The Dames 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Johnson, stop being closed minded for a second. There's a reason why TV Guide annually puts out a story called "The Best TV Show You're Not Watching". Not everyone watches good shows. Some good shows are actually canceled by good ratings. Now think about it. If 7 million people watched Raw EVERY WEEK in 98-99 and then one week, they put on GARBAGE. Guess what...those 7 million people still SAW IT, therefore, the rating is high. That doesn't mean it was good though. If that was the case, the ratings back then would have fluctuated up and down every week. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Si82 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Johnson, look at the quarter hours. The highest rated quarter hour didn't feature Austin at all. I enjoyed the This is Your Life segment, yes. And it IS the highest rating Raw segment ever. HOWEVER, back then, they could have put on absolute SHIT and people would have watched it because tons of people were into wrestling then. High ratings ONLY mean high interest. Dames I totally agree with the high ratings/high interest thing. It's a good thing in a way but it's bad that it's coming during such a shitty run for the WWE. I know some people didn't like the 98/99 period but at least I thought that it was interesting. Not like today. However, I still stand by my feelings on "This Is Your Life" segment. I just found it long, boring and unfunny. But hey, each to their own. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Report post Posted May 14, 2003 This rating means one thing to me, and it should mean one thing to WWE management: people want to see new stars. Christian/Goldberg and Hurricane/Flair resulted in the two highest segments of a highly-rated (for Raw nowadays) show which also featured Nash/Jericho in the main event. While I in no way wish to see Nash on my television, and while I dislike Goldberg, this SHOULD mean good news as it should be obvious that something we smarks have said for a long while is actually true...as I said, PEOPLE WANT TO SEE NEW STARS. Although I doubt it, I hope this results in solid pushes for guys like Christian and Hurricane and maybe RVD - or maybe at least renewed consideration for said pushes. But it will probably just backfire and we'll probably get Nash/Goldberg instead. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Report post Posted May 14, 2003 If the shows are good people will watch and if the shows are bad people don't watch is kinda funny to me. At least from a show to show perspective. I mean don't you have to watch a good portion of the show to see what's on or what is coming on?? I mean it's not like JR & King run down every match and segment that will be on the show and what time they will be on. So how do people know if it is going to be a good show or not since they don't have the whole show "format" in front of them?? So how does the mass audience know at what points of the show to tune in?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted May 14, 2003 What Im seeing is a match (well, actually 2 matches if you count Nash vs Jericho) that was hyped up last week. There was a solid increase in viewers throughout the whole show. Yes, a good chunk of them left after the cage match, but there was still more people watching the Nash Jericho match than at any point over the last few weeks. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 They were getting shitty ratings back then to. You're kidding right? The ratings were CONSTANTLY in the 6's and 7's, miles above the 3's and 4's they're getting now, regardless of what they put out. If the greatest Raw of all time occurred this Monday, it would still only get a mid 4 at most because people aren't interested. The ratings is simply a gauge of who is interested enough to follow the product. Here's another example. Raw one week advertises Goldberg vs. HHH on Raw for the World Title and everyone watches. Let's say it does a 5.0 rating. BUT, the entire show sucked and that match ended up being terrible and had no real finish. Some of those fans are going to be so turned off, they won't come back next week. So, hypothetically again, lets say that the following week, they put on a Blockbuster Raw. Because people were so pissed off about last week, they didn't tune in this week and the rating went to a 4.2. Good Raws don't necessarily mean Good Ratings. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Blue Bacchus Report post Posted May 14, 2003 They do advertise during the last 15 minutes of TNG. Since RAW trys to go after that same demographic, that may have something to do with it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Johnson, stop being closed minded for a second. There's a reason why TV Guide annually puts out a story called "The Best TV Show You're Not Watching". Not everyone watches good shows. Some good shows are actually canceled by good ratings. Now think about it. If 7 million people watched Raw EVERY WEEK in 98-99 and then one week, they put on GARBAGE. Guess what...those 7 million people still SAW IT, therefore, the rating is high. That doesn't mean it was good though. If that was the case, the ratings back then would have fluctuated up and down every week. Dames I see you and bob's point, but if that was the case why have ratings anyway? If the ratings don't mean that the show was good then the ratings mean nothing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I guess I just can't grasp the "smark" way of thinking. You know, twisting facts around to make something out of nothing. RAW was a great show, great shows get great ratings. Bad shows get bad ratings. Fan base and other things, IMO, doesn't matter. If the show is good people will watch and the ratings will be good. If the show sucks people won't watch it and it will get bad ratings. That's my take on this and I am done. Thanks to eveyone who had input. Nope- you're wrong. As Dames said- The fanbase was so big from 98-2000 they could've put on a shitty show and still have gotten a great rating for it. So a great/good rating does not=good RAW. That doesn't mean I am wrong. All it means is that we don't agree. Fanbase doesn't mean shit in the case of ratings. Fanbase or not, if the show sucks people aren't going to watch. They were getting shitty ratings back then to. Just agree to disagree and let that be that. So using your logic- Every show from about mid 1998-2000 was a great RAW?? