The Ratings thread

johnnysmack

If ratings continue to drop do people think it might start a new attitude era with shock value story lines to bring people back? It could be called the shock era!

sky88

johnnysmack wrote: »

If ratings continue to drop do people think it might start a new attitude era with shock value story lines to bring people back? It could be called the shock era!

No chance to be honest there PG and with Mattel as sponsors this PG er\a is here to stay

Pinkman

The Raw in the same week last year opened with a first hour of 4.7m compared to 3.19. A drop of 1.5M viewers in a 12 month period is very serious. No amount of excuses about people watching on demand or illegal downloading can cover for a 32% drop in a single year.

LeeJM

johnnysmack wrote: »

If ratings continue to drop do people think it might start a new attitude era with shock value story lines to bring people back? It could be called the shock era!

People need to forget the idea of the "Attitude Era" ever being a viable option for WWE tv. We aren't gonna get the blood, swearing, paint covered boobs of Playboy models and stupidly dangerous brawls of that era and they arent needed. All that stuff was of its time but would have been absolutely useless without the majorly over characters. WWE of the late 90's without Austin, Rock, DX, Hart, Undertaker, Foley, McMahons and Divas ( Sable, Lita, Trish ) is just ECW! And guess what, it made no money and went of business.

WWE still has some swearing even at a PG rating. We get occasional blood which means its all the more special when it does happen. The women are even sexier now in my opinion. Unprotected head shots with chairs are thankfully no more (go back at watch The Rock v Mankind at RR99 and tell me you dont cringe watching the 13 chair shots). What they are missing is hot characters. The WWE name itself is selling out arenas and selling PPVs. They dont even necessarily need an Austin level star, just maybe 2 Undertaker/Foley level guys to go alongside Cena. And thats not a PG problem, thats a creative problem.

Chain Smoker

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Down again, but still the 4th highest rated show on all US cable...

Pretty sure I said this earlier in the thread, but the audience who watch wrestling ain't worth a f*ck to advertisers. It's all slim jims (just had one, rotten!), 5 hour energy type crap that people who do all their shopping at a petrol station live on. There's shows lingering down in the 20s and 30s that might attract someone who might buy something like a new car or high end electronics would have far more value.

Wrestling's value, since forever, on television is that it's a ratings juggernaut. If wrestling was football manager and tv ratings were the premiership, USA were the board of WWE and Vince was its president, USA would be like "Vince, this season we expect you to win the premier league". It's not an achievement to get top 5, it's a minimum expectation.


Christ, why did I get back into Football Manager...

gimmick

Jesus. That's the most laboured metaphor in the history of this forum. Kudos.

Frank O. Pinion

Chain Smoker wrote: »

Pretty sure I said this earlier in the thread, but the audience who watch wrestling ain't worth a f*ck to advertisers. It's all slim jims (just had one, rotten!), 5 hour energy type crap that people who do all their shopping at a petrol station live on. There's shows lingering down in the 20s and 30s that might attract someone who might buy something like a new car or high end electronics would have far more value.

Wrestling's value, since forever, on television is that it's a ratings juggernaut. If wrestling was football manager and tv ratings were the premiership, USA were the board of WWE and Vince was its president, USA would be like "Vince, this season we expect you to win the premier league". It's not an achievement to get top 5, it's a minimum expectation.

Only the 18-49 and C+3 ratings matter to advertisers. Total viewers do not matter to a show's revenue potential. The higher the 18-49 rating, the more the show is worth to advertisers.

Alexis Sanchez

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Down again, but still the 4th highest rated show on all US cable...

Just noticed this post when someone else quoted it.

On all of cable? They were tied 18th for that week: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/11/17/cable-weekly-top-25-nov-9-15-2015/

They're 4th on a Monday.

Frank O. Pinion

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

Just noticed this post when someone else quoted it.

On all of cable? They were tied 18th for that week: http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2015/11/17/cable-weekly-top-25-nov-9-15-2015/

They're 4th on a Monday.

"On all of cable" on that Monday, yes. I wasn't talking about the whole week, how could I when the rest of the week hadn't aired yet? Only the demo ratings matter to advertisers, not how a show stacks up against other shows for the whole week in a top 25.

Chain Smoker

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

Only the 18-49 and C+3 ratings matter to advertisers. Total viewers do not matter to a show's revenue potential. The higher the 18-49 rating, the more the show is worth to advertisers.

