Ratings drops below 3.0.......

Very worrying sign for WWE. Especially considering there's no competition from MNF.

Looks like catering for the IWC doesn't equal ratings....

what for this week's raw?! Doubt it has anything to do with the IWC - the IWC didn't want Del Rio to be champion and doesn't want Nash around either.

2.97.....

Nash has a big part to play as well. But are the shoot/insider stuff Punk is going with going over the casual fans heads?

A couple of points:

- I am not surprised that ratings are lower in the middle of summer if people are either away on vacation or outside enjoying life as opposed to being inside watching TV... it would be interesting to see if this was a trend from previous years.

- I am not surprised that this has happened however! Good story lines and story lines that the general audience can buy into are two different things and there have been too many inside lines etc in this for the mainstream audience to get in my opinion. More ardent fans may be enjoying it but modern TV (as with politics) has shown that the way to be successful is to chase the middle ground and rely on your base support remaining (if feeling disenfranchised).

Aslong as I'm enjoying it,I don't give a stuff about anyone else. This past 2 months has been a breath of fresh air. 5 years prior has been rubbish.

Cue...Cena wins at noc.

HitmanOwl wrote:Aslong as I'm enjoying it,I don't give a stuff about anyone else. This past 2 months has been a breath of fresh air. 5 years prior has been rubbish.

Cue...Cena wins at noc.

But it is important if you want story lines like this to continue! If they are not successful then the WWE will revert to type and won't go down this line again. Also, I don't see Cena winning at NoC as I think they will want to build up ADR as a credible main eventer.

It's important but ratings have been on the slide for years,its nothing new. Guaranteed they will panic and put it back on Cena. Instead of giving it time. Also Tbh the last 2 raws have been average. I can understand they storyline are just beginning though.

the fact that they had to introduce Nash two weeks ago and list his accomplishments tells you that the average WWE fan nowadays obviously doesn't have a clue who he is! As Punk said its not 1994 anymore! But maybe the fact that its summer does have something to do with it? Once the storyline heats up I'm sure ratings will go up it seems like a slow burner anyway.

JoshSansom wrote:I don't see Cena winning at NoC as I think they will want to build up ADR as a credible main eventer.

I agree with this, particularly seeing as ADR has picked up clean wins over Mysterio, Bryan and Morrison since winning the belt. I can see him having a series of clean wins over upper-midcard wrestlers, then getting a flaky win over Cena at NoC.

You can't blame the Internet Wrestling Community, not many want Del Rio as the Champ, Cena as #1 contender and Nash against Punk (I get that though)

The Iwc appreciates a good product when they see one. Best part of the last 5 years has bben truly awful,so in retrospect its the Iwc you should be thanking for the last 2 months of WWE. That's of course if you believe it is because of the Iwc the ratings have dropped :P

I do not blame the IWC because as a small minority of the WWE audience there is no reason why the WWE would tailor its content to their tastes! That said the current story with Punk, HHH, Nash etc is certainly far edgier than many in the last few years and I think it may have disenfranchised some fans who do not "get" some of the references, the significance of some of the big moments or view Punk as favourably as we do.

I also don't believe that in 2011 the IWC is some kind of sordid minority its made out to be

Why wouldn't you want a better product? If anything its the people what used to buy ppv's what was the problem,when it was rubbish they continually bought merch,ppv's etc etc. Us wrestling fans had to put up the 'marks' piling money into a poor product of which Vinny was loving.

HitmanOwl wrote:Why wouldn't you want a better product? If anything its the people what used to buy ppv's what was the problem,when it was rubbish they continually bought merch,ppv's etc etc. Us wrestling fans had to put up the 'marks' piling money into a poor product of which Vinny was loving.

I agree that they are the problem - however, in a money driven business they are the most important customers. Gaffer - I don't see the IWC as a "sordid minority" however, in terms of what they spend they are most definitely the minority! I have been enjoying the recent story lines but do not attend events or buy merchandise. Therefore in comparison to a seven year old who badgers their parents to go to Raw/SD and buys every new John Cena t-shirt I am veery much unimportant. It is the seven year olds views that matter and on the whole I don't think that the current storyline is aimed at that market.

