Guest Austin3164life Posted May 14, 2003 Report Posted May 14, 2003 ...I asked him for specifics about this, and that's what he told me. I do know that higher ratings mean more money for whatever is pulling said rating, that's just a known fact I thought. Higher ratings also intice WWE stockholders to purchase more shares, because WWE gets more popular with more ratings.
Guest Downhome Posted May 14, 2003 Report Posted May 14, 2003 ...I asked him for specifics about this, and that's what he told me. I do know that higher ratings mean more money for whatever is pulling said rating, that's just a known fact I thought. Higher ratings also intice WWE stockholders to purchase more shares, because WWE gets more popular with more ratings. Exactly, there are MANY ways which ratings equal income for WWE.
bobobrazil1984 Posted May 14, 2003 Report Posted May 14, 2003 Well this is... interesting. I didn't think RAW was that great at all... however, I will wait about 2 weeks to see if this is a rating trend or just a one week abberation before making any statements out it.
Guest Ram Posted May 14, 2003 Report Posted May 14, 2003 ...I asked him for specifics about this, and that's what he told me. I do know that higher ratings mean more money for whatever is pulling said rating, that's just a known fact I thought. Higher ratings also intice WWE stockholders to purchase more shares, because WWE gets more popular with more ratings. Exactly, there are MANY ways which ratings equal income for WWE. However, you've got to remember that the ratings have got to be consistent for anyone to take it seriously. So far, it's been far from that. I think next week will pull in an alright rating. Even though it's a PPV, there isn't really anything setting the world on fire. I don't think it'll be as good as this week's, but still between 3.8 and a 4.1. Personally, I enjoyed most of RAW. Certainly it wasn't great by any means, but it was a well put together show that wasn't as godawful as previous hardsells. Between 3 Minute Roadwarriors (and RVD/Kane moving at superspeed), Austin, a CAGE match, Goldy, and Hurricane/Flair, it was a mildly entertaining show. I liked Jericho's half of the match, but Big Pooch, from any view, just bored the heck out of me. His jacknife powerbomb still looked harsh though, that's a plus. The Kliq Battles just aren't really my thing, I guess.
Guest Retro Rob Posted May 14, 2003 Report Posted May 14, 2003 Um...people watching the TV doesn't draw the WWE any money. Actually since this is May Sweeps, it does.
Guest JDMattitudeV1 Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Let's just hope that this rating doesn't encourage Vince to put the title on Nash at Judgement Day. Goldberg I can tolerate, but Nash is just plain awful.
Guest Downhome Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Let's just hope that this rating doesn't encourage Vince to put the title on Nash at Judgement Day. Goldberg I can tolerate, but Nash is just plain awful. I would like to know the rating for that segment though, seeing how Goldberg/Christian/Flair/Hurricane pulled in the highest.
Guest JDMattitudeV1 Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Let's just hope that this rating doesn't encourage Vince to put the title on Nash at Judgement Day. Goldberg I can tolerate, but Nash is just plain awful. I would like to know the rating for that segment though, seeing how Goldberg/Christian/Flair/Hurricane pulled in the highest. I hope for all our sakes it's bad cause if not, God have mercy on our souls.
Guest Retro Rob Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 IIRC, the overrun dropped off to a 4.2 or 4.4.
Guest Sakura Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 WWE needs to sign Craig Marduk badly. He could come in and be a huge monster heel and feud with Goldberg. That is a TRUE dream match right there. The only problem with him is that he's made of polygons, but considering the fact that he's a hoss and probably still a better worker than Nash...I think he would work out well for WWE.
Guest Downhome Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 WWE needs to sign Craig Marduk badly. He could come in and be a huge monster heel and feud with Goldberg. That is a TRUE dream match right there. The only problem with him is that he's made of polygons, but considering the fact that he's a hoss and probably still a better worker than Nash...I think he would work out well for WWE. What is he from?
Guest Sakura Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Tekken 4. He even has the Spear and the Jackhammer!
Guest wwF1587 Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 omg i am in shock.. i thought RAW was the shits and I didnt even watch it.... WHY!?!.... i mean good for WWE but if this means more goldberg then fuck this
