|
Post by 01010010 01101001 01100011 on Dec 4, 2012 21:17:55 GMT -5
2.5? Surely someone in WWE is thinking "What needs to be done?". I mean, we're getting closer to Smackdown levels of ratings here. They know the easy answer but no one in WWE is going to drop to their knees and beg Bonnie Hammer to get rid of hour 3 or tell her to except lower ratings while they try and build stuff.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Dec 4, 2012 22:05:28 GMT -5
wow just wow, this is bad
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Dec 4, 2012 22:12:36 GMT -5
CM Punk brought change alright, the changing of the channel. Sorry, but I couldn't resist breaking out this old chestnut.
|
|
Paco
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 7,145
|
Post by Paco on Dec 4, 2012 22:40:25 GMT -5
What will it take for Vince to go "this isn't working"?
If there was no Monday Nitro, Vince probably wouldn't have changed his '95-'96 product either.
Dude needs the threat of failure or else mediocrity is acceptable.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 22:52:14 GMT -5
What will it take for Vince to go "this isn't working"? If there was no Monday Nitro, Vince probably wouldn't have changed his '95-'96 product either. Dude needs the threat of failure or else mediocrity is acceptable. The 3-hour Raws are the biggest part of the ratings problem, but that's a network call. I do wonder what USA's breaking point is.
|
|
|
Post by DZ: WF Legacy on Dec 4, 2012 22:53:57 GMT -5
The quality of the show rarely comes up in the ratings. Hell, behind that This Is Your Life thing for The Rock, the Briscos vs MSP was the highest rated portion of Raw. The past two Raws have been good, with some solid wrestling, intriguing segments and proper feud developments, and yet, this Raw was one of the lowest rated in history...yet again, this year. I think fewer people are sticking around for 3 hours, or at worst, maybe they're either just not watching it all or have decided to catch it all on DVR, which isn't reflected in the next-day ratings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn about people watching for awhile and then just losing interest because they look at the clock and say, "another hour and a half? f***."
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 4, 2012 23:03:37 GMT -5
The quality of the show rarely comes up in the ratings. Hell, behind that This Is Your Life thing for The Rock, the Briscos vs MSP was the highest rated portion of Raw. The past two Raws have been good, with some solid wrestling, intriguing segments and proper feud developments, and yet, this Raw was one of the lowest rated in history...yet again, this year. I think fewer people are sticking around for 3 hours, or at worst, maybe they're either just not watching it all or have decided to catch it all on DVR, which isn't reflected in the next-day ratings. I wouldn't be surprised to learn about people watching for awhile and then just losing interest because they look at the clock and say, "another hour and a half? f***." The action is good but the shows are stale and formulaic as hell.
|
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on Dec 4, 2012 23:05:55 GMT -5
Though while the shows aren't great, they're hardly the worst Raws ever since the modern era, like the ratings would suggest.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 4, 2012 23:09:54 GMT -5
Though while the shows aren't great, they're hardly the worst Raws ever since the modern era, like the ratings would suggest. What did those crappy one hour Raws get in # of viewers, and the ones in say '95-96? Probably less. Alot more to watch nowadays too. The product is just remarkably stale, the only thing that shakes it up is injuries because they force different things to happen. Programs last MONTHS. I mean the top programs for both titles have been more or less the same since the end of Night of Champions. There's nothing wrong with a GOOD program going on for months, but these aren't particularly good programs. No one on Earth needed the Del Rio/Sheamus program to last as long as it did.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 23:15:02 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again.
Plotting 3 hours of live television every week (along with 2hrs of SD), without a seasonal break is a creative task that ultimately lead to a product that appeals to less and less people. The only way it'd be even possible is with a team of very talented writers working on a rotating schedule developing new story arcs every quarter. Unfortunately the writers on RAW aren't exactly best in their field and McMahon randomly changing things at the last minute doesn't help. On top of that you've got viewer fatigue and what little novelty they held on to from the Attitude Era wearing off amongst the more casual fans (which aren't coming back - they've moved on I believe to MMA).
Raw debuted in 1993. Arguably it peaked around 98-99 both in overall popularity and ratings. It's been on a steady decline ever since with ratings slowly going down and the show's length (and number of sister shows) increasing disproportionately.
We're reaching the breaking point and it's got very little to do with the on-screen talent.
