|
|
Post by kingbookermark on May 17, 2012 3:22:31 GMT -5
Lol.
Seriously though I think the Brock critic was right... maybe Cena should have lost.
It is cool that the Universe still loves all the Johnny Ace plot stuff like I do.
|
|
|
|
Post by joebob27 on May 17, 2012 3:27:50 GMT -5
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! It's like in the Assassin's Creed games, just don't call them up if you get suspicious... |
|
Madagascar Fred
El Dandy
TAFKA roidzilla and SUFFERIN' SUCCOTASH SON!
Posts: 8,784
|
Post by Madagascar Fred on May 17, 2012 4:31:17 GMT -5
I also don't really trust this "this demographic gained 1 million viewers for that segment" stuff
but whatever, if the wrestling match segments lost viewers dramatically, why bother putting on a wrestling show any longer? let's do RASSLIN' REALITY TV for 2 hours each week and let SD be the wrestling show then
|
|
JoDaNa1281
Crow T. Robot
Jackie Daytona, Regular Human Bartender. #BLM
Posts: 42,472
|
Post by JoDaNa1281 on May 17, 2012 6:45:13 GMT -5
Suits and Microphones = Rating. Expect to see tons of Heyman and Laurinaitis next week with WWE seeing what they have with these numbers. Also, starting next week....Microphones Wearing Suits! |
|
BigWill
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 16,619
|
Post by BigWill on May 17, 2012 9:07:40 GMT -5
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. How would you know this? Unless you somehow polled every person that bought the PPV. |
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on May 17, 2012 9:34:49 GMT -5
As much as I can understand the argument that TV ratings don't mean all that much unless they are converted into PPV buys I'm not sure it's entirely accurate.
Of course WWE very much bank on PPV buys but also, more and more, they have also begun to rely on advertising a lot.
So the TV rating is actually a pretty big deal to them in and of itself. More viewers = Better advertising opportunities = More money. That is why we are seeing more big matches given away 'for free' on TV than some would expect. Advertising on the show and during the breaks is hugely valuable to WWE and to the Network.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 10:25:09 GMT -5
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. How would you know this? Unless you somehow polled every person that bought the PPV. If the numbers that Meltzer gets from PPV providers are true, TNA gets around 15,000 PPV purchases each month, and sometimes it drops closer to 10,000. Around 1,500,000 people watch Impact each week. 1,500,000 saw the hype; 15,000 buys for the PPV. 15,000 is 1% of 1,500,000. By comparison, there have been UFC PPV hype shows on Spike that got around 700,000 viewers, then the PPV got around 1,000,000 purchases. 700,000 saw the hype; 1,000,000 buys for the PPV. 1,000,000 is nearly 143% of 700,000. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 10:26:04 GMT -5
As much as I can understand the argument that TV ratings don't mean all that much unless they are converted into PPV buys I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Of course WWE very much bank on PPV buys but also, more and more, they have also begun to rely on advertising a lot. So the TV rating is actually a pretty big deal to them in and of itself. More viewers = Better advertising opportunities = More money. That is why we are seeing more big matches given away 'for free' on TV than some would expect. Advertising on the show and during the breaks is hugely valuable to WWE and to the Network. WWE doesn't get any of the ad revenue. All the money from ads during Raw goes to USA Network. |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on May 17, 2012 11:20:39 GMT -5
Oh, I know. I definitely expect the ratings to have tanked for the Big Show segment. I was just surprised that Meltzer and Alvarez enjoyed that segment, and they were shocked at the amount of hate mail they got in regards to last night's Raw. Maybe they should ask their pal Todd Martin why it sucked. He put it perfectly. no he didn't. Insulting the fans at the arena because they liked the Cena segment isn't "putting it perfectly". |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Bunsen Honeydew on May 17, 2012 11:29:35 GMT -5
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. You need to re-read the ratings breakdown. Cena's main event overrun with Big Johnny drew a rating of 3.43, the highest quarter hour of the night. His can't be the lowest rating of the night when his quarter hour was almost a half point higher than the entire rating. Try again. |
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on May 17, 2012 11:46:39 GMT -5
As much as I can understand the argument that TV ratings don't mean all that much unless they are converted into PPV buys I'm not sure it's entirely accurate. Of course WWE very much bank on PPV buys but also, more and more, they have also begun to rely on advertising a lot. So the TV rating is actually a pretty big deal to them in and of itself. More viewers = Better advertising opportunities = More money. That is why we are seeing more big matches given away 'for free' on TV than some would expect. Advertising on the show and during the breaks is hugely valuable to WWE and to the Network. WWE doesn't get any of the ad revenue. All the money from ads during Raw goes to USA Network. They surely get money when they do their own endorsements. Skittles and Taco Bell 'Live Mas' and such like. Hence us seeing more of them. And they may not be making money directly from the ad breaks. But the more people watch, the more valuable the ad space is, and therefore the more valuable Raw is to the USA Network. Which will work in there favour. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 12:11:08 GMT -5
