Do ratings really matter since there's no competition?

[MenacingMonk]

In today's age you can DVR/TIVO or watch a replay stream online. There's no other company to compete with the E, so what's the point? Yes, it may show what people are interested in, but in the long run it's the sales that make the money.

 

[Beautiful Bobby Eatin]

No. Been sayin it since 2001

 

[The Electric Lady]

WWE doesn't care. They've lost more than two-thirds of their audience since the Attitude Era yet they keep coasting on the same shyt. Ratings don't matters, because they don't give a fukk. If they gave a fukk, they would have switched it up when they were losing their Attitude Era audience. They're just coastin at this point. Their dedicated fanbase evens at around 200-400k. They're so now that they don't even bother making ppv sets unique anymore. It's just a Raw titantron with the ppvs logo. And you still think they give a fukk.

 

[Saysumthinfunnymike]

Just looked at this week's number. Batista's return did better than what most people thought would be Punk's return.

Filed and I don't even give a fukk about 'Tista.

 

[R=G]

It's a measuring stick for who the WWE politically pushes. Now if Cena does good ratings and numbers, they'll broadcast it until you can't take it anymore. If someone like Blandy does a horrible number, it's some fake ass DID YOU KNOW about merchandise or a twitter rating instead. Slick shyt like that..it does count for them. Bragging rights. Looking relevant in the grand scheme of American pop culture.

 

[Nintendough]

Ratings are pointless to follow. A lot of people aren't watching the newest Raw until Tuesday or Wednesday night. The ratings are for weirdos who try to be armchair experts online to compensate for sucking in real life.

 

[Mikael Blowpiff]

Shouldn't ticket sales and merch count more than ratings?

 

[Hulk Hogan]

[quote="Ricki Lake Hoe, post: 7577657, member: 6749"They've lost more than two-thirds of their audience since the Attitude Era[/quote]
THIS ISN'T ENTIRELY COKEBOY'S FAULT, BROTHER! THEY LOST THEIR BRAND NAME, THEIR BIGGEST STARS WERE VERY HARD TO REPLACE, AND ONE OF THEIR TOP WRESTLERS INFAMOUSLY MURDERED HIS WIFE AND SON, DUDE!

 

[Da King]

I haven't watched RAW live in a minute, I just can't stand not having the power to fast forward the bullshyt women matches and other segments I don't care about. DVR every wrestling event except PPVs

 

[DocZulu]

Ratings are pointless for fans to follow, but the WWE shoudl be more obsessed with ratings than ever before. There are hundreds of cable channels and video games for younger demographics to follow.

The NFL, NBA and even MLB also undermine their ability to sell programs.

In an era where Twitter can spoil results and even their Monday night "surprises", it is imperative that the WWE show its sponsors and investors that it is a viable product.

 

[Jmare007]

In terms of pushing talent, ratings matter when WWE want them to matter. Meaning they'll use it as a reason to push or not push a guy depending on how he fits their criteria and agenda.

Now, having said that, it does seem that ratings matter less and less when it comes to pushing someone. It's probably the fact that 3 hours RAW have a very consistent pattern - 1st hour strong, 2nd hour holds up, 3rd hour it drops - and no matter who you put in what spot, that pattern wont change in any significant degree so they don't even have much room for any bias to affect a push.

Punk got mediocre ratings, Orton gets mediocre ratings, Bryan gets mediocre ratings...shyt, Cena barely moves numbers anymore it seems. So WWE doesn't have much to hold on to anymore.


Business wise, ratings matter only if you are very high or very low IMO. Specially with wrestling because unless you have a monster audience, you wont have much leverage when negotiating TV and endorsement deals.

 

[Black White Sox Hat]

I just can't stand not having the power to fast forward the bullshyt women matches and other segments I don't care about

What are you gay?

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Ratings only matter for TV contracts, unless there is a huge, sustained spike or drop...which would moreso reflect the long term growth or decline of the product based on booking and wrestler popularity.

5% variations here and there don't really mean shyt. A rise in the ratings for a return that doesnt sustain itself doesnt matter outside of representing a failure in marketing and booking..or that that wrestler himself was a let-down after the first few appearances.

Batista for instance. There was a spike for his return, but will it sustain itself consistently? If not, then Batista and/or the booking/marketing behind him wasnt all that successful..in fact it could be seen as a negative. It shows that they brought more people in initially but couldn't keep them..and perhaps lost them for longer than they had before due to the "draw" failing, or the rest of the product being unappealing to those that returned or viewed that normally haven't in the recent past.

 

[Da King]

What are you gay?

Can't speak for some of these suspect nikkas called smarks cryin over other men but I watch for the bad bytches.

Watching wrestling for bytches?


You know you can just watch porn instead right?

 

[QueensEnglish]

Vince has just been made a Billionaire. Of course they don't matter.