Yeah but for every 7 yr old their is 2 parents. More adults in a arena than kids.

HitmanOwl wrote:Yeah but for every 7 yr old their is 2 parents. More adults in a arena than kids.

Most adults who go along will not be hugely interested in the action - they will be going to keep their children happy and will support things that they think are "child friendly" now John Cena is far more likely to be the kind of character that parents would want their children to see and support than many of the other characters in the WWE.

Put another way, if I were a parent and had a young kid who liked wrestling I would much rather see him watching John Cena than CM Punk (if indeed I would want said child to be watching WWE at all).

I bet the whole irony is that only the IWC worry about things like ratings and we're blaming ourselves!

Ratings = ad revenues and the value of TV contracts at renewal so while they may not be looking at each week I would be amazed if they weren't looking at the broad trends in the ratings.

Particularly at a time of economic recession - people haven't got as much money to go out etc so TV ratings (even if not PPV ones) should be higher rather than lower despite the potential for a summer season slump

Well I'd want my kid to experience what I did as a kid. I'd rather see stone cold etc than hogan and warrior.

Raws ratings has been rubbish for years with cena as the no.1 guy.Just imagine if Orton,cena was on the shelf for a year. No other top guys left to carry the company unless you put punk in that bracket.

wwe need to Target the casual fan and bring in the 18-35 demographic.

they would make billions,not millions.

HitmanOwl wrote:Well I'd want my kid to experience what I did as a kid. I'd rather see stone cold etc than hogan and warrior.

Raws ratings has been rubbish for years with cena as the no.1 guy.Just imagine if Orton,cena was on the shelf for a year. No other top guys left to carry the company unless you put punk in that bracket.

wwe need to Target the casual fan and bring in the 18-35 demographic.

they would make billions,not millions.

WWE do try to target casual fans by offering vanilla products that will not offend anyone. They will continue to target kids though because merchandise is by far and away their biggest source of profit and kids are the ones who will primarily wear their merchandise. Also, the people who typically have the largest disposable income are parents and they will primarily spend their money on their children.

You may not like it but it is an obvious business model.

Many 16 - 35 year olds will either be poor students or poor graduates. They will not have the money to attend events and / or buy tshirts etc and will look to sponge coverage off the internet.

One of the (many) reasons that ECW died was that they appealed to the 16-35 demographic and ignored everything else. As such they never had a business model that would generate sufficient revenue.

Josh I'd like you to provide facts that in what they spend the IWC are the minority, its niave in the extreme to believe that the Internet Wrestling Community are a minority

the-gaffer wrote:Josh I'd like you to provide facts that in what they spend the IWC are the minority, its niave in the extreme to believe that the Internet Wrestling Community are a minority

Wrestling fans who use the Internet are probably very numerous due to the pervasive nature of the Internet. However, fans who would be typically bracketed as IWC fans (i.e those who would "get" insider references etc) are presumably far less numerous.

Statistics for WWE usage etc are fairly limited though there are some interesting nuggets available from http://ir.corporate.wwe.com/interactive/lookandfeel/4121687/WWE_Overview.pdf

This shows that live events, TV, PPV's and consumer products are roughly equal in terms of revenue generation. In addition, while the under 12's market represents approximately 15% of WWE audiences, toys is listed as a top category in consumer products, which indicates that spending in proportion to numbers is high.

Also, while I have been unable to ascertain figures, it is clear that Cena and Mysterio represent two of the largest merchandise sellers for the WWE and their target demographics are younger people.

It can also be seen from the figures that WWE expect to see an increase in net margins and the largest sector increase is in consumer products, indicating that they have one of the largest net margins sector by sector.

So after all that you can't really say at all and you're just using an assumption on your behalf to support your claim, your logic would be far more accurate if this was 2005, in 2011 the online Wrestling fan has become far more popular, wwe.com has 20m visitors per week, over 60% come from the USA, their forum alone is massively popular, RAW only have an average of 4.9m viewers per week, are you telling me that you seriously don't think at least half of that audiance use the internet to go on forums/dirts/twitter/Facebook

As I said, there isn't a necessary correlation between going online and being the type of fan that will appreciate the current story lines. Some will, but, in my opinion many won't.

