Ratings Discussion Thread - Mod Warning #271 (26th June)

leggo

I’ve been shouting that this thread isn’t about me, or “having the balls to put it up to me” is the latest one, since pretty much the start so agreed, good shout.

Anyway back to the question I tried to ask before this latest spat: does someone want to try say why this is massively significant and not just another dip like WWE have had multiple times over the years? Don’t just say “It IS significant”, I’m asking why. So start with “It’s significant because...”

Ideally please give examples explaining why WWE are in trouble when NBA get paid almost ten times the amount with an average regular season viewership of 1.2million per game.

Omackeral

DEFY is reporting that 6,000 seats were taken (of a possible 18,000), with Dave Meltzer adding that just 4,500 of those were paid for, and that many of them were very cheap or free. If the report is accurate, it would make Stomping Grounds one of the lowest attended WWE PPV shows in recent history.

The bolded part is significant I'd say. Actually, all of it is.

ERG89

leggo wrote: »

Ideally please give examples explaining why WWE are in trouble when NBA get paid almost ten times the amount with an average regular season viewership of 1.2million per game.

Like any sport wouldn't the TV stations be paying for the playoff games essentially as regular season games have very little on the line.
The final game got like a 13.2 rating whereas the penultimate one where Toronto kinda imploded got 13.4. Wrestling doesn't get that at any time of the year.
Sports does see spikes for finals or big games as that's what the network's pay for. When a station buys Premier League TV rights they think about the rating for Man City vs Man United not Burnley vs Palace which will drag down the average.

leggo

Omackeral wrote: »

DEFY is reporting that 6,000 seats were taken (of a possible 18,000), with Dave Meltzer adding that just 4,500 of those were paid for, and that many of them were very cheap or free. If the report is accurate, it would make Stomping Grounds one of the lowest attended WWE PPV shows in recent history.

The bolded part is significant I'd say. Actually, all of it is.

I specifically said “Don’t say ‘That IS significant’”, I said explain how. Start with “That is significant because...” and go again. You keep just reeling off stats and either defaulting to “That’s significant” or “Looks like WWE aren’t so hot right now” (a point nobody, not one single, solitary person, is making)

Don’t just reel off something you copied and pasted and say “Significant”. Show YOUR knowledge to analyse this info and make the point of how it’s significant. Because now I can just come back and say “...aaaand after all of the other PPVs that drew less, WWE went on to survive and thrive” and be correct. I haven’t had to move an inch from that point since this thread started. You’re saying this is different, how? Can you do that? If you can’t, are you posting for any other reason other than stubbornness?

leggo

ERG89 wrote: »

Like any sport wouldn't the TV stations be paying for the playoff games essentially as regular season games have very little on the line.
The final game got like a 13.2 rating whereas the penultimate one where Toronto kinda imploded got 13.4. Wrestling doesn't get that at any time of the year.
Sports does see spikes for finals or big games as that's what the network's pay for. When a station buys Premier League TV rights they think about the rating for Man City vs Man United not Burnley vs Palace which will drag down the average.

An average is an average man. It takes into account the highs and lows, that’s the point of it. If it wasn’t profitable to do so, they wouldn’t bid to the tune of ten times the amount they’re bidding for WWE. But they do because they deem it profitable to run 6 out of 8 months of the season on an average 1.2m rating. If it wasn’t, they wouldn’t do it because, as their primary asset, they would go out of business if they did. Or there would be separate rights packages for regular season/playoffs, look at the PL/Champions League there for example. An open market means the market dictates these things, not the people within it.

Omackeral

leggo wrote: »

I specifically said “Don’t say ‘That IS significant’”, I said explain how. Start with “That is significant because...” and go again.

Very demanding and condescending.

leggo wrote: »

You keep just reeling off stats

Sounds like someone else!

leggo wrote: »

and either defaulting to “That’s significant” or “Looks like WWE aren’t so hot right now” (a point nobody, not one single, solitary person, is making)

Don’t just reel off something you copied and pasted and say “Significant”. Show YOUR knowledge to analyse this info and make the point of how it’s significant.

So what if I say it's significant? It's an opinion. That's what message boards and discussion sites are about. It's significant that they've hit a very low nadir attendance wise and that the ratings are majorly down on this time last year despite them having such a massive array of exceptional talent. That's my analysis. I've also already said as much on this thread though.

leggo wrote: »

Because now I can just come back and say “...aaaand after all of the other PPVs that drew less, WWE went on to survive and thrive” and be correct. I haven’t had to move an inch from that point since this thread started. You’re saying this is different, how? Can you do that? If you can’t, are you posting for any other reason other than stubbornness?

To be honest, I don't know why I'm posting on this anymore. It ceased being lighthearted fun a while back. I post here for the craic and there's very little of that left on this thread.

gerrybbadd

Another classic rivalry over. I'll just leave this here
http://imgur.com/a/kHbrkSB

leggo

He’ll be back as soon as he thinks he’s got info that proves his point, he did this already. It’s not about “I dunno why I’m doing this”, it’s about “I don’t actually have an answer to that” come on... :pac:

Omackeral

No, you've just bored me into submission


via torture rack

leggo

Who had 4 hours? :pac:

Loughc

At this stage the ratings in the ratings thread is going to plummet. It’s the same booking over and over :pac:

J. Marston

https://twitter.com/chairshotgreg/status/1145187947676700672?s=21

Runs

leggo

It was already framed as a success by lawlolawl that they were 'able' to open another section. :pac:

Look it'd be easy to hop on but that kinda stuff is to be expected from AEW at this stage. Their initial TV ratings probably won't hit anything WWE is currently doing and that'll be the big overreaction people will have that week, which is why Meltzer needs to calm his tits on the hyperbole. But, in truth, they're still a growing company trying to build off a single, online base (it's why they're not doing house shows: don't mind this "We care about the wrestlers' bodies" shtick, they know they don't have the base yet to sell locally and need to focus on trying to run few shows but pack them with BTE fans, I'd say the first few tapings at least will have an NXT TV-style setup in a smaller studio for that reason) so it'd be way harsh to jump on them for not selling out everything they do.

