Gangrel would cause a greater ratings spike. Please believe it.
HOWEVER, the real key is that the ratings are at least up from last week (although that was a holdiday). Now we can see if Rock's presence can KEEP them climbing. That's the important thing. Spikes are useless in the long run.
There is no quick fix for the ratings, no matter how much Vince wishes that were so. You can't bring back The Rock and expect 5.0's overnight. Wrestling is not "cool" anymore to the casual viewer. It's a trend that's on its way down and hardcore fans and WWE brass alike have to realize that these ratings will be the norm until wrestling becomes a trend again.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, this is NOTHING to panic about! Hardcore fans need to just sit back and enjoy the good things about WWE (Booker/Goldust, Angle, RVD, the Cruiserweight division) instead of worrying about ratings and whether the casual viewer will turn in.
And that's the bottom line, because it's false! It's DAMN false!
Am I the only one who just doesn't give a rat's ass about ratings? Until the RAW or Smackdown are close to cancellation (and, even dropping as much as they have, this doesn't look like even close to a possibility). Some of the best shows ever have gotten absolutely bottom of the barrel ratings. Hell, the first season of 'Cheers" was 76th out of 76 shows for the year. Ratings do not equal quality. Some of the best NWA angles of all time did bupkus in terms of ratings during the Rock 'n' Wrestling era. Ratings do not equal good TV. Solid production, coherent storylines, and long matches do. 1999 was one of the WWF's biggest ratings years ever, and I couldn't stand most of it. Wrestlemania 15 is easily one of my picks for worst PPV ever (and only Rock - Austin saves the show from that, for me).
I guarantee you, if the WWE started to do their best angle ever tomorrow, it -still- wouldn't equate into a large ratings boost. The audience just isn't there right now. They've found other things to do. The fad is over. It'll come back eventually, but the Fed's just going to have to accept their place on the pop-culture backburner for now. They've been their before and survived. This panicky quick-fix crap is only going to destroy the quality of the show and make it harder for them to keep the hard-core fans they do have.
"All I ever asked for in life is an unfair advantage." Microchip, Punisher Annual #2
Originally posted by hayabusaSmackdown scored a 3.3 rating last night. That not a good rating considering all the hype they were giving the return of The Rock. There's only one thing left to do, BRING BACK STEPHANIE!
Can you make one post without mentioning the hideousness that is Stephanie?
Jesus dude, go see a shrink or something, that ain't normal.
"You can save the planet, I'll save your seat"- Uncle Kracker, Better Days "Confucious say: Man with hand in pocket feel cocky all day!"- Crank Yankers
I agree with all said above, minus the bring back Stephanie, she can rot in the hell that is being a WWE booker.
Also, it's kind of sad when WWE blames shows like the Osbournes (not even on the same night as them) and Spongebob for their ratings drop. That and they referred to them as "fad shows" like wrestling isn't. The business is cyclical. All there is too it, and there's nothing we as fans can do about it, but sit back and enjoy our favorite television program.
Also, I thought Smackdown was boring as hell and ended up hating it. In my mind the best wrestling show this week was NWA TNA by far. RAW was just plain weird and Smackdown, besides the opening two matches just missed it's cue.
An open letter to Andrew Gilkison from me: Sir, I am no longer pleased with your product and thus will not read it. I am the consumer and your product is not living up to my expectations. I could open up an Andrew Gilkison message board and cry about it, but that's a waste of my time. In the meantime, I would suggest you work on improving your product. Thank you.
Watching RAW and Smackdown doesn't cost anymore than your posts do. And so, like a good consumer, I'm tuning you out.
Also, it's kind of sad when WWE blames shows like the Osbournes (not even on the same night as them) and Spongebob for their ratings drop. That and they referred to them as "fad shows" like wrestling isn't.
The WWE/F has no one to blame for the low ratings but themselves. You can only put out so many consecutive months of mostly crappy TV before the viewing audience gives you the middle finger. And once someone flips you the bird, its hard to win back their favor.
The big argument these days seems to be a chicken or egg situation. Do high ratings come from wrestling being a cyclical business and the fad will rise again or does good programming bring high ratings.
I think that it's actually a combination of the two ideas. Good angles bring more fans and the more fans you have the more popular you are. The more popular wrestling is the less chance it has of being called lame or fake.
The NwO and Austin/McMahon are usually the big reasons attributed to the wrestling boom of the late 90's. Those two well booked angles are what got the people to tune into Raw and Nitro. When these two angles got stale and boring the casual fan went on to the next big fad which was reality tv(i think).
Since then there has been nothing but a rehash of those two big angles. And people wonder why INVASION failed when it was just a lame ass attempt at New World Order without the stars. Oh and how many times have we been through Evil Owner vs. Babyface since the original Austin/McMahon. Are there no original ideas out there?
In a nutshell I think that wrestling will become popular again if they have a big angle that can get the casual fan to tune in again. Until then ratings will continue to decline because rehashing the same angle over and over again is not cool.
"You a fan, a phony, a fake, a pussy, a Stan I still whip your ass, you thirty-six in a karate class? You Tae-bo hoe, tryna' work it out, you tryna' get brolic? Ask me if I'm tryna' kick knowledge Nah, I'm tryna' kick the shit you need to learn though It's the ether, shit that make your ass burn slow"
Originally posted by GodEatGodAm I the only one who just doesn't give a rat's ass about ratings?
