Guest FeArHaVoC Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Vince McMahon Happy With RAW Believe it or not, Vince McMahon was apparently happy with how RAW came off this week, despite the show doing its lowest rating in over 4 years. Credit: 1wrestling.com ------------------------------------------------------- And THAT's why things don't change. Damn, Vince just won't admit when he's wrong. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MrRant Report post Posted September 12, 2002 He is probably lying. No one really knows what he is thinking except himself. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mikey2Dope Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Damn! Beat me by 5 minutes Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oldschoolwrestling Report post Posted September 12, 2002 His only regret is that he wasn't in the skit and the women didn't make out with him. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Trivia247 Report post Posted September 12, 2002 He has to put on SPIN. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest HartFan86 Report post Posted September 12, 2002 If he likes this product he's producting now....then the ratings are gunna REALLY hit the fan. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Raven_Effect01 Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Vince is a fool, if he keeps this mindset about lesbian segments like this week, then ratings are definitely going down in the dangerous WCW 2's. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest DJ Jeff Report post Posted September 12, 2002 I don't really see how Vince McMahon could be overly happy with RAW. Sure, I will admit it doesn't suck, but it could be alot better. I think Vince just loves to say good stuff about the WWE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted September 12, 2002 I liked RAW on Monday. I mean- Regal was in a lot of the show. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest the 1inch punch Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Regal = Ratings NOT Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cabbageboy Report post Posted September 12, 2002 People are giving the show a bad rap due to the lesbo stuff but aside from that it was pretty decent I thought. Main event was solid and some other matches were ok. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AndrewTS Report post Posted September 12, 2002 So what if Vince is happy with it? Understand this: Vince is not a fan of wrestling--just his "sports entertainment." If Vince didn't have to please fans, he'd make another hillbilly stable and fill the company with hosses after cutting loose all the Cruisers. Vince brought midgets and plenty of fat guys into the ring. Vince pushed Hogan to the moon despite his lack of talent--though he WAS insanely over making it one of the few times he was right about that. So if Vince LOVED that Raw, then whoopie...but he's going to have to choose between entertaining himself and entertaining the fans during a time when ratings are bound to sink anyway--football season. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Ratings don't matter right now. Ratings earn the WWE NO money. In a time when they have crapped all over their fan's intelligence and have to pay for it by earning back their trust, a strong, well-structurd prodcuct that makes new stars and utalizes the talents of everyone involved should be the priority; ratings are insignificant. Of course, Raw is failing horribly in all of the above areas, so I guess Vince is just a morron. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Thing is the WWE is losing money too. and if ratings don't improve that means less people are watching, which means less money. Ratings may not matter, but they are a testament of how the other business aspects are doing. I'm somewhat confused with the WWE. They say that they know the product isn't up to par. Yet they don't listen to the fans. They say they're going to listen to the fans. Then Stephanie gets on a radio show and says that the Gay Wedding is the WWE's idea of listening to the fans. I'd sure like to find out what fans said they wanted that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Mulatto Heat Report post Posted September 12, 2002 Ratings pale in importance in comparison to buyrates. That said, I know I must not be the only one who is wondering why for this year the only numbers we've seen are for Wrestlemania, which was around a 2.0 (when they were expecting a 2.5 - one million buys), and Backlash, which was a 0.8 (even though it was headlined by the two AWESOME, WONDERFUL, MONSTER babyfaces of that time). Nothing from Royal Rumble, No Way Out, Judgment Day, King of the Ring (I'd like to see THAT one), Vengeance or Summerslam (but that was only a couple weeks ago) that I have seen. Hell, I haven't seen any buyrate numbers from 2001 PPVs Unforgiven, No Mercy, Survivor Series and Vengeance! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Yeah, the WWE neglecting the relase of Pay Per View buy-rates portrays their state as well as anything. And yes, I am aware that ratings are a measure of fan interest as a whole, but ratings are not as reflective as many claim. Durring the re-building stage of 1997, the WWF was still being creamed by WCW, but if you watched both, you could easilly see which one was building for the future, and which one was destined to self-destruct and fall off the mountain. It takes a long time for ratings to turn around, and the WWE needs to realize this if they're ever going to improve. If they continue making snap judgements based on a few bad ratings like they've done for most of this year (nWo, Eric Bischoff, ect...); it's time for rebuilding, not worrying about stupid indicators that don't even create revenues. House shows, for example, have nothing to do with ratings, yet the drop in attendance they have experienced has greatly hurt the WWE. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest AnnieEclectic Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Ricky: who is in your sig, and can you PM me many links to her pictures? I think I'm in love. Again. *sigh* damn cute joshi wrestlers.... -Annie Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest cynicalprofit Report post Posted September 13, 2002 I've said it before and I'll say it again; The WWF gets great mind alterating drugs. