Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 1:07:43 GMT -5
Yeah ratings are down but it's a bigger problem. It's not just WWE but across the board everything's suffering with traditional tv. The Super Bowl had it's lowest ratings in a decade this year, NBA ratings have decreased, it's basically a mix of things. At the same time I'm glad we don't go to the dirtsheets and use real showbuzz reports because the dirtsheets? They do this.
Basically it's a mix of WWE losing viewers but also traditional tv viewership decreasing. This isn't something that the best booking possible can fix. If they keep using this model it'll just continue to decrease so they need to do something else because the days of old aren't coming back.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Apr 10, 2019 1:17:52 GMT -5
Yeah ratings are down but it's a bigger problem. It's not just WWE but across the board everything's suffering with traditional tv. The Super Bowl had it's lowest ratings in a decade this year, NBA ratings have decreased, it's basically a mix of things. At the same time I'm glad we don't go to the dirtsheets and use real showbuzz reports because the dirtsheets? They do this. Basically it's a mix of WWE losing viewers but also traditional tv viewership decreasing. This isn't something that the best booking possible can fix. If they keep using this model it'll just continue to decrease so they need to do something else because the days of old aren't coming back. So I might just be an ignorant Brit living in Ireland but there doesn’t seem to be any marketable shows on Mondays anymore that aren’t News related so you get the case of WWE winning on cable but of course they did because nobody else wants a show potentially running during NFL season?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 10, 2019 2:09:17 GMT -5
Yeah ratings are down but it's a bigger problem. It's not just WWE but across the board everything's suffering with traditional tv. The Super Bowl had it's lowest ratings in a decade this year, NBA ratings have decreased, it's basically a mix of things. At the same time I'm glad we don't go to the dirtsheets and use real showbuzz reports because the dirtsheets? They do this. Basically it's a mix of WWE losing viewers but also traditional tv viewership decreasing. This isn't something that the best booking possible can fix. If they keep using this model it'll just continue to decrease so they need to do something else because the days of old aren't coming back. So I might just be an ignorant Brit living in Ireland but there doesn’t seem to be any marketable shows on Mondays anymore that aren’t News related so you get the case of WWE winning on cable but of course they did because nobody else wants a show potentially running during NFL season? Pretty much. The days where the big games happen are bad viewing days but when you've got bad programming as well, and no reason for people to even flip channels during their normal viewing given they're probably gonna be doing something else during that Monday its even worse.
|
|
Sicho100
Hank Scorpio
Easily Confused.
Posts: 5,979
|
Post by Sicho100 on Apr 10, 2019 2:12:18 GMT -5
Yeah ratings are down but it's a bigger problem. It's not just WWE but across the board everything's suffering with traditional tv. The Super Bowl had it's lowest ratings in a decade this year, NBA ratings have decreased, it's basically a mix of things. At the same time I'm glad we don't go to the dirtsheets and use real showbuzz reports because the dirtsheets? They do this. Basically it's a mix of WWE losing viewers but also traditional tv viewership decreasing. This isn't something that the best booking possible can fix. If they keep using this model it'll just continue to decrease so they need to do something else because the days of old aren't coming back. So I might just be an ignorant Brit living in Ireland but there doesn’t seem to be any marketable shows on Mondays anymore that aren’t News related so you get the case of WWE winning on cable but of course they did because nobody else wants a show potentially running during NFL season? That's not really it. If you just look at the past week (I realize we aren't exactly in Peak TV season, but I don't feel like going and checking the numbers from October), the only non-news cable shows that even beat last week's Smackdown viewership (which, obviously, was worse than Raw's) were the Women's NCAA Basketball Championship game (the men's games were on network TV, not cable), a NASCAR race, Real Housewives of Atlanta, and The Curse of Oak Island (and a Women's Basketball Semi-Final game essentially tied Smackdown). The first three were all on Sunday (Oak Island is on Tuesday nights, head-to-head with SD's second hour). The problem with WWE's viewership is a few things: 1) The ad rates. Three years ago (which is when Meltzer reported this, I don't know more recent numbers), ad rates for WWE were between one-seventh and one-tenth of what UFC Fight Night was getting, even though WWE was getting a million MORE viewers than UFC. 2) The trend. Last year's average weekly viewership was two-thirds of what they were doing in 2014. Their numbers aren't merely on a downward trend. They've fallen off a cliff. 3) The business model. WWE's TV deals are propping up the company. So saying, "Well, all of TV is going down" isn't exactly a good thing for WWE going forward. Why would people continue to pay WWE a billion dollars for their TV shows if TV is dead? Not to mention that, come fall, the shows to compare to Smackdown aren't going to be cable shows, but network shows. And Raw's value to USA is to have unusually high numbers to prop up USA's overall numbers. So, for one show, they are about to get numbers that, while good by cable standards, are nothing exceptional for network (and, as Meltzer said when TNA got cancelled by Destination America, no TV station would make one of these major deals without including an out if things go south, so assuming that they'll just take Fox's billion bucks for a few years and then slide right back to a big money cable deal may be a bit optimistic), and the other show will be far less able to continue to prop up its station's overall numbers, making it less valuable, too. So, then, what are they going to do? Just pray that TV companies get even more desperate, and so pay another billion-plus for a Raw that would be lucky to get, say, two million viewers per show? Because the network and live events sure as shit aren't going to make up for any sort of collapse in the TV business.
