Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 9:36:01 GMT -5
Social Media is wildly inaccurate. If it was a true barometer, WWE would be bigger and have more fans than the NFL, and we all know how untrue that is. Liking something on facebook doesn't equate to true investment. I'd take social media over putting a Nielsen box in 10 super-rich, politically-motivated "randomly selected" families homes and treating them as the representative of 10,000 viewers each, thanks. That's cool, but you're going to get far less accurate results. You can see it in real life, a hell of a lot more people watch football than watch wrestling. The Nielsen ratings reflect that.
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by trollrogue on Sept 24, 2015 10:01:04 GMT -5
Well inaccurate as in total number of viewers being properly gauged isn't so true. Twitter and social media comments about an episode while it's being broadcast is in general an accurate measurement of who's watching at that moment in time. Again, Nielsen is just an 'approximation' a somewhat dubious one as Nielsen conducts their own internal research and uses proprietary metrics to figure out the entertainment industry viewer marketshare. Yes, more people will tweet about the WWE than the NFL, but only because the WWE fanbase is much more expansive in terms of having more than 'sports fans' who might not typically care about social media. That and/or the WWE fans are more passionate about the product (than NFL fans) and also the NFL does not have never-ending cycles of broadcasting across a wide spectrum of viewing options (WWE Network, YouTube Channels, SyFy, USA Network). The NFL games can be watched only during one season, typically only via specialized satellite/cable stations or on primetime network broadcasts. There are also several thousand more NFL players than WWE Superstars, all of them locally supported by viewers in their home state who will watch NFL games passionately. This doesn't compare favorably with the WWE on any front tbh, but it's true the NFL is 'more popular' than the WWE if you want to talk about total viewers. I can similarly say that the WWE is 'more popular' whenever it's June. Because there's no NFL broadcasts in June Apples and Oranges, basically. If anyone else is curious, google 'nielsen ratings criticism' there is a wealth of documented op-ed pieces and studies showing how outdated it is, like this article: www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/media/viacom-reports-quarterly-earnings.html
|
|
|
Post by MAD TITAN on Sept 24, 2015 10:06:38 GMT -5
Everyone, don't watch Raw on Monday!
|
|
Hypnosis
T
Posts: 98,460
Member is Online
|
Post by Hypnosis on Sept 24, 2015 10:06:43 GMT -5
It turns out a great many actually aren't watching next week!
|
|
trollrogue
Hank Scorpio
Nashville City of Music!!
Posts: 5,609
|
Post by trollrogue on Sept 24, 2015 10:07:31 GMT -5
Well inaccurate as in total number of viewers being properly gauged isn't so true. Twitter and social media comments about an episode while it's being broadcast is in general an accurate measurement of who's watching at that moment in time. Again, Nielsen is just an 'approximation' a somewhat dubious one as Nielsen conducts their own internal research and uses proprietary metrics to figure out the entertainment industry viewer marketshare. Yes, more people will tweet about the WWE than the NFL, but only because the WWE fanbase is much more expansive in terms of having more than 'sports fans' who might not typically care about social media. That and/or the WWE fans are more passionate about the product (than NFL fans) and also the NFL does not have never-ending cycles of broadcasting across a wide spectrum of viewing options (WWE Network, YouTube Channels, SyFy, USA Network). The NFL games can be watched only during one season, typically only via specialized satellite/cable stations or on primetime network broadcasts. There are also several thousand more NFL players than WWE Superstars, all of them locally supported by viewers in their home state who will watch NFL games passionately. This doesn't compare favorably with the WWE on any front tbh, but it's true the NFL is 'more popular' than the WWE if you want to talk about total viewers. I can similarly say that the WWE is 'more popular' whenever it's June. Because there's no NFL broadcasts in June Apples and Oranges, basically. If anyone else is curious, google 'nielsen ratings criticism' there is a wealth of documented op-ed pieces and studies showing how outdated it is, like this article: www.nytimes.com/2014/11/14/business/media/viacom-reports-quarterly-earnings.htmlEDIT: When I say WWE fans are more passionate about 'the product' than NFL fans, I refer to the actual NFL broadcasts/games themselves. Obviously with fantasy leagues and individual players themselves, to true team-fanboys who paint themselves in their home team colors even during off-season this is highly debatable. But in terms of advertising that the Nielsen Ratings are created to gauge, individual NFL games across the board aren't more socially relevant than individual WWE programming.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 10:18:57 GMT -5
I said it in another thread, but get ready for more Attitude Era stars on TV. This is what Vince does when ratings start to dip.
Austin, Flair, HBK, and taker are all lined up for a the 10/19 RAW.
Also, social media isn't the best judge of what people are watching, just which show is better at encouraging its viewers to live tweet the show.