There definitely has been a boom in the WWE website but this actually disproves your point as those who utilise the WWE website are also unlikely to be the type of fans who will appreciate the current story lines as the WWE website (from what I can see) is written in kayfabe. Smark fans will be far more likely to take their information from other sources.

This doesn't disprove nothing, there is a number of innocents that frequent the forums but from whats been obvious over the last 18 months to two years is that the innocent have been overtaken by the majority, how that disproves my point is beyond stupid!

I cancelled my Sky Sports subscription months ago, I watch Raw on Youtube now. So you can blame people like me for the ratings slump. Going under 3.0 has nothing to do with CM Punk or the IWC. Giving a green, boring Mexican, devoid of charisma who doesn't draw the WWE Title is the problem.

The only WWE related show I watched live on TV since Manha was MitB and that was only because of the build up, you can bet there is hundreds of thousands, possibly millions in the USA who do the same, with YouTube, D.Motion, JTV I've said for ages that the Nelson Ratings are not a true reflection of how many people watch each week

The point I tried to make from the statistics available is:

a) that there is a proportional share in revenue from PPV's, TV, live events and merchandise.
b) much of the merchandise sales seem to come from toys and other paraphernalia purchased by children or for children.
c) under 12's make up 15% of audience share yet therefore seemingly a far larger share of revenue than other age groups.
d) WWE expected marginal revenues to increase between 2006 and 2011 (the figures available) and this can be seen to be attributable largely to an increase in consumer product sales. As such it can be seen that the marginal value of this sector is higher because each dollar spent by WWE generates a larger % of profit.

Also, I am not sure why you are quoting the potential audience from Youtube etc as this means nothing. These people do not watch through the television and so do not contribute to ad revenues / television rights deals and will probably not therefore pay for PPV's when streams etc are available. If someone does not pay to watch on television it is also not a huge stretch to suggest that they don't buy merchandise or attend live events either.

As such they look to add nothing to the brand or value to the company so there is no reason for the WWE to care about them in the slightest as they add no value to the company.

Raw/SD revenues exc. ticket sales from from television deals and advertising. These are both based on the idea of people watching on Television - now if they don't then they aren't watching through the recognised sources or watching the advertisements so the WWE aren't going to get renewed or improved rights packages at the next contract renewal. As such value to company = 0.

The equivalent is listening to music via Youtube etc. Now if it makes the user buy the product (or watch the tv programme then fine - though in this case despite the angle running for around 6 weeks there has been no identifiable upward trend) then fine, however, if the user continues to bypass the industry's primary means of gaining revenue then that user has little commercial value. Some may see the value in the product being spread out and more people experiencing it - though that is hardly the important bit as far as WWE are concerned!

So after all that you still don't know and your just speculating in order to validate your point

the-gaffer wrote:So after all that you still don't know and your just speculating in order to validate your point

I have made an informed judgment based on evidence that I have presented and logical patterns of behaviour (i.e. those who watch the shows on free Internet streams are unlikely to be revenue generating in other areas).

You have presented even less evidence apart from some vague and waffly opinions that lots of people probably watch and the IWC is large, yet you have not been able to show that those individuals that insider story lines are predominately likely to appeal to (i.e. those with a strong knowledge of the business) are likely to be the WWE's core market (i.e. people who are actually spending money on their product).

I have shown a large youth market and higher MU to those individuals, you have shown nothing.

I watch RAW on the net at work but I bought SummerSlam and would have ordered MitB if it wasn't 'free' my cousin doesn't have SKY and watches on YouTube but he has to buy his twn wee boys figures, belts, dvds and t shirts, so that doesn't do your "stretch" claim aoy justice, all you do is make sweeping generalisations with nothing genuine to back it up, I'm bored with thir so unless you have something that actually supports your point then don't bother with me

But again your point is supporting mine! Your cousin's primary purchases are linked not to his enjoyment of this but his children's - which is the point I have been making.

Also http://www.businessinsider.com/wwe-money-in-the-bank-2011-buyrate-analysis-2011-8 indicates that buy rates from MITB - one of the most heavily promoted and anticipated PPV events in recent memory were only 20% up year-on-year. Coupled with the poor Raw figures it does not suggest a large pull to the event or continued interest in the storyline.

