MichaelRBoh
Unicron
cowpee changed gimmick
Posts: 3,301
|
Post by MichaelRBoh on Aug 1, 2007 13:45:10 GMT -5
I bet vince is on the phone right now with the hulkster begging him for another come back BROTHER
|
|
Zutroy
Don Corleone
That's preposterous. Zutroy here is as American as apple pie.
Posts: 1,933
|
Post by Zutroy on Aug 1, 2007 13:45:17 GMT -5
Ratings mean nothing relating to quality. Some of the best Shows on TV, and award winning shows at that, have been cancelled due to poor ratings.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Aug 1, 2007 13:45:32 GMT -5
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." I thought they were hot shows and were great, had great matches and the intrigue of the WCW vs. nWo angle, at least till 1998 anyways. As for Raw, I don't think there's a real sense of urgency to watch the show like there was 8-10 years ago.
|
|
|
Post by kittylimits on Aug 1, 2007 13:48:08 GMT -5
You know what really sucks about this low rating? The fact that it probably will pick up next week, with Triple H's return, and it will be assumed that Triple H's presence equals higher ratings, and he will get shoved down our throats. Ugh. I think the Benoit thing def. had an impact on the ratings. If you look at ECW and Smackdown, they didn't get that much of a decrease, but I think it might have to do with the fact that those shows attract more of a loyal wrestling fan base. That's why they are so steady and much lower than Raw. Raw probably gets more casuals as it's the "Flagship" show, and they are turned off from WWE television right now. I also wanna say that, at least here in the mid-West, it's been really hot. Maybe people have been ouside? I mean, Neilsen ratings are oddly configured, there could be a lot of big coincidences to have that kind of large drop. But still, I love wrestling and I feel bad
|
|
|
Post by Arthur Digby Stamp on Aug 1, 2007 13:49:57 GMT -5
Sooooo...does this mean we can expect some HLA?
|
|
|
Post by robferatu on Aug 1, 2007 13:52:29 GMT -5
2.5?
Isn't the on par with WCW ratings in Mid-2000?, that's bad.
|
|
|
Post by 'Foretold' Joker on Aug 1, 2007 13:53:19 GMT -5
Thought I'd just compare the two recent RAWs.
Last week
Booker & Lawler argue
Melina & Beth Phoenix vs. Mickie James & Maria.
The Sandman & Jim Duggan vs. Carlito & William Regal.
Lashley destroys Carlito after apple spit mistake
Randy Orton vs. Cody Rhodes.
Mr. Kennedy vs. Jeff Hardy.
The World's Greatest Tag Team vs. Brian Kendrick & Paul London.
John Cena & Candice Michelle vs. Umaga, Lance Cade & Trevor Murdoch.
Randy Orton RKO's Cena afterwards.
This Week
- John Cena kicked us off this week with the return of Carlito's Cabanna
- 6 woman tag match.
- Umaga crushes S. Marella
-King Booker talks
-Cody Rhodes v Daivari
-Kennedy v Lashley
-King B v King JL
-Cryme Tyme v Jobbers
-Orton v Slaughter
-Cena v Carlito
Now then even a casual fan would know which episode to watch. I mean the obvious fault for this RAW was the matches were dull.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Aug 1, 2007 13:54:43 GMT -5
WWE went back to a more "wrestling" focused show after the Beniot tragedy.
Maybe casual fans realized they watched for something other than wrestling and switched the channel?
EDIT: You know, among other factors.
|
|
|
Post by Clash, Never a Meter Maid on Aug 1, 2007 13:55:13 GMT -5
Sooooo...does this mean we can expect some HLA? Whatever Vince plans will be quite random. His personality dictates that he's not going to buckle down to one plan, rather he'll try different things to see what turns it around.
|
|
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 13:55:22 GMT -5
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." That's not what I said. You missed my point entirely. What I said was that low-rated shows can be quality ... but TV executives don't care for the opinions of those who watch said low-rated shows, or the critical praise they may get. They want ratings. Ratings=money. Low ratings=less money. So, regardless of if this past Monday's Raw was the best since the Attitude era, all TV execs and Vince McMahon will see is that horrible rating. They'll focus on that, and only that. Jed Shaffer ~And since Vince controls what's on the show, when he sees the ratings ... kaboom.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Aug 1, 2007 13:55:37 GMT -5
2.5? Isn't the on par with WCW ratings in Mid-2000?, that's bad. Next week on RAW: The Ultimate Warrior challenges John Cena and gives a promo for 20 minutes. After that, King Booker battles his brother Price Stevie Ray with Jester Big T, then it's the Man Called Sting vs The World Greatest Tag Team. In our main event, we'll have 6 man action, as John Cena,The Sandman, and *insert random RAW face #3* versus the musical stylings of 3 Count!
|
|
Lancers
El Dandy
Oh you
Posts: 7,951
|
Post by Lancers on Aug 1, 2007 13:56:48 GMT -5
They prefer to be called 'mindless drones'. But yeah, now they almost got half the audience RAW normally gets. Those extra two sides to their ring is finally paying off. Rwally? Cuz is this was a TNA thread, we'd have fifty people in here going "OMG TNA 2 GOEZ BANKRUPTZ BY 2MORROW!" Yeah, they're the apologistic mindless drones around here, all right. But one thing's for sure, this rating drop sure isn't because of the current state of the product. That's impossible, WWE NEVER does anything wrong. It MUST be the fault of people who have different opinions! Those mindless drones! Yeah! It's crap like this that makes me really regret ever even coming back to post here. It was a goddamn joke. But, what a surprise, someone has to come back with an incredibly sarcastic reply because they take everything they read here like it's gospel. Some people here take this wrestling crap so damn seriously that they would rather just come here and complain about how some people aren't taking it as seriously as they should. I used to remember when people would reply back to me telling me that they enjoyed my sense of humor in regards to whatever I was talking about. Instead, the only replies I get since I came back is to (a) correct me because I forgot a very, small, insignificant detail to a point I'm trying to make that doesn't even factor into the point I'm making or (b) get their panties in a bunch when you say something that offends someone who really shouldn't even be getting offended in the first place. Just because you don't necessarily agree with someone's opinions means you have to come back with a ridiculous reply like the ones I've been getting. I mean, if I were to do that, I'd have ammunition on 75% of you here. I guess the days where you can just have fun posting here are long and gone. Pathetic.