WWE doesn't get any of the ad revenue. All the money from ads during Raw goes to USA Network. They surely get money when they do their own endorsements. Skittles and Taco Bell 'Live Mas' and such like. Hence us seeing more of them. And they may not be making money directly from the ad breaks. But the more people watch, the more valuable the ad space is, and therefore the more valuable Raw is to the USA Network. Which will work in there favour. They are at USA's mercy when it comes to Raw. The reason they agreed in 2005 to let USA keep all the revenue made from commericals was because USA was the only cable network willing pay to the amount WWE wanted for the right to air Raw. |
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on May 17, 2012 12:20:48 GMT -5
They surely get money when they do their own endorsements. Skittles and Taco Bell 'Live Mas' and such like. Hence us seeing more of them. And they may not be making money directly from the ad breaks. But the more people watch, the more valuable the ad space is, and therefore the more valuable Raw is to the USA Network. Which will work in there favour. They are at USA's mercy when it comes to Raw. The reason they agreed in 2005 to let USA keep all the revenue made from commericals was because USA was the only cable network willing pay to the amount WWE wanted for the right to air Raw. So even the on-show ads? Not disputing it, but do you have a link to this info anywhere? I'd like to read it. I was sure WWE were making money off their endorsements. Either way it is good for WWE. If it keeps USA happy and paying WWE what they want then it's worth it. My point still remains, for WWE TV means more than just 'an advert for a PPV' these days. The PPV buy rate isn't the only barometer of success. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 12:33:05 GMT -5
They are at USA's mercy when it comes to Raw. The reason they agreed in 2005 to let USA keep all the revenue made from commericals was because USA was the only cable network willing pay to the amount WWE wanted for the right to air Raw. So even the on-show ads? Even so that is good for WWE. If it keeps USA happy and paying WWE what they want then it's worth it. My point still remains, for WWE but TV means more than just 'an advert for a PPV' these days. The PPV buy rate isn't the only barometer of success. What USA pays WWE for the right to air Raw is dwarfed by what WWE could be making from PPV but aren't. |
|
The Doctor
Dennis Stamp
New teeth. That's weird.
Posts: 4,952
|
Post by The Doctor on May 17, 2012 12:38:27 GMT -5
So even the on-show ads? Even so that is good for WWE. If it keeps USA happy and paying WWE what they want then it's worth it. My point still remains, for WWE but TV means more than just 'an advert for a PPV' these days. The PPV buy rate isn't the only barometer of success. What USA pays WWE for the right to air Raw is dwarfed by what WWE could be making from PPV but aren't. That may well be. But like I said, regardless of what any of us think, WWE puts a lot of importance on TV and views it as far more than just a build up to PPV. That was the only point I was making. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 12:46:43 GMT -5
What USA pays WWE for the right to air Raw is dwarfed by what WWE could be making from PPV but aren't. That may well be. But like I said, regardless of what any of us think, WWE puts a lot of importance on TV and views it as far more than just a build up to PPV. That was the only point I was making. I understand that. It's just backwards of WWE to think that way. What WWE makes in a year from USA could be made from 2 really successful PPVs. |
|
|
|
Post by icemansiva on May 17, 2012 13:48:56 GMT -5
cm punk = ratings
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on May 17, 2012 13:52:04 GMT -5
That may well be. But like I said, regardless of what any of us think, WWE puts a lot of importance on TV and views it as far more than just a build up to PPV. That was the only point I was making. I understand that. It's just backwards of WWE to think that way. What WWE makes in a year from USA could be made from 2 really successful PPVs. Not really. I believe they get 20 to 30 million from NBC for RAW, to match that they'd have to have 2 PPVs a year do the numbers they did for WM this year. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 17, 2012 14:15:30 GMT -5
I understand that. It's just backwards of WWE to think that way. What WWE makes in a year from USA could be made from 2 really successful PPVs. Not really. I believe they get 20 to 30 million from NBC for RAW, to match that they'd have to have 2 PPVs a year do the numbers they did for WM this year. At $45 for standard def., if WWE could just get 200,000 buys in the United States for each of the 12 non-WrestleMania PPVs, their 40% cut of the revenue (the other 60% goes to the PPV companies) would be $43.2 million a year. That's not including WrestleMania or HD buys, which are $55 instead of $45. |
|
|
|
Post by Richard on May 17, 2012 14:32:50 GMT -5
Not really. I believe they get 20 to 30 million from NBC for RAW, to match that they'd have to have 2 PPVs a year do the numbers they did for WM this year. At $45 for standard def., if WWE could just get 200,000 buys in the United States for each of the 12 non-WrestleMania PPVs, their 40% cut of the revenue (the other 60% goes to the PPV companies) would be $43.2 million a year. That's not including WrestleMania or HD buys, which are $55 instead of $45. That is for the 11 non-mania shows, not 2 that you mentioned. Also, while WWE does get 40% of the PPV fee, that is not their take, they still have to take expenses out of that money while USA's pay is all profit as they foot the bill for sat. fees and things like that. WWEs take from PPVs is more in the 16-18% range. |
|
![Threadkiller [Classic] Avatar](http://storage.proboards.com/forum/images/av_default_male.png)
