hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 20:28:23 GMT -5
But it isn't as if 'oh ratings are suddenly bad because of the election debate'. Ratings have been bad for what feels like an eternity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 20:29:59 GMT -5
But it isn't as if 'oh ratings are suddenly bad because of the election debate'. Ratings have been bad for what feels like an eternity. It seems like they've been perpetually dropping since I started watching again 4 years ago. There's never good ratings news in wrestling, unless The Rock or Vince McMahon are on TV.
|
|
Juice
El Dandy
Wrong? Oh he can tell ya about being wrong.
I'm the one who raised you from perdition.
Posts: 8,172
|
Post by Juice on Oct 23, 2012 20:39:08 GMT -5
If anyone is to blame it's RYBACK.
Punk vs Cena is still exciting. It wasn't until Ryback came along that these ratings have been dipping. Also it's not like there was a debate or sports/playoff championships games or anything.
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 20:41:42 GMT -5
But it isn't as if 'oh ratings are suddenly bad because of the election debate'. Ratings have been bad for what feels like an eternity. It seems like they've been perpetually dropping since I started watching again 4 years ago. There's never good ratings news in wrestling, unless The Rock or Vince McMahon are on TV. It's endemic of them promoting a PG product to a PG-13 audience. They either need a serious shift in how they do business or reach back out to that Attitude audience. They're like the Hulk during the Prometheus episode *geek reference* they're neither one thing or another and it's painful to watch.
|
|
kidglov3s
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants her Shot
Who is Tiger Maskooo?
Posts: 15,870
|
Post by kidglov3s on Oct 23, 2012 20:43:38 GMT -5
It will be sad if this continues to the Wrestlemania time, seeing rare bumps into the 3s rather than the peaks into the 4s that we were seeing years ago.
|
|
BRV
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Wants him some Taco Flavored Kisses.
Posts: 17,033
|
Post by BRV on Oct 23, 2012 20:43:57 GMT -5
I'm surprised the 9pm hour gained viewers with the debate happening, to be honest. The audiences really don't mesh. The football game and the baseball game are the real-backbreakers. Luckily for WWE, they both sucked ass, it probably would have been worse. Yeah, it makes sense that the 9-10 p.m. hour would gain viewers in the context of the competition they faced. Game Seven of the NLCS became a runaway when San Francisco went up 6-0 in the third inning and that happened between 9 and 9:30 and that was about the same time people were (presumably) starting to realize that the Bears vs. Lions Monday Night game was turning out to be a relatively bad game. However, the 10-11 p.m. hour is absolutely crippling them. Earlier in the thread, someone said that only the most hardcore of fans are sticking around for that hour and it's true. Three hours of wrestling in a single sitting is okay for a pay-per-view or a grandiose special event, but to try to produce three hours of interesting, captivating live content is asking a lot of a creative team that was struggling when they only had 120 minutes to fill. People are getting worn out watching those three hours. I think they may have no choice but to go back to two hours sometime in the future. It won't be immediately, because it still has time to bounce back, but I would venture to guess it'll be sometime following WrestleMania season. I think there's more than enough evidence over the past three months to concede that the third hour has been a relative failure.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 20:58:51 GMT -5
I think they desperately need one or both titles to change hands at Hell in a Cell. WWE tends to have this attitude that the main event scene is all that particularly matters, and the main event scene has been completely stagnant for months. This day and age, someone just plain shouldn't hold a title for a year.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Oct 23, 2012 21:08:17 GMT -5
I think they desperately need one or both titles to change hands at Hell in a Cell. WWE tends to have this attitude that the main event scene is all that particularly matters, and the main event scene has been completely stagnant for months. This day and age, someone just plain shouldn't hold a title for a year. They desperately need one or both titles to change hands on TV . Preferably in a weird time slot.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 21:09:44 GMT -5
I think they desperately need one or both titles to change hands at Hell in a Cell. WWE tends to have this attitude that the main event scene is all that particularly matters, and the main event scene has been completely stagnant for months. This day and age, someone just plain shouldn't hold a title for a year. They desperately need one or both titles to change hands on TV . Preferably in a weird time slot. Oh, yeah, that'd definitely be something too, since it'd show that things can actually happen every once in awhile on TV. Think just shuffling the champions around would help at least somewhat, though.
|
|
|
Post by Andy Martin on Oct 23, 2012 21:11:08 GMT -5
I expected it to be lower, given what it was going up against.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 23, 2012 21:14:23 GMT -5
The ratings have been crap for a while now. And changing a title that hasnt meant anything in years and putting it on someone else isn't going to change anything.