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Aug 1, 2007 13:58:23 GMT -5
I agree with you Rican. It's because of Benoit and steroid allegations. That doesn't make any sense, though. The Benoit murder leaked on June 25. The Raw ratings from June 25 to July 23 were: 3.8, 3.7, 3.4, 3.4, 3.4. The four weeks prior to the Benoit tragedy had ratings of: 3.7, 3.2, 3.8, 3.8. So fans were so outraged by the Benoit/steroid situation, that it took FIVE full weeks for the ratings to substantially drop? I don't buy that. I mean, I'm sure the Benoit mess had an effect on fans, but why would offended fans sit through the same show for five weeks before having it register? Why was the rating low? Who knows. I've hated the product since 2003, and haven't watched since early-2005, and it boggles my mind how it took this long for ratings to hit this low. I thought it should have happened years ago, but wrestling fans are loyal, I guess. I'm guessing the rating will be back to normal next week.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 1, 2007 13:58:27 GMT -5
Your post was funny Lancers. Just ignore him.
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Aug 1, 2007 14:00:06 GMT -5
I'd say the word "bomb" is appropriate here. I can't recall Raw getting ratings this bad since the mid nineties.
|
|
@TenaciousBe
Hank Scorpio
Guess who's back... back again
Posts: 5,659
|
Post by @TenaciousBe on Aug 1, 2007 14:01:07 GMT -5
Sigh. I don't know why people always overlook this tiny little detail, but...
The ratings for this week's show reflect the fans' reaction to last week.
How can people say that the low rating this week was due to a bad show THIS week? How would the fans know ahead of time that the show was going to be crap, and thus, don't watch? The viewership is in response to last week's show, the buzz for the past 7 days, and previews on what might be coming (after all, it IS a live show, you never know what might get thrown in or scratched at the last minute).
Now, if you show me that the rating for the first half hour was strong and then it dwindled down to almost nothing by the end of the show, I'll go for that. But an overall bad rating... that's coming off last week.
|
|
The Line
Patti Mayonnaise
Real Name: Bumkiss. Stanley Bumkiss.
Peanut Butter & JAAAAAMMMM!
Posts: 36,698
|
Post by The Line on Aug 1, 2007 14:01:08 GMT -5
Ratings mean nothing relating to quality. Some of the best Shows on TV, and award winning shows at that, have been cancelled due to poor ratings. read:arrested development
|
|
erik316wttn
Samurai Cop
Wrestlecrap's #1 SUNNY mark
Posts: 2,490
|
Post by erik316wttn on Aug 1, 2007 14:01:21 GMT -5
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." That's not what I said. You missed my point entirely. What I said was that low-rated shows can be quality ... but TV executives don't care for the opinions of those who watch said low-rated shows, or the critical praise they may get. They want ratings. Ratings=money. Low ratings=less money. So, regardless of if this past Monday's Raw was the best since the Attitude era, all TV execs and Vince McMahon will see is that horrible rating. They'll focus on that, and only that. Jed Shaffer ~And since Vince controls what's on the show, when he sees the ratings ... kaboom. Gotcha. And we are in perfect agreement. Vince stuck to his guns when Nitro was kicking ass and he almost went out of business. I hope he doesn't do anything stupid, because I'll bet my life savings they are panicking in Stamford right now.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Aug 1, 2007 14:01:56 GMT -5
I'd say the word "bomb" is appropriate here. I can't recall Raw getting ratings this bad since the mid nineties. So would I, that's a significant drop. If it was a like a 3.3 or 3.1, ok, but this is concerning. Next week will determine if it stays that way or just a night where people just didn't feel like watching Raw.
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Aug 1, 2007 14:02:34 GMT -5
I agree with you Rican. It's because of Benoit and steroid allegations. That doesn't make any sense, though. The Benoit murder leaked on June 25. The Raw ratings from June 25 to July 23 were: 3.8, 3.7, 3.4, 3.4, 3.4. The four weeks prior to the Benoit tragedy had ratings of: 3.7, 3.2, 3.8, 3.8. So fans were so outraged by the Benoit/steroid situation, that it took FIVE full weeks for the ratings to substantially drop? I don't buy that. I mean, I'm sure the Benoit mess had an effect on fans, but why would offended fans sit through the same show for five weeks before having it register? Why was the rating low? Who knows. I've hated the product since 2003, and haven't watched since early-2005, and it boggles my mind how it took this long for ratings to hit this low. I thought it should have happened years ago, but wrestling fans are loyal, I guess. I'm guessing the rating will be back to normal next week. I still think it's the Benoit thing. It is weird that the ratings would drop more after five weeks than they did at first (though there was an immediate drop). Maybe it left a bad taste in people's mouths and made people more critical. I don't know. It just makes more sense to me than stuff like "it's Carlito's fault". I do agree with you that the rating will probably be back to semi-normal levels soon.
|
|