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest bob_barron Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Johnson, stop being closed minded for a second. There's a reason why TV Guide annually puts out a story called "The Best TV Show You're Not Watching". Not everyone watches good shows. Some good shows are actually canceled by good ratings. Now think about it. If 7 million people watched Raw EVERY WEEK in 98-99 and then one week, they put on GARBAGE. Guess what...those 7 million people still SAW IT, therefore, the rating is high. That doesn't mean it was good though. If that was the case, the ratings back then would have fluctuated up and down every week. Dames I see you and bob's point, but if that was the case why have ratings anyway? If the ratings don't mean that the show was good then the ratings mean nothing. Without WCW today- ratings are essentially pointless to argue about. During the MNW it was basically used for either Bischoff or Vince to brag about. Today buyrates are more where it's at in terms of drawing power Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest oldschoolwrestling Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I guess I just can't grasp the "smark" way of thinking. You know, twisting facts around to make something out of nothing. RAW was a great show, great shows get great ratings. Bad shows get bad ratings. Fan base and other things, IMO, doesn't matter. If the show is good people will watch and the ratings will be good. If the show sucks people won't watch it and it will get bad ratings. That's my take on this and I am done. Thanks to eveyone who had input. So you've never watched a tv show and after it was done said "Damn that show sucked"? But wait, you watched it, so it must have been good, or you wouldn't have watched it. Just because someone watched it, doesn't mean they liked it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I see you and bob's point, but if that was the case why have ratings anyway? If the ratings don't mean that the show was good then the ratings mean nothing. The ratings are for the network. The purpose of ratings is for the networks to show the advertisers and say "Hey! People watch THIS show and it has high interest. Therefore, if you buy commercial time during this broadcast, your product will get more exposure!" That's why all of the new commercials come out during the Super Bowl. They know that its the highest rated sports game of the year and that people are watching. In terms of the WWE, the ratings are to prove to the networks that Wrestling is IN and therefore, can do whatever they want on their shows and possibly get better deals come negotiation time. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest The Grand Pubah of 1620 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Today buyrates are more where it's at in terms of drawing power Now that makes sense. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MARTYEWR Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Hmmm, the second quarter hour (consisting of the Dudleys returning and defending Freddie Blassie) got a 4.7 and people liked it so much that the next quarter hour got a 4.9. That could mean one thing: Freddie Blassie STILL equals ratings after all these years! Heck, anyone remember the Raw during the InVasion angle when Blassie gathered the WWE forces together and inspired them? And, directly afterwards, inspired Steve Austin to join them? The rating the week before was a 4.7, but what was the rating at THAT Raw? A 5.0 (first time for a while that had happened at the time). Why? Freddie Blassie = ratings. If they keep Blassie on TV consistently, they'll hit the 6.0 mark like they did in 2000 without a problem! In other words, I have no idea why there was that big of an increase, but I hope it constantly increases, especially for buyrates of PPVs (that Kevin Nash isn't main eventing). Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest pappajacks Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Vince was right. The ratings were so low before because of the war. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
The Dames 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I can't wait until the split PPV's.... JUST so Vince can realize what is wrong with the Raw brand when it pulls in about 500,000 buys less than the Smackdown brand. Dames Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Polish_Rifle Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Double White Boy Challenge = ratings! Wasn't that the 9:45-10pm segment? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Polish_Rifle Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I can't wait until the split PPV's.... JUST so Vince can realize what is wrong with the Raw brand when it pulls in about 500,000 buys less than the Smackdown brand. Dames I don't know about that. At this rate, I wouldn't even consider buying to watch the crap that is on Smackdown. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest TheArchiteck Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Fuck! It would be the one show Booker T wasn't on!!!!! I'm glad to see people tuned in for Goldberg though. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Boomer Sprinklespax Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I don't know about that. At this rate, I wouldn't even consider buying to watch the crap that is on Smackdown. Nor I, but I'd be much more likely to buy a SD! brand PPV than a Raw PPV any day. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest RenegadeX28 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I had to do a doubletake when I saw this. A 4.4? That is the best rating in a while! So far, RAW has been entertaining, with Austin as GM, and the fact G-berg is on it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MARTYEWR Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Double White Boy Challenge = ratings! Wasn't that the 9:45-10pm segment? Yes, it was that too, as well as Freddie Blassie! For you see, we have to BACK THE MACK! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Y2DAYDAY Report post Posted May 14, 2003 For as many people that watched Goldberg vs Christian, most of them stayed for the end of the show, more than usually do. If they were not liking the program, they would have changed the channel. The number is a success but now they need to not drop lower than 3.9. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Army Eye Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I can't wait until the split PPV's.... JUST so Vince can realize what is wrong with the Raw brand when it pulls in about 500,000 buys less than the Smackdown brand. Dames Wow, You really think that? I think SD will do WORSE in PPV. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I know the reason for the high rating for Raw... Blassie saying "D-Von...Get The Tables!" Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest snuffbox Report post Posted May 14, 2003 considering how the awa/wwe is no longer booked to appeal to it's fans anymore...I dont think either brand will be pulling in much more than wcw-esque buyrates Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest MarvinisaLunatic Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I think we need Freddie Blassie as Co-Co GM with Austin and Bischoff just so he can make fun of Bischoff some more. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Mecha Mummy 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I can't wait until the split PPV's.... JUST so Vince can realize what is wrong with the Raw brand when it pulls in about 500,000 buys less than the Smackdown brand. Dames Wow, You really think that? I think SD will do WORSE in PPV. Same here. SD's lack of bankable stars and HORRIBLE choices of main events are going to KILL them. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ChrisMWaters 0 Report post Posted May 14, 2003 I think we need Freddie Blassie as Co-Co GM with Austin and Bischoff just so he can make fun of Bischoff some more. Line of the night for it... <Bischoff>Exactly how old are you, anyway? <Blassie>Twenty-Three! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest El Satanico Report post Posted May 14, 2003 Don't worry Vince will chase off this increase at the PPV or next week's Raw. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