I don't get you, your response to me saying overall rating are bull**** is to tell me overall ratings are bull****? Are you now saying that your "but still 4th" comment was in jest?

WWE has a decent 18-49 rating but wrestling both carries a stigma that advertisers just don't really want to associate their products with and hasn't had a very strong track record with any product that requires an ounce of nuance to its marketing.

gimmick wrote: »

Jesus. That's the most laboured metaphor in the history of this forum. Kudos.

Alexis Sanchez

Frank O. Pinion wrote: »

"On all of cable" on that Monday, yes. I wasn't talking about the whole week, how could I when the rest of the week hadn't aired yet?

'Cause they were 4th the week prior, which you remarked on. Word your sentences properly next time.

The thing is, tough, if the WWE and NBC Universal have contractual agreements that the rating must be above such and such a figure, then the contract may be void as a result.

By the way, here's the TV rating averages over the decade or so:


2004 Average 3.18
2005 Average 3.81
2006 Average 3.90
2007 Average 3.61
2008 Average 3.27
2010 Average 3.28
2011 Average 3.21
2012 Average 3.0
2013 Average 3.01
2014 Average 2.95
2015 Average 2.68 (yet to include this week's horrendous number)

It's a pretty sharp decline for just one year, in contrast to the slight decline over the the last few years.

I also remember Bryan Alvarez mentioning that football number are up this year and doing near-record number this year, so while I'm aware that TV ratings have been declining since the '50s, I'm not convinced they all generally declining as rapidly as the WWE's are this year.

Sure, take a look at their 3rd hour this week:

Top 100 cable shows among adults 18-49 for Monday, Nov. 23, 2015

MONDAY NIGHT FOOTBALL ESPN 8:15 PM 14256 5.1
SPORTSCENTER: L ESPN 12:06 AM 3481 1.6
LOVE & HIP HOP HLLYWD 2 VH1 8:00 PM 2411 1.3
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 8:00 PM 3190 1.0
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 9:00 PM 2990 1.0
STREET OUTLAWS DISC 9:00 PM 2452 1.0
FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:30 PM 1755 1.0
FAMILY GUY ADSM 11:00 PM 1836 0.9
BLACK INK CREW CHICAGO VH1 9:00 PM 1752 0.9
WWE ENTERTAINMENT USA 10:00 PM 2712 0.9
MONDAY NIGHT COUNTDOWN L ESPN 6:00 PM 2047 0.8
AMERICAN DAD ADSM 10:30 PM 1572 0.8
NFL PRIMETIME ESPN 1:30 AM 1437 0.7
ROBOT CHICKEN ADSM 12:00 AM 1263 0.7
BIG BANG THEORY, THE TBSC 10:30 PM 1688 0.7
AMERICAN DAD ADSM 10:00 PM 1318 0.6
BIG BANG THEORY, THE TBSC 10:00 PM 1555 0.6

It's possible they'll be pushed down to 5th place by Street Outlaws, whatever the fúck that is.

Another thing, I don't think McMahon would have brought back Stone Cold, Undertaker and Lesnar for that show a few weeks ago if this year's rating were nothing to be concerned about, which ironically, led to their lowest rating of the year, until this week's number

Frank O. Pinion

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

'Cause they were 4th the week prior, which you remarked on. Word your sentences properly next time.

Yes, I commented on both weeks, and they were 4th both weeks. But you posted ratings on Tuesday, 10th November, I commented about those ratings on Wednesday, 11th November, why would you think I was talking about the week prior? The link you posted was dated 17th November, by the way. Don't tell me how to word my sentences.

Alexis Sanchez wrote: »

By the way, here's the TV rating averages over the decade or so:

2004 Average 3.18
2005 Average 3.81
2006 Average 3.90
2007 Average 3.61
2008 Average 3.27
2010 Average 3.28
2011 Average 3.21
2012 Average 3.0
2013 Average 3.01
2014 Average 2.95
2015 Average 2.68

Yes, the average of the total viewers is going down, but, the total viewers DO NOT MATTER to advertisers. The numbers that actually matter to advertisers, is all that matters to the USA network.

I'm not saying everything is rosey for WWE's TV ratings, it's not. I'm just talking about how American TV ratings work.

