Will there be another era?

Discussion in 'General WWE' started by Crayo, Mar 1, 2012.

  1. Lots of complainers of the current PG era, most people assume it's because of Linda McMahon running for senate, when she finally gives up and realises no one wants her, will there be a new era? Will it stay PG but perhaps more edgy? Will it get even more PG?

  2. PG doesn't mean shit. It's for the people like JeebaK to blame for the current product. I think WWE has already evolved from this 'PG Era' into a new one. One with Punk, Jericho and a much better Cena. If you haven't noticed, since Punk's big promo on Cena and Vince back in the summer, everything has changed, for the better.
  3. Of course there will be. I sound like a broken record here but wrestling runs in cycles and always has. In the late 90's the anti authority grunge mentality was popular culture. That's why we had lower production values and rebellious characters. Now the majority wants high professional production values with clean cut characters. That's why Punk's become more babyfaceish. The shade of grey isn't what people want long term any more.
  4. Ofc pg doesnt mean shit. Ofc wwe ratings havent dropped since the introduction of pg. Lmao.
  5. Higher profits then ever even with the lower buyrates and lower ratings. PG has been a success if we're talking numbers.
  6. Once again u r trying to hide behind gross profit. Nobody cares how much money vince is making, we care about a better show.
  7. Why bring ratings into it then?
  8. Ratings define the quality of the show. Profit doesnt.
  9. No it doesn't. Ratings indicate how well marketed a product is, PWG puts on a better show then any other North American company but because very few people have heard of them they don't draw well.
    Is American Idol a good show because it draws a high rating ? http://www.nielsen.com/us/en/insights/top10s/television.html How about Jersey Shore is that a good show?
    • Like Like x 1
  10. yes american idol is a good show. I dont watch it anyways.
    Please check out what factors ratings are based upon and then try to continue this debate, i have nothing to say to someone who thinks rating has anything to do with marketing.
  11. Ratings is how many people watch a show on TV. It's a crude definition but a viable one. Which product will draw the higher rating? A poor one with strong marketing or a good one which no one has heard of? How can someone watch a show they haven't heard of?
  12. inafteranotherJeebak/Seabsbitchfest
  13. It's not a bitchfest tbh more of a debate.
  14. Idiot, it's because of the content. Not because they can't say fuck or shit
  15. and your proof is? Why did the content suddenly magically detoriate with the introduction of pg?

    Yes rating means how many people watch the show on TV. Finally u got it right.
    Now heres the debate.
    Lets say two shows are advertised the same, generally the better among these two shows will be watched by more people at tv hence increasing its ratings. Hence rating = quality of the show.
    Now off to your marketing point.
    Are you trying to say that wwe hasnt been marketed right since the pg era?
    As a matter of fact WWE is marketed MORE nowadays than in the WWF days or the AE Era days. Most of the wrestlers do movies, participate in tv shows, guest appearences at functions, parties, host tv shows etc etc. WWE also take part in more brands and sponsor many things. Hence even the most notorius skeptic wouldnt argue that WWE now is marketed atleast 5x better than in the WWF days. in the AE WWE was more of a cult following, it has drastically changed to a icon, a brand nowadays.
    And with more marketing wwe is still getting lower ratings.
    That just proves my point that the quality of the show has declined to a new low.
    • Like Like x 1
  16. Go away JeebaK.
  17. The shows aren't marketed the same as wrestling was hot during the attitude era, not to mention there was less competition in those days. A rating is a score deprived from a total of people with Neilson boxes. More Neilson boxes = higher percentage = a 4.0 being 40000 viewers in the 90's whilst now it takes 400000 (not direct numbers but the principle applies.)
    Also see this : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings#Ratings.2Fshare_and_total_viewers
    The highest rated shows have fallen dramatically.
  18. Ratings doesn't mean how many people watch the show. That's viewership.

  19. Well, this PG (but for kids) era is already transforming into something else, the "reality", "shoot", "trending" era, and I don't like it. You see wrestlers breaking the kayfabe EVERYWHERE - you have shoot promos, shirts with the words like JOBBER on, etc. I mean, older fans already know shit like that, and it may be "cool" for them bcuz they are not used to it, but it does a great amount of damage of kids, tbh. It's just confusing them. I certainly don't like this approach WWE seems to taking since the summer of 2011.

    Kayfabe needs to stay well and alive. That's why I wacth Ring Ka King, it's still 80s there. Ooooh, yeaaah!
  20. Is it even possible to kayfabe alive? After all with all the social media sites we can see every move a wrestler takes, many of them breaking characters. Not to mention other sites such as wikipedia. Say if Kane debuted tomorrow it wouldn't have the same feel if we all knew Glen Jacobs was the man behind the mask. The information seems to be too freely available.