|
Post by CATCH_US IS the Conversation on Aug 20, 2014 5:25:51 GMT -5
They honestly need to make the show 2 hours again. They air too many matches so that they become repetitive cause they need two guys to fill the stage every week. I wouldn't mind if we get one promo to start, a decent midcard match, a tag match, a pseudo main-event, diva's match, another midcard match, then the main-event. The way they do it now is they stretch the midcard matches to a point where no one cares anymore, airs 3-4 of them, adds in one good match in the middle, then draw out the promos to fill time with replays. I agree with this. One thing I've noticed about the three hour RAWs is that the lower half of the roster gets LESS time to be featured nowadays. Lower level guys like Zack Ryder, etc. aren't "worthy" of being on RAW, but because RAW is already three hours and they don't want to burn out the crowd too much, RAW does not do an opening dark match anymore. Additionally WWE only puts on two Superstars matches, one of which may or may not be a Divas match, leaving little time for the lower card to shine.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Aug 20, 2014 5:41:18 GMT -5
So, Ambrose and Rollins can't draw.
I also see the WWE hitting the panic button, and putting the belt on Cena.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 20, 2014 6:23:46 GMT -5
So few posts in this thread...I wonder why Ratings discussion is a damn joke in the mythical IWC. If someone the alleged hive mind doesn't like is the champion or in the main event, the low rating is always always always their fault and its an example of how they're "ratings poison". But let someone from their personal arousal list be part of that low rating and suddenly they start coppin' pleas baby. Personally I don't put much stock in 3rd hour ratings period unless there's some comical raise/drop above or below normal. Any time I look at one of these threads it seems like the 3rd hour loses hundreds of thousands of viewers. Between it just getting late and some people getting to bed since they have work early...and people just burnt out on watching for 3 hours, that's enough for people to tune out regardless of what's going on. The raw main event doesn't seem to draw unless it's something really special and unique.
|
|
|
Post by sunnytaker on Aug 20, 2014 7:45:09 GMT -5
don;t worry it's really just a two hour show, the third hour is made up of recaps of what happened in the other two hours. they just spread it out over the three hour timeframe.
|
|
|
Post by Freddy BooJangles on Aug 20, 2014 8:37:38 GMT -5
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,506
|
Post by Bo Rida on Aug 20, 2014 8:44:05 GMT -5
So few posts in this thread...I wonder why Ratings discussion is a damn joke in the mythical IWC. If someone the alleged hive mind doesn't like is the champion or in the main event, the low rating is always always always their fault and its an example of how they're "ratings poison". But let someone from their personal arousal list be part of that low rating and suddenly they start coppin' pleas baby. The idea comes from the industry itself, they often say that the ratings/money drawn is solely down to the main-event, usually the champion. Personally I've always thought that was crap, there are a lot of other factors and even a great main-event/champion will under-perform if have two hours of crap beforehand or if the ending is telegraphed from a million miles away.
|
|
|
Post by cabbageboy on Aug 20, 2014 9:11:26 GMT -5
I didn't think WWE did a good enough job promoting Rollins/Ambrose on Monday. By 10:00 I was thinking "Okay, what's the main event again?" once the 6 man hit the ring. They mentioned that 6 man far more than the main event, which was mentioned early in the show by HHH and Kane and then...nothing. It was a fan vote too, and this wasn't especially focused on through the show. It felt almost like trying to set these guys up to fail. I mean they couldn't remind us of Rollins/Ambrose yet they showed the Nikki heel promo THREE TIMES??
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Aug 20, 2014 11:03:10 GMT -5
Why would USA Network want the show to drop back to 2 hours? What could they honestly put in that spot other than RAW that would get the ratings it gets now up against Monday Night Football. Yes the viewership drops at the 10PM hour, cause it's 10PM on the East Cost. It's getting late, younger children are in bed or getting ready and some adults are bailing due to the hour.
