The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 1, 2007 12:35:13 GMT -5
We haven't had Smackdown yet this week.
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Aug 1, 2007 12:35:15 GMT -5
I'm guranteeing a few things
1) ECW will more than likely drop as well (maybe to TNA levels)
2) Raw will be rated better next week because they are at the Garden and Triple H will show up next week.
3) There is turmoil within WWE right now to try to rectify this.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Aug 1, 2007 12:35:30 GMT -5
So why hasn't Smackdown experienced the same effect? The last show did a 2.6, right in line with what it normally draws. A lot of Smackdowns for the past two months drew a 2.4. Well, SD usually doesn't fluctuate as badly as Raw seems to, for some reason. It usually holds a steady rating down.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 1, 2007 12:36:15 GMT -5
Right. It's steadily low.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 1, 2007 12:36:44 GMT -5
Also, make sure that they push the panic button and now the time eraser button.
....
.....
I'll go now......
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 12:39:24 GMT -5
Woah. That's ... wow.
Something NEEDS to be done. (No, that doesn't involve bringing back the Attitude era, Bonnie.)
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Aug 1, 2007 12:40:46 GMT -5
Blaming THIS big of a ratings drop on the "quality" of the show is more senseless IWC WWE bashing. Since 2002 when the brand split occured, RAW has been much, much, MUCH worse than what we've seen in recent months. In fact, I've said on several occasions that 2007 has been a great year for WWE as far as overall product goes. Compared to circa 2002/2003, WWE is actually great right now.
And the fact of the matter is, back then, EVEN then during Triple H's stranglehold on the title, the ratings never dropped this much. The Benoit situation has given professional wrestling a HUGE black eye, especially coupled with the recent news of possible congress hearings. THAT is what happened.
Oh, and if you must blame the product, the only thing from RAW that USA advertised this week was Booker vs. Lawler. Nobody wants to see that s***.
|
|
Zutroy
Don Corleone
That's preposterous. Zutroy here is as American as apple pie.
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by Zutroy on Aug 1, 2007 12:42:38 GMT -5
I thought the Rating would go down again, but not by that much.
I watched Raw on Monday because thats what i do on Monday Nights, but in all honesty i fell asleep just before Lashley - Kennedy because the show was boring and that hasnt happened in a while for me.
Also i think to most the Orton - Cena storyline looks like a carbon copy of the feuds Cena has had over the last year so that adds to the boredom.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Aug 1, 2007 12:43:39 GMT -5
Blaming THIS big of a ratings drop on the "quality" of the show is more senseless IWC WWE bashing. Since 2002 when the brand split occured, RAW has been much, much, MUCH worse than what we've seen in recent months. In fact, I've said on several occasions that 2007 has been a great year for WWE as far as overall product goes. Compared to circa 2002/2003, WWE is actually great right now. And the fact of the matter is, back then, EVEN then during Triple H's stranglehold on the title, the ratings never dropped this much. The Benoit situation has given professional wrestling a HUGE black eye, especially coupled with the recent news of possible congress hearings. THAT is what happened. Oh, and if you must blame the product, the only thing from RAW that USA advertised this week was Booker vs. Lawler. Nobody wants to see that s***. Here's the thing, you can't blame one or the other exclusively. Did the Benoit situation have a ratings impact? Undeniably. A situation like that couldn't help but affect ratings, but the quality of the shows is also an issue. I know I pretty much only watch Raw and SD out of habit at this point, and usually don't sit through a full show. The only show I actually look forward to is ECW.
|
|
|
Post by nerdinitupagain on Aug 1, 2007 12:45:07 GMT -5
This is probably the biggest drop in one week in nearly 8 or 9 years..
But that being said.. wait til next week to see what this means. Ratings are usually like the stock market.. there's two schools of thoughts to drastic drops or gains...
1) Major disaster... trend will continue... and is more or less dead in the water. 2) The drop will eventually even out to where the ratings should be in the high 2's until improvement is done.
So see what the rating is next week, and then we'll be able to tell a lot more.
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Aug 1, 2007 12:46:08 GMT -5
Blaming THIS big of a ratings drop on the "quality" of the show is more senseless IWC WWE bashing. Since 2002 when the brand split occured, RAW has been much, much, MUCH worse than what we've seen in recent months. In fact, I've said on several occasions that 2007 has been a great year for WWE as far as overall product goes. Compared to circa 2002/2003, WWE is actually great right now. And the fact of the matter is, back then, EVEN then during Triple H's stranglehold on the title, the ratings never dropped this much. The Benoit situation has given professional wrestling a HUGE black eye, especially coupled with the recent news of possible congress hearings. THAT is what happened. Oh, and if you must blame the product, the only thing from RAW that USA advertised this week was Booker vs. Lawler. Nobody wants to see that s***. Here's the thing, you can't blame one or the other exclusively. Did the Benoit situation have a ratings impact? Undeniably. A situation like that couldn't help but affect ratings, but the quality of the shows is also an issue. I know I pretty much only watch Raw and SD out of habit at this point, and usually don't sit through a full show. The only show I actually look forward to is ECW. Thats you, though. Every casual fan I know is quite happy with the product, at least on RAW. I think if there was gonna be a drop in the ratings based exclusively on the quality of the show, we would have seen it years ago.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 12:46:32 GMT -5
Thing is, there's not enough talent to keep people interested anymore. The only one who's over right now on Raw is John Cena. Bash me all you want, but if you notice, NOBODY else gets a reaction like he does.
