RAW Ratings History - When 3's Became The Norm....

[chunkylover53]

As we all know, ratings are a huge indicator of interest. What you do on the present show has an impact on the next week's rating, be it a storyline, a debut/return of a huge star, perhaps a celebrity guest host. Your job is to keep those viewers interested and build on the momentum you already have going. Likewise, when the rating goes down from the previous airing, you try to find a mistake and try not to do it again.

Now, ratings that go down one week, but go up another is nothing to get all panicky about. However, post-Attitude Era, the ratings have dropped to a certain point, and never came back.

After viewing the ratings history, I was able to pinpoint certain events that kept people's interest going, and then later, lost a good chunk.

100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/wwf/wwfraw.htm

According to these charts, the ratings for RAW from 1995 all the way to late 1997 were averaging in the 2.0 range. On November 10th, 1997, the rating was 3.4. Take note that was the night after the ever so talked about Montreal Screwjob.

Now, at the time, many might've expected that to be a one time thing. The ratings the following weeks were lower, however it did not go below the 3.0 range, except for the December 15th edition of RAW, and the last rating of the year was a 3.6

Now, WWF officials were concerned that they lost their biggest prospect, Bret Hart, to the enemy territory(WCW), and they were still getting manhandled in the ratings, however, Bret Hart's departure was a blessing in disguise. So you can say the Screwjob did have a slight immediate impact.

Now, come the first quarter of 1998, they were permanentally lodged in the 3.0 range, not even getting in the high 2s. In fact, on January 18, they scored a 4.0. That could be due to coming off the heels off of the Royal Rumble PPV(with Austin winning the Royal Rumble match), and the press conference with Tyson and Austin.

A huge ratings turnaround was right after Wrestlemania XIV, with "Stone Cold" Steve Austin winning the WWF championship. Now, the night after Wrestlemania XIV scored a 3.8, and was still beaten by Nitro, however, the next week saw a 4.7, jumping up nearly a whole point.

It can be contributed to the previous week, which was a jam-packed RAW. Matches weren't anything to write home about, but storyline developement had to have played a crucial role. You had the Austin-McMahon feud in motion, Triple H revamping DX, The Rock taking over The Nation of Domination, and the announcement of the first ever inferno match between Kane and The Undertaker.

From then on, RAW never looked at a 3.0 and were raking in 4's and a handful of 5's for the rest of 1998.

Another ratings turnaround was the start of 1999. The January 4th, 1999 RAW was best remembered for Mick Foley defeating The Rock for the WWF championship. What is also noted was the Fingerpoke of Doom with Hulk Hogan having a fluke win over Kevin Nash for the WCW championship. Tony Schiavone told the fans not to turn to RAW because Mick Foley will win the WWF championship(That'll put alot of butts in seats). Apparentally fans wanted to see a guaranteed title change and immediately switched channels to see Mrs. Foley's baby boy achieve his lifelong dream.

From then on, RAW's ratings were permentally lodged in the 5's and with Wrestlemania season, turned to the 6's and occasionally 7s in 1999 and 2000.

From what I noticed though, ratings for RAW have dropped to the 5's in September 2000. That had to be due to moving from the USA network to TNN as many people during that time didn't have access to TNN. Not TOO much of a concern.

I've noticed however at the turn of the year, RAW was drifting more and more into the 4's with some 5's here and there. In the later portion of 2001, ratings were mostly in the 4's, with some 3's here and there. That was when the Invasion angle was starting to go bad in many people's opinons.

The ratings for RAW however, did go up as it was in the higher 4's and enjoyed a peak of 5.2 and 5.3 following Wrestlemania X-8 only to take a slow nose dive into the 4's then the 3's became more common, not after the brand split, but after the name change to WWE.

On May 6, 2002, a 4.6 was the last time RAW received such a rating, the night of the name change. After looking at the charts(this goes up to June 9, 2008), RAW never got to that rating since, only a 4.5 at the highest.

So, what do you think caused the never ending slump? Was it the lack of big name talent, failure to produce new stars, tedious programing, Triple H's reign of terror?