Jerichoholic

Greg DeMarco isn't a WWE baby toddler fanboy that is completely biased in any way towards ****ting on everything that isn't WWE.

No, not at all.

J. Marston

Raw up 218k viewers this week. 3 consecutive weeks of increasing viewers.

Loughc

J. Marston wrote: »

Raw up 218k viewers this week. 3 consecutive weeks of increasing viewers.

Heyman’s genius strikes again. Master stroke by Vinny Mac the wrestling/sports entertainment genus.

Itssoeasy

The discussion of ratings with WWE and complaining about the same is a pointless as the way ratings are still recorded from what I can see are not reflective of how people nowadays consume TV. I mean I'm sure the USA network has an app of some kind to watch it's tv shows live and how many people watch on that app that aren't included in the ratings. Also, WWE compared to ratings of other shows are good. They just aren't as good as they were.

Jerichoholic

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

Itssoeasy

Jerichoholic wrote: »

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

I stand suitably corrected and informed on the matter after reading your post.

Jerichoholic

Well it's 2019, you don't think they know how many people are using their app? Really?

Itssoeasy

Jerichoholic wrote: »

Well it's 2019, you don't think they know how many people are using their app? Really?

I didn’t say that they didn’t know how to count people using their app. I said I didn’t know if the numbers of people using the app were including in the ratings. You replied and said they were.

leggo

Jerichoholic wrote: »

They are all included. Ratings have never been more accurate actually.

Nielsen ratings include app viewers? Where in jaysus name are you getting that from?!

Jerichoholic

I see Extreme rules is another hot ticket again thanks to another incredibly popular main event.

Tickets are being given away for free already.

Jerichoholic

leggo wrote: »

Nielsen ratings include app viewers? Where in jaysus name are you getting that from?!

Jaysus begorrah ha?

https://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/28/tech/web/nielsen-tv-ratings-online/index.html

lawlolawl

Jerichoholic wrote: »

I see Extreme rules is another hot ticket again thanks to another incredibly popular main event.

Tickets are being given away for free already.

Oof, two for one tickets again i see. If you go on the venues website to buy tickets they won't even let you buy one on its own, you have to buy at least two.

leggo

Always read the article before you link it:

Nielsen first announced it was testing programs to track streaming viewers in April. In mid-November, it will release a software development kit that clients can use to figure out who's tuning in online.

Nielsen works the same way TV ratings over here work: a small % of people in various demographics are given technology to monitor what they watch and that counts for everything (incidentally does anyone here have said tech or know anyone who does?). It’s mad and you’d assume there’d be an easier way in the digital age, but there’s not. Radio ratings are even more archaic, incidentally: they’re done by survey so one person could just lie/forget what they listened to and it can be the difference in thousands of euros in advertising and jobs. But I digress.

So no, they don’t count all app views, they track the views that their ‘clients’, i.e. the % that they track, view.

Jerichoholic

Jesus Christ man. That was 6 years ago they added this stuff.

Shows streamed directly by networks through their own sites and apps typically include the same set of ads, and those viewers are counted towards the traditional Nielsen totals.

All your excuses are getting annoying.

leggo

“Here’s the proof! Read this article, it explains everything!”
“Actually it doesn’t, you misunderstood it and got pretty patronising with another dude...”
“That’s an old article! Why are you paying attention to that article?”
“You literally posted it yourself...”

I can see the storyline we’re repeating this week is: Jerichoholic makes big claim, gets corrected because he didn’t understand what he was saying, freaks out and goes on the attack. I’m looking forward to when you call everything anyone else says “nonsense”, while not being able to argue it, then ‘ask a friend’ who just happens to verify everything you’re saying. That’s always a good show closer.

Jerichoholic

Good man. They implemented it 6 years ago.

Good luck.

Jerichoholic

leggo wrote: »

“Here’s the proof! Read this article, it explains everything!”
“Actually it doesn’t, you misunderstood it and got pretty patronising with another dude...”
“That’s an old article! Why are you paying attention to that article?”
“You literally posted it yourself...”

I can see the storyline we’re repeating this week is: Jerichoholic makes big claim, gets corrected because he didn’t understand what he was saying, freaks out and goes on the attack. I’m looking forward to when you call everything anyone else says “nonsense”, while not being able to argue it, then ‘ask a friend’ who just happens to verify everything you’re saying. That’s always a good show closer.

I remember that time when you were completely ****ing wrong about those ticket numbers. And even admitted it.

But somehow I wasn't able to prove it and went on the attack, when I proved it, and it was quite a simple thing to do. Even though you called me a liar about it.

You need to stop being such an authority on everything as you just believe what you want to instead of facts, and everyone who thinks otherwise is stupid or a liar.