Virtanen

2.15 this week, the lowest since September 1997

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/650075-this-weeks-wwe-raw-finishes-with-a-record-low-rating-garners-the-lowest-number-since-september-1997

Itssoeasy

Virtanen wrote: »

2.15 this week, the lowest since September 1997

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/650075-this-weeks-wwe-raw-finishes-with-a-record-low-rating-garners-the-lowest-number-since-september-1997

I wonder do NBC top brass give vince and wwe top brass a call soon ? I mean NBC have to get something out of the deal as well and right now I don't see how they are.

Rjd2

Keller kicked off about ratings on the torch the the other day

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2015/12/05/keller-low-raw-ratings-are-a-bad-thing-they-count/

KELLER: Low Raw ratings are a bad thing. They count.
BY WADE KELLER, EDITOR
Posted on December 5, 2015 in Spotlight Articles, Opinion & Analysis, Keller's Take
Vince McMahon

There is an assertion or point of view out there growing in popularity that needs to be dispelled. It goes as follows: Cable ratings don’t matter that much to WWE.

This is not true. Not even close to true.

Wade Keller, editorOn Twitter last week, WWE employee Brian James (a/k/a Road Dogg) said ratings are an archaic measurement of how business is going and of the popularity of the current product.

Evan Bourne told Sports Illustrated:

“I understand that ratings are important. You have to realize WWE’s contract. They’re not getting paid from advertising money. USA makes that money. WWE gets paid by USA, they get paid a lot of money, and the money increases every year. Ratings aren’t the most important thing to them. And, let’s just be honest: ratings aren’t as precise as internet clicks and time spent on the website. If you look at that, WWE is crushing everyone. So I think ratings might not be the best metric with which to rate wrestling in this day and age. But it does mean they’ve got big distribution.”

Let me at least put this out there first, because it’s probably the most important point, and if you read no further, you’ll still get 98 percent of why the above is nonsense:

This fall, a smaller percentage of people with access to cable TV on Monday nights in 18 years are choosing to watch Raw live, and the decline since the peak of the Monday Night War has taken a sharp nosedive over the last year compared to any year-to-year period in many years.

Can we agree that’s a bad thing? Can we agree that Raw, the three hour live star-studded, main-event packed, flagship show of WWE that airs on one of the very top cable networks is the primary, most instant, most relevant indicator of whether people who are WWE fans are interested in the product? I hope we can agree on that. I’ll keep it even simpler.

Fewer viewers is worse than more viewers.

So WWE is in worse shape than a year ago because there has been a sharp decline in live viewership. DVR viewership is roughly 10-12 percent of live viewership, so you can add 10-12 percent onto these live numbers, and compare them to 18 years ago, and it’s still really bad.

It is true that on a week to week or even quarter to quarter basis, WWE doesn’t get any more or any less money from advertisers on Raw when viewership goes up and down. It would be better for them if they did, because then they might be more responsive and open to change rather than stubborn. It’s the difference between a furniture or car salesperson who is paid on salary versus commission. Yes, in the short-run, if the salesperson working on a fixed salary is lazy and doesn’t sell any furniture or cars by ignoring the customers and sitting around playing games on their smartphone, they’ll get the same paycheck next time around. But no reasonable person would say that the salesperson’s laziness wasn’t impacting their long-term future wealth. Obviously, when it’s job review time, they won’t get a raise. They might even get fired if their performance is bad enough.

WWE right now is like an athlete being lazy the year after they sign a big contract. However, that contract ends, and if they only “try hard” in their “contract year” (the last year of their contract), teams are going to notice that and pay less than they would otherwise, expecting that athlete to be lazy again once they sign the new deal and feel fat and happy and comfortable again.

WWE should be working right now to maximize viewership so next time around, the huge percentage of their revenue that comes from TV doesn’t drop sharply. They can’t blow off a drop in viewership because they have a few more years locked in with a comfortable guarantee from USA Network.

Ironically, Vince McMahon has always paid wrestlers on incentive deals. He was resistant to even offer downside guarantees until WCW forced his hand. Now wrestlers get a base amount, but wrestlers have an incentive to perform well enough that they move up the card and help draw crowds so they outperform that downside and get much more than the bare minimum. WWE’s deal with NBC Universal is a flat guarantee, and NBC is suffering because of it. NBC Universal would be happier with a 2.7 rating than a 2.2 rating because they’re making way less money selling ads on Raw (and Smackdown, by the way) than they anticipated. Next time around, WWE will get paid less than if they were drawing big ratings now. Simple. Obvious. Relevant.

