Ratings Discussion Thread - Mod Warning #271 (26th June)

ERG89

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think the tv companies would go mental if you could watch there shows outside of their networks sadly so never going to be an option.

Yeah those TV deals are the biggest asset the company has right now as in hindsight they essentially got more than they're worth right now. They won't do a thing to risk them.

gerrybbadd

Rjd2 wrote: »

I think the tv companies would go mental if you could watch there shows outside of their networks sadly so never going to be an option.

Ya they would. Unless some kind of deal could be struck to split profits from the increased tier subscription that Raw / Smackdown additions would bring.

It's amazing to me to see a 30yr old relationship between Sky & WWE go also. I know this is talked about in the WWE To BT thread, but I've seen it said that the reason Sky dropped them was due to dropping ratings.

I first got Sky at 16, exclusively so I could watch WWE. Paid crazy money down through the years for the Sky Sports package, and on Sky Box Office for events. I'd say a large reason for Sky dropping them also is the Network, and the reduced amount of box office orders for PPVS

Jerichoholic

The numbers were scarily low for live Raws in recent years. They did 100,000 live for the 25th which was a great number. Since then it has gotten as low as under 10,000.

SureYWouldntYa

gerrybbadd wrote: »

WWE - coming to you soon from a soundstage at Universal Studios! Filmed in front of a live studio audience

Wait until they start calling them extras like TNA did and instruct them on how to react, Roman and Corbin will finally get over as intended :pac:

J. Marston

Ratings are up again this week.

By 40k.

Omackeral

J. Marston wrote: »

Ratings are up again this week.

Down 390K from same week last year.

lawlolawl

Alvarez said on Wrestling Observer Live today that Stomping Grounds did about 9,800 PPV buys, which is a new record low for the WWE.

For reference, most WWE PPVs nowadays do between 15-20k buys. WrestleMania this year did about 100k PPV buys. About 10% of the WWE viewership is still buying PPVs through the traditional route.

Nothing to see here folks. Just a thriving company at the top of their game.

leggo

:rolleyes:

B.A._Baracus

leggo wrote: »

:rolleyes:

Surely leggos boards account got hacked. No way would he post anything less than 3,000 words in a single post lol.

:pac:

Omackeral

"which is a new record low for the WWE."

Make all the emoji faces you want, if that statement is accurate then it is noteworthy. Combine that with all the tarped off arenas as of late and the apparent 2 for 1 tickets and it's not a great picture.

lawlolawl

Hard camera side was completely tarped off again last night on SD.

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D98phA_UcAEambc.jpg

leggo

Just sitting here waiting on someone to point out how this is different from the first 50+ times WWE had a downturn and everything worked out fine. We're 250+ posts deep and the point of how this is significant hasn't evolved beyond people saying "This is SOOOO significant because...mumblemumble" Literally:

Make all the emoji faces you want, if that statement is accurate then it is noteworthy. Combine that with all the tarped off arenas as of late and the apparent 2 for 1 tickets and it's not a great picture.

"Noteworthy" "Not a great picture"

It's like you tip-toe right up to the line where you're going to make a point then scurry backwards out of fear of being proven wrong in the future. Stop speaking in clichés and say what you want to say like. At least lawlolawl had the bottle to say "WWE are dying." And yes, he will look ridiculous in the near future when trying to say how ratings for AEW that are lower than these are actually a "success", and he will pretend he never thought that (like the people who said the same when Impact had a run at them a decade back), but at least he stuck his neck out and wasn't wasting all this time hiding behind smart comments and gifs out of fear of making a point. You have to imagine my argument, that I'm saying WWE are "so hot right now" (which I'm not at all), to actually argue with me rather than actually just say something. So it's either all hot air and you don't actually have a point to make or you're afraid of making it, which is it?

lawlolawl

leggo wrote: »

Just sitting here waiting on someone to point out how this is different from the first 50+ times WWE had a downturn and everything worked out fine.

The phrase "all time low" is popping up an awful lot now. That's the difference.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

It's like you tip-toe right up to the line where you're going to make a point then scurry backwards out of fear of being proven wrong in the future.

Fear from who? Also. fear!? Saying something is noteworthy means it's something of note. It's news. It's worth mentioning.

leggo wrote: »

At least lawlolawl had the bottle to say "WWE are dying." And yes, he will look ridiculous in the near future

Ridiculous to who? We're talking about men in underpants pretending to fight each other. The whole premise of this is ridiculous

leggo wrote: »

but at least he stuck his neck out and wasn't wasting all this time hiding behind smart comments and gifs out of fear of making a point.