|
|
Woo
Hank Scorpio
Posts: 5,317
|
Post by Woo on Apr 10, 2019 4:03:14 GMT -5
Hope they don't blame this on Kofi or Becky but I'm sure they will.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 10, 2019 5:54:10 GMT -5
So I might just be an ignorant Brit living in Ireland but there doesn’t seem to be any marketable shows on Mondays anymore that aren’t News related so you get the case of WWE winning on cable but of course they did because nobody else wants a show potentially running during NFL season? That's not really it. If you just look at the past week (I realize we aren't exactly in Peak TV season, but I don't feel like going and checking the numbers from October), the only non-news cable shows that even beat last week's Smackdown viewership (which, obviously, was worse than Raw's) were the Women's NCAA Basketball Championship game (the men's games were on network TV, not cable), a NASCAR race, Real Housewives of Atlanta, and The Curse of Oak Island (and a Women's Basketball Semi-Final game essentially tied Smackdown). The first three were all on Sunday (Oak Island is on Tuesday nights, head-to-head with SD's second hour). The problem with WWE's viewership is a few things: 1) The ad rates. Three years ago (which is when Meltzer reported this, I don't know more recent numbers), ad rates for WWE were between one-seventh and one-tenth of what UFC Fight Night was getting, even though WWE was getting a million MORE viewers than UFC. 2) The trend. Last year's average weekly viewership was two-thirds of what they were doing in 2014. Their numbers aren't merely on a downward trend. They've fallen off a cliff. 3) The business model. WWE's TV deals are propping up the company. So saying, "Well, all of TV is going down" isn't exactly a good thing for WWE going forward. Why would people continue to pay WWE a billion dollars for their TV shows if TV is dead? Not to mention that, come fall, the shows to compare to Smackdown aren't going to be cable shows, but network shows. And Raw's value to USA is to have unusually high numbers to prop up USA's overall numbers. So, for one show, they are about to get numbers that, while good by cable standards, are nothing exceptional for network (and, as Meltzer said when TNA got cancelled by Destination America, no TV station would make one of these major deals without including an out if things go south, so assuming that they'll just take Fox's billion bucks for a few years and then slide right back to a big money cable deal may be a bit optimistic), and the other show will be far less able to continue to prop up its station's overall numbers, making it less valuable, too. So, then, what are they going to do? Just pray that TV companies get even more desperate, and so pay another billion-plus for a Raw that would be lucky to get, say, two million viewers per show? Because the network and live events sure as shit aren't going to make up for any sort of collapse in the TV business. Bingo; it gets said each week, but "Raw beat everything on cable in its timeslot" really isn't enough, not when wrestling ad rates suck relative to other shows, not when much of WWE's lifeblood comes from their TV deals, and especially not when WWE's viewership decreases are happening at a much higher rate than the rest of cable TV. It's absolutely true that DVR, streaming services, cord cutting, etc. are having an impact on everything on TV, but WWE's decline is much more pronounced given where they were even just five years ago.
|
|