WWE: Monday Night Raw 152 - watching the ratings is more entertaining

[M.C.G. 31]

Is this the lowest rating since raw started? Or did 1993, 1994 or 1995 have lower?

The lowest rating for a live episode was a 1.6 in 1996. The lowest rating ever was 1.5 for the week before the 1.6 rating, but that one was taped.

They had a 1.88 rating two weeks ago and that average 2.69m viewers. Looking at the demos, this one looks like it can be anywhere from 1.53 - 1.65.

 

[Blitzkrug]

That drop though. Oof.

MNF suffered too, but i wonder how much of that is because of the debate, or because the fact they had a pretty mediocre game on paper between two non-big ticket teams.

All that tells me if the debate started at 8, Raw still gets crushed and probably sees an even bigger drop in the third hour.

 

[These Are The Days]

Is this the lowest rating since raw started? Or did 1993, 1994 or 1995 have lower?

I don't think so. I think Raw had less viewership in the early 1990's and at some point did worse than last night during the Monday Night Wars. The fact they had 2.8 million people tune in at the start is a pretty decent number. The fact that the debate only took out about 600,000 is a fortunate figure at best.

 

[DenisSamson3]

The lowest rating for a live episode was a 1.6 in 1996. The lowest rating ever was 1.5 for the week before the 1.6 rating, but that one was taped.

They had a 1.88 rating two weeks ago and that average 2.69m viewers. Looking at the demos, this one looks like it can be anywhere from 1.53 - 1.65.

So as you said in the last post of the previous page, next week is a very important one for them. They need to see at least some rebound.

 

[These Are The Days]

The lowest rating for a live episode was a 1.6 in 1996. The lowest rating ever was 1.5 for the week before the 1.6 rating, but that one was taped.

They had a 1.88 rating two weeks ago and that average 2.69m viewers. Looking at the demos, this one looks like it can be anywhere from 1.53 - 1.65.

Whelp I was wrong. Nevermind folks Sunny can't do math.

I'd take a wager that Smackdown will annihilate Raw's ratings from last night

 

[DenisSamson3]

In comparison the highest rated tna episode happened 6 years ago with 2.2 million viewers.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

The bad news for the WWE is that the casual fan base seems to have disappeared. All they can rely on now are people like us - the hardcore fans who subscribe to the network and (mostly) stick to it.

Their hardcore number seems to be 2-million. It was higher in the past. The hardcores are leaving, too, but the casuals are leaving much quicker.

 

[DenisSamson3]

The bad news for the WWE is that the casual fan base seems to have disappeared. All they can rely on now are people like us - the hardcore fans who subscribe to the network and (mostly) stick to it.

Their hardcore number seems to be 2-million. It was higher in the past. The hardcores are leaving, too, but the casuals are leaving much quicker.

Is viewership growing overseas?

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Is viewership growing overseas?

It's not recorded but I wouldn't assume so.

They're growing their markets and getting TV deals in countries they haven't been in before, but I don't think it's anything to write home about.

 

[tp71]

The bad news for the WWE is that the casual fan base seems to have disappeared. All they can rely on now are people like us - the hardcore fans who subscribe to the network and (mostly) stick to it.

Their hardcore number seems to be 2-million. It was higher in the past. The hardcores are leaving, too, but the casuals are leaving much quicker.

There's nothing for the casuals to latch onto. They never built anyone else up besides John Cena and to a lesser extent Randy Orton. Bryan was an anomoly that they lucked into.

Look at the Hogan years, coming out of him you had Taker, HBK, Hart out of them there was Rock, Austin, Angle, HHH, Jericho to a lesser degree, coming out of that you had Cena, Lesnar (for a portion) Edge, Orton. After that, what is there? There's no up and coming massive draw.

The more important is they had midcarders who could support the Main Eventers, and yet again, there's just nothing to draw the casuals in. That's the sad truth.

 

[GKJ]

That was a lot better than I thought they would do. That first hour saved them. WWE logic says Roman =ratings based on those numbers

And they gave him a half an hour.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

The viewership is still an all-time low. Waiting on that final rating.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

1.75 rating. Pretty surprised it didn't drop below.

I also see some saying 1.8 is the lowest rated Raw in history (I read 1.5 and 1.6, so I don't know if they're not including holiday editions of Raw).

If the 1.8 number is accurate, this is the lowest rated show in history.

 

[DenisSamson3]

There's nothing for the casuals to latch onto. They never built anyone else up besides John Cena and to a lesser extent Randy Orton. Bryan was an anomoly that they lucked into.

Look at the Hogan years, coming out of him you had Taker, HBK, Hart out of them there was Rock, Austin, Angle, HHH, Jericho to a lesser degree, coming out of that you had Cena, Lesnar (for a portion) Edge, Orton. After that, what is there? There's no up and coming massive draw.

The more important is they had midcarders who could support the Main Eventers, and yet again, there's just nothing to draw the casuals in. That's the sad truth.

Well, when cena was doing his thuganomics routine he was given a lot more creative control. I used to criticize cena before but realized that he is still a great talker, even with how wwe has changed over the years. Cena has also admitted that he would like to become more edgy on numerous occasions and that it would be good for his character.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Cena is a different character now. He's the top dog and he knows it and he's not afraid to tell others that they have to go through him. Everyone (except AJ, and now, I guess Dean) has failed to prove themselves against him. He's more edgy in his language to