I know its popularly believed the Invasion storyline drove fans away, however, the ratings were pretty consistent afterwards, possibly due to Wrestlemania season, and didn't really take a dive until after the WWE name change. So it had to be something post-Invasion.

Thoughts?

[foreveryoung]

WWE buying their competitors. Not the final nail in the coffin of the WWE but a nail nonetheless. WCW was the only company that had the ability to go head to head with WWE. They had the backing of Turner's money, and had a superior product for quite a while there.. But when WWE bought WCW, and then fumbled the monday night war in 01, I cant blame people for moving on. Not everyone wants to see JUST Vince's product. They want a variety. And TNA the rate their going won't even be around in another 2 years. So that will just leave WWE again.

Both WWE and WCW were on their A game and made people intrigued. Ever since the purchase of WCW, Vince and Company became lazy and for good reason I guess. Its hard to compete against yourself.

Horrible time for the business. 2001 was just a horrible year and a horrible time to be a fan.. A loyal fan or casual.


Its a shame just 10 years ago we had 3 great wrestling going at it in ECW, WCW, and WWE. Now we don't have a choice. Theyre all subpar. WWE has been subpar for the last 9 years since the purchase. The lame Mcmahon-Helmsley era. The pushing of guys forcefed down the fans throats like Cena but no matter how hard they try he will never be Hogan, Austin or Rock. Predictable booking etc. And TNA is just plain a walking mess of a promotion that won't last once Dixie's daddy pulls the plug financially and smarten up in realizing that TNA is just not going to make a good enough profit. You got guys years passed their prime being the focal point of the show thinking its still 1996. No one fresh with a new vision.. Just Bischoff, Hogan, and Russo.



I think the days of the business being bigger than life and big in the mainstream is over.. It had its run but its over.. People have moved on the I guess to other things like MMA etc

[Gopher Mod]

Just a quick note on those charts (and what went after them):

The highest RAW after the 5/6/02 is between that 4.5 you mentioned and Trump RAW (aka the commercial-free one) which also got a 4.5.

As for what happened to the ratings: it's probably a dis-interest in wrestling in general by the wrestling fan that's caused this. I'm not sure what the answer is to the problem, but it's there.

[corndog]

Well one, wrestling isn't cool anymore, it's not mainstream and doesn't appeal to the average person. Atleast the ratings are better than the mid 90s, so it isn't dying or in a low point, it's just not in a high point. Also there is no one or nothing bringing in outside interest, there isn't a Hulk Hogan or Austin like character that crosses over to the mainstream public and is extremely charismatic. Nor is there a situation like Tyson coming in, the Montreal Screwjob, or another situation that brought in interest.

[wcw]

It wasn't anything Raw did. Sure loosing The Rock and Austin as well as the NWO angle not getting over like it was intended to do didn't really help.

The fact was without WCW wrestling as big as it was (Ratings in the 6's 5's and even 4's), was just a thing of the past. It ran its course the audience that liked WCW had moved on to MMA or just gave up on wrestling. The audience that Bischoff had brought in with WCW and the audience that McMahon had built with the attitude era had left in droves either to MMA or just away from wrestling.

The InVasion failing and WWE failing to establish WCW as its own brand separate from Raw also hurt WWE. I think had WCW been kept as its own entity (As was originally planned for WCW to be the Smackdown time slot).

Until another wrestling promotion comes up and build its own audience (It remains to be seen if TNA is that company) wrestling will stay were it is. It was Bischoff and McMahon building their own audience that led to the boom the direct conflict for viewers led to new viewers.

[Spudz]

People forget when looking at ratings numbers year by year that those numbers they are base on change every August.

a 3.0 in 2010 is not the same as getting a 3.0 in 2005, 2000 or 1995.

2010's 3.0 has more households and viewers watching than a 3.0 in those other years mentioned..

So while the ratings number are lower than what they were getting in the late 90's early 00's.. The amount of people watching Raw on Mondays now and than is closer than you probably think it would be.