They need to face facts the product as it's constructed now isn't appealing to the market like it used to. They get ratings bumps when they bring in guys from an era that was hot. The product right now is designed for 12 year olds and they occasionally throw a bone to the leftover 18+ crowd but the main product just isnt designed for them anymore. They've limited their audience and brought us back to 1992 WWF.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 21:15:52 GMT -5
The ratings have been crap for a while now. And changing a title that hasnt meant anything in years and putting it on someone else isn't going to change anything. They need to face facts the product as it's constructed now isn't appealing to the market like it used to. They get ratings bumps when they bring in guys from an era that was hot. The product right now is designed for 12 year olds and they occasionally throw a bone to the leftover 18+ crowd but the main product just isnt designed for them anymore. They've limited their audience and brought us back to 1992 WWF. Well, yeah, the product needs a complete overhaul, but I just think the title thing would at least probably bump them up an extra point or two, which is a start. Really, I don't think the business or quality is ever going to be consistently great again until Vince is gone, and even that's far from a guarantee.
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 21:22:37 GMT -5
The ratings have been crap for a while now. And changing a title that hasnt meant anything in years and putting it on someone else isn't going to change anything. They need to face facts the product as it's constructed now isn't appealing to the market like it used to. They get ratings bumps when they bring in guys from an era that was hot. The product right now is designed for 12 year olds and they occasionally throw a bone to the leftover 18+ crowd but the main product just isnt designed for them anymore. They've limited their audience and brought us back to 1992 WWF. I agree and disagree at the same time. I don't think their market is limited. Kids - there are millions of the bastards. But they're limiting their product to their target market. Raw is on a school night and not very conducive timing for children for that reason. Yes they have the Saturday morning thing - but kids aren't dumb they want to watch the core product. Ditto PPV times on a Sunday evening. They're appealing to a very wide demographic but they're putting obstacles in the way of them watching. If you want to keep Raw as a 'prime time' show then fair enough, but switch Smackdown to around 5pm on a Friday and get the kids as they get in from school. Revert back to having PPVs on earlier such as Sunday afternoons, early evenings during the week. It worked before and they got better buys than they get now across the board. They're not appealing to a limited audience but they are limiting the chance their target audience gets to access the product. If I had a 12 year old he wouldn't watch Raw on Mondays. It finishes too late. He wouldn't watch PPVs on Sundays because they finish too late as well. I wouldn't be an untypical parent. When you consider the 12 year old is precisely who WWE are aiming for in the PG era - their way of doing business in this respect is nuts.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 23, 2012 21:22:59 GMT -5
The ratings have been crap for a while now. And changing a title that hasnt meant anything in years and putting it on someone else isn't going to change anything. They need to face facts the product as it's constructed now isn't appealing to the market like it used to. They get ratings bumps when they bring in guys from an era that was hot. The product right now is designed for 12 year olds and they occasionally throw a bone to the leftover 18+ crowd but the main product just isnt designed for them anymore. They've limited their audience and brought us back to 1992 WWF. Well, yeah, the product needs a complete overhaul, but I just think the title thing would at least probably bump them up an extra point or two, which is a start. Really, I don't think the business or quality is ever going to be consistently great again until Vince is gone, and even that's far from a guarantee. An extra point or tenth of a point? I dont see anyone on the roster capable of bumping the ratings a point or even close. I think they need to broaden their base. 12 year old kids will still want to watch a product designed for 18+ kids en masse, 18-35 year olds don't want to watch a product made for kids. I think they've reverted back to "You still watch that stuff?"
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 21:27:22 GMT -5
Well, yeah, the product needs a complete overhaul, but I just think the title thing would at least probably bump them up an extra point or two, which is a start. Really, I don't think the business or quality is ever going to be consistently great again until Vince is gone, and even that's far from a guarantee. An extra point or tenth of a point? I dont see anyone on the roster capable of bumping the ratings a point or even close. I think they need to broaden their base. 12 year old kids will still want to watch a product designed for 18+ kids en masse, 18-35 year olds don't want to watch a product made for kids. I think they've reverted back to "You still watch that stuff?" That's from an 18-35 perspective. The reason they went 'PG' is because they wanted to attract a family audience. It will mean a 'tamer' product but the sense behind the move is commendable. The Attitude era 'shock' appeal has gone. TV has moved on. Family entertainment is a mainstay of the genre. Therefore when the sex, violence MTV/Jackass stuff gets old and passe, it's a safe base to return to. Let's not forget Vince has appealed to the 18-35 demographic since 1998-2010 and only three of those twelve years did it work.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 23, 2012 21:30:43 GMT -5
Well, yeah, the product needs a complete overhaul, but I just think the title thing would at least probably bump them up an extra point or two, which is a start. Really, I don't think the business or quality is ever going to be consistently great again until Vince is gone, and even that's far from a guarantee. An extra point or tenth of a point? I dont see anyone on the roster capable of bumping the ratings a point or even close. I think they need to broaden their base. 12 year old kids will still want to watch a product designed for 18+ kids en masse, 18-35 year olds don't want to watch a product made for kids. I think they've reverted back to "You still watch that stuff?" Tenth of a point, yeah. Doubt short of Rock and Austin swooping in and picking up every title in one night including the Diva's title unannounced they're ever going to see a full point gain. And even that probably wouldn't guarantee it with the way they're running Rock into the ground.