I made plenty of fair and relevant points earlier on. I posted data and numbers in one offering in particular that you never responded to. The gifs and smart comments are a direct rebuttal to your long winded, preachy and sanctimonious blogs.

leggo wrote: »

You have to imagine my argument, that I'm saying WWE are "so hot right now" (which I'm not at all), to actually argue with me rather than actually just say something. So it's either all hot air and you don't actually have a point to make or you're afraid of making it, which is it?

What's with you and this supposed fear angle? It's so weird.

Omackeral

Anyway.....

leggo

Honestly, do you have a different mode than speaking in colloquialisms while mastering the art of saying nothing at all?

Every Omackerel post ever: "Sure Jaysus, cringe morto weird."

You've literally said nothing there. You've used a lot of words but haven't advanced the conversation a single millimetre. The point of your post was: "I'm not afraid of anything, you're weird." What do you want anyone to do with that?!

ERG89

Omackeral wrote: »

Fear from who? Also. fear!?

Fear of Lex :eek:




Serious cringe at people taking WWE ratings so much to heart.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

Honestly, do you have a different mode than speaking in colloquialisms while mastering the art of saying nothing at all?

Every Omackerel post ever: "Sure Jaysus, cringe morto weird."

You've literally said nothing there. You've used a lot of words but haven't advanced the conversation a single millimetre. The point of your post was: "I'm not afraid of anything, you're weird." What do you want anyone to do with that?!

You missed this part of the post, probably willfully. ''I posted data and numbers in one offering in particular that you never responded to.''

Also, and this is a not tooting my own horn or anything but you saying every post I've ever made says nothing doesn't really make sense seen as people here have voted me as best poster on here twice. Must be saying some good stuff somewhere.

I make fair points and engage well with others on here all the time. You're just not happy that someone has the balls to call you out on your posting style IMO. It's been noted by other on here that you've turned into a bit of a holier-than-thou individual on here.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

The point of your post was: "I'm not afraid of anything, you're weird." What do you want anyone to do with that?!

No, it wasn't. That particular point was ''why do you keep saying people are afraid to be made a fool of'' or ''are in fear of being ridiculous''. It wasn't too difficult to comprehend, I would have thought.

Lord TSC

Omackeral wrote: »

Anyway.....

leggo wrote: »

Honestly, do you have a different mode than speaking in colloquialisms while mastering the art of saying nothing at all?

Every Omackerel post ever: "Sure Jaysus, cringe morto weird."

You've literally said nothing there. You've used a lot of words but haven't advanced the conversation a single millimetre. The point of your post was: "I'm not afraid of anything, you're weird." What do you want anyone to do with that?!

Mod note
Lads, this thread has generated more heat than really any other for quite a while on here. For some reason, there's a strong desire from people to make this personal. I'm highlighting two recent posts as examples, but there's a string of these sorts of petty, personal responses through the thread.

I'm not going to close the thread because there is a perfectly legit discussion to be had regarding issues WWE are having right now.

What I am going to start doing is dishing out yellows and thread bans to people who seem to want to discuss posters rather than the story itself. This includes gifs as well, designed to wind up posters.

Attack the post, not the posters. If you can't remain civil within the confines of the discussion, then your participation is not required. If you've more interest in discussing personalities of other posters, find somewhere else to vent that. Both sides though are guilty of coming across as wanting to take pot shots at each other.

And if you've any issue with this, PM me or another mod. Its childish some of the posts in here, and is ruining what should be a reasonable discussion.

leggo

I’ve been shouting that this thread isn’t about me, or “having the balls to put it up to me” is the latest one, since pretty much the start so agreed, good shout.

Anyway back to the question I tried to ask before this latest spat: does someone want to try say why this is massively significant and not just another dip like WWE have had multiple times over the years? Don’t just say “It IS significant”, I’m asking why. So start with “It’s significant because...”

Ideally please give examples explaining why WWE are in trouble when NBA get paid almost ten times the amount with an average regular season viewership of 1.2million per game.

Omackeral

DEFY is reporting that 6,000 seats were taken (of a possible 18,000), with Dave Meltzer adding that just 4,500 of those were paid for, and that many of them were very cheap or free. If the report is accurate, it would make Stomping Grounds one of the lowest attended WWE PPV shows in recent history.

The bolded part is significant I'd say. Actually, all of it is.

ERG89

leggo wrote: »

Ideally please give examples explaining why WWE are in trouble when NBA get paid almost ten times the amount with an average regular season viewership of 1.2million per game.

