. I can now skip a show or fall asleep on the couch and catch something like the Miz attacking Cena dressed as the Rock WHILE I'M AT WORK! Unheard of only ten years ago.



Hogan's My Dad
Andouille








Since: 8.6.02
From: Canada

Since last post: 17 hours
Last activity: 12 hours
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.73

    I totally buy it. I don't think they're arguing that there has ever been a North American wrestling product more popular by itself than WWE, particularly during it's peak periods of '84-'87 and '98-2001. Nor are they arguing there's ever been a more profitable wrestling company. But if you go back to the territories, even if only a couple hundred thousand people were watching in a particular region, there were an awful lot of territories, and many were hot at certain points.

   Clearly "Black Saturday" showed not everyone was interested in the McMahon vision, and the two other time-slots Turner gave to Ole Anderson and Bill Watts' promotions on Saturday morning and Sunday night outdrew Vince's show in the old GCW timeslot he bought off the Briscoes, thus necessitating his need to sell it to Jim Crockett a year later. We also remember that WCCW in its prime was so hot with the Von Erichs that they were able to sell out Reunion Arena a whole bunch of times and had the big house at Texas Stadium for Flair V.S. Kerry. These are just glaring examples I'm aware of, to say nothing of the AWA, FCW, JCP, Stampede Wrestling, and when JYD was a god in Mid-South during the early 80s, doing crowds twenty-thousand plus four or five times a year at the Superdome in New Orleans, something the WWF couldn't have done in even in 1987 or 1999 and certainly couldn't do today.

    During all these periods there were more people working in wrestling earning a living than there are now. So it's possible to imagine, using history as a sort of litmus test, that various territories' fans from all over who all got a different style of booking and a different presentation would be far more likely give up their wrestling ghost altogether than watch WWE.





Quiet, Or Papa Spank!
Big Bad
Scrapple








Since: 4.1.02
From: Dorchester, Ontario

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.56
    Originally posted by lotjx
    However, if you look at the ratings and compare them to 2002, its not pretty. Its also pretty obvious Cena, Edge, Orton and even Miz are not going to be accepted as champs as Hogan, Flair, Savage, Sting, Rock, Foley, Austin and to some degree HHH were during their time. Those guys were able to tap into the fans and gain mainstream acceptance. The ratings Raw has been getting since 2006 is their base fanbase, that rating is usually 3.1-3.5. Those are the people that not matter what are going to watch. Its really only been since Rock and Austin coming back as the rating moved towards being in close 4s. Once Rock leaves, I expect the ratings to go back down to the 3.1-3.5 level. Its still a great rating for cable, but its not what it was.


Ratings for everything are down since 2002, since the TV viewing audience has become far more fragmented due to both more cable options and internet/streaming/Hulu viewing. I don't think it has anything to do with fans 'not accepting' Cena and company as credible champions. Cena is easily one of the top stars in company history (arguably top-five behind Hogan, Austin, Sammartino, Rock) and has been a top guy for six years now, so I wish people would stop treating him like an ongoing experiment. Cena's prime has been longer than Austin's, and almost as long as Hogan's.



"It breaks your heart. It is designed to break your heart. The game begins in the spring, when everything else begins again, and it blossoms in the summer, filling the afternoons and evenings, and then as soon as the chill rains come, it stops and leaves you to face the fall alone." --- Bart Giamatti, on baseball
dMp
Banger








Since: 4.1.02
From: The Hague, Netherlands (Europe)

Since last post: 11 days
Last activity: 2 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 9.00
    Originally posted by Big Bad
      Originally posted by lotjx
      However, if you look at the ratings and compare them to 2002, its not pretty. Its also pretty obvious Cena, Edge, Orton and even Miz are not going to be accepted as champs as Hogan, Flair, Savage, Sting, Rock, Foley, Austin and to some degree HHH were during their time. Those guys were able to tap into the fans and gain mainstream acceptance. The ratings Raw has been getting since 2006 is their base fanbase, that rating is usually 3.1-3.5. Those are the people that not matter what are going to watch. Its really only been since Rock and Austin coming back as the rating moved towards being in close 4s. Once Rock leaves, I expect the ratings to go back down to the 3.1-3.5 level. Its still a great rating for cable, but its not what it was.


    Ratings for everything are down since 2002, since the TV viewing audience has become far more fragmented due to both more cable options and internet/streaming/Hulu viewing. I don't think it has anything to do with fans 'not accepting' Cena and company as credible champions. Cena is easily one of the top stars in company history (arguably top-five behind Hogan, Austin, Sammartino, Rock) and has been a top guy for six years now, so I wish people would stop treating him like an ongoing experiment. Cena's prime has been longer than Austin's, and almost as long as Hogan's.


A guy like Cena is credible imo but unlike Rock, Austin, Hogan he and his storylines are not must-see.
Everyone wanted to know who the ROck was gonna insult this week, how Austin & McMahon would screw one another and in the old days see Hogan fight for justice and the American way.
So in that sense, Lotjx is absolutely right. People who don't like wrestling for the wrestling don't have that urge to tune in.
The only thing WWE can do is have Rock and Austin hang out and hopefully their presence will rub off on the new guys like the Miz.
And -try- to write storylines strong enough to make those new guys shine.



