Discussion in 'RAW' started by Crayo, Dec 18, 2012.
Same as always, I guess. Waiting for the breakdown.
Flair and Gunn made the good ratings happen.
Everything below 3.0 is poor, so consider this medium poor.
No it's not. If it were two hours it would work out at something like 3.2, so this is a relatively decent rating for a 3 hour episode. Which sucks, as the show was poor.
Yeah, but the current Hour 3 is a former Hour 2, and that why's it poor IMO.
Check the OP for the proof.
Considering that there was two hours of "wrestling" beforehand, it's not really poor. RAW is now longer than most movies. I struggle to put up with 2 hours of RAW before the third, so imagine the casuals. Wrestling shows just shouldn't be that long.
IMO it doesn't matter if the show is 2 hours or 6 hours.. the last hour should be the highest rated because that's how wrestling shows are built. Everyone knows the last hour is what the beginning of the show builds towards and that the closing of the show is usually when something big happens (if it's going to)
So if you are losing viewers throughout the night it means what you are building towards isn't something the audience is interested in seeing.
Also I found your last thought to be interesting. "I struggle to put up with 2 hours of Raw before the third, so imagine the casuals"
Do you think you have more tolerance to watch (bad) wrestling television than casuals? I find that statement to be ludicrous personally. When I was a kid I would watch wrestling all damn day long. Now I can hardly watch a 2 hour show or 3 hour Raw/PPV without multitasking or taking a break at some point. I think casuals have a much easier time digesting 3 hours of wrestling than your typical smark does.
There is a difference between casual fans and marks bro. You were a mark (as was I), so I was eating it all up. Casual fans are normally the parents of marks, or just fans that don't see much else on TV to watch. I would say most of the IWC who watch WWE weekly are die-hard fans who just don't want to miss it. Hell, most of the users on here complain about WWE and rate it averagely around 2-3, why do they keep tuning in weekly?
Anyway, 3 hours has a massive effect. I can almost guarantee you that if it went back to 2 hours, the last hour would again show increases in viewers rather than decreases, or you can put the last like 10 or so weeks of statistics behind and claim it as a coincidence.
Can almost guarantee it based on what? Your deep intellectual insight into the ratings system and how 3 hours affect Raw? You are just speculating homie, you can't "almost guarantee' anything
as for bitching about the show and tuning in weekly: idk man, don't ask me. Ask them.
Based on how nearly every single 2 hour show had rises in the last hour, and nearly every three hour show (if not EVERY) has losses in the last hour. Mad coincidence?
I remember before they went to three hours that quite a few Raws were losing viewers from hour 1 to hour 2. It might not be the norm, but it was happening before they went to 3 hours.
Three hours doesn't help the ratings, but to push off all of their ratings trouble onto the length and giving them a pass for their god awful product is dumb.
RAW ratings have been declining every single year haven't they? I never blamed it entirely on 3 hours, but the sudden drop from regular 3.2's to 2.7's etc is largely because of 3 hours, that's my point.
It was going to happen eventually with 2 hours as well. Wrestling is going through transition as a whole I think, it's becoming less cool, and WWE pissing on its own product doesn't help that. Something is going to have to change in the future.
Wrestling hasn't been cool in quite some time... I'd venture to say as long ago as The Rock leaving WWE in 2002 or 2003 whenever it was
I pretty much agree with this. I can cope with 2 hours but not three and that is when I turn off, as it looks like most others do too.
Reload or listen to audio. By reCAPTCHA™
Reload or go back to text. By reCAPTCHA™