Like any sport wouldn't the TV stations be paying for the playoff games essentially as regular season games have very little on the line.
The final game got like a 13.2 rating whereas the penultimate one where Toronto kinda imploded got 13.4. Wrestling doesn't get that at any time of the year.
Sports does see spikes for finals or big games as that's what the network's pay for. When a station buys Premier League TV rights they think about the rating for Man City vs Man United not Burnley vs Palace which will drag down the average.

leggo

Omackeral wrote: »

DEFY is reporting that 6,000 seats were taken (of a possible 18,000), with Dave Meltzer adding that just 4,500 of those were paid for, and that many of them were very cheap or free. If the report is accurate, it would make Stomping Grounds one of the lowest attended WWE PPV shows in recent history.

The bolded part is significant I'd say. Actually, all of it is.

I specifically said “Don’t say ‘That IS significant’”, I said explain how. Start with “That is significant because...” and go again. You keep just reeling off stats and either defaulting to “That’s significant” or “Looks like WWE aren’t so hot right now” (a point nobody, not one single, solitary person, is making)

Don’t just reel off something you copied and pasted and say “Significant”. Show YOUR knowledge to analyse this info and make the point of how it’s significant. Because now I can just come back and say “...aaaand after all of the other PPVs that drew less, WWE went on to survive and thrive” and be correct. I haven’t had to move an inch from that point since this thread started. You’re saying this is different, how? Can you do that? If you can’t, are you posting for any other reason other than stubbornness?

leggo

ERG89 wrote: »

Like any sport wouldn't the TV stations be paying for the playoff games essentially as regular season games have very little on the line.
The final game got like a 13.2 rating whereas the penultimate one where Toronto kinda imploded got 13.4. Wrestling doesn't get that at any time of the year.
Sports does see spikes for finals or big games as that's what the network's pay for. When a station buys Premier League TV rights they think about the rating for Man City vs Man United not Burnley vs Palace which will drag down the average.

An average is an average man. It takes into account the highs and lows, that’s the point of it. If it wasn’t profitable to do so, they wouldn’t bid to the tune of ten times the amount they’re bidding for WWE. But they do because they deem it profitable to run 6 out of 8 months of the season on an average 1.2m rating. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t do it because, as their primary asset, they would go out of business if they did. Or there would be separate rights packages for regular season/playoffs, look at the PL/Champions League there for example. An open market means the market dictates these things, not the people within it.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

I specifically said “Don’t say ‘That IS significant’”, I said explain how. Start with “That is significant because...” and go again.

Very demanding and condescending.

leggo wrote: »

You keep just reeling off stats

Sounds like someone else!

leggo wrote: »

and either defaulting to “That’s significant” or “Looks like WWE aren’t so hot right now” (a point nobody, not one single, solitary person, is making)

Don’t just reel off something you copied and pasted and say “Significant”. Show YOUR knowledge to analyse this info and make the point of how it’s significant.

So what if I say it's significant? It's an opinion. That's what message boards and discussion sites are about. It's significant that they've hit a very low nadir attendance wise and that the ratings are majorly down on this time last year despite them having such a massive array of exceptional talent. That's my analysis. I've also already said as much on this thread though.

leggo wrote: »

Because now I can just come back and say “...aaaand after all of the other PPVs that drew less, WWE went on to survive and thrive” and be correct. I haven’t had to move an inch from that point since this thread started. You’re saying this is different, how? Can you do that? If you can’t, are you posting for any other reason other than stubbornness?

To be honest, I don't know why I'm posting on this anymore. It ceased being lighthearted fun a while back. I post here for the craic and there's very little of that left on this thread.

gerrybbadd

Another classic rivalry over. I'll just leave this here
http://imgur.com/a/kHbrkSB

leggo

He’ll be back as soon as he thinks he’s got info that proves his point, he did this already. It’s not about “I dunno why I’m doing this”, it’s about “I don’t actually have an answer to that” come on... :pac:

Omackeral

No, you've just bored me into submission


via torture rack

leggo

Who had 4 hours? :pac:

Loughc

At this stage the ratings in the ratings thread is going to plummet. It’s the same booking over and over :pac:

J. Marston

https://twitter.com/chairshotgreg/status/1145187947676700672?s=21

Runs

leggo

It was already framed as a success by lawlolawl that they were 'able' to open another section. :pac:

Look it'd be easy to hop on but that kinda stuff is to be expected from AEW at this stage. Their initial TV ratings probably won't hit anything WWE is currently doing and that'll be the big overreaction people will have that week, which is why Meltzer needs to calm his tits on the hyperbole. But, in truth, they're still a growing company trying to build off a single, online base (it's why they're not doing house shows: don't mind this "We care about the wrestlers' bodies" shtick, they know they don't have the base yet to sell locally and need to focus on trying to run few shows but pack them with BTE fans, I'd say the first few tapings at least will have an NXT TV-style setup in a smaller studio for that reason) so it'd be way harsh to jump on them for not selling out everything they do.

