Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2007 18:47:20 GMT -5
From Gerweck:
So, what can we blame it on? Everyone wanted to watch the 49ers beatdown?
|
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Nov 13, 2007 18:50:18 GMT -5
We can blame a drop on the lack of hyped Attitude Era stars.
DX & Austin were One-Night-Only. Therefore they lost some people who just wanted to see them last week.
|
|
|
|
Post by Richard on Nov 13, 2007 19:07:05 GMT -5
What was it last week, a 3.8?
|
|
|
|
Post by royboy8 on Nov 13, 2007 19:28:06 GMT -5
3.9 I think
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Nov 13, 2007 19:42:36 GMT -5
I'm sure WWE will make up for it with having Undertaker attempting to embalm Austin and Kane runs in for the save. That should boost the ratings to a healthy 4.5.
|
|
|
|
Post by skillz on Nov 13, 2007 19:48:48 GMT -5
I've been out of the loop for a few years, but haven't ratings always been around 3.5 or so since 2002? Does a slight drop or slight increase really make a lick of difference?
|
|
|
|
Post by thegame415 on Nov 13, 2007 19:50:28 GMT -5
I'm sure WWE will make up for it with having Undertaker attempting to embalm Austin and Kane runs in for the save. That should boost the ratings to a healthy 4.5. You mean he should embalm Batista |
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Nov 13, 2007 19:51:49 GMT -5
The thing is I remeber Bryan Alvarez saying this year was set to be the most profitable in WWE history. Which seems crazy when you compare business and ratings in 1999 to now.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Nov 13, 2007 19:52:14 GMT -5
I'm sure WWE will make up for it with having Undertaker attempting to embalm Austin and Kane runs in for the save. That should boost the ratings to a healthy 4.5. You mean he should embalm Batista No, I mean Austin, just bring him in again as it seems WWE is trying to go back in time to 1998. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 13, 2007 19:53:54 GMT -5
I think they should set up a tournament, where they really beat the crap out of each other.
It would be a brawl, for all.
|
|
|
|
Post by tna on Nov 13, 2007 20:18:00 GMT -5
I know how to pop the ratings over a 4.0 again.
UNDERTAKER.
BATISTA.
LIVE SEX CELEBRATION.
|
|
|
|
Post by willywonka666 on Nov 13, 2007 20:19:27 GMT -5
They shoulda let Taker and Batista mix it up a little. They lost me with Regal breaking them up
|
|
|
|
Post by Aaron E. Dangerously on Nov 13, 2007 20:48:15 GMT -5
Well since it's guarenteed thad SAVE_US will be revealed next week (JERICHO!) there will be a guarenteed ratings spike.
|
|
|
|
Post by Confused Mark Wahlberg on Nov 13, 2007 20:50:46 GMT -5
I've been out of the loop for a few years, but haven't ratings always been around 3.5 or so since 2002? Does a slight drop or slight increase really make a lick of difference? They haven't made a lick of difference since Vince bought WCW. |
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Nov 13, 2007 20:51:36 GMT -5
Well since it's guarenteed thad SAVE_US will be revealed next week (EDGE!) there will be a guarenteed ratings spike. Indeed. |
|
EvilMasterBetty, Esq.
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Bird...Birdie...birdie......Tiger...Tiger Tiger.....
R2C2 Reporting for duty
Posts: 17,355
|
Post by EvilMasterBetty, Esq. on Nov 13, 2007 20:55:39 GMT -5
The thing is I remeber Bryan Alvarez saying this year was set to be the most profitable in WWE history. Which seems crazy when you compare business and ratings in 1999 to now. Yeah but think of all the huge salaries they were paying then. Taker, Austin, Rock, HHH, Foley, Jericho, Big Show, Henry (a money suck there), Kane (possibly). Plus just about everyone on the roster was making about $200,000K a year (which about double the average today I would say). Plus they probably had a much larger staff than they currently do. It's more that they did good cost cutting and whatnot than actual earnings. |
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Nov 13, 2007 21:10:55 GMT -5
The thing is I remeber Bryan Alvarez saying this year was set to be the most profitable in WWE history. Which seems crazy when you compare business and ratings in 1999 to now. Yeah but think of all the huge salaries they were paying then. Taker, Austin, Rock, HHH, Foley, Jericho, Big Show, Henry (a money suck there), Kane (possibly). Plus just about everyone on the roster was making about $200,000K a year (which about double the average today I would say). Plus they probably had a much larger staff than they currently do. It's more that they did good cost cutting and whatnot than actual earnings. I think it's more the overseas tours and expansion in foreign markets. I'm sure not paying the huge salaries is a big help though. |
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Nov 14, 2007 0:17:59 GMT -5
Frankly though with out that deep talent pool I've found the WWE boring these past several years. The company is living off of what it was, not what it is. Things need to change, and more young guys need to step up.
|
|
Celgress
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
The Superior One
Posts: 19,009
|
Post by Celgress on Nov 14, 2007 0:20:40 GMT -5
Oh and guys like Austin and Y2J to a lesser degree, are short term fixes to a long term problem. WWE better watch itself, or it could become like WCW in a few more years.
|
|
Big L
Grimlock
Posts: 13,883
|
Post by Big L on Nov 14, 2007 0:40:54 GMT -5
wow
|
|
