How bad are the ratings... REALLY

Discussion in 'RAW' started by Neptune, Oct 13, 2015.

  1. I read that the last few months Raw's rating have been dropping and they expect them to continue into Cena's absence. I do wonder why nothing is being done, or if something is being done, why has it now show? I feel like Raw was better just a few years ago because it actually kept people interesting in large aspects of the show. They also did more specialty shows as well (you know, the 3 hours shows...). Now, it seems like so much of it is used and old story lines with new people. Why not mix things up?

    What are your thoughts... Do you believe the ratings are dropping? Are they doing anything about it if so?
     
  2. The ratings are dropping, indeed. But, WWE won't do squat about it. They have no real competition to kick their ass, so they'll keep doing whatever they want.
     
  3. That is what sucks though. They will do bare minimal to keep earnings going and make USA happy. That is about it. I want some of the shock factor back, maybe a few "pipebomb" moments, how about some legit feuding with the Divas and no more pillow talk crap, hell, bring th Rock back to sing some songs!! I can bet any money a huge number of the wrestlers are't happy because they know the fans, and more and more of them are feeling this way, are just not happy with the product.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Pardon me for sounding patronizing or "trying to be cool" here, but...

    Back in my day, back in 2012 when this place was in it's infancy, I remember the first "ratings crisis" thread we had... It actually created some intrigue for the following Raw. What would they do to combat the ratings? It was almost a story going into Raw... then the show happened, and D'Z had the infamous quote of "I'm watching a grown man in jorts covering a fat guy in his underwear in bbq sauce. wwe raw 4 lyfe"

    clearly it wasn't 4 lyfe after all, but still. made me pretty damn leery about Raw ratings going down again lol

    First things first, they need to make a deal with USA. I can understand them wanting to have Raw be 3 hours, but why not have a one-hour preshow filled with the panel discussing what's to come, some Youtube content, live appearances, hell throw the Superstars matches on there if you want, THEN a 2 hour Raw following that? A preshow would probably draw better than NCIS reruns or whatever else USA would be doing (granted it also makes combatting football harder), and it's been proven that a 2 hour show will draw better than a 3 hour one.

    Personally, as talked about with Prince via PM (sorry to ask you about why you turned it on, by the way), I've been straining my brain for the "magic potion" to get me to watch Raw again. Even watching on Hulu they still have to use all these segments devoted to little more than filling time, and it wasn't long before growing bored of it. Back then, I had the LD... which I'd love to visit again.

    Plus cutting off parts of Cesaro matches are like cutting off parts of your own penis. You should never, ever do that.
     
  5. LMAO I miss those LD's and reviews.
     
  6. Damn straight. :haha:
     
  7. There were rumors recently of Hunter and Vince preparing a "blockbuster angle" to happen soon if the ratings didn't improve. The fact that The Rock has been moved from the Alumni section to the main roster on WWE.com has fueled speculation that he might be coming back soon. Maybe The Rock vs Seth Rollins for the championship at Survivor Series? Having The Great One around can't be bad for the ratings, even though they'll just immediately fall back down to earth the second he leaves again. A possible program with Rollins would make sense I guess, since:

    A. It would be a big main event for Survivor Series.
    B. It's a logical way of helping build towards The Rock vs HHH for next year's Wrestlemania, since that's been the planned main event for 32 for several months now.
    C. It's another big opponent for Seth Rollins to go over (or a big opponent for Sheamus to cash in on should The Rock win, but I don't see them going down that route.)
    D. There would be some cool history to tie into it, since The Rock and Seth Rollins both made their debut at Survivor Series (in Rollins' case, his first appearance) and Rocky even won his first WWE Championship there, not to mention wrestled his first match in eight years there, too (in 2011.)

    This is all pure speculation at the moment, of course.
     
  8. If WWE recognized the pro wrestling world, and stopped being a fucking monopoly it would gain much, much, much more appeal.
     
    • Optimistic Optimistic x 1
  9. Damn it!!! I wish I would have read that before..... @Prince Bálor , we have to talk about something....
     
    • Funny Funny x 2
  10. #10 Jacob Fox, Oct 17, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2015
    There is a point where ratings have to be addressed regardless of WWE's long held monopoly. I've actually heard from some people (but haven't read anything directly) that Vince is pretty irritated about it and is considering getting more involved directly with WWE Creative. Despite everything, WWE is still a public company and they still have to be focused on the well being of their company or their stock may plummet and Vince will cry about not being a billionaire.