In the short-run, WWE is losing out, too. Raw is WWE’s best chance every week to engage their fans and to grow their fanbase. A show with an extra 500,000 people watching means you are able to get a certain percentage of those 500,000 fans to become Network subscribers, house show ticket buyers, YouTube Channel viewers, t-shirt buyers, and Christmas toy consumers.

To take it to the extreme to make an illustrative point, if Raw viewership dropped to 100,000 viewers a week instead of around 3 million, would that be good or bad for all of the other revenue sources? Obviously bad. They’d have a tiny pool of viewers to sell Network subs to, so Network sign-ups would stagnate. There’d be fewer fans aware of house shows in their area and fewer fans visiting WWE.com.

So fewer viewers is bad in many obvious, significant ways. Some of the price that WWE pays for a product that is attracting fewer and fewer fans by big numbers this fall compared to last fall won’t manifest until the next TV deal. That’s a bad thing, just like eating terrible food that’s bad for your heart might not give you a heart attack right away, but that’s no reason to discount the dangers of eating poorly.

In a more abstract sense, when viewers are abandoning what used to be weekly appointment TV for them, that’s a bad thing, not a good thing, as it relates to the customer satisfaction with the current product WWE is offering. It’s a warning sign WWE should heed, not make excuses for.

If Raw ratings were going up, not down, there is no way the excuse-makers would say that didn’t matter. They wouldn’t be pointing out that maybe, just maybe, those cable ratings can’t be trusted to be accurate. I suppose that’d be something worth investigating if the eyeball test didn’t tell us that WWE’s product is in a bad place lately. But if you understand the bare bone basics of how statistics work, you’d understand that random sampling of large populations is widely accepted and proven to be accurate enough to be a reliable indicator on which billions of ad dollars are allocated by very big companies run by smart people who wouldn’t spend more money on higher rated shows if the system were a farce.

There was a time when TV ratings had zero direct influence on a wresting promotion’s bottom line. Vince McMahon used to pay for his TV show to air in syndication in the 1980s. Many promotions saw TV as a loss-leader, a necessary expense in order to expose their wrestlers to fans and market ticket sales to big live events. They cared about TV ratings because the more people who were watching, the more people they were giving their pitch to regarding the upcoming live event. So even if no ad dollars were on the line for WWE now or ever, fewer viewers is bad.

So viewership numbers count. When viewership is down, it means fewer people are deciding to watch your show and are opting for other things to do with their time. Some of those people choosing not to watch Raw might be as engaged in the product as they ever were, but they’re watching Raw on Hulu or highlights on WWE.com or YouTube or WWE Network. Yes, some of them are. That was also the case last year, when ratings were significantly higher. The same choices were there, and by a wide margin fewer people are watching WWE Raw on Monday nights, the flagship live show that WWE touted was “DVR proof” when they were trying to get the most money for their new TV deal last year, and that’s a bad thing. It’s not a good thing. It’s not even a neutral thing. It’s a bad thing.

If WWE had 3 million Network subscribers today, the impact of lower TV ratings would be smaller on their revenues. Right now, the Network revenue is merely a substitute for what used to be PPV revenue. TV ratings, Network sub revenue, and house show tickets sales plus venue merchandise sales total 83 percent of all WWE revenue, as of the last quarterly financials released by WWE.

TV isn’t just one of the Big Three revenue generators, it’s the most important of the Big Three because (a) it’s the biggest; and (b) it’s what drives the other two. More specifically, TV rights fees equal 40 percent of WWE revenue, Network subs total 25 percent, and house show tickets sales and venue merchandise sales equals 18 percent of revenue. So low ratings means WWE is going to have to brace for a huge drop in TV rights fees next time they negotiate a contract, and in the mean time, fewer people are being reached as potential Network and house show customers.

WWE is not getting many new Network sign-ups who aren’t Raw viewers who are engaged in the show on a week to week basis, or at least like what they see when they watch every few weeks. Fans buying tickets to live events are predominantly people who like Raw right now, or are at least watching it enough to care enough about the wrestlers and feuds and titles to pay to see them perform live. People buying WrestleMania tickets to fill 100,000 seats at WrestleMania next year aren’t people disgruntled with Raw and choosing not to watch. People paying top dollar are more likely to be people who, to some degree, like WWE enough to watch the free weekly live flagship show.