Essentially if the story was as big, popular and groundbreaking as is suggested the buy rates should have been significantly higher.

You have also not been able to explain why domestic viewing figures for Raw have been so low. Never mind the UK, the US is still the primary market for the WWE and its most important indicator of performance.

Does it really support your claim though? You said people who watch RAW online wouldn't buy merch, not the case though is it? If my nephews didn't watch online they wouldn't want the latest figures/rings/belts/dvds, if i didn't watch RAW online I wouldn't have ordered SummerSlam, you make sweeping generalisations without anything but your opinion to back it up, you also glossed over my purchase of SS because it didn't support your stance, very politician like. Also if you think a PPV hike of 20% after a 3 week story isn't a major hike then thats just delusional, thats a fantastic jump.

In 1997 the WWF put on a consistantly brilliant weekly product, possibly the best its ever consistantly produced, however it to the fans over a year to buy into it and allow themselves to re-invest their emotions into it again, if Vince jumped the gun the way you seem intent on doing after such a short space of time then we might not have seen some of the best stories they produced.

I didn't say that a 20% hike wasn't strong - the article did. The whole point of making macro based observations is that you make generalisations across trends. The WWE, in their analysis of viewing habits, will observe this way instead of looking at individuals.

I do not know if you represent the norm Gaffer, though logic would suggest that if individual a) watches Raw over the Internet instead of the typical TV methods then there is a reasonable likelihood that they will do so for the PPV and will not be purchasing it via Box Office. Of course there will be exceptions, but as a broad trend I think this is a reasonable assessment to make.

I do understand that story lines can have a time lag to ratings, though this phenomenon is reduced in the modern world with greater access to the Internet and the spread of chatter about a strong story. It makes it very quick for things to spread and therefore ratings should be tied far closer to the event in question.

And I will take the "politician-like" comment as a compliment!

the-gaffer wrote:So after all that you can't really say at all and you're just using an assumption on your behalf to support your claim, your logic would be far more accurate if this was 2005, in 2011 the online Wrestling fan has become far more popular, wwe.com has 20m visitors per week, over 60% come from the USA, their forum alone is massively popular, RAW only have an average of 4.9m viewers per week, are you telling me that you seriously don't think at least half of that audiance use the internet to go on forums/dirts/twitter/Facebook

Where did you get them figures from gaffer? The last time I checked, WWE.com got around 6m unique visitors every month. Granted it might have been a year or so ago but I can't imagine that figure increasing over ten fold in that time.

There was an excellent analysis of wwe finances on the old 606 comparing attitude era and now.

It showed wwe is making as much money but with a lot more house shows/tours and more individual ppvs, less ppv revenue and tv revenue.

There was a general concensus that more house shows and more frequent ppvs had lead to a watered down product and less time to cultivate stories.

It's not the only way to make money but it would be churlish to say tv ratings don't effect the product massively.

Regardless of whether you think ratings are important (in my opinion it's completely naive to claim there not 1/4 of WWE revenue comes from television advertising & sponsorship) you can't deny that.....

The CM Punk storyline simply hasn't pulled in big ratings....

Wade Barrett a relative unknown 12 months ago drew better ratings as the centrepiece of the product challenging John Cena this time last year.

This points to the fact that the casual viewer can't relate to the insider stuff doesn't it?

Don't worry Josh, I think you have made some excellent points. You may not be able to back up your theories with 100% bulletproof statistics, but perhaps nobody can. Most of this discussion is theory-based because there are no statistics available to say whether youtube viewers buy wrestling figures or what proportion of adults at house shows are only there to accompany children; we can only try to understand through logic and reasoning.

Your theories on WWE's audience are far more in line with those of experienced, full-time wrestling journalists who have studied the business, speak to people in the business, speak to people within the TV industry and have covered wrestling every day for years.

Gaffer, sometimes you don't listen to what people are saying. You just jump in with both feet and try to dispute everything people say, without actually digesting what they have said. I imagine if I told you that pigeons can fly you would ask me to quote specific sources and argue until you're blue in the face that you once saw a pigeon that couldn't fly and therefore I don't know what I'm on about.

