|
Post by Rocky Van Heineken on Aug 1, 2007 13:20:07 GMT -5
Well, hopefully the quality of Raw helps turn that around. Ratings don't change direction in a single night. They've been on a downward spiral, as happens now and again. They lost an entire 1.0. What the heck could've caused that?! ![](http://www.champsarehere.com/images/Superstars/Chris%20Benoit.jpg)
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Aug 1, 2007 13:20:09 GMT -5
Ratings are not necessarily indicative of the quality of a show. Last time a normal, non holiday non recap show did this poorly was October 23rd, 1997. 1997. That is arguably the best year in terms of overall quality of product WWE has ever had. But the ratings were low that year cause people were interested in something else, WCW.
I agree this week's raw was their best show in a while, but at this point it don't matter. People will support a bad product, just like they will support a bad sports team. Even Arizona Cardinals, Detroit Lions, even they still have fans who buy tickets and watch em on TV. But the fact that it has been in steady decline for so long now, and the Benoit situation now giving more people a good reason to switch away, those two mixed together are what is causing the sudden drop.
edit: forgot to mention WWE completely embarrassing themselves trying to defend themselves against the media.
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Aug 1, 2007 13:20:44 GMT -5
I wonder how badly the HORRIBLE "Champions Only" main event hurt them.
Not that Cena/Orton is Rock/Austin, but god damn, you're five weeks away from your 2nd biggest PPV of the year and you waste one week on that crap. Good god.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Aug 1, 2007 13:21:46 GMT -5
damn. this was the first Raw I watched in a month,too
|
|
Zutroy
Don Corleone
That's preposterous. Zutroy here is as American as apple pie.
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by Zutroy on Aug 1, 2007 13:22:48 GMT -5
This should be the wake-up call that Vince needs to do something different and realise that Stephanie's writing team isn't all that good.
|
|
|
Post by bubbles on Aug 1, 2007 13:25:11 GMT -5
They lost an entire 1.0. What the heck could've caused that?! ![](http://www.champsarehere.com/images/Superstars/Chris%20Benoit.jpg) Who he?
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,382
|
Post by Mozenrath on Aug 1, 2007 13:26:52 GMT -5
This should be the wake-up call that Vince needs to do something different and realise that Stephanie's writing team isn't all that good. According to some reports, he's starting to hate the writers, too. He apparently tore into one before Stephanie talked him down.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Aug 1, 2007 13:27:08 GMT -5
That's Hardcore Holly, I think from 2004 when he was drafted to Raw after winning the Royal Rumble.
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Aug 1, 2007 13:27:22 GMT -5
It's the man who never existed!
|
|
Rick Mad
Grimlock
Rick Mad Champion
Posts: 14,613
|
Post by Rick Mad on Aug 1, 2007 13:28:48 GMT -5
I don't understand. I don't know why the Benoit thing would've caused this and the show has been better than usual recently and I don't know. Too bad.
|
|
Brain Of F'n J
Hank Scorpio
Not that cool enough to have one of these....wait.
We Discodians must stick apart.
Posts: 6,890
|
Post by Brain Of F'n J on Aug 1, 2007 13:29:30 GMT -5
Ratings are not necessarily indicative of the quality of a show. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) In the TV industry, yes, they are. That's how quality and success is measured in television. Refer to "My So-Called Life" and "Freaks And Geeks" and "Dark Angel" for what it's like to be a "quality" show and have ratings that draw less people then city board meetings. Vince won't care if the people who watched liked it ... he'll be upset about the people who suddenly stopped watching and why. Jed Shaffer ~Vince should be more concerned with making sure he doesn't lose more viewers.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 1, 2007 13:30:24 GMT -5
I don't understand how this can be blamed on Benoit, and Benoit only. Wouldn't the ratings have just tanked straight after the details of his death came out, and not over a month later?
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Aug 1, 2007 13:32:27 GMT -5
Ratings are not necessarily indicative of the quality of a show. ![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) In the TV industry, yes, they are. That's how quality and success is measured in television. Refer to "My So-Called Life" and "Freaks And Geeks" and "Dark Angel" for what it's like to be a "quality" show and have ratings that draw less people then city board meetings. Vince won't care if the people who watched liked it ... he'll be upset about the people who suddenly stopped watching and why. Jed Shaffer ~Vince should be more concerned with making sure he doesn't lose more viewers. You make 2 points here.... Are you saying that ratings=quality, because that's what you're saying in your first sentence, then you go on to say those shows were quality but then drew low ratings. Which side are you on, man??
|
|
Zutroy
Don Corleone
That's preposterous. Zutroy here is as American as apple pie.