Nielsen ratings aren't much better either.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Sept 24, 2015 10:21:07 GMT -5
Let's see, bastardized NWA booking(heel champion), bastardized WWF booking (Superman faces that must continue to look strong), shocked.
|
|
wgdj
AC Slater
Posts: 189
|
Post by wgdj on Sept 24, 2015 10:23:34 GMT -5
For many fans of the Golden and/or Attitude eras, today's WWE is basically unwatchable. I watched the Sting match from NOC and everything from the commentary to the production (not to mention the result) made me wish I hadn't bothered. The only thing that kept me interested was the presence of Sting. The freakin' AUDIENCE could have been the worst part. Their chants were, are, and always will be absolutely stupid. I'm speaking generally now, but "This is awesome" is stupid. If it's awesome, cheer. "You still got it," eh? Cool -- cheer for the person that still has "it." I could go on and on.
There have been select -- very select -- episodes of RAW that I've watched for a particular segment (Warrior's return being a prime example) and after seeing said segment I've tried to watch other parts of the show. I can last maybe five minutes. Aside from the things I listed before, the actual in-ring action today is horrible. Finishers are forever being kicked out of, every match is an exhibition of each and every move in a performer's arsenal and good, simple storytelling is virtually nonexistent. Maybe Vince needs to go back and watch his own promo from '97. Remember how he said we (the fans) were sick of having our intelligence insulted back then? Ha. That era had nothing (in that department, at least) on what's happening these days.
I'm a huge wrestling fan and I have absolutely no interest in watching any of the current product unless one of my old favourites happens to appear. That's just wrong. I can watch old episodes of Superstars of Wrestling and enjoy mid-carders having squash matches more than I can even tolerate what the WWE does today. They need to get back to basics.
|
|
|
Post by Tea & Crumpets on Sept 24, 2015 10:28:25 GMT -5
NXT seems to be that project. They just need a better direction on the main roster to maximize the talent they're grooming down there. I hate to harp on it again, but the way they've done Kevin Owens is a perfect example of not maximizing someone. You have him beat Cena, have it double negated, and now he's in a midcard feud with Ryback without much heat to it. They literally made a new star, and said "nah". This is spot on. I think Kevin Owens has a couple major flaws to his game but he was a made man and then got downscaled to a midcarder. It's like if, after Brock came in, beat Hogan, he then lost clean to him on back to back PPVs, and THEN won KOTR. He's not then going on to face Rock for the title because he's already been neutered. It has a high presence sure, but is it an important one? Their youtube is 90% matches they've just shown and promo packages, youtube's all about interaction and community, there's none of that. The standout social media guys, how much of that is reflected on TV? There's a huge disconnect, they have a big presanse, but it's not a relevant one so it's not going to help them as much. This is another good point. There are entire businesses and livelihoods built off of people doing Youtube channels these days, and among all of them is a feeling of engagement or connection with the audience, that the audience can and will interact with the Youtuber on SOME level. Very little of WWE's Youtube channel makes the most of the platform, it is just the same highlights as on WWE.com. They harp on about social media without really understanding what it is. They went through a period of never shutting up about hashtags, but nothing any of the talent do or say on Twitter ever matters, none of those interactions are highlighted or influence anything. They treat it as purely an advertising platform when it's much more than that, the way to really engage and get attention via social media is to have a rapport with the consumer. If their Youtube had more original content, if the Twitter stuff actually bled into wrestlers' onscreen personalities, if there was a level of interaction, it would get more eyes. Heck, when they did Taboo Tuesday/Cyber Sunday in what, 2004? That had more engagement. I'm not saying bring back fans-book-the-matches shows, but even just stuff like the old Byte This or 5 Questions With The Champ, or Miz & Morrison's Dirt Sheet. The JBL Show was popular enough as a webshow, and that's what the Youtube channel should be really, short assorted interactive webshows, rather than the same recaps as we get on WWE.com, WWE Network, Smackdown, and the next Raw. We get the same things 5 times over, when social media content should be much more interactive and then actually reflect on things in the product. And this stuff should then have some overbleed on to TV, because that makes people go- "oh wow, what am I missing on WWE's Youtube? I gotta check this out" and then in turn they see stuff that hypes or builds or develops for TV, and so tune in next week. For instance Michael Cole's weekly interviews should have excerpts shown on television at the very least.