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on Dec 4, 2012 23:19:20 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. Plotting 3 hours of live television every week (along with 2hrs of SD), without a seasonal break is a creative task that ultimately lead to a product that appeals to less and less people. The only way it'd be even possible is with a team of very talented writers working on a rotating schedule developing new story arcs every quarter. Unfortunately the writers on RAW aren't exactly best in their field and McMahon randomly changing things at the last minute doesn't help. On top of that you've got viewer fatigue and what little novelty they held on to from the Attitude Era wearing off amongst the more casual fans (which aren't coming back - they've moved on I believe to MMA). Raw debuted in 1993. Arguably it peaked around 98-99 both in overall popularity and ratings. It's been on a steady decline ever since with ratings slowly going down and the show's length (and number of sister shows) increasing disproportionately. We're reaching the breaking point and it's got very little to do with the on-screen talent. It does have a little to do with on-screen talent, because at the minimum, at least one person with power doesn't think enough of them to push like 95% of them. Which leads to stale programs. And alot of the "fresh" things that happen on the shows, few and far between, are almost accidents: Punk perhaps getting a reaction opposite of what they expected, Ryback getting a ME slot because Cena got banged up, etc....
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 4, 2012 23:26:32 GMT -5
I've said it before and I'm sure I'll say it again. Plotting 3 hours of live television every week (along with 2hrs of SD), without a seasonal break is a creative task that ultimately lead to a product that appeals to less and less people. The only way it'd be even possible is with a team of very talented writers working on a rotating schedule developing new story arcs every quarter. Unfortunately the writers on RAW aren't exactly best in their field and McMahon randomly changing things at the last minute doesn't help. On top of that you've got viewer fatigue and what little novelty they held on to from the Attitude Era wearing off amongst the more casual fans (which aren't coming back - they've moved on I believe to MMA). Raw debuted in 1993. Arguably it peaked around 98-99 both in overall popularity and ratings. It's been on a steady decline ever since with ratings slowly going down and the show's length (and number of sister shows) increasing disproportionately. We're reaching the breaking point and it's got very little to do with the on-screen talent. It does have a little to do with on-screen talent, because at the minimum, at least one person with power doesn't think enough of them to push like 95% of them. Which leads to stale programs. I agree 100 percent on that, but to me that's still a writers/backstage problem and not the talent's. No one here would argue that there a bunch of guys (different names depending on who you ask) who could be marquee names right now if the creative team knew what to do with them, but are still just kind of 'there.'
|
|
saintpat
El Dandy
Release the hounds!!!
Posts: 7,664
|
Post by saintpat on Dec 5, 2012 1:10:49 GMT -5
Well, Punk did tell everyone to change the channel if they don't like him. I guess he is getting over as a heel. That night Dean Ambrose told people to buy the DVD if they wanted the nWo, all the people who already owned it popped in the DVD to watch it and hundreds of thousands of others went to their computers to order it.
|
|
dbostick
Trap-Jaw
Damn these contacts!
Posts: 333
|
Post by dbostick on Dec 5, 2012 3:09:26 GMT -5
RAW has been having better matches the last few weeks.
Funny, 'cause RAWs in 2003-2006 had matches that were 2 minutes long and the ratings were higher... Vince, people hate wrestling, rehire Mae Young, The Jackyl, Nicole Bass and Brian Christopher full time again. They were ratings.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 4:56:25 GMT -5
It's 3 hours long that's the major problem, 3 hours on a Monday night after a day at work is too much effort for what is a program which is all about ease of watching. The wrestling's good, the storylines are generally interesting if a bit skewed (could be 20 times better mind), and they have a great roster of talent so I don't see those things as the core issue.
Speaking as a UK viewer it's impossible to watch it on our time live (I know this is unrelated from viewing figures), could be done every so often with 2 hour Raws but even the best show in the World would have to be fast forwarded a little bit at three hours long.
That being said I thought last Raw was solid throughout so ratings don't reflect the quality of the shows in my eyes, as long as they keep making this type of product I'm fine with ratings going up, down, side to side, left to right, and down the Spaghetti Junction, doesn't affect my enjoyment of the show.
|
|
|
Post by Ryushinku on Dec 5, 2012 5:14:26 GMT -5
I agree 3 hours is too long, but they're stuck with it there. Maybe the poor ratings will get USA to reverse the decision, I don't know. I hope so. We've actually had some longer matches from it but given the way the show is slapped together most weeks it's tough even doing 2 let alone 3. I really hope they nix it.
Anyway, be positive, it was a 2.55 so that rounds up to a 2.6...wonderful news! Uh, um...mmm.
|
|
Arrow
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,122
|
Post by Arrow on Dec 5, 2012 5:39:28 GMT -5
You'd think if anyone was really worried about the ratings, they'd be trying their best to get things changed. So whatever the issue is, the people in charge can't be that concerned, or else they'd be trying to do something about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 5, 2012 23:44:56 GMT -5
Well, Punk did tell everyone to change the channel if they don't like him. I guess he is getting over as a heel. "I didn't mean that literally!"
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 6, 2012 1:07:03 GMT -5
Any detailed breakdown yet?
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,084
|
Post by andrew8798 on Dec 6, 2012 1:17:13 GMT -5
Not yet
|
|