["The Rated XXX Superstar" Jed]

I tuned out for a while around the end of the Attitude Era. I just noticed that it wasn't as "edgy" as it had been, and even knowing the reasons for it, I still thought the name change was silly (and still do).

[truwrestlingfan]

Good stuff man

[elryc]

Apr 20, 2010 22:43:03 GMT -5 Spudz said:

People forget when looking at ratings numbers year by year that those numbers they are base on change every August.

a 3.0 in 2010 is not the same as getting a 3.0 in 2005, 2000 or 1995.

2010's 3.0 has more households and viewers watching than a 3.0 in those other years mentioned..

So while the ratings number are lower than what they were getting in the late 90's early 00's.. The amount of people watching Raw on Mondays now and than is closer than you probably think it would be.

Just to follow up on that. The reason why they use ratings points is because it gives us a proportion of who is watching. So while more people are represented with each point, proportionally less of the population is watching now as compared to then. Theoretically, if the product was better they should be able to get back to that same proportion, but probably not even if they had the next Rock, Austin, and Mankind.

[Gus Richlen: Ruffian]

edge always claimed good ratings for the live sex celebration. how well did it really do in ratings?

[kneelbeforezod]

chunkylover53 this thread has been my favorite since I signed up. great read. As far as the topic goes though.

They have been back on USA for a while now, which I think they do a great job of advertising. Especially with the cross overs with Cena and Psyche and such. But that doesn't bring in new viewers.

They have this stupid guest host thing that started out well with trump. But the ratings slipped back into the low 3's. This has not brought in more viewers as they don't get big name actors they get people from Inside Edition and Flavor Flav. People the PG crowd don't know and the older fans don;t care about. So once again the wrestling fans stop watching because instead of Austin vs Rock they get Some no name celebrity or ahs been shamelessly promoting their product with the bella twins. So the ones who would watch normally don't.

Then the partnership with NBC. NBC does very little in advertising. They advertise Psyche and the other shows quite a lot, as well syfy shows like ghost hunters. But I rarely see an ad for Raw or NXT or what was ECW on NBC. A network that would bring in viewers. How about putting Cena on one of the shows? That would bring in viewers. But they don't.

Even when they have a special on NBC it's barely promoted and worse WWE puts on a lackluster show. The recent Saturday nights main events were pretty bad outside of HBK vs McMahon (shane?) That lead into the mania match. So if wwe doesn't do the rating that NBC want to advertise for then they won't raise.

All of this has simply been explained as a lack of interest...But I am not happy with that because there has to be a reason for lack of interest and in that fact it's the WWE's fault for putting out a lame product.

However I don't see a company that doesn't care anymore but a company that is planning for the future. It's PG now and geared toward kids. Like it was in the early 90's. Eventually those kids will grow and when they do the product will have to change to keep them watching. And when that happens we will get an attitude era Vol 2 and everyone will be happy...............

And still complain on the internet

[luiscurse]

I wonder if they would actually call it the Attitude Era Vol. 2?

[wrestlecrapcrap]

Austin and Rock leaving, simply put.

They were only going to have a certain shelf life as it was in terms of maintaining 5s, 6s and 7s, so when they started winding down and not being as big of a focus, or even after the casual fans just moved onto something else, then the ratings drop. I say this as it's clear Austin started the ratings pop for the WWE right after Wrestlemania 14. People tuned in for him. Maybe the heel turn also harmed ratings in 2001 as it was no longer the character they tuned in for, but there was always the argument that he needed to freshen up his character so it had to be done.

They needed a new ratings popper. They made Lesnar the flagship of the company, but he didn't work out. After Lesnar, I truly believe there was no-one worthy of being the flagship until Cena and Batista came along, so it was best to keep HHH strong on Raw. Steiner, Booker, Nash, Kane, RVD, Benoit, Goldberg...none of these guys had the quality that Cena does now in terms of being a great public figure, a role model, someone who can do all the public appearances and truly represent the WWE.

Although he's not popped the ratings like Austin did, but the company has continued to make money so he's been a good PPV draw particularly to headline Wrestlemania.

