BoboBrazil Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Last night's edition of Smackdown did a 3.2 broadcast rating, with a 5 share, according to Nielsen Media Research. 1wrestling.com
DrainYou42 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 There was only one McMahon segment, no wonder the ratings dropped
King Cucaracha Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Live it says under my avatar...it says entertainment on the marquee.
Guest webmasterofwrestlegame Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Yep, only wrestling fans like a wrestling show.
OldSchoolWrestling Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Survivor premiere was on, plus no Mullets after the show had to have hurt the ratings this week.
Just call me Dan Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Wow, I'm severly downed on that. I was very appreciative that the WWE would provide such a spectacle on free TV. It didn't deliver, and wasn't worth anything, but the fact that they liad that out there for us made me happy. I hate it didn't garner more interst.
Spaceman Spiff Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 There was that Hurricane thingy blowing over the east coast, too.
cawthon777 Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 My parents are in the metro DC area and they've been without electricity since yesterday afternoon due to the hurricane. They're not alone. Not saying that's the only or even the major reason - but with a major market like that out of commission I'm sure it added to the problem.
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Not trying to make excuses but I do think the hurricane had an effect on the ratings. Also a 3.2 is about what Smackdown has been averaging for the past year, give or take a point. So I don't see a 3.2 as a horrible rating, now if it had done lower than a 3.0 I would have been upset. Sometimes I think we read WAY too much into ratings points. But so do the McMahons I guess.
EdwardKnoxII Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Even with many good excuses does anyone else think that Vince might use this rating as a reason for less wrestling and more non-wrestling ala RAW?
AndrewTS Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Even with many good excuses does anyone else think that Vince might use this rating as a reason for less wrestling and more non-wrestling ala RAW? Vince doesn't need reasons for anything he does.
Guest JericholicEdgeHead Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 "Even with many good excuses does anyone else think that Vince might use this rating as a reason for less wrestling and more non-wrestling ala RAW?" I would hope not. If Vince thinks like that it is stupid. Just think if the NFL saw that the half-time show during the SuperBowl got better ratings than the actual game, would they shorten the quarters so there can be more dancing and singing?? I know I am too old-school but I just HATE that the actual wrestling has to take a backseat for silly backstage skits and in-ring promos on a WRESTLING show. But I guess we are in a different era.
EdwardKnoxII Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I would hope not to but, considing the company we're talking about and all the stuff they done in the past few years then you really can't put anything past them.
Jack_Bauer Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 At the end of the day, this isnt going to change for a while, so I would either a) like it OR b) lump it It's all you CAN do now
RavishingRickRudo Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Was anyone expecting big ratings?
LaParkaYourCar Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I think we need to paraphrase our "wrestling means nothing" statements with a "in WWE" If WWE wants to do more entertainment than wrestling that's fine, but atleast give me entertainment that doesn't insult my intelligence. And don't give me that "but wrestling itself insults your intelligence" because it doesn't. Wrestling to me is an art form. When done right it's a thing of beauty almost. The fact that it's a show doesn't bother me because like I said it's more like watching an art form. But back on topic it baffles me how WWE writers can't even grasp basic continuity and logic. That insults my intelligence. You wouldn't like a movie that contradicted itself two or three times before it was over. If they're gonna give me entertainment all I ask is for it to make sense. That's not too much. Smackdown was good this week because each match told it's story and did a good job of it. Especially the Iron Man. It may not have been the most technically sound, but the story was told well.
Guest Dynamite Kido Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 I know I am too old-school but I just HATE that the actual wrestling has to take a backseat for silly backstage skits and in-ring promos on a WRESTLING show. But I guess we are in a different era. I agree, but don't worry. We will win in the end!!!!!
Guest Polish_Rifle Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 It's obvious that the ratings slip is due to the downturn of our economy. People with Neilson boxes can't afford to watch tv.
Kurt Angle Mark Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 All this means is that it's not a good idea to have an Iron Man Match on Free TV. If wrestling meant nothing then the Angle/Undertaker match would have not gotten the 4.0 rating that it did.
Guest wrestlingbs Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 Fuck. I really wanted SD to succeed too. To be honest I think the ratings drop has to do with 2 things 1) a lot of people don't care about WWE anymore and 2) a lot a people are Children of the WWE, who think too much wrestling is boring.
Styles Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 The hurricane had a lot to do with it. Im here in Delaware and our power went out last night so I missed Smackdown (luckily I had the forethought to call my parents in Maryland and ask them to tape me the show...they lost power like an hour after Smackdown ended, and are still without it). So I'd say that has something to do with it. Can't wait to see that tape though!
bradolson Posted September 19, 2003 Report Posted September 19, 2003 why are you blaming the hurricane for sd's low rating? he is on raw, correct? </stupid_joke>
Guest TheGame2705 Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 I posted something before the site went offline for a little. It's funny how A-Train/Steph got a good rating and everyone said it was because of the blackout. A hurricane hits and that's why the Brock/Angle rating sucked. Face it, no one wants to watch or pay for Angle vs. Brock. I believe more people watched Train vs. Steph even. Stop trying to justify these two as no one wants to see them fighting each other.
Guest Coffey Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 *I* want to see them wrestle each other....
Guest TheGame2705 Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 *I* want to see them wrestle each other.... You have fun with the 5 other people and your fantasy. Brock's one of those guys who can't transition from amateur to a pro. He's injured people before, has shitty shelling, stalls for ages sometimes, and has blown big spots. I may sound like Sault but give Angle something better to do.
Guest Coffey Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 Well, you said that no one wants to see it. I said that I want to see it. Basically, it made your point moot. If you said that majority of WWE viewers didn't want to see it, well we couldn't argue that. I wouldn't say that it's "my fantasy" either. I know where you're coming from with your analysis of Brock, and I agree. He is still young and fairly green.
cabbageboy Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 I too am sick of the Brock/Angle feud and am in amazement that they would consider having that main TWO WMs in a row. My god, that's what you do with ultra money drawing matches like Rock/Austin or Hogan/Andre. You don't main event two WMs with a feud that really isn't all that over. Could it also be that the average fan doesn't like to see a match that lasts 60 minutes? I'm a big fan but even I get a little tired of the same two guys fighting for half the show.
Guest Coffey Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 Well, I pretty much came to the realization that I should go elsewhere (outside of the WWE, sometimes outside of North America) if I want to see good wrestling. Sure, the WWE or NWA will produce a good nugget every now an then (like Benoit/Angle RR '03) but in American, in general, wrestling is perceived as...well, not like a sport like it is in Japan. I think my sig. quote says it all. Obviously, like everything in life, there are some exceptions. I agree that I don't want to see Brock Lesnar Vs. Kurt Angle @ Wrestlemania again.
Guest TheArchiteck Posted September 20, 2003 Report Posted September 20, 2003 Yeah well, I did sort of turned SD! off to watch the Survivor premier. But I tuned in during commercial breaks! I really don't know what made me watch that show again. I haven't watched it since the guy burned his hands in the fire. Maybe it was that cute chic that made me interested. *Shrugs* Oh well, I'm already hooked on the show.
BoboBrazil Posted September 20, 2003 Author Report Posted September 20, 2003 As we reported yesterday, this week's edition of Smackdown did a 3.2 broadcast rating, with a 5 share, according to Nielsen Media Research. The quarter hour numbers told an in interesting story for the Ironman match. The second hour of the show did a 3.5 rating, but the quarters were 3.4, 3.4, 3.3 and finally, 3.9. That tells me that a lot of people cared more about the finish more than the entire match, which is kind of sad. 1wrestling.com
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now