|
|
|
Post by DrBackflipsHoffman on Oct 23, 2012 21:34:41 GMT -5
It's a boring, boring, horrible product currently, In my eyes. I tune in for CM Punk but have zero desire to watch Ryback even attempt to wrestle, and Cena seems to have gone back to being a big jacked up version of Hank Hill instead of keeping the personality he had around the time of The Rock match which made him watchable for the first time in years, and aside from that - what reason have they given to make anybody give a s*** about anything else on the show? Why should anybody care about the show at all? Sheamus is a big smiling goof, Del Rio Del Rio Del Rio - I just had to type his name three times because I couldn't think about anything to say about him or anything he's really ever done. Every other belt might aswell not exist.
CM Punk is in no way bad at what he does. He can put on great matches and can talk like a motherf***er, but nobody cares. There's no reason to care about anything anyone's doing on that show. Punk and Cena talk well, but not well enough to hide how tedious everything's getting. We just had an IC title switch to a guy who doesn't say anything and has zero discernable ersonality aside from guy who smiles.
CM Punk as some sort of major reason for horrible ratings is stupid.
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 21:37:48 GMT -5
It is boring. But some people think it's boring BECAUSE it's PG.
Wrestling way back when was PG and it wasn't boring. It's the product not the target audience that's the problem.
|
|
Mac
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Sigs/Avatars cannot exceed 1MB
Posts: 16,502
|
Post by Mac on Oct 23, 2012 21:40:32 GMT -5
An extra point or tenth of a point? I dont see anyone on the roster capable of bumping the ratings a point or even close. I think they need to broaden their base. 12 year old kids will still want to watch a product designed for 18+ kids en masse, 18-35 year olds don't want to watch a product made for kids. I think they've reverted back to "You still watch that stuff?" That's from an 18-35 perspective. The reason they went 'PG' is because they wanted to attract a family audience. It will mean a 'tamer' product but the sense behind the move is commendable. The Attitude era 'shock' appeal has gone. TV has moved on. Family entertainment is a mainstay of the genre. Therefore when the sex, violence MTV/Jackass stuff gets old and passe, it's a safe base to return to. Let's not forget Vince has appealed to the 18-35 demographic since 1998-2010 and only three of those twelve years did it work. What do you mean by "only three of those twelve years did it work"? Yeah it peaked early on when wrestling was it's hottest, but ratings were generally high 3's to mid 4's until the summer of 2007. It's been low 3's since then and declining a tenth of a point in increments since then. They took a declining product and added another hour to it and we've been dwelling around 3 and now lower. www.thewrestlingcafe.com/index.php/hot-divas/9-uncategorised/87-wwe-and-tna-tv-ratings-history
|
|
hitch
Don Corleone
Hitch knot
Posts: 1,696
|
Post by hitch on Oct 23, 2012 21:49:22 GMT -5
That's from an 18-35 perspective. The reason they went 'PG' is because they wanted to attract a family audience. It will mean a 'tamer' product but the sense behind the move is commendable. The Attitude era 'shock' appeal has gone. TV has moved on. Family entertainment is a mainstay of the genre. Therefore when the sex, violence MTV/Jackass stuff gets old and passe, it's a safe base to return to. Let's not forget Vince has appealed to the 18-35 demographic since 1998-2010 and only three of those twelve years did it work. What do you mean by "only three of those twelve years did it work"? Yeah it peaked early on when wrestling was it's hottest, but ratings were generally high 3's to mid 4's until the summer of 2007. It's been low 3's since then and declining a tenth of a point in increments since then. They took a declining product and added another hour to it and we've been dwelling around 3 and now lower. www.thewrestlingcafe.com/index.php/hot-divas/9-uncategorised/87-wwe-and-tna-tv-ratings-historyWell historically when you look at mainstream wrestling interest, post 2001 era is hardly a peak. Yes that's because there are fewer TV shows around now, but when you're the only game in town you surely should at least soak up other fans of the genre. WWE has failed to do that. And the PPV buyrates have been appalling. It's constantly flogging a dead horse in the hope suddenly it'll be the late 90s again. 'Shock' TV comes and goes and has peaks and valleys in popularity. Family-targeted television - doesn't. It's proven to work. Yet the problem is WWE wants to be 'family friendly' whilst still wearing TV-14 clothes. It's neither one thing or the other. The older generation feel alienated and the younger generation aren't afforded the opportunity to connect.
|
|