I really don't think it was the quality of Raw, which I think is always largely the same year on year, just the quality of the talent decides exactly how good the programming is. I think this currently is the most talented roster in years, and 08 was also very good, far far better than 07. But you have people saying this is the worst it's ever been right now, so I think it shows there's no clear gap in quality, you just need that one star that's going to capture all the casuals and make wrestling the fad again.

[Brian Suntan]

If you average it all out, RAW's average rating probably is in the 3s.

They don't call it a boom period for nothing. The weeks were they were getting 5s, 6s and 7s are the exception rather than the rule.

I think they're underachieving in that they've showed they can get up to 4s, but I think high 3s are about the best they could realistically do.

There are fans of lots of old bands/trends/genre's that still long for the day when their favourite gets back to where it used to be. The reality is that most just don't.

[kiwiabroad]

What changed is media.

In the past 12 years, the internet has exploded in conjunction with the focus of tv stations becoming more and more niche-oriented. What this means is that there are more avenues for people to find entertainment that is specifically targeted at them (or at least at the demographic they belong to). It's not just that wrestling is less popular per se, it's that the game itself has changed. A 3 now, relative to the overall average rating for all shows in that timeslot? Probably not quite as good as a 7 was back in the day, but I'd guess it's not too far off it.

[I *still* ✡ Johnny]

I'm a statistics geek, so I'm totally loving these ratings records.

I can see they're raking in constant 3s ATM, but I think we may have to wait another few years for a massive boom period. When the kids who watch Raw right grow up, the E will have to grow with them. Of course I'm saying the Attitude era got ratings cos it was uber edgy and pushed the envelope of what was acceptable on TV back in '98.

They'd have a pretty hard job being edgy in a few years time though...

[Fantozzi]

Apr 20, 2010 20:45:01 GMT -5 chunkylover53 said:

Thoughts?

you can't keep forever the interest of bandwagon fans
ratings grew in 1997-1998, peaked in 1999-2000, then went down

at least the whole process increased the viewers for WWE from what they had in 1996 to the current situation


if you check the sum of raw+nitro the trend is identical, only with a peak in 1999 and a decline that starts in 2000

[-Lithium-]

When the shows are good, they can be in the 4's. In 06, they were consistently at the low 4's for the first half of the year. In early 06 they were in the mid 4's. It wasn't due to cheap fixes either, just consistently good shows and storylines. I say it alot, so much to the point to where I say that I say it alot, but that was the last good run the WWE (alot of it RAW) had. The show's actually seemed to have some inspiration behind them. So obviously the more casual fans can still be brought it, but its not gonna be due to this Guest Host crap. Just put some actual effort and creativity into the shows...

[romafan87]

Apr 20, 2010 22:43:03 GMT -5 Spudz said:

People forget when looking at ratings numbers year by year that those numbers they are base on change every August.

a 3.0 in 2010 is not the same as getting a 3.0 in 2005, 2000 or 1995.

2010's 3.0 has more households and viewers watching than a 3.0 in those other years mentioned..

So while the ratings number are lower than what they were getting in the late 90's early 00's.. The amount of people watching Raw on Mondays now and than is closer than you probably think it would be.

This, this, and this. With significantly, literally millions, more TVs being capable of watching Raw now compared to 2000, they could have very similar number of viewers as they did then.

[romafan87]

Apr 21, 2010 16:17:52 GMT -5 kiwiabroad said:

What changed is media.

In the past 12 years, the internet has exploded in conjunction with the focus of tv stations becoming more and more niche-oriented. What this means is that there are more avenues for people to find entertainment that is specifically targeted at them (or at least at the demographic they belong to). It's not just that wrestling is less popular per se, it's that the game itself has changed. A 3 now, relative to the overall average rating for all shows in that timeslot? Probably not quite as good as a 7 was back in the day, but I'd guess it's not too far off it.

This as well. There were about 150 max available cable stations including the pay channels in 2000. Now, there are well over 400 options, and that doesn't include YouTube, Hulu, and the others. Again, I'd assume the number of viewers is surprisingly similar to what it was.