Other than ones personal preference, there is no good reason to shorten it back to 2 hours again.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 20, 2014 11:51:20 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue.
|
|
|
Post by benstudd on Aug 20, 2014 23:33:47 GMT -5
Who had the idea to start a f***ing show with the boring Steph/Bellas after a big event like Lesnar destroying one of the biggest stars in WWE history John Cena. We were so pumped to watch RAW after the Brock win and seeing Steph killed our buzz almost completely. After a while we watched something else and then I returned and she was still talking, then I watched something else. I returned and it was this stupid storyline again. I mean what were they thinking? No wonder the ratings sucked.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Aug 21, 2014 5:38:16 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue. When someone doesn't pay, the provider of the service does not provide a service that is appealing enough for the consumer to pay for. Blaming the consumer is like a bad comedian blaming his audience. It's childish and not productive.
|
|
|
Post by Nickybojelais on Aug 21, 2014 10:12:08 GMT -5
That opening segment felt like a bunch of drama students going through a rehearsal. I'm amazed after kicking the show off with that charade, that they managed to retain the interest of anyone.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 21, 2014 14:15:17 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue. When someone doesn't pay, the provider of the service does not provide a service that is appealing enough for the consumer to pay for. Blaming the consumer is like a bad comedian blaming his audience. It's childish and not productive. Except in this case, the consumer is consuming the product for free, in large numbers, but not paying for it. That's the equivalent of eating all the free samples in a super market, but never buying the actual box and taking it home, despite obviously enjoying it. If 4 million are watching RAW frequently, steadily, and only a small number of that domestic number are actually buying the Network, the impetus in NOT on WWE to provide a better product for them watch. Because, they already watch and enjoy the product by proxy of the loyalty to the TV shows. The impetus is on those freeloaders to buy. And if they don't, despite supposedly being fans, WWE should disregard them entirely when it comes to business decisions and factors, because they are statistically insignificant. The people that ARE significant, and SHOULD be catered to, are the audience who pay for the Network. All decisions on who should be pushed, etc., should be decided via the preferences of that paying audience, along with those who attend house shows. TV is a commercial.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 14:36:48 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I honestly know nothing about the TV business... but WWE is in a catch 22, it seems like, with the raw ratings. Yes, 70% are freeloaders... but that's 70% that makes up the most of the monday night ratings, which keeps USA happy, which keeps Raw as the freebie to push the network. Right?
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 21, 2014 14:43:11 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue. Please don't take this the wrong way, because I honestly know nothing about the TV business... but WWE is in a catch 22, it seems like, with the raw ratings. Yes, 70% are freeloaders... but that's 70% that makes up the most of the monday night ratings, which keeps USA happy, which keeps Raw as the freebie to push the network. Right? Yup. And other than the odd increase or decrease, that number of viewers is pretty static and unchanging. That 70% seems to watch regardless, and they view WWE only as a TV product. WWE wll always do good ratings for USA. But because this audience is notoriously cheap, neither will see the TV ad revenue other shows of equal TV popularity do. WWE's priority is the Network now. And it will be for years. If it fails, WWE will be forced to make even more severe budget cuts to tread water.
|
|
MrBRulzOK
Wade Wilson
Mr No-Pants Heathen
Something Witty Here.
Posts: 26,719
|
Raw Rating
Aug 21, 2014 14:49:46 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by MrBRulzOK on Aug 21, 2014 14:49:46 GMT -5
3hrs is too much if this was a 2hr Raw it would have been amazing, besides Miz/Ziggler, Lesnar's belt thing, Ambrose/Rollins promo & Paige/Nattie the first 2hrs blew. 3rd hour however was fantastic THIS. And please, for the love of whoever controls the universe, NO MORE 3 MAN TAGS! That is just LAZY BOOKING that accomplishes nothing. I agree. Handicap matches are rarely any good.