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by Zutroy on Aug 1, 2007 13:34:18 GMT -5
I don't understand how this can be blamed on Benoit, and Benoit only. Wouldn't the ratings have just tanked straight after the details of his death came out, and not over a month later? I think some people might have stayed around for curiosity to see what happened on TV after the Benoit issue. Now that they cen see that basically nothing changed they've switched off.
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Aug 1, 2007 13:35:19 GMT -5
No they are not. That sort of thinking is what gets the product to this point in the first place. I have said time and time again that no matter what your ratings are you should always look to improve or maintain the quality of a product. Always. Simply going by ratings and ratings alone is a terrible way to determine what should and shouldn't be on TV.
My favorite show of all time is The Wire, and it gets ridiculously low ratings. It has been hailed by several critics, magazines, etc as the best show on television. But thank god it is being produced cause it is a great show. Too bad it's entering its last season.
We look back on 1997 Raws and say "wow the show was GREAT back then", but we usually don't realize that nobody was watching. But I guaran-damn-tee you that keeping those quality shows airing and delivering like they were did help them greatly in the future. They stuck to their guns and in the end were rewarded for it with the best era the federation had ever seen, eclipsing even the Hogan era.
You cannot go by just ratings when determining the quality of a television show. That is severely flawed thinking.
And how about, instead of trying 'not to lose', try to win.
|
|
erisi236
Fry's dog Seymour
... enjoys the rich, smooth taste of Camels.
Not good! Not good! Not good!
Posts: 21,904
|
Post by erisi236 on Aug 1, 2007 13:36:02 GMT -5
What ever the cause it certainly wasn't Vince's fault. You can be sure of that. ![:D](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/grin.png)
|
|
Brain Of F'n J
Hank Scorpio
Not that cool enough to have one of these....wait.
We Discodians must stick apart.
Posts: 6,890
|
Post by Brain Of F'n J on Aug 1, 2007 13:36:29 GMT -5
![???](//storage.proboards.com/forum/images/smiley/huh.png) In the TV industry, yes, they are. That's how quality and success is measured in television. Refer to "My So-Called Life" and "Freaks And Geeks" and "Dark Angel" for what it's like to be a "quality" show and have ratings that draw less people then city board meetings. Vince won't care if the people who watched liked it ... he'll be upset about the people who suddenly stopped watching and why. Jed Shaffer ~Vince should be more concerned with making sure he doesn't lose more viewers. You make 2 points here.... Are you saying that ratings=quality, because that's what you're saying in your first sentence, then you go on to say those shows were quality but then drew low ratings. Which side are you on, man?? I'm saying, what you think of it being quality doesn't matter, and that kawalimus' statement that ratings are not indicitive of quality works at the viewer level. And TV execs/producers don't operate at our level. They operate on Nielsen numbers. And the numbers for this show are BAD. So, low numbers=bad quality, to the only opinions who truly count. The suits. Our definition of quality is meaningless, if the Nielsens dispute it. Jed Shaffer ~Thought it was plainly stated. Hmph.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Aug 1, 2007 13:37:20 GMT -5
so are smackdown ratings.....hopefully when HHH returns the Raw ratings will be MUCH higher
|
|
|
Post by kawalimus on Aug 1, 2007 13:40:40 GMT -5
To hell with the suits. They have proven time and time again that they are just rich blowhards who are really clueless. Look at the crap Bonnie Hammer's been spewing out lately about bringing back Attitude era people. Focus on putting on a quality product first, then marketing that quality product based on its strengths. The suits will back off when you start reeling in viewers.
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Aug 1, 2007 13:41:37 GMT -5
You make 2 points here.... Are you saying that ratings=quality, because that's what you're saying in your first sentence, then you go on to say those shows were quality but then drew low ratings. Which side are you on, man?? I'm saying, what you think of it being quality doesn't matter, and that kawalimus' statement that ratings are not indicitive of quality works at the viewer level. And TV execs/producers don't operate at our level. They operate on Nielsen numbers. And the numbers for this show are BAD. So, low numbers=bad quality, to the only opinions who truly count. The suits. Our definition of quality is meaningless, if the Nielsens dispute it. Jed Shaffer ~Thought it was plainly stated. Hmph. I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Just because a show gets high ratings doesn't mean it's necessarily quality. And just because it gets low ratings doesn't necessarily mean it's crappy. 1997 got low ratings, but were they crappy shows? Many people in this thread have stated that in terms of overall quality, it was some of the best stuff they'd ever seen. However, Nitro was winning in the ratings. And when Nitro had some of those high-rated shows when they were hot, does it really mean they were really great? RD proves a pretty good case in "Death of WCW."
|
|