Monday's ratings are in and....

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Considering they DROPPED at least a full point the last time they jumped networks, I would think getting the rating to go UP, let alone this much, would be considered a good sign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The change in networks had zero to do with ratings going down. WWE like to use that as an excuse, but it simply isn't true.

 

And a 4.4 is at the lower end of acceptable, given the kind of push and 'effort' that went into Raw.

[The Tino Standard 0]

Considering they DROPPED at least a full point the last time they jumped networks, I would think getting the rating to go UP, let alone this much, would be considered a good sign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The change in networks had zero to do with ratings going down. WWE like to use that as an excuse, but it simply isn't true.

 

And a 4.4 is at the lower end of acceptable, given the kind of push and 'effort' that went into Raw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Over the long haul, I agree that it had little if anything to do with the ratings drop. But how do you account for the ratings dropping an entire point (which, at that time would be about 20 percent of their audience) and never getting back to that USA rating again?

 

Sure, it stayed low because the product sucked, but when they jumped to TNN, lawsuits prevented a lot of promotion being done. As a result, I can remember an awful lot of people in college who normally watched wrestling asking me on Tuesday why Raw wasn't on the night before.

 

Long term effect? No. Short term? Absolutely.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Considering they DROPPED at least a full point the last time they jumped networks, I would think getting the rating to go UP, let alone this much, would be considered a good sign.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The change in networks had zero to do with ratings going down. WWE like to use that as an excuse, but it simply isn't true.

 

And a 4.4 is at the lower end of acceptable, given the kind of push and 'effort' that went into Raw.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

But how do you account for the ratings dropping an entire point (which, at that time would be about 20 percent of their audience) and never getting back to that USA rating again?

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The product got worse, and never recovered. It still hasn't.

 

Sure, it stayed low because the product sucked, but when they jumped to TNN, lawsuits prevented a lot of promotion being done. As a result, I can remember an awful lot of people in college who normally watched wrestling asking me on Tuesday why Raw wasn't on the night before.

 

Are you seriously telling me that a ratings point worth of fans couldn't find USA?

 

If you think the network change had anything to do with their drop in ratings, you're an idiot.

[CanadianChick 0]

He said from USA and TNN, HTQ.

 

And no, maybe it didn't drop a full point just because it changed networks, but to say that the network change from USA to TNN had no effect on the ratings is just plain stupid. I don't feel the same argument can be said for this move because of all the advertising, but certainly for the first move it can.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

And no, maybe it didn't drop a full point just because it changed networks, but to say that the network change from USA to TNN had no effect on the ratings is just plain stupid. I don't feel the same argument can be said for this move because of all the advertising, but certainly for the first move it can.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If the change from USA to TNN had any effect, it was minimal at best, and certainly didn't cause a whole ratings point drop-off.

[CanadianChick 0]

So you think that people just all of a sudden, in one week, decided not to care anymore? Come on man. The network switch, especially to a relatively unknown network, made an impact short term.

 

Long term? No it didn't.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

So you think that people just all of a sudden, in one week, decided not to care anymore? Come on man. The network switch, especially to a relatively unknown network, made an impact short term.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A ratings point worth of fans can't change the channel on their television?

[Art Sandusky 0]

I can personally say that if I were a casual fan at the time, I wouldn't have followed the then-WWF over to TNN. Fuckin' hick network already, and now it's going to have wrestling on it too? A lot of people are quick to forget what a crap network TNN was (and still kinda is). It really serves no point.

 

The product has gone downhill big time, but seriously, fuck TNN/Spike/whatever.

[CanadianChick 0]

So you think that people just all of a sudden, in one week, decided not to care anymore? Come on man. The network switch, especially to a relatively unknown network, made an impact short term.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A ratings point worth of fans can't change the channel on their television?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, sure they can. But that's not a logical explaination in this case, since the product wasn't (1) overly offensive or (2) radically different than the usual. It makes no sense that fans would suddenly change the channel in one fellow swoop if they haven't before.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

I can personally say that if I were a casual fan at the time, I wouldn't have followed the then-WWF over to TNN. Fuckin' hick network already, and now it's going to have wrestling on it too? A lot of people are quick to forget what a crap network TNN was (and still kinda is; it really serves no point.

 

The product has gone downhill big time, but seriously, fuck TNN/Spike/whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you wouldn't watch a product just because it is on a particular network? That's rediculous.

[Art Sandusky 0]

I can personally say that if I were a casual fan at the time, I wouldn't have followed the then-WWF over to TNN. Fuckin' hick network already, and now it's going to have wrestling on it too? A lot of people are quick to forget what a crap network TNN was (and still kinda is; it really serves no point.

