RAW Rating... yikes

[SEAN CARLESS]

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

May 16, 2012 21:25:26 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Please post something similar the next time someone calls the TNA Knockouts "draws" for often getting the highest quarter hours on Impact.

[MrBRulzOK]

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Indeed. Also a few years back there was a commercial free Raw that did one of the best ratings they had gotten in a long time; flash forward to that following weekend and the pay per view that followed which did one of the worst buyrates they had ever done up to that point.

[Mista T]

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

May 16, 2012 21:25:26 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Most of the IWC is out of step with casual/not smarky WWE viewers I would think.

[BigWill]

May 17, 2012 0:18:02 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Please post something similar the next time someone calls the TNA Knockouts "draws" for often getting the highest quarter hours on Impact.

I don't see how either one of those things are related.

[memphis25]

Suits and Microphones = Rating. Expect to see tons of Heyman and Laurinaitis next week with WWE seeing what they have with these numbers.

[Rolent Tex]

All of Laurinaitis' segments equal ratings? He really is Mr. Excitement. No wonder those hypocrites on the Board of Directors won't fire him yet.

[joebob27]

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

I think if this gets 90K, it should be considered a borderline success

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 1:04:44 GMT -5 BigWill said:

May 17, 2012 0:18:02 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

Please post something similar the next time someone calls the TNA Knockouts "draws" for often getting the highest quarter hours on Impact.

I don't see how either one of those things are related.

The TNA Knockouts are an example of what Sean mentioned. Their segments usually get the most viewers of the night on Impact, getting them labeled "draws", but then literally almost none of those viewers buy the PPV to see the match that segment had hyped.

[The Portable Stove]

Looking at it from a different perspective. Segments with identifiable stars Triple H, John Cena, Randy Orton (and Jericho too) and the Big Show gained viewers. Everyone else lost viewers, with the six-man being the worst offender.

Not indicative of their talents, but naturally, who stands out from the pack as the most popular. And naturally, that would be those with ten+ years in the company.

[Wolf Hurricane]

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

May 16, 2012 23:30:06 GMT -5 celticjobber said:

I feel like I'm totally out of step with most WWE viewers. The segments I hated more than almost anything in years were huge ratings draws.

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Wait, what? For five pages, multiple people put a spotlight and marked an x on the ratings and said "that's what they get for such a sucky show," and "that's more than they deserved." Time and time again, ratings have been pointed to as to who should and shouldn't be on top and why; hell, some have tried to tie declining ratings to Cena and suggest that the sooner he gets out the way, the sooner ratings will ascend. Now all of a sudden, with the breakdown practically a polar opposite of the general consensus of this thread and possibly this board, now comes this sudden sentiment that "TV is not a true gauge."

Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of "even when I'm wrong, I'm right" mentality.

[joebob27]

May 17, 2012 1:59:02 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Wait, what? For five pages, multiple people put a spotlight and marked an x on the ratings and said "that's what they get for such a sucky show," and "that's more than they deserved." Time and time again, ratings have been pointed to as to who should and shouldn't be on top and why; hell, some have tried to tie declining ratings to Cena and suggest that the sooner he gets out the way, the sooner ratings will ascend. Now all of a sudden, with the breakdown practically a polar opposite of the general consensus of this thread and possibly this board, now comes this sudden sentiment that "TV is not a true gauge."

Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of "even when I'm wrong, I'm right" mentality.

Cena had the worst segment of the show.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 2:07:55 GMT -5 joebob27 said:

May 17, 2012 1:59:02 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

Wait, what? For five pages, multiple people put a spotlight and marked an x on the ratings and said "that's what they get for such a sucky show," and "that's more than they deserved." Time and time again, ratings have been pointed to as to who should and shouldn't be on top and why; hell, some have tried to tie declining ratings to Cena and suggest that the sooner he gets out the way, the sooner ratings will ascend. Now all of a sudden, with the breakdown practically a polar opposite of the general consensus of this thread and possibly this board, now comes this sudden sentiment that "TV is not a true gauge."

Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of "even when I'm wrong, I'm right" mentality.

Cena had the worst segment of the show.

You mean quality-wise, right? Ratings-wise, he had the best segment of the show.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 1:59:02 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Wait, what? For five pages, multiple people put a spotlight and marked an x on the ratings and said "that's what they get for such a sucky show," and "that's more than they deserved." Time and time again, ratings have been pointed to as to who should and shouldn't be on top and why; hell, some have tried to tie declining ratings to Cena and suggest that the sooner he gets out the way, the sooner ratings will ascend. Now all of a sudden, with the breakdown practically a polar opposite of the general consensus of this thread and possibly this board, now comes this sudden sentiment that "TV is not a true gauge."

Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of "even when I'm wrong, I'm right" mentality.

Ignoring that Sean has two posts in this thread and neither of them has anything to do with that...

[joebob27]

May 17, 2012 2:14:33 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

May 17, 2012 2:07:55 GMT -5 joebob27 said:

Cena had the worst segment of the show.

You mean quality-wise, right? Ratings-wise, he had the best segment of the show.

Go re-read the ratings breakdown very closely. Not only was it the lowest rating of the show, it was one of the lowest they've seen in a long time.

He's far from untouchable. If they did a stupid video about Stone Cold pounding down beers, it wouldn't get the lowest rating in the show back in the day.

[Deleted]

May 17, 2012 2:16:43 GMT -5 joebob27 said:

May 17, 2012 2:14:33 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

You mean quality-wise, right? Ratings-wise, he had the best segment of the show.

Go re-read the ratings breakdown very closely. Not only was it the lowest rating of the show, it was one of the lowest they've seen in a long time.

He's far from untouchable. If they did a stupid video about Stone Cold pounding down beers, it wouldn't get the lowest rating in the show back in the day.

I didn't realize you were talking about the video. I thought you were referring to the segment with Cena at the end of the show. "the closing segment with Cena and Laurinaitis gained 990,000 viewers for a 3.43 overrun rating. This was among the best overrun gains of the year."

[Deleted]

I don't get why the breakdowns don't imply that like, "this segment may have drawn in a million but it was so f***ing terrible they all tuned out during commercial" instead of "NOBODY WANTS TO SEE THESE GUYS RATINGS POISON

[joebob27]

May 17, 2012 2:22:58 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

May 17, 2012 2:16:43 GMT -5 joebob27 said:

Go re-read the ratings breakdown very closely. Not only was it the lowest rating of the show, it was one of the lowest they've seen in a long time.

He's far from untouchable. If they did a stupid video about Stone Cold pounding down beers, it wouldn't get the lowest rating in the show back in the day.

I didn't realize you were talking about the video. I thought you were referring to the segment with Cena at the end of the show. "the closing segment with Cena and Laurinaitis gained 990,000 viewers for a 3.43 overrun rating. This was among the best overrun gains of the year."

The segment before it also almost lost as many, that's why it's such a monster gain. It's like reading tea-leaves. Yeah, Cena is a TV draw but he's not untouchable to the point people will sit through that video. And I don't think he's a PPV draw to the point that you can get away with this as a PPV ME.

[SEAN CARLESS]

May 17, 2012 1:59:02 GMT -5 Wolf Hurricane said:

May 17, 2012 0:12:29 GMT -5 SEAN CARLESS said:

Don't feel that way. TV is not a true gauge. PPV is (along with anything else you spend money on like house shows, DVDs, etc.).

TV doesn't really mean anything. If, despite these gains, Over the Limit and Cena vs. Ace does terrible regardless, it's a failure. Success is gauged on if those same people are moved to actually pay money for the payoff. If 4 and a half - 5 million people are watching in the U.S., and only 90,000 of them potentially buy the show – that’s not even 2% of their audience paying. That's terrible.

To claim success on ratings alone, and not the actual paying product, is the equivalent of a million people seeing a commercial, but never buying the product its advertising.

