andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Dec 14, 2010 19:42:32 GMT -5
Was a 3.1
|
|
|
Post by forgottensinpwf on Dec 14, 2010 19:50:13 GMT -5
Not bad considering the competition
|
|
|
Post by i.Sarita.com on Dec 14, 2010 19:52:27 GMT -5
That's getting real close to the 2.0s...and for a "special" show, regardless of competition, it's gotta be a disappointment. (For the WWE, not USA.)
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Dec 14, 2010 19:53:02 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by EoE: Well There's Your Problem on Dec 14, 2010 19:55:48 GMT -5
They just need to figure out how to get that first hour up. Other than that, it's pretty good.
|
|
toonami4life
Don Corleone
Better than your favorite crossover
Posts: 1,770
|
Post by toonami4life on Dec 14, 2010 19:57:23 GMT -5
ha ha ha... I was right. Where's that topic about how the football games were going to hurt the ratings? Considering Raw has been having the same ratings and dipping below it as well ever since Football started I don't think you have much room to brag.
|
|
Fundertaker
El Dandy
Hideo Kojima should direct every ending ever!
Posts: 8,932
Member is Online
|
Post by Fundertaker on Dec 14, 2010 19:59:13 GMT -5
Not to mention that 3 hour RAWs tend to have lower ratings on the average because of that extra hour.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Dec 14, 2010 20:02:54 GMT -5
ha ha ha... I was right. Where's that topic about how the football games were going to hurt the ratings? Considering Raw has been having the same ratings and dipping below it as well ever since Football started I don't think you have much room to brag. awww, someone's bitter because I was right. PWTorch is claiming this Raw had a 3.05 overall rating. They also said this: I simply said the ratings wouldn't be hurt because of the "special challenge" of the MIN/NYG game - which to me it looks like it wasn't.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 14, 2010 20:03:27 GMT -5
It also does show the bullshit reasoning of the football games, which I despise. If people are interested, they're gonna watch. And, while the rating isn't as high as it used to be, it's still pretty good.
|
|
|
Post by rapidfire187 on Dec 14, 2010 20:04:25 GMT -5
I think the issue is that people simply forget that it comes on an hour early when they do these 3 hour shows. I forget nearly every time, and I'm a guy that doesn't go an hour without thinking about wrestling. The only 3 hour show that I actually remembered to watch from the beginning was KOTR, and that's because I kept reminding myself because I didn't want to miss it. The only reason I remembered to turn Raw on at 8 last night is because a friend of mine texted me around 7:58 and asked if I was going to watch it.
Really, these ratings are fluctuating enough for me to care one way or the other. If we get something about a 4.0 I'll get excited, if there's something below a 3.0 I'll get worried. Anything in the 3.0-3.9 range is just business as usual IMO.
Also, Raw was pretty lackluster last week in comparison to the very exciting shows that we've had since Survivor Series.
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Dec 14, 2010 20:10:24 GMT -5
Miz = RATINGS
And you guys said he would make a horrible champ
|
|
DeathRay
Don Corleone
about to kick your head in... with a DON!!!
Posts: 1,277
|
Post by DeathRay on Dec 14, 2010 20:20:17 GMT -5
Miz = RATINGS And you guys said he would make a horrible champ we meant from a workrate standpoint
|
|
|
Post by Nic Nemeth on Dec 14, 2010 20:22:44 GMT -5
Miz = RATINGS And you guys said he would make a horrible champ we meant from a workrate standpoint Can't really judge a guy when his only match so far was a decent match with an announcer
|
|
Jeremy
Hank Scorpio
Horse of a Different Color
Posts: 6,240
|
Post by Jeremy on Dec 14, 2010 20:23:18 GMT -5
Just sticky this thread. Seems like it is 3.1 every week.
|
|
|
Post by 8-BitAssassin on Dec 14, 2010 20:32:24 GMT -5
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about the ratings of shows that I watch? I mean, I care if NOBODY else watches my favorite shows because they might get canceled, but I can't really find any reasons to care if raw gets a 3.1 or a 3.6.
Wrestling seems to be the only TV show based fandom that I interact with that obsesses about this. Is it a holdout from the Monday Night Wars when Vince and Bischoff made that the central part of ther "TV peen" measuring contest, or am I missing something?
|
|
|
Post by treysarver on Dec 14, 2010 21:00:00 GMT -5
I'm telling you, wait until next year when the NFL and NBA are both on strike. WWE will have a chance to hit 5.0+'s if they work this correctly.
|
|
percymania
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Percymania will live forever! Oh yeah!
Posts: 17,296
|
Post by percymania on Dec 14, 2010 21:16:33 GMT -5
Am I the only one who doesn't really care about the ratings of shows that I watch? I mean, I care if NOBODY else watches my favorite shows because they might get canceled, but I can't really find any reasons to care if raw gets a 3.1 or a 3.6. Wrestling seems to be the only TV show based fandom that I interact with that obsesses about this. Is it a holdout from the Monday Night Wars when Vince and Bischoff made that the central part of ther "TV peen" measuring contest, or am I missing something? I agree that the weekly ratings are a relic of the Monday Night Wars era. Still, it's nice to look at once in a while to sort of check on the health of the company. It's one of the few way we can gauge how popular wrestling is and whether or not the fanbase is growing, shrinking, or staying about the same.
|
|
chris
Tommy Wiseau
Posts: 99
|
Post by chris on Dec 14, 2010 21:46:33 GMT -5
I seriously don't get USA's infatuation with ratings. Here, the only time ratings ever get mentioned is if it's a highest rating show of the year, or head to heads. Is it because USA is more prone to axing low rating shows? So people keep an eye on them to see how close they are to being chopped?
I also don't get the numbers system. Here, if a programme gets 8 million viewers, that's what gets reported.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 14, 2010 22:09:53 GMT -5
I seriously don't get USA's infatuation with ratings. Here, the only time ratings ever get mentioned is if it's a highest rating show of the year, or head to heads. Is it because USA is more prone to axing low rating shows? So people keep an eye on them to see how close they are to being chopped? I also don't get the numbers system. Here, if a programme gets 8 million viewers, that's what gets reported. Maybe we do cut shows more quickly if they do badly (actually, it's amazing if 20 percent of the shows last more than a season), but I don't think most people care about ratings at all. The ratings system isn't that weird here. It reports the percentage of surveyed families who watched a particular show, and estimates total. It'd be impossible to measure total viewership completely accurately in the US.
|
|