 

The product has gone downhill big time, but seriously, fuck TNN/Spike/whatever.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So you wouldn't watch a product just because it is on a particular network? That's rediculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

On my planet, people beat other people because they're colored differently. Us humans are pretty dumb motherfuckers, and have dumb reasons for doing or not doing things. My dumb reason for not watching the WWF after they jumped to TNN would be that I couldn't stand that channel. As TNN changed over to Spike, it was even less appealing. Internet folk forget how dumb and irrational the people who will pour money into a product are.

[Guest I miss Test.]

I wouldn't say it's stupidity, just human nature.

 

Kinda like how everyone hates ESPN, but still watches it, and won't watch FSN, etc...

[The Tino Standard 0]

So you think that people just all of a sudden, in one week, decided not to care anymore? Come on man. The network switch, especially to a relatively unknown network, made an impact short term.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

A ratings point worth of fans can't change the channel on their television?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, absolutely a ratings point worth of fans can change the channel on their TV... right over to Monday Night Football on ABC or something else that was airing that day.

 

Not every person watching wrestling is a die-hard fan. In fact, in that '98-'00 range, you were probably in the height of casual viewers. Casual viewers don't go on wrestling message boards. They barely visit WWE.com. So when you have an underpublicized move to a new network, it's quite possible that those casual viewers, the ones who watch wrasslin' if it's on (but don't really care if it's not), don't get the memo about the move. They turn on USA on Monday at 9, don't see wrestling and figure it's not on that night. Boom, they DO change the channel- to something other than Raw's new station. And that is how you get a ratings drop of a full point in one week.

 

See, it's not that hard. You're WAY too high up on the horse for a guy with an argument filled with so many strawmen. Look before you leap next time, junior.

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

If the fans were that flighty, they were going to tune out sooner or later, and it probably would have been sooner. The change was an excuse, but it wasn't a definitive cause of the drop, because any serious viewer would have taken the five seconds to find the show on a different network.

[Hektik 0]

Meltzer has said in his Observer that there are no real effects on a program switching networks. He had this to say about Raw switching from USA to TNN in 2000.

 

"By the ten minute mark, almost all the Raw viewers were tuned to TNN and the opening show on the new network did, over two hours, almost the same rating as the prior week."

[Hunter's Torn Quad 0]

Meltzer has said in his Observer that there are no real effects on a program switching networks.  He had this to say about Raw switching from USA to TNN in 2000.

 

"By the ten minute mark, almost all the Raw viewers were tuned to TNN and the opening show on the new network did, over two hours, almost the same rating as the prior week."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The change itself didn't cause that much of a dent after all.

[slimm44 0]

wwe.com posted this

 

The power of RAW's ratings

 

This week, Monday Night RAW brought the power of 4 million viewers back to USA Network in prime time.

 

Monday Night RAW drew a 4.7 rating (up from 3.2 last week on Spike TV), according to the latest Coverage Household Ratings information.

 

That’s 48 percent higher viewership.

 

RAW climbed to a 5.0 as Stone Cold Stunned the entire McMahon family. It was a segment that reminded WWE’s fans just what USA programming looks like. The three-hour spectacular also featured the anticipated return of Triple H, a crowd-pleasing WWE Championship Match, an incredible Ladder Match, a show-stopping WWE Iron Man Match and a showdown between members of the RAW and SmackDown rosters.

 

WWE Homecoming showcased unparalleled star power that included Hulk Hogan, Stone Cold, Mick Foley, “Rowdy” Roddy Piper and a host of WWE Legends.

 

The buzz from the show lasted throughout the night, and its ripple effect led to WWE.com's biggest traffic day in recent history.

 

USA Network enjoyed a marked ratings increase in the time slot now re-occupied by RAW; WWE’s 10 p.m. hour delivered household numbers that tripled the average for programming airing there the prior four weeks.

 

“The successful return of Monday Night RAW was a great team effort between USA and WWE,” said Gary Davis, WWE Vice President, Corporate Communications. “We wanted to create a phenomenal debut for our fans, and the viewing public responded in a big way. We greatly appreciate that support. It's good to be home again on USA.”

[KingPK 0]

RAW climbed to a 5.0 as Stone Cold Stunned the entire McMahon family. It was a segment that reminded WWE’s fans just what USA programming looks like.

 

Yeah, overlong 20 minute segments were a cornerstone of RAW when it was on USA.

 

That's a grade A spinjob on WWE's part, though.

[Guest Ransome]

wwe.com posted this

 

Monday Night RAW drew a 4.7 rating (up from 3.2 last week on Spike TV), according to the latest Coverage Household Ratings information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Any reason why Meltzer and WWE.com are giving out conflicting ratings numbers?

 

After all the hype, the number has to be considered below expectations. Hindsight will judge how disappointing the number really is. Even if they had gotten 5.0+, it would amount to naught if the ratings merely slip back into the 3.5 range within a few weeks. Ridiculously stacking one show seems to only expose the inanity of their ordinary Raws, so if they can hold onto their viewers, that might be an accomplishment.