|
|
|
Post by The Summer of Muskrat XVII on Sept 24, 2015 10:46:52 GMT -5
I'm honestly curious how much of this can also be attributed to people just watching on Hulu or waiting for Raw to post on WWE Network. I mean, the numbers dropping doesn't shock me; people have increasingly stopped caring about wrestling since the end of the "Wars" era. But some of these drops are precipitous, and I wonder if some of those not watching on USA are instead watching via the legal online methods. Still, that brings up an interesting point: Vince knows that a sweetheart deal with USA/NBC is key to his company's bottom line, yet creating the network or making a deal with Hulu means potentially threatening that deal due to an increase in viewership. Risk worth taking? I think this is a much bigger factor then people realize. I've been a Network subscriber since the first week, but in that time I bet you I haven't watched 10 Raws live. I check the results, and if I see something I really want to see I goto Hulu the next day, or if it's just a promo or something check out the highlights on WWE.com that night. Raw is a f***ing chore to get through alot of the time, but I never miss a PPV or Network Special even if they look lackluster. I wouldn't be surprised if a large segment of their fans are doing this, especially in the 18-35 range EDIT: Hell, I've even started having PPV parties again with 4-5 guys, none of whom watch Raw on a weekly basis
|
|
|
Post by Just call me D.j.m. on Sept 24, 2015 10:56:32 GMT -5
Everyone, don't watch Raw on Monday! Gotham & Minority Report it is.
|
|
Bo Rida
Fry's dog Seymour
Pulled one over on everyone. Got away with it, this time.
Posts: 23,586
Member is Online
|
Post by Bo Rida on Sept 24, 2015 11:01:30 GMT -5
Raw is essentially designed so a casual viewer can drop in and get into the show straight away which often results in poor long-term story telling, repetitive segments, characters that don't change for years before doing a sudden 180 and a big mess of inconsistencies. Angles are reduced to a hashtag and previously interesting characters becoming one note. Most weeks you can either fast-forward through them, watch the highlights on youtube or skip Raw entirely and not miss a damn thing.
There is usually very little reason to watch every week. In fact if you do you get a worse experience than that casual fans as you're left asking "why?" too often? Why is this feud still going when the exact same match ended cleanly last week? Why did The Authority put Seth in back to back matches? Why did that old guy beat somebody half his age? Why are these women teaming together? Why did he get a title shot? Why did Barrett drop the bad news? Why did Demon/Corporate Kane not work like this before? Why am I watching this?
Yet I get that to a degree, Raw can't be like Game Of Thrones where you can't join midway through season four and expect to know what's happening, they need to welcome new and casual viewers.
However there must be better ways of achieving a happy medium where you're rewarded for watching every week and still be accessible for other viewers, they managed it before.
|
|
chrom
Backup Wench
Master of the rare undecuple post
Posts: 84,928
Member is Online
|
Post by chrom on Sept 24, 2015 11:09:28 GMT -5
I've said it before, but most times you don't even have to watch Raw to know what's going to happen.
It begins with a twenty minute opening promo and then when they come back they spend almost ten minutes recapping what just happened.
Change it up already, start with a backstage brawl, or heaven forbid start a show with "The following contest is set for one fall". Anything other than what we've been getting the past fifteen years it feels like.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 24, 2015 11:13:09 GMT -5
I don't even watch the first 45 minutes anymore because I'm so disinterested in the product these days. Couldn't say that years ago.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,879
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Sept 24, 2015 11:14:02 GMT -5
Everyone, don't watch Raw on Monday! done
|
|
|
Post by Alyce: Old Media Enthusiast on Sept 24, 2015 11:25:58 GMT -5
It's not his fault, it's those damn millenials.
|
|
Dub H
Crow T. Robot
Captain Pixel: the Game Master
I ❤ Aniki
Posts: 47,879
Member is Online
|
Post by Dub H on Sept 24, 2015 11:27:13 GMT -5
Twitter is an AWFUL AWFUL way to measure.I would never take serious a report that used twitter as it sole base
|
|
|
Post by Joe Neglia on Sept 24, 2015 11:43:54 GMT -5
Social Media is wildly inaccurate. If it was a true barometer, WWE would be bigger and have more fans than the NFL, and we all know how untrue that is. Liking something on facebook doesn't equate to true investment. I'd take social media over putting a Nielsen box in 10 super-rich, politically-motivated "randomly selected" families homes and treating them as the representative of 10,000 viewers each, thanks. Twitter and Facebook have been proved to be tools for faking fanbases to a massive level. TNA and Bob Ryder got busted for this, inflating their followers with huge amounts of fake accounts to the point they outnumbered valid accounts, and it's happened to supposedly big musicians as well.
|
|
|
Post by Big Bad Kahuna on Sept 24, 2015 11:48:41 GMT -5
Everyone, don't watch Raw on Monday! done
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Sept 24, 2015 11:54:34 GMT -5
I am not anywhere close to super rich and as Ihave zero connections to anything in tv I'd say my selection as a Nielsen contributor was in fact random.
|
|