One thing I want to add that I feel gets neglected in these discussions, is the fact that there's a delayed effect in either direction.
Sometimes the quality of the programming isn't reflected in the ratings yet. If it's been the shyts for a long time, it doesn't matter if you suddenly produce the greatest wrestling show known to man, it takes time for people to catch on and tune in. Likewise, when you've been on a roll, there's a period where you can seemingly do everything wrong and still do incredible business. Lots of stories of WCW fukkery starting in 97-98, yet they still did well in the ratings for a while after. I think they sold out one PPV event without even having a card.
WWE was starting to pick up in mid-late 97 but the ratings still weren't great. Russo wrote about having to constantly remind the top brass that it takes time to even move from a 2 to a 3. Funny how even Mr. crash TV understood the slow shifts.
So, even if I agreed with the fact that ratings fall on one guy (I don't), it's still not fair to them, because they might be coming along after a real down period. Depending on what snapshot in time you look at.