[Precious Roy 0]

The change in networks had zero to do with ratings going down. WWE like to use that as an excuse, but it simply isn't true.

 

No.

 

TNN was just switching from being "The Nashville Network" and trying to get onto more cable providers at the time, they had a lot less potential homes than USA, and absolutely no built in audience (as they'd just completely alienated the Nashville crowd, people like my grandfather). I know I was in college at the time, and we had a sizable group of guys who watched wrestling in the dorm, but our school got USA and didn't get TNN, so when the switch started we all just stopped watching RAW, had no choice.

 

And if I were Vince, and I got a 4.4 rating for THAT show, I'd be depressed. He unloaded the barrels, and IMO put on a damn fine 3 hour show, and the best they could do was tie the first night of the draft lottery. Also, the media blitz was HUGE, commercials on every 18-35 channel, ads on all kinds of websites (really strong on Yahoo! for example), print ads, billboards in major citys...the whole works. All that for a 4.4....fuck depressed...I'd be violently angry.

 

But hey, Vince was silly to blow his nuts on this show when we all knew that this would happen and it would just hurt his other money making ventures, but Vince wanted an opportunity to show his cock to the world.....and hey....it's a 4.4

[Guest Fishyswa]

"Yeah, overlong 20 minute segments were a cornerstone of RAW when it was on USA."

 

They kind of were. I don't see how people can hate on the long segments when the WWE got it's best ratings on really long segments.

[cabbageboy 0]

Ok I think the last Raw on USA was Aug. 21, 2000. That show got a 6.2 rating. The next week (the 28th) on TNN got a 4.9. That seems like a fairly decent dropoff from one week to the next, so they did in fact lose viewers.

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

The last RAW on USA was September 18th, 2000. It got a 5.7. The first TNN RAW got a 5.4.

[Perfxion 0]

It was a 6.0 to 5.5. People seem to put too much stock into this. .5 drop was because alot of markets at the time didn't carry TNN. Now TNN/Spike are in as many homes as USA. So the change in channels is moot.

 

What the whole 1.0 drop was the 25 min Chyna promo about playboy that sanked the crowd to whoever the hell was playing MNF at the time. Hell, Nitro got a ratings bump from Chyna's god awful promo.

[Guest Brian]

"By the ten minute mark, almost all the Raw viewers were tuned to TNN and the opening show on the new network did, over two hours, almost the same rating as the prior week."

[pochorenella 0]

"Both sides are very happy. Raw did a 4.4 and UFC did a 1.6. Ultimate Fighter did a 1.3."

 

That's from Meltzer.  He didn't say what TNA on Monday got for some reason. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

TNA Impact on monday did a 0.5 rating, compared to 0.8 on saturday.

[Dips 0]

wwe.com posted this

 

Monday Night RAW drew a 4.7 rating (up from 3.2 last week on Spike TV), according to the latest Coverage Household Ratings information.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Any reason why Meltzer and WWE.com are giving out conflicting ratings numbers?

 

After all the hype, the number has to be considered below expectations. Hindsight will judge how disappointing the number really is. Even if they had gotten 5.0+, it would amount to naught if the ratings merely slip back into the 3.5 range within a few weeks. Ridiculously stacking one show seems to only expose the inanity of their ordinary Raws, so if they can hold onto their viewers, that might be an accomplishment.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

WWE.com's rating only take for 9pm-11pm therefore making the rating higher. Meltzer's take for the whole show. The first hour was a 3.9 I think so bringing it down a fair bit.

[pochorenella 0]

More ratings details:

 

As reported yesterday, WWE RAW on Monday did a 4.4 rating, up from a 3.2 last week. From 9PM ET to 11:13PM ET, RAW's regular hours, the show did a 4.7 rating.

 

RAW did hours of 3.8, 4.9, and 4.5, so as expected, the first hour did drag the average rating down.

 

The Steve Austin/McMahons segment did draw the show's highest rating with a 5.0. The only bad news for WWE is that the show lost viewers during the final hour.

 

In other ratings news, the 10/2 airing of "RAW Exposed" did a 1.7 rating. The repeat, which aired after RAW on Monday, did a strong 2.8 rating.

 

Credit: PWInsider.com

[Kahran Ramsus 0]

It was a 6.0 to 5.5.

 

Source? I'm curious where you got this since everything I've seen says 5.7 & 5.4.

[2GOLD 0]

It was a 6.0 to 5.5.

 

Source? I'm curious where you got this since everything I've seen says 5.7 & 5.4.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

The World Wrestling Federation, which has had a habit for a very long time for adding anywhere between .3 and .5 to their actual rating.

 

And the network switch cost them maybe .3, which was the number of households that didn't have TNN/Spike at the time. The drop of a point in the end had nothing to do with the switch so much as the product just collapsed.