To use one example of your flawed logic, the claim that WWE.com gets 20m visitors a week is an example that a) you have fallen for the company's propaganda and b) you are clutching at straws. I do not know for sure how they have come up with this figure, but it clearly has involved some kind of manipulation of statistics. I would theorise that it has counted every page hit as one visit, so a visitor who clicks on ten different pages on the website in one visit would count ten times. There are many basic tricks used when compiling statistics to make the numbers look better, and it would be completely naive to think WWE doesn't use any of these, especially when the company has proved itself in the past to exagerrate its successes (for example, lying about the attendance at Wrestlemania 3, which was actually around 78,000).

Ironically enough, your arguments are based on theories which can completely not be proven, whereas Josh is offering at least some evidence to support his views, which are shared by many informed observers of the wrestling industry.

I think that ultimately there can surely be no doubt that a large portion of wrestling viewers do not understand "insider" talk, and that is damaging the audience's appreciation of the current Punk storyline. I base this purely on anecdotal evidence, but I think that evidence is valid: The fact that, in all forms of fiction that have ever been produced, most people do not obsess over or analyse the work they are digesting. Most people take TV programmes, films, books, etc at face value. Most Coronation Street viewers aren't consciously analysing the storylines and character development, they just watch and digest. They like the people they are supposed to like, they feel sorry for the people who are supposed to be sympathetic, they dislike the people they are supposed to dislike, and they rejoice in the downfall of "bad" characters. Same for any fictional TV programme. Or any film, or book, or play. I'm sure most of us, when we watch a film or TV programme, respond exactly the way the writers want us to. And I'm sure for all of those works, there is a small minority audience that watches more closely, analyses, discusses, long after the closing credits.

It just so happens that, in the case of wrestling, we are that minority.

We just happen to be the more obsessive fans, who understand the insider references. Most people don't understand what's going on, the same way I wouldn't understand if the characters in Coronation Street started "shooting"! It breaks the fourth wall, and in a work of fiction that is dangerous territory.

It makes no sense that wrestling would be the only work of fiction in the world where most of the fans have enough inside knowledge of the industry to decipher many of the things Nash and Punk are saying. It would be a complete anomaly in the entire history of fiction.

That would explain to me why WWE has lost viewers almost week after week since this storyline began.

Can anyone obtain the ratings for the last 2 months and post them?

Mr H wrote:Can anyone obtain the ratings for the last 2 months and post them?

I haven't got time (I used up most my lunchbreak typing the above post!) but I think you would want viewing figures as well as ratings. Sometimes they don't always tell the same story. I think there was an occasion recently where the rating went up but the number of viewers went down.

Here are some figures from the WWE themselves that may (or may not) add to your debate:

corporate.wwe.com/company/overview.jsp

They don't include the recent CM Punk storyline though.

Davieswasacrippledtart wrote:

Mr H wrote:Can anyone obtain the ratings for the last 2 months and post them?

I haven't got time (I used up most my lunchbreak typing the above post!) but I think you would want viewing figures as well as ratings. Sometimes they don't always tell the same story. I think there was an occasion recently where the rating went up but the number of viewers went down.

All i'd be interested in looking at is how the figures look prior to Summerslam compared to the 2 shows since Summerslam and whether or not we can tentatively say that Del Rio doesnt/wont draw as Champion.

shows before summerslam
30/5 was 3.1 rating, with 4.7 million viewers. The show did hours of 2.98 and 3.16.
6/6 3.2 rating, with a shade under 5 million viewers. Nielsen tracked the beginning of the show as being 9:06, so that helped the Tough Enough rating. Raw did hours of 3.27 and 3.15 so they lost viewers in hour two.
13/6 was 3.1 rating with 4.5 million viewers. In its regular time slot, the show did a 3.3 rating with 4,832,000 viewers. The show did hours of 2.64, 3.19 and 3.33.
20/6 was 3.1 cable rating. In an update on this, the show drew 4,750,000 viewers for the three-hour telecast. During the usual 9-11PM time slot, the show did a 3.3 cable rating, with 5.5 million viewers. The show did hours 2.75 (2.8), 3.25 (3.3) and 3.26 (3.3).
27/6 was 3.1 rating with 4,943,000 viewers. The show did hours of 3.1 and 3.16.
4/7 2.4 cable rating, with 3,717,000 viewers. The show did hours of 2.34 (2.3) and 2.45 (2.5)
11/7 2.9 rating, with 4,386,000 viewers. The hours were 2.86 and 2.96. That is an increase from last week, but still down from the yearly average.
18/7 was 3.22 with 4,800,300 viewers
25/7 was 3.2 - The July 25th edition of WWE Raw did a 3.2 rating with 4,805,000 viewers. The hours were 3.01 and 3.4.
1/8 was 3.3 - 3.30 cable rating he show did hours of 3.28 and 3.33. can't find viewers
8/8 was 3.1 The show did hours of 3.08 and 3.09 with an overall viewing audience of 4,542,000 viewers.