    Honestly I can't imagine it's very difficult. Wrestling fans are more vocal than anyone about what is wrong with the product and what they want to see. Cut Raw to two hours because three is just draining... you'll never find someone who loves wrestling like me... I can watch it 24/7 and I have been for decades, but I don't want to watch three hours of RAW. I don't want to watch three hours of Raw when it's good much less when it blows. Three hours is for pay per views and the very occasional Raw where WWE decides its audiences deserve a good show. Next, push the wrestlers fan actually want to see. Again fans are vocal about this... listen to your crowd reactions. Don't bury Cesaro when he is getting some of the biggest pops in the audience. Focus on MATCHES! As much as you want to convince yourself this is something called "Sports Entertainment," I have never heard one person tell me they are a "Sports Entertainment" fan. I have heard plenty tell me they are wrestling fans. Matches are first and foremost what people tune in to see...put on better matches. Let the Divas be wrestlers and not divas. Get rid of the fucking Authority storyline already. It has never had the appeal of Austin/McMahon so don't run it as long as that. etc etc

    See the problem is that there is more than enough information telling WWE what to do in order to improve ratings. The last time they were in a mess, they had to do something revolutional: listen to someone else and along came the Attitude Era. When your product keeps sucking worse than a whore with... nah, that visual even sort of grossed me out...
     
  11. We must be watching two entirely different shows because the one I watch already focuses heavily on matches. I'd say it's easily one of the things wrong with the product. Too much emphasis on wrestling matches, not enough on promos (at least GOOD promos), character development, and compelling angles. The lack of matches or lack of quality matches is literally the last thing wrong with the product right now.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. But, from what I've seen, a lot of people want different things from the product. What would you do to change it? (besides 2 hours)

    As Lockard said, it's ironic that Vince calls his show "sports entertainment" and he (correctly) says that term references the main things we remember from the Attitude Era, then has a show that caters to hardcore fans by having the only redeeming quality about it is be the in-ring work.
     
  13. It's hard to keep the fans interest because the product is so stale. There's not much they can do besides build interesting storylines. They got a talented roster but people don't care. They rather watch Football or Hockey on another channel... As far as the ratings go, it doesn't matter much to me because that's not my concern. All i want is an interesting product.
     
  14. #14 Jacob Fox, Oct 17, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2015
    Actually, if you want to correctly identify what "sports entertainment" means, it is a term Vince coined that simply referred to the fact that professional wrestling is simulated fighting. He began using the term instead of pro wrestling in he 1980s and specifically focused on it in 1989 in order to keep his company from being regulated by the government like competitive sports. He has added and changed the definition of it many, many times, but this was what the term "sports entertainment" originally refers to.

    And sorry, the in ring work in WWE is not a redeeming factor for it right now. I have no idea how anyone can say that. Although we get a couple good matches here and there, the majority of them are terrible.
     
  15. #15 Jacob Fox, Oct 17, 2015
    Last edited: Oct 17, 2015
    I don't think we're watching two different shows, I just think that we have two different expectations of the product. I was simply laying out what I prefer to see. Disagreement is fine but it doesn't mean we're "watching two different shows." I think there are definitely a good quantity of matches but I think there is a serious lack of interesting ones. There is little build up to the matches and it's hard to get invested in matches when this is the case.

    I certainly didn't mean add more matches but concentrate on making them more interesting. The story lines and matches compliment each other. WWE has been putting together many makeshift matches and then completely running the match ups into the ground. When I wrote to focus on matches, I meant focus on making them interesting. I never said have less promos, I in fact just pointed out that the ones they have right now are really bad. You make matches better with interesting promos and characters who actually have a reason for fighting each other. That is why I mentioned in the exact same paragraph to ditch the Authority story line because it is not adding interest to the product in any way.

    Another thing I meant by focus on the matches is to give us a good build up to the matches. Too often we are only getting match ups for PPVs scheduled a few days beforehand. It doesn't become interesting. When RAW first came on, they'd announce on the show what matches were booked for the following week...nowadays they are announced during the show in which they take place.
     
  16. Aight, I'll give you that. Usually you can rely on a couple of 20+ minute matches on Raw - like this week's Cena vs Ziggler bout - and those are the main positives you give the show.
    Meant more about THAT being the redeeming factor moreso than Kane main events or jobber killings or all the matches with storyline finishes that are forgotten next week anyway
     
  17. I agree and it's great to see those matches when they happen. The problem is that the 20 minutes would stand out a lot more in a 2 hour show. But in a 3 hour show, it just sort of shrinks.

    I agree that story lines are forgettable, bad, you name it. But honestly, I think both the matches and story lines need work. I just have always preferred matches to the story so Raw would be much more enjoyable for me if they had better matches.
     
  18. The problem to me isn't the matches, it is the over booking of the wrong ones, the stale story lines, and the repetitively easy way you can basically call what is about to happen ALL THE TIME. I don't like watching shows where I can easily guess what is going to happen next.

    They need to be unpredictable again.
     
  19. Yeah but when you over book the wrong matches, how does that make the problem not the matches? If over booking the wrong matches is one of the things that is wrong, you are plainly saying that the matches are one of the problems. Because you have too many of the wrong matches and they are not entertaining.
     
  20. I am saying that they put on good shows in the ring... But they are using the wrong match set ups which goes inline with the story line. I get what you mean though.