Back a few years ago, though, mostly everyone used to get a good reaction. That's because they had talent that the fans cared about, especially the talent on top. Rock, Austin, Triple H, Angle etc ... what do they have now? Cena on his own?
|
|
|
Post by rrm15 on Aug 1, 2007 12:49:59 GMT -5
Thing is, there's not enough talent to keep people interested anymore. The only one who's over right now on Raw is John Cena. Bash me all you want, but if you notice, NOBODY else gets a reaction like he does. Back a few years ago, though, mostly everyone used to get a good reaction. That's because they had talent that the fans cared about, especially the talent on top. Rock, Austin, Triple H, Angle etc ... what do they have now? Cena on his own? I agree with you, actually, but the WWE has been Cena-centric for two years. If that's the problem, why are we just now seeing the effects??
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Aug 1, 2007 12:51:31 GMT -5
Thing is, there's not enough talent to keep people interested anymore. The only one who's over right now on Raw is John Cena. Bash me all you want, but if you notice, NOBODY else gets a reaction like he does. Back a few years ago, though, mostly everyone used to get a good reaction. That's because they had talent that the fans cared about, especially the talent on top. Rock, Austin, Triple H, Angle etc ... what do they have now? Cena on his own? I agree with you, actually, but the WWE has been Cena-centric for two years. If that's the problem, why are we just now seeing the effects?? Maybe because the fans can't take it anymore.
|
|
|
Post by Spankymac is sick of the swiss on Aug 1, 2007 12:52:20 GMT -5
Thing is, there's not enough talent to keep people interested anymore. The only one who's over right now on Raw is John Cena. Bash me all you want, but if you notice, NOBODY else gets a reaction like he does. Back a few years ago, though, mostly everyone used to get a good reaction. That's because they had talent that the fans cared about, especially the talent on top. Rock, Austin, Triple H, Angle etc ... what do they have now? Cena on his own? I agree with you, actually, but the WWE has been Cena-centric for two years. If that's the problem, why are we just now seeing the effects?? Because the casual fans are catching up to the "smart" fans and deciding that maybe too much of Cena is enough? Honestly, we've been tired of him for two years now, it stands to reason that eventually your average fan will eventually start to tire of him, too. There's more to this problem than "Benoit situation=low ratings".
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 1, 2007 12:52:27 GMT -5
I agree with you Rican. It's because of Benoit and steroid allegations.
|
|
|
Post by Big Daddy Bad Booking on Aug 1, 2007 12:52:49 GMT -5
2) Raw will be rated better next week because they are at the Garden and Triple H will show up next week. MSG is the 13th there buddy, but good wishful thinking.
|
|
|
Post by King Bastard on Aug 1, 2007 12:53:10 GMT -5
Wait, RAW bombed? No way! It's SUCH a good show!
|
|
|
Post by Chuckie Finster on Aug 1, 2007 12:55:03 GMT -5
Blaming THIS big of a ratings drop on the "quality" of the show is more senseless IWC WWE bashing. Since 2002 when the brand split occured, RAW has been much, much, MUCH worse than what we've seen in recent months. In fact, I've said on several occasions that 2007 has been a great year for WWE as far as overall product goes. Compared to circa 2002/2003, WWE is actually great right now. And the fact of the matter is, back then, EVEN then during Triple H's stranglehold on the title, the ratings never dropped this much. The Benoit situation has given professional wrestling a HUGE black eye, especially coupled with the recent news of possible congress hearings. THAT is what happened. Oh, and if you must blame the product, the only thing from RAW that USA advertised this week was Booker vs. Lawler. Nobody wants to see that s***. Think of it this way. But still, the prodcut today is nowhere near where it was before 2002.' Settling for mediocrity is an ass-backwards way of thinking. Saying "At least it's better than 2002-03" is stupid because your saying "At least were better then one of our worst periods". It's nowhere near as good as it was pre-Invasion overall. A show like last nights which was good praised by many here wouldn't hold a candle to a regular show from pre-Invasion. I'm not going to settle for mediocrity.
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Aug 1, 2007 12:55:55 GMT -5
When you say ratings didn't get this bad in 2002 you gotta realize that in 2002 the product wasn't far removed from great era. People still gave it chance to be good cause it had been good just shortly before that.
Now, last time product was truly good all around was a long time ago and people starting to give up on it and say it's just never gonna get back to that point, so they move onto something else.
You want another PANIC button situation? MNF hasn't even started up yet. If it's bad now imagine when football starts up and that starts sucking away viewers.
|
|