Raw Rating: July 16

Discussion in 'RAW' started by Snowman, Jul 17, 2012.

  1. Awesome for WWE. A decent show with decent ratings, go figure.
  2. Glad. It was very good.
  3. Good. Good shows deserve good ratings.
  4. Very nice rating. I want to see next week's (although it probably won't be that high due to three hours).
  5. With the way they've been hyping the hell out of that thing and pulling out all the stops, I'd be floored if it didn't get record viewership.
  6. How many viewers!?!?!!
  7. Merged Crayo's in here, as it went into more depth.
  8. they got 5 million viewers at one point :obama:
  9. "Raw was #1 among adult male viewers"

  10. Do you think the 1000th episode of Raw will be able to achieve a 4.00 rating?
  11. With the star power, I should imagine they will be close.
  12. I read somewhere (I can't remember) that Vince is treating this episode more than a PPV. Which you can expect by the amount of Star Power they have, I just hope they don't drop the ball.
  13. I'm hoping they don't overdo themselves trying to cram too much into that one episode and wind up having it all go to shit because of it. They have a ton of things going on, with various stars and angles, so it could be great, but could also go horribly wrong, depending on how they handle it all.

    Anyway, glad this week's episode got a good rating and increased views. Maybe they'll put 2 and 2 together and figure out how to keep the momentum going for better shows and increased ratings.
  14. Interested in the break downs when we get them.
  15. OK, this may be a bit off topic, but can I be the clueless one to ask what I'm sure is a really stupid question? (Only because seriously, I have no clue how these things work. I just think the end result stats are interesting.)

    How do they know the exact demographic of the viewers? I mean, if it's a family household with a TV tuned in to Raw, for instance, how do they know the age and gender of the people in that household watching? I've never known how that works.

    I'll go hide in embarrassment for a bit now and check this thread later. ;)
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Been asked before, none of us know for sure. No one really outside of the television industry knows for sure unless we go research it on blogs, lmao. I'm guessing they perhaps have information to identify the house-holders age and if it's less than X then it gets put into one demographic. It has to be rough either way.
    • Like Like x 1
  17. Isn't it to do with Neilsen boxes? To apply for one you fill in a form based upon that they calculate it for the population?
  18. Whew, I feel so much better. Thanks! :dawg: I thought I was the only one clueless about that.
  19. lol, no. As I try to tell you all every time this comes up, it's from viewer diaries kept by people.

    and yea, it's a hella rough estimate. They are just taking the information they get and projecting it on a national scale. It's retarded, really.


    Boxes are still pretty rare, which is weird to me. I would think in 2012 they would be common, but the diaries are still the vast majority of what is being taken into consideration.