Nope. The ratings are almost completely irrelevant to fans and it's a testament to the amateurishness of the wrestling media, both online and off, that they make such a big deal out of them. You're right -- when they get to a level where cancellation is a threat, then we should start paying attention, but for now, when the numbers are nowhere near that low, I have no idea why anybody should care.
Nobody talked about the ratings before Nitro became a threat. Granted, the Internet wasn't nearly so big as it is now, but nobody talked about them. When the WWF and WCW got into this big battle for superiority, it became a fun way to keep score and everybody got obsessed, me included. I loved that pre-Wrestlemania XIV period when the WWF was clearly putting out a much better product than WCW, and WCW was still dominating the ratings -- but the WWF would chip away week after week. Then something strange happened: WCW went out of business, and people kept caring. They forgot WWF ratings didn't matter without a measuring stick.
Wrestling is a soap opera, right? Take a look at some soap opera fan sites and see if they fret over the ratings. I'll bet you won't see any news items like: "Guiding Light scored an awful 0.8 rating yesterday. This is terrible news for CBS, which has seen a full point dropoff since the move to the new timeslot last year. CBS really needs to do something to turn it around or the situation will only get much, much worse."
¡Azúcar, flores y muchos colores! Estos fueron los ingredientes elegidos para crear a la niñita perfecta. Pero el profesor Utonio agrego accidentalmente otro ingrediente a la formula: ¡la sustancia X! Y así nacieron, ¡las Chicas Superpoderosas! ¡Con sus ultra súper poderes, Bombón, Burbuja y Bellota dedican su vida a combatir el crimen y las fuerzas del mal!
Well, WWE THEMSELVES clearly scrutinize the ratings VERY closely and change up their programs based on what the ratings are telling them. That to me means:
- The ratings must be important in a business sense... I think WWE knows what's important for their business a lot better than we do - Fans will want to pay attention to the ratings so they know whether to expect the same kind of programs in the future (good ratings), or different ones (bad ratings)
gonna build a giant drill and bore straight into hell releasing ancient demons from their sleep-forever spell so they can walk upon the earth and get recituated and run the diet pill pyramid that MC Pee Pants has created
You know what. I may not care much about ratings. Some people here say they don't give a rats ass about ratings. But you want to know who gives a rat's ass about ratings? VINCE MCMAHON! That's who. As you can obviously tell from WWE booking in the last year or so, Vince has done way too much in order for looking for a quick ratings fix, and while some might work early on (ECW, Invasion, the Rock) eventually it fades rather quickly. Look at Vince's last quick ratings fix, The NWO. We all know how that turned out. I think if Vince had his bookers give WWE some consistency and coherency rather than look for something that will get the ratings up for 2 weeks his company would be in much better shape.
"It is a strange fate that we suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing...such a little thing." -Boromir
Ratings mean a lot if you want some of the choice sponsers. Wrestling is a taboo business to sponser as it is, but when the ratings are high many companies are willing to throw their dollars Vince's way. You could end up going from Castrol to WWE Shpzone.com...oh, right.
Unless you're a WWE investor, there is no reason to care about WWE's ratings. I think deep down, Vince knows that he needs a better overall product to improve ratings--something fresh. Hence, you're seeing Brock Lesnar, Bautista, RVD, Lance Storm, and Angle (who is still relatively new to the main event scene) get bigger pushes. I like to think that I'm seeing an upward trend in the quality of the shows (relative to recent months, that is), and if this continues, ratings will increase, though not to the 7.0s. WWE is still economically viable, and will remain so if, and only if...wait for it...
STEVE BLACKMAN BECOMES WWE CHAMPION!!! (that's for you, Zed)
WyldeWolf1 The Man of 1,007 holds, making him 3 holds better than Chris Jericho!
Yes, but it certainly doesn't help when all this crap gets put on TV because WWE thinks it will get the ratings back up quickly. It seems now at least WWE is attempting at building up and modifying the roster. But then again, Hulk Hogan is the current WWE champion and the Undertaker is WWE champion.
Here's to Angle winning a week from Sunday, and hopefully it won't be the rock.
"It is a strange fate that we suffer so much fear and doubt over so small a thing...such a little thing." -Boromir
I don't see how anyone can say that the ratings aren't important. They're a measurement of success and a great indicator of the current momentum of the company in general.
On the surface, sure, we don't all freak out and say "Sweet! The Rock got a 5.5 rating in his segment! This will surely bring a higher share to WWE so that they can improve on their next-quarter profit margin!"
We do, however, see bad angles go bye-bye relatively quicker if there is a really low quarter hour rating. If they don't nix low-rated angles, we get a WCW situation on our hands.
EXAMPLE: By early 1999, Hogan's drawing power was completely gone (at least, in WCW it was). His segments were consistently rated low and didn't help the company in any way, yet they routinely gave him the belt and made him the centerpiece of the organization. By not phasing him out when he got low ratings, they dug themselves into a hole they never got out of. WWE at least realized this mistake and Hogan's role has significantly decreased in recent weeks. It's one of the few moves WWE has made for the better.
If certain segments are rated highly, obviously that is a direct measure of success (at least for that given night) and an indicator that we will see more of that similar content down the road.
It is pretty bad news for WWE that Rock's return to SMACKDOWN! didn't spike the ratings... Or maybe it did since they did a 2.0 the week before. :)
Tank just looked so out of place. I'd still like to see him in there with someone who would try to knock him out, just to finish him off for good. The guy who beat Baroni was Matt Lindland. I love Phil Baroni, the best heel in UFC.