Two after summerslam
15/8 was 3.3 with 5,055,000 viewers. Although this is up from recent weeks, hour one of the show did 3.4 rating with 5,248,000 viewers while hour two did a 3.18 (3.2) cable rating with 4,861,000 viewers
22/8 was 3.0 4,637,000 viewers. The show did hours of 2.93 and 3.01

fernando wrote:shows before summerslam
18/7 was 3.22
25/7 was 3.2
1/8 was 3.3
8/8 was 3.1
Two after summerslam
15/8 was 3.3
22/8 was 3.0

Viewing figures would definitely be helpful too.

Fernando, do you have the ratings/viewing figures going back to the start of June?

There are so many factors that it's hard to tell yet whether Del Rio is a flop. But certainly something about the product is driving people away.

The rating for the start of last week's Raw (the first quarter hour) was 3.73 which is huge by recent standards. But the show only averaged 3.29, and even that doesn't tell the whole story: the Del Rio vs Mysterio match got a 3.41 rating. So in between, it must have plummeted.

There are so many intangible factors in analysing ratings that it's not yet reasonable to say Del Rio is or isn't a draw. Clearly there was interest from those who didn't order Summerslam in seeing what had happened. Clearly the product for some reason drove many of those people away again. Whether that can be blamed on all or some of Del Rio's title victory, the return of Nash, the push of Punk, the return to old characters in Triple H and especially Stephanie, who knows.

Similarly, the relatively high 3.41 rating at the end of last week's show could be a sign that people want to see Del Rio, or maybe that they want to see Rey. More likely it is viewer habit; WWE has conditioned its fans to know that the most important parts of Raw are usually the beginning and the end. Many viewers therefore know that they only have to watch the first segment and then tune back for the show's conclusion to see many of the most noteworthy happenings.

Also Raw tends to do better ratings off the back of a PPV, as the overwhelming majority of TV viewers do not order PPVs so they tune in to find out about developments. This week's Raw was far more of a typical show, and drew a 2.97 rating.

I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think the number of people who on average watched Raw this week is over a million less than tuned into the start of last week's Raw. That is a bad sign, no two ways about it. To me, it suggests that a lot of people who were interested in the Summerslam build up were turned away by the results of the PPV. I would personally blame that on three factors:

1) Del Rio as champion
2) Old names returning (Nash, Stephanie)
3) The removal of Punk from the title picture, which some may consider (rightly or wrongly) the end of his ascention to being a megastar

Those to me are the three most obvious explanations. And my hunch would be that Del Rio is the greatest of the three factors, but I think time will tell. I applaud WWE for pushing someone to the top without having to stop and "pay his dues", but I wish that man had been Sheamus, Wade Barrett or even Jack Swagger; I believe the first two in particular have shown themselves to be extremely capable when relied upon, and far more three-dimensional than Del Rio.

To be fair to Del Rio, he may yet establish himself as a top star, and I hope he does because it would encourage WWE to create more new main eventers going forward. But at the moment, he is a featured aspect of an overall product that is not connecting with viewers.

i can try find them

updated

money in the bank drew over 100,000 buys than last years show, far greater than the 20 per cent rise that was quoted, the 265,000 figure makes it the highest buyrate of the year outside of Mania and the Rumble, the whole point of RAW is to entice you to buy the PPV so in that respect Punk did spark interest and the story did draw, which was blindingly obvious anyway