Avatar Mud
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.22
    Originally posted by Big Bad
      Originally posted by lotjx
      However, if you look at the ratings and compare them to 2002, its not pretty. Its also pretty obvious Cena, Edge, Orton and even Miz are not going to be accepted as champs as Hogan, Flair, Savage, Sting, Rock, Foley, Austin and to some degree HHH were during their time. Those guys were able to tap into the fans and gain mainstream acceptance. The ratings Raw has been getting since 2006 is their base fanbase, that rating is usually 3.1-3.5. Those are the people that not matter what are going to watch. Its really only been since Rock and Austin coming back as the rating moved towards being in close 4s. Once Rock leaves, I expect the ratings to go back down to the 3.1-3.5 level. Its still a great rating for cable, but its not what it was.


    Ratings for everything are down since 2002, since the TV viewing audience has become far more fragmented due to both more cable options and internet/streaming/Hulu viewing. I don't think it has anything to do with fans 'not accepting' Cena and company as credible champions. Cena is easily one of the top stars in company history (arguably top-five behind Hogan, Austin, Sammartino, Rock) and has been a top guy for six years now, so I wish people would stop treating him like an ongoing experiment. Cena's prime has been longer than Austin's, and almost as long as Hogan's.


The ratings for the NFL and college football are at all time highs. So, lets scrap the argument that because there are more channels, all ratings are down, because its not true. We can even take ratings for taped shows which we couldn't do with VCRs now and last time I checked Raw was not on the top ten. Cena has been around forever and during that time, the ratings have steady, but they have not gone up. You can make an argument during Cena's time, the ratings have hit the baseline. The reality is Cena is a steady champ for the company, but he is not the next break out star that Hogan, Austin, Rock, Foley, Savage, Jericho, Sanmartino or even Piper, that they though he would be. Yes, he has done movies and sold shirts, but he has not transcended wrestling.


His length of time is not a good thing either. He is turned Raw into the Cena show even when he is not the champ. I think part of the problem Raw's ratings have been steady is that people know that and don't bother watching for the most part. The best times for wrestling is when an established star is out for awhile and it forces the company to make new stars. WWE's problem with this big of a roster they don't have to. They can move another main event talent over. Its not Cena's fault for that. Yet, if anyone needed to be given a six month leave of absence its John and Randy.
I Breastfeed John Madden
Head cheese








Since: 13.4.04
From: Des Moines, IA

Since last post: 10 days
Last activity: 21 hours
#10 Posted on
Raw is #2 and #3 for basic cable last week.

Speaking of people who need to go away...



Malone.
Ex-Cop, Ex-CIA, Ex-plosive.
lotjx
Scrapple








Since: 5.9.08

Since last post: 1 day
Last activity: 7 hours
#11 Posted on | Instant Rating: 1.22
    Originally posted by I Breastfeed John Madden
    Raw is #2 and #3 for basic cable last week.

    Speaking of people who need to go away...



Again, great ratings, but not where they were back in the day. Like I said before WWE is not going anywhere, yet they do not have the must see shows like they used to. The argument is not whether Wrestling is dead, its where its currently popularity is. I agree that the early 90s were the worst for the industry, but this is time frame of the Cena era has not exactly set the world on fire.
Mr. Boffo
Scrapple








Since: 24.3.02
From: Oshkosh, WI

Since last post: 509 days
Last activity: 469 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 4.00
    Originally posted by lotjx
    Again, great ratings, but not where they were back in the day. Like I said before WWE is not going anywhere, yet they do not have the must see shows like they used to. The argument is not whether Wrestling is dead, its where its currently popularity is. I agree that the early 90s were the worst for the industry, but this is time frame of the Cena era has not exactly set the world on fire.

Every TV rating is down due to the fragmentation of the TV market thanks to the proliferation of 300 channel cable / satellite TV lineups. The fact that Raw doesn't get 5s or 6s anymore doesn't tell you anything about the popularity of WWE or wrestling as a whole.
TheGreatWhiteBob
Tocino








Since: 5.3.11
From: England

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 1 day
#13 Posted on
PPV buyrates, sir. While the decrease in TV ratings might be attributable to an increase in TV channels (and thus increased competition), PPV buyrates have also decreased. That's surely a bigger concern to the 'E than TV ratings.

That said, I have no idea how their merchandise sales, endorsements, house shows etc are performing in relation to their late 90's/early 00's glory days.



"That's some shameful shit..."
JustinShapiro
Scrapple
Moderator








Since: 12.12.01
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 15 min.
#14 Posted on | Instant Rating: 8.70
    Originally posted by Big Bad
    Cena is easily one of the top stars in company history (arguably top-five behind Hogan, Austin, Sammartino, Rock) and has been a top guy for six years now, so I wish people would stop treating him like an ongoing experiment.


Yeah, Cena was legitimately one of the bigger differencemakers in company history from 2005-2008. He abruptly turned around attendance and merchandise that had declined rapidly post-wrestling boom from 2002-2004. It might not have a catchy name like Hulkamania or Attitude Era, and it came in a different context as far as WWE's business/star model, but Cena's run as torchbearer outpaces almost everyone in modern company history save Austin, Rock, Hogan, and Savage (in '88-89 riding Hogan's crest). That puts him ahead of Shawn Michaels, Undertaker, Bret Hart, Triple H (without Rock & Austin post-2001), and Ultimate Warrior when the longterm history of the company is written.

(edited by JustinShapiro on 21.3.11 0913)
Thread rated: 5.91
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: WWE Are No Longer In the Wrestling Business
Next thread: SmackDown #604 3-18-11
Previous thread: RIP Sir Oliver Humperdink
(1902 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
All I know is I could have watched David Otunga Pterodactyl dance into the #OtungaPose while Naomi and Cameron scowled in outrage at ringside for the whole show.
- John Orquiola, Smackdown #670 6/22/12 (2012)
The W - Pro Wrestling - re: audience, is this correct? Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.363 seconds.