Guest Cerebus Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 # Linda McMahon will have to eat her words, at least for this week as the Bill Goldberg and Booker T vs. Chris Jericho and Christian match was the highest rated segment on RAW this week, which did a 4.6 quarter segment. The overrun was the second highest rated segment at 4.5. Source: 1wrestling.com Discuss.
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 They'll credit Jericho, Booker and Christian first, in that order, before crediting Goldberg.
Guest D'Lo White Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 I might be wrong, but isn't Goldberg almost always the highest rated segment since he came to the WWE?
Guest Anglesault Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Still can't get the crowd stop chanting for the other guy, so no. And TV ratings mean jack. Should they push Sable?
Guest Polish_Rifle Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 I think the company expected Goldberg to make an immediate impact and spike up the ratings drastically. That’s why Linda called him a disappointment.
Guest DarkHollywood Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 So when Smackdown's highest rating is a Mr. Mcmahon/America segment does that mean we should like them and this goofy storyline?
ChrisMWaters Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Should they push Sable? Sure...into a spaceship heading for the sun, where her silicone infested body will melt into nothingness. ...put HHH in there while we're at it.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Well, stop me if I'm wrong here AS, but TV ratings determine the prices advertisers pay to buy commercial time from the network. If the ratings are low the show might be cancelled inplace of another show. So yes, TV Ratings do matter. That doesn't mean they should give Goldberg the keys to Titan Towers, but he is an asset.
Guest Downhome Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 I might be wrong, but isn't Goldberg almost always the highest rated segment since he came to the WWE? Almost every time, yes.
Guest Steviekick Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Well, stop me if I'm wrong here AS, but TV ratings determine the prices advertisers pay to buy commercial time from the network. If the ratings are low the show might be cancelled inplace of another show. So yes, TV Ratings do matter. That doesn't mean they should give Goldberg the keys to Titan Towers, but he is an asset. I do remember reading somewhere that the WWE gets a certain percentage of the advertising income that the network receives instead of getting a production budget. If the ratings are higher, that means advertising becomes more expensive, and the WWE gets more revenue. Glad I learned something in all of my college communication classes... Ratings are important to WWE, even if they come from Goldberg <<-----Post #632...Steviekick 632-Twice as pissed
Guest Ghettoman Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Impact=buyrates. In the WWE it's all about who will pay to see you, and in that regard you have to consider his impact someone disappointing.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 The Sweeps periods are when Advertisers look to ratings. May was the last sweep period, in which the WWE rating dropped from the previous year.
LooseCannon25 Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Saying TV rating don't matter is like saying Revenue or Loss makes no difference to a company. The fact of the matter is that his segments are constantly among the highest rated on the show so therefore he's somewhat doing his job. Linda McMahon talks a lot of shit and is always dodging questions so i would love to see her eat some crow.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 1)Quarterly Ratings don't matter. 2)A Single Rating doesn't matter.
Guest Ghettoman Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 BUYRATES PEOPLE BUYRATES!!! Advertising is all good and well, but the sole purpose of having big names is so people will pay to see them. You don't pay for free tv(well I hope not), so it really doesn't matter that much if you get the rating up to 5.0, yeah its good to have, but if people wont pay to see you where's the pay off?
Guest geniusMoment Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 You guys are jackasses ratings have brought this company more money than ppv, attendance and merchandise sales combined. Ratings gets them 550,000 a week for raw. Ratings got them 100 million dollars to sign with tnn. Ratings gets them 6 figures to produce other programs for tnn per week. Ratings gets them 350,000 a week to produce smackdown for UPN. So choke on it suckers.
Guest Rob Edwards Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 but surley people drawing big quarter ratings are likley to spike a buyrate if used as the focus?
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 1)Quarterly Ratings don't matter. 2)A Single Rating doesn't matter. He's drawn the highest or second highest rating of the show several times now.
LooseCannon25 Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 People who say ratings doesnt matter are clueless. Thats what gives them their price for advertisers based on the ratings and how well they're doing. That brings more revenue to the company than anything else. Stop hating people, the guy brings ratings to the show....just deal with it and stop always having a negative excuse when someone you dont like does something positive.
Guest TheZsaszHorsemen Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Also, who's to say the Backlash buy-rate wasn't The Rock's fault? After all, a majority of the audience knew he was leaving again.
Guest Jobber of the Week Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 They'll credit Jericho, Booker and Christian first, in that order, before crediting Goldberg. They should. He stood around on the outside most of the time drooling and spitting before coming in for the spear.
Guest the 1inch punch Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 They'll credit Jericho, Booker and Christian first, in that order, before crediting Goldberg. They should. He stood around on the outside most of the time drooling and spitting before coming in for the spear. Given the WWE's mindset, they'll probably credit them in this way -Christian -Booker (because he's black) -Jericho (because he's Jericho)
Guest NoSelfWorth Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Also, who's to say the Backlash buy-rate wasn't The Rock's fault? After all, a majority of the audience knew he was leaving again. I credit the bad buyrate of Backlash to Cripple H's six-man getting the main event push on Raw.
Guest HartFan86 Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 As said above, Buyrates are the only thing that mean anything when it comes to TV. They care more about who pays $35.00 rather then watches it free on Cable TV.
LooseCannon25 Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 What about the advertisers that pay for the tv time during their show......don't you understand that the higher the rating and the higher the segment the more the WWE gets from anybody wanting to advertise.....are you really that clueless to say that means nothing?
Guest Gatornibs Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 Booker, Christian, and Jericho are some of the best workers on the Raw Roster. People want to see WRESTLING. That's why it got the high rating. The others were just old WCW fans who thought Ralphus might come back!
Guest Dangerous A Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 What about the advertisers that pay for the tv time during their show......don't you understand that the higher the rating and the higher the segment the more the WWE gets from anybody wanting to advertise.....are you really that clueless to say that means nothing? While this is true, WWE has to have consistent ratings for this to mean anything. If their ratings are too helter skelter, then they show they are inconsistent and can't demand as much from advertisers. The ratings are important though. They do gauge the product and whether it's hot, warm, or cold. Another thing is that sometimes ratings are good, but no one buys the ppv's. In 1998 when Austin vs McMahon was on fire and the ratings were on the way up, the buyrates for the ppv's were shit. The TV shows are supposed to push the ppv's. WWE could deliver some good tv, but that tv might not sell the ppv very well. WWE also makes money off of licensing as well.
Guest RavishingRickRudo Posted June 18, 2003 Report Posted June 18, 2003 How has he brought ratings to the show when overall ratings are still going DOWN?
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now