Wait, what? For five pages, multiple people put a spotlight and marked an x on the ratings and said "that's what they get for such a sucky show," and "that's more than they deserved." Time and time again, ratings have been pointed to as to who should and shouldn't be on top and why; hell, some have tried to tie declining ratings to Cena and suggest that the sooner he gets out the way, the sooner ratings will ascend. Now all of a sudden, with the breakdown practically a polar opposite of the general consensus of this thread and possibly this board, now comes this sudden sentiment that "TV is not a true gauge."

Maybe it's just me, but it reeks of "even when I'm wrong, I'm right" mentality.

I'm not the other people in this thread. Did I enjoy the segments or the show in general on Monday? No, I did not. But does that negate what I said? Of course not.

PPV IS the main financial gauge that what they're presenting is connecting or not connecting. TV ratings are important in some cases, yes. It's how the brass usually choose who they decide to push; its a tremendous advertising medium for what they're selling; and it also allows WWE to gain sponsors and renegotiate their contract with USA when that time arises. But as an indicator as to what is and is not actually working? i.e. what the audience is shelling out money to see? It certainly is not in most cases. Numbers don't lie.

If you want to take TV on its own merits, and just look at it as a stand-alone issue -- what aired on Monday indeed drew interest and was successful in those terms. But whether that will in turn translate to dollars in WWE's pocket from these very same viewers? The jury's out on that one.

That said, I was simply responding to that poster's (saddened) decree that RAW was proof that he's no longer what WWE is targeting anymore. And I then looked at it with LOGIC (a dirty word for some people) and suggested that if that target does NOT buy what WWE is selling -- then TV, in this case, has failed in its purpose.

WWE is NOT a sole TV property like other shows. They get nowhere near the revenue a regular show does. They live and die by the paid aspects of their business. Go watch Vince's stock-holder meeting for proof. He considers PPV, international touring and house shows as the company's most pertinent interests.

[Threadkiller [Classic]]

May 16, 2012 21:25:26 GMT -5 @chrisc said:

In the segment breakdown, the opener with Paul Heyman and Triple H started strong with a 3.32 quarter rating. CM Punk and Santino Marella vs. Cody Rhodes and Daniel Bryan plus the Beth Phoenix vs. Alicia Fox match lost 601,000 viewers. John Cena's Make-A-Wish segment lost 370,000 viewers and did the lowest rated quarter in months with a 2.64 rating.

Kane vs. Big Show and John Laurinaitis firing Show gained 1,033,000 viewers for a 3.37 quarter rating. This was one of the best 10pm gains of the year for RAW. Brodus Clay, R-Truth and Kofi Kingston vs. The Miz, Dolph Ziggler and Jack Swagger lost 996,000 viewers.

Randy Orton vs. Chris Jericho gained 108,000 viewers and the closing segment with Cena and Laurinaitis gained 990,000 viewers for a 3.43 overrun rating. This was among the best overrun gains of the year.

In the Show-Laurinaitis segment that gained so well, Male Teens went from a 2.0 to 2.6 rating, Female Teens went from a 0.8 to a 1.0, Males 18-49 went from 2.2 to 2.9 and Women 18-49 went from a 1.0 to 1.3 rating.

In the Cena-Laurinaitis segment, Male Teens went from 1.3 to 2.1, Female Teens went from 0.7 to 0.9, Males 18-49 went from 2.5 to 3.3 and Women 18-49 went from a 1.1 to 1.3 rating.

What I want to know is how on Earth they can tell WHO'S watching at any given time? Like, how do they know that the person sitting in front of the TV at the top of the hour is a Male 18-49? How do you know the Male Teen demographic skyrocketed? Are there cameras inside the Nielsen boxes, with an army of employees watching at any given time? I know we're technically living in "the future," but HOW IS THIS POSSIBLE?! I AM CONFUSED AND TERRIFIED BY THIS TECHNOLOGY!