Guest ISportsFan Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Still, this rating isn't much to get TOO worked up over, let's just see if they can sustain a rating of 4.0+. I have always said that the ratings wouldn't mean much of anything untill they either went UNDER 3.0 or over 4.0, and for two of the past three or four weeks, they HAVE went over 4.0. I hope this is a trend, perhaps a bit of interest is returning. Actually, I hope this isn't a trend. If this is a trend, then they'll keep on putting out crap. If it gets worse ratings-wise, then eventually (not soon, but eventually) they'll go back to good wrestlers wrestling (of course, I hope the ratings go up if that is the case). Jason
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 (edited) May 5, 2003 3.5 May 12, 2003 4.4 Feb 3, 2003 3.5 Feb 10, 2003 3.9 Feb 17, 2003 3.8 Feb 24, 2003 4.0 Feb 03 Avg: 3.8 Nov 4, 2002 3.5 Nov 11, 2002 3.1 Nov 18, 2002 3.7 Nov 25, 2002 3.4 Nov 02 Avg: 3.425 July 1, 2002 3.6 July 8, 2002 3.7 July 15, 2002 3.8 July 22, 2002 4.3 July 29, 2002 3.7 July 02 Avg: 3.82 May 6, 2002 4.6 May 13, 2002 3.9 May 20, 2002 3.7 May 27, 2002 3.7 May 02 Avg: 3.975 Feb 4, 2002 4.5 Feb 11, 2002 4.4 Feb 18, 2002 4.7 Feb 25, 2002 4.7 Feb 02 Avg: 4.575 Nov 5, 2001 3.9 Nov 12, 2001 4.1 Nov 19, 2001 4.8 Nov 26, 2001 4.4 Nov 01 Avg: 4.3 July 2, 2001 4.6 July 9, 2001 4.7 July 16, 2001 5.0 July 23, 2001 5.4 July 30, 2001 5.7 July 01 Avg: 5.08 May 7, 2001 4.6 May 14, 2001 4.5 May 21, 2001 4.2 May 28, 2001 4.2 May 01 Avg: 4.375 Feb 5, 2001 5.0 Feb 12, 2001 4.8 Feb 19, 2001 4.8 Feb 26, 2001 5.1 Feb 01 Avg: 4.925 Nov 6, 2000 5.1 Nov 13, 2000 5.0 Nov 20, 2000 5.0 Nov 27, 2000 5.0 Nov 00 Avg: 5.025 July 3, 2000 5.3 July 10, 2000 6.0 July 17, 2000 6.2 July 24, 2000 6.2 July 31, 2000 6.4 July 00 Avg: 6.02 May 1, 2000 7.4 May 8, 2000 6.2 May 15, 2000 6.1 May 22, 2000 7.1 May 29, 2000 6.4 May 00 Avg: 6.64 Feb 7, 2000 6.5 Feb 14, 2000 4.4 Feb 21, 2000 5.9 Feb 28, 2000 6.5 Feb 00 Avg: 5.825 Nov 1, 1999 5.9 Nov 8, 1999 5.4 Nov 15, 1999 6.3 Nov 22, 1999 5.5 Nov 29, 1999 6.5 Nov 99 Avg: 5.88 July 5, 1999 6.2 July 12, 1999 6.0 July 19, 1999 6.3 July 26, 1999 7.1 July 99 Avg: 6.4 May 3, 1999 6.4 May 10, 1999 8.1 May 17, 1999 6.4 May 24, 1999 7.2 May 99 Avg: 7.025 Feb 1, 1999 5.9 Feb 8, 1999 --- Feb 15, 1999 5.9 Feb 22, 1999 5.5 Feb 29, 1999 6.3 Feb 99 Avg: 5.9 Nov 2, 1998 4.8 Nov 9, 1998 5.0 Nov 16, 1998 5.5 Nov 23, 1998 4.9 Nov 30, 1998 5.0 Nov 98 Avg: 5.04 July 6, 1998 4.0 July 13, 1998 4.7 July 20, 1998 5.0 July 27, 1998 4.9 July 98 Avg: 4.65 May 4, 1998 5.5 May 11, 1998 4.3 May 18, 1998 5.3 May 25, 1998 4.2 May 98 Avg: 4.825 Feb 2, 1998 3.5 Feb 9, 1998 3.2 Feb 16, 1998 --- Feb 23, 1998 3.2 Feb 98 Avg: 3.3 Edited May 15, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 (edited) May 5, 2003 3.5 May 12, 2003 4.4 Feb 03 Avg: 3.8 Nov 02 Avg: 3.425 July 02 Avg: 3.82 May 02 Avg: 3.975 Feb 02 Avg: 4.575 2002 Avg: 3.949 Nov 01 Avg: 4.3 July 01 Avg: 5.08 May 01 Avg: 4.375 Feb 01 Avg: 4.925 2001 Avg: 4.67 Nov 00 Avg: 5.025 July 00 Avg: 6.02 May 00 Avg: 6.64 Feb 00 Avg: 5.825 2000 Avg: 5.878 Nov 99 Avg: 5.88 July 99 Avg: 6.4 May 99 Avg: 7.025 Feb 99 Avg: 5.9 1999 Avg: 6.301 Nov 98 Avg: 5.04 July 98 Avg: 4.65 May 98 Avg: 4.825 Feb 98 Avg: 3.3 1998 Avg: 4.454 Edited May 15, 2003 by RavishingRickRudo
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Nov 02 Avg: 3.425 Nov 01 Avg: 4.3 Nov 00 Avg: 5.025 Nov 99 Avg: 5.88 Nov 98 Avg: 5.04 Nov Avg: 4.734 July 02 Avg: 3.82 July 01 Avg: 5.08 July 00 Avg: 6.02 July 99 Avg: 6.4 July 98 Avg: 4.65 July Avg: 5.194 May 02 Avg: 3.975 May 01 Avg: 4.375 May 00 Avg: 6.64 May 99 Avg: 7.025 May 98 Avg: 4.825 May Avg: 5.368 Feb 02 Avg: 4.575 Feb 01 Avg: 4.925 Feb 00 Avg: 5.825 Feb 99 Avg: 5.9 Feb 98 Avg: 3.3 Feb Avg: 4.905
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 2002 Avg: 3.949 (-15.4%) 2001 Avg: 4.67 (-20.6%) 2000 Avg: 5.878 (-6.7%) 1999 Avg: 6.301 (+41.5%) 1998 Avg: 4.454 Nov Avg: 4.734 (-6.26%) July Avg: 5.194 (+2.85%) May Avg: 5.368 (+6.29%) Feb Avg: 4.905 (-2.89%) (Avg: 5.05025)
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted May 15, 2003 Report Posted May 15, 2003 Ah shit, there's so many more calculations to do. I'll finish em some other time. Maybe I'll throw in some Ad $ numbers too. Anyways, back to the discussion. 4.4 will raise the avg rating for May, but will it matter? Looking at all those numbers up there, I don't think so. May traditionally has the highest numbers/avg. and tends to have one or two spikes in the ratings. Given the relation of this years sweeps numbers to previous years, I can't imagine ad companies paying more for ad time - if anything, they will pay less.
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now