|
|
|
Post by TheSchattenjager on Aug 21, 2014 15:00:05 GMT -5
When someone doesn't pay, the provider of the service does not provide a service that is appealing enough for the consumer to pay for. Blaming the consumer is like a bad comedian blaming his audience. It's childish and not productive. Except in this case, the consumer is consuming the product for free, in large numbers, but not paying for it. That's the equivalent of eating all the free samples in a super market, but never buying the actual box and taking it home, despite obviously enjoying it. If 4 million are watching RAW frequently, steadily, and only a small number of that domestic number are actually buying the Network, the impetus in NOT on WWE to provide a better product for them watch. Because, they already watch and enjoy the product by proxy of the loyalty to the TV shows. The impetus is on those freeloaders to buy. And if they don't, despite supposedly being fans, WWE should disregard them entirely when it comes to business decisions and factors, because they are statistically insignificant. The people that ARE significant, and SHOULD be catered to, are the audience who pay for the Network. All decisions on who should be pushed, etc., should be decided via the preferences of that paying audience, along with those who attend house shows. TV is a commercial. But they don't enjoy the product enough to pay for it. It's different. Just because I enjoy something for free, does not mean that I enjoy it enough to pay for it. It's the consumer's responsibility to pay for anything.
|
|
sfvega
Grimlock
Posts: 13,544
Member is Online
|
Raw Rating
Aug 21, 2014 15:23:55 GMT -5
via mobile
Post by sfvega on Aug 21, 2014 15:23:55 GMT -5
Business should never be predicated by ratings. If anything, the Network has shown us that close to 70% of the people who watch RAW are freeloaders who never pay for anything. Their viewing habits are statistically insignificant if it doesn't lead to revenue. When someone doesn't pay, the provider of the service does not provide a service that is appealing enough for the consumer to pay for. Blaming the consumer is like a bad comedian blaming his audience. It's childish and not productive. Actually, from a business perspective, it's true AND especially productive. The # of weekly viewing fans to the # of paying fans is very pertinent. And the WWE has put on a very good product this year, IMO. As well as having the biggest video library of wrestling ever assembled. I wouldn't go as far as to call 70% of the fans freeloaders, but I would say it does seem unlikely that they'll ever get money from a vast majority of that segment who hasn't bought it already.
|
|
SEAN CARLESS
Hank Scorpio
More of a B+ player, actually
I'm Necessary Evil.
Posts: 5,770
|
Post by SEAN CARLESS on Aug 21, 2014 15:55:07 GMT -5
Except in this case, the consumer is consuming the product for free, in large numbers, but not paying for it. That's the equivalent of eating all the free samples in a super market, but never buying the actual box and taking it home, despite obviously enjoying it. If 4 million are watching RAW frequently, steadily, and only a small number of that domestic number are actually buying the Network, the impetus in NOT on WWE to provide a better product for them watch. Because, they already watch and enjoy the product by proxy of the loyalty to the TV shows. The impetus is on those freeloaders to buy. And if they don't, despite supposedly being fans, WWE should disregard them entirely when it comes to business decisions and factors, because they are statistically insignificant. The people that ARE significant, and SHOULD be catered to, are the audience who pay for the Network. All decisions on who should be pushed, etc., should be decided via the preferences of that paying audience, along with those who attend house shows. TV is a commercial. But they don't enjoy the product enough to pay for it. It's different. Just because I enjoy something for free, does not mean that I enjoy it enough to pay for it. It's the consumer's responsibility to pay for anything. So, how do you get them to pay? What's the plan? In a business wherein just watching the show is not beneficial to WWE and their future, how does one attempt to hook these people? If the answer is "You can't", then it just proves my point that they're insignificant and are not to be catered to, or taken into account on who should get opportunity.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 21, 2014 20:55:14 GMT -5
But they don't enjoy the product enough to pay for it. It's different. Just because I enjoy something for free, does not mean that I enjoy it enough to pay for it. It's the consumer's responsibility to pay for anything. So, how do you get them to pay? What's the plan? In a business wherein just watching the show is not beneficial to WWE and their future, how does one attempt to hook these people? If the answer is "You can't", then it just proves my point that they're insignificant and are not to be catered to, or taken into account on who should get opportunity. Simply being viewers is paying in a way. Raw's TV ratings are why they get such a fat TV contract. If the 700,000 Network subscribers were the only people watching Raw, Raw wouldn't exist.
|
|