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest jester Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Ratings maybe misleading, but they do demonstrate a show's overall health. Most people don't spontaneously buy a wrestling PPV, when they've never done it before. They buy a PPV because they've seen the shows leading up to and want to see good matches or how the angles play out. So if people aren't watching the shows, they're not buying the PPV. It's also a lot easier to get advertising for a show with high ratings than a show with low ratings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Thing is it's still the highest rated show on TNN so there won't be a problem there. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Redhawk Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Have you SEEN the lineup on TNN? I'd be surprised if V.I.P. wasn't the 2nd-highest rated show. Anyway, although WWE may not be in any danger of TNN giving up on them, low ratings mean less advertising in most cases. So while they may not be in panic-mode yet, once they start getting WCW-like ratings than something will have to be done. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest creativename Report post Posted September 13, 2002 House shows, for example, have nothing to do with ratings, yet the drop in attendance they have experienced has greatly hurt the WWE. House shows have everything to do with ratings. All of the facets of WWE's business (ratings, merchandising, attendance, buy rates) are extremely correlated with one another. If ratings suck, house show attendance will suck, and vice versa. They both share the same cause (fan disinterest). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
LaParkaYourCar 0 Report post Posted September 13, 2002 yeah but what I'm saying is...Low rating by who's standards? Even in this slump their pulling higher numbers than a lot of what's on. At what point do advertisers see it as too low? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted September 13, 2002 House shows have everything to do with ratings. All of the facets of WWE's business (ratings, merchandising, attendance, buy rates) are extremely correlated with one another. If ratings suck, house show attendance will suck, and vice versa. They both share the same cause (fan disinterest). You're missing the point. If the WWE would stop focusing on segments designed solely on popping high ratings (which usually go back down afterewards, and are thus, a waste of time) they could improve their house shows circuit so that it would draw better numbers. Here's an example: The WWF bought out the contracts of Scott Hall, Kevin Nash, and Hulk Hogan in an attempt to increase ratings. However, not only did this fail to make any sort of improvement in ratings, but neither of the three were willing to work consistent house show dates, and so, the WWF was centering it's product around a bunch of guys who were never featured on house shows. Everyone working said house shows was "B Team" tallent, at best, who weren't able to draw enough, and the WWF lost money. Same goes for the Rock, who has been brought back several times in hopes of bringing up ratings, so much so that he was given the Undisputed Title as almost a formality to showcase him as the biggest star. However, due to his schedule, he couldn't work house show dates, and once again, the WWF's central focus was not appearing on their house show circuit, hurting the attendance figuers there even more. Short answer: They aren't the same, and house shows, which used to be a very lucrative part of the WWF's business, have taken quite a blow within the last year and a half, to say the least. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Psycho Diablo Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Ricky: Seems to me Rock was given the title so Lesnar would have somebody high-profile to beat. Otherwise, I don't think he'd have had a one month title reign. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted September 13, 2002 One month title reigns are the norm in the WWF these days. Rock only held the title for a month because that's all his schedule would allow. He shouldn't have gotten it to begin with (for reason's I've already specified) but was awarded it anyway as an attempt to regain fan interest. Of course, he left putting someone new over as well; considering how long he was planning on leaving, they had to do everything they could to tranfer his star power to someone new to keep their numbers up. They had no other option in the matter. The Rock wouldn't have even come back at all if the WWF hadn't been desperate for ratings. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Psycho Diablo Report post Posted September 13, 2002 On the subject..I -hate- it when the WWE says "That was a home run show"..or the like. It's not their place to say. It's the fans. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RickyChosyu Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Ah, the ever-present Tony bug. When they tell someone a show is "legendary" or "one of the best of all time" and it's obviously not, it just makes them look like idiots. Funny how no one ever gets that. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest humongous2002 Report post Posted September 13, 2002 Vince is an old man that doesn't know whats cool anymore, t & a might've been cool back in the early and mid 90's, but by the end of that decade there was plenty of that around the tv shows. The WWF jumped into the t& a bandwagon almost by the end of that era. What's missing from the WWE is a compelling innovative storyline just like they had with the Austin v. Vince back in 98 and 99, no more rehash angles but something different and interesting. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest creativename Report post Posted September 13, 2002 yeah but what I'm saying is...Low rating by who's standards? Even in this slump their pulling higher numbers than a lot of what's on. At what point do advertisers see it as too low? By TNN's. TNN is paying the contractual amount for Raw, and this amount was based on expectations that Raw would get far higher ratings than it is. TNN is getting dicked over here. Raw would still be the highest rated show on USA too I think, by far...but I doubt you'll hear them complaining that they don't have Raw anymore. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