Jerichoholic

Greg DeMarco isn't a WWE baby toddler fanboy that is completely biased in any way towards ****ting on everything that isn't WWE.

No, not at all.

J. Marston

Raw up 218k viewers this week. 3 consecutive weeks of increasing viewers.

Loughc

J. Marston wrote: »

Raw up 218k viewers this week. 3 consecutive weeks of increasing viewers.

Heyman’s genius strikes again. Master stroke by Vinny Mac the wrestling/sports entertainment genus.

Itssoeasy

The discussion of ratings with WWE and complaining about the same is a pointless as the way ratings are still recorded from what I can see are not reflective of how people nowadays consume TV. I mean I'm sure the USA network has an app of some kind to watch it's tv shows live and how many people watch on that app that aren't included in the ratings. Also, WWE compared to ratings of other shows are good. They just aren't as good as they were.

Jerichoholic

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

Itssoeasy

Jerichoholic wrote: »

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

I stand suitably corrected and informed on the matter after reading your post.

Jerichoholic

Well it's 2019, you don't think they know how many people are using their app? Really?

Itssoeasy

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Well it's 2019, you don't think they know how many people are using their app? Really?

I didn’t say that they didn’t know how to count people using their app. I said I didn’t know if the numbers of people using the app were including in the ratings. You replied and said they were.

leggo

Jerichoholic wrote: »

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

Nielsen ratings include app viewers? Where in jaysus name are you getting that from?!

Jerichoholic

I see Extreme rules is another hot ticket again thanks to another incredibly popular main event.

Tickets are being given away for free already.

Jerichoholic

leggo wrote: »

Nielsen ratings include app viewers? Where in jaysus name are you getting that from?!

Jaysus begorrah ha?

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/28/tech/web/nielsen-tv-ratings-online/index.html

lawlolawl

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I see Extreme rules is another hot ticket again thanks to another incredibly popular main event.

Tickets are being given away for free already.

Oof, two for one tickets again i see. If you go on the venues website to buy tickets they won't even let you buy one on its own, you have to buy at least two.

leggo

Always read the article before you link it:

Nielsen first announced it was testing programs to track streaming viewers in April. In mid-November, it will release a software development kit that clients can use to figure out who's tuning in online.

Nielsen works the same way TV ratings over here work: a small % of people in various demographics are given technology to monitor what they watch and that counts for everything (incidentally does anyone here have said tech or know anyone who does?). It’s mad and you’d assume there’d be an easier way in the digital age, but there’s not. Radio ratings are even more archaic, incidentally: they’re done by survey so one person could just lie/forget what they listened to and it can be the difference in thousands of euros in advertising and jobs. But I digress.

So no, they don’t count all app views, they track the views that their ‘clients’, i.e. the % that they track, view.

Jerichoholic

Jesus Christ man. That was 6 years ago they added this stuff.

Shows streamed directly by networks through their own sites and apps typically include the same set of ads, and those viewers are counted towards the traditional Nielsen totals.

All your excuses are getting annoying.

leggo

“Here’s the proof! Read this article, it explains everything!”
“Actually it doesn’t, you misunderstood it and got pretty patronising with another dude...”
“That’s an old article! Why are you paying attention to that article?”
“You literally posted it yourself...”

I can see the storyline we’re repeating this week is: Jerichoholic makes big claim, gets corrected because he didn’t understand what he was saying, freaks out and goes on the attack. I’m looking forward to when you call everything anyone else says “nonsense”, while not being able to argue it, then ‘ask a friend’ who just happens to verify everything you’re saying. That’s always a good show closer.

Jerichoholic

Good man. They implemented it 6 years ago.

Good luck.

Jerichoholic

leggo wrote: »

“Here’s the proof! Read this article, it explains everything!”
“Actually it doesn’t, you misunderstood it and got pretty patronising with another dude...”
“That’s an old article! Why are you paying attention to that article?”
“You literally posted it yourself...”

I can see the storyline we’re repeating this week is: Jerichoholic makes big claim, gets corrected because he didn’t understand what he was saying, freaks out and goes on the attack. I’m looking forward to when you call everything anyone else says “nonsense”, while not being able to argue it, then ‘ask a friend’ who just happens to verify everything you’re saying. That’s always a good show closer.

I remember that time when you were completely ****ing wrong about those ticket numbers. And even admitted it.

But somehow I wasn't able to prove it and went on the attack, when I proved it, and it was quite a simple thing to do. Even though you called me a liar about it.

You need to stop being such an authority on everything as you just believe what you want to instead of facts, and everyone who thinks otherwise is stupid or a liar.