TV ratings matter. They are the most important measurement of WWE’s business right now, and fewer viewers – both in the short-run and long-run – means less revenue for WWE. WWE is hoping ratings go up because they know more viewers is better, not worse.

So when viewership is down, don’t listen to excuse makers who say such measurements are archaic or less important than in the past. TV viewership is the most immediate, direct, and reliable indicator of whether the product WWE is producing is appealing to their customer base. It’s the type of statistic that’s known by economists as a “leading indicator,” the earliest sign of whether the overall picture is headed up or down. Viewership numbers lately indicate a sharp decline in customer satisfaction, and it will begin to show up in other places, including the quarterly business figures, unless WWE re-engages the fans who have turned to other escapes on Monday nights from 8-11:05 p.m.

riffmongous

For the sake of completeness, and ahead of tonight's RAW

link

This week’s episode of WWE Monday Night Raw did an average viewing audience of 3,884,667 viewers on the USA Network. That’s up an average of +830,667 viewers from the week prior and much more like it. Why on earth did it take Vince McMahon, Triple H and company so long to figure out they needed to start trying again? Below is how the show did each hour:

Hour one – 4,043,000 viewers
Hour two – 3,786,000 viewers
Hour three – 3,825,000 viewers
Average – 3,884,667 viewers

Stereomaniac

I wonder will it increase this week because something so important happened on it last week?

Rjd2

Stereomaniac wrote: »

I wonder will it increase this week because something so important happened on it last week?

I'd be shocked, holiday season raws normally struggle.

Stereomaniac

Weren't the Slammys a week earlier before? I'm glad it's not 2 totally themed episodes now.

riffmongous

Is this RAW going to be a special? What a waste of the ratings push if it is, poor planning.

Stereomaniac

I guess it's better to have that kind of an episode in a period where there's a gap between PPVs.

511

J. Marston

They must be starting to panic a bit with the way that graph is going.

A Rogue Hobo

Only themselves to blame. A live three hour weekly.marathon show that has its fair share of filler and constant ads in 2016 compared to a shortened down version on demand on Hulu or free clips on YouTube is always going to lose in the age of convenience.

Bounty Hunter

It seems to me that they are only left with the hardcore fans these days

jaykhunter

WOW this month has not been kind. It's like this every year though, it'll perk back up in January, just lower than it was the last time. I wonder how long it'll take for the WWE Network number and WWE RAW number to equalise, when WWE actually have no casual fans left!

It's not surprising, promos these days revolve around reality (eg Ambrose basically telling Dolph he's a midcarder with multiple failed runs) as opposed to entertainment promos & storylines. Basing feuds on athletic competition will drive off casuals in droves. At least for us we get numerous fantastic in-ring bouts.

Blue_Dabadee

Do those ratings include people that record RAW?

Mr.Nice Guy

jaykhunter wrote: »

WOW this month has not been kind. It's like this every year though, it'll perk back up in January, just lower than it was the last time. I wonder how long it'll take for the WWE Network number and WWE RAW number to equalise, when WWE actually have no casual fans left!

It's not surprising, promos these days revolve around reality (eg Ambrose basically telling Dolph he's a midcarder with multiple failed runs) as opposed to entertainment promos & storylines. Basing feuds on athletic competition will drive off casuals in droves. At least for us we get numerous fantastic in-ring bouts.

I would say quite the opposite and would point to WCW and TNA as examples of how moving away from this marks the beginning of a decline.

kksaints

Won't do Owens any favours.

jaykhunter

Mr.Nice Guy wrote: »

I would say quite the opposite and would point to WCW and TNA as examples of how moving away from this marks the beginning of a decline.

I don't get ya at all. Most of the biggest draws in the last 30 years's strongest asset is charisma/promos, not wrestling - Hogan, Rock, Austin (as SCSA) etc. Cena's a great storyteller/charismatic first and foremost. Financially/ratings-wise WCW peaked with the nWo angle, at the time main event matches generally stunk (with Hogan, Hall/Nash, Piper, Leno etc). TNA generally lose money, at best made a very small profit, so it's not really anything worth discussing.

2016 is a banner year for in-ring quality in WWE, but there's very little in the way of great kayfabe promos and storylines. If athletic contests drummed up fans we wouldn't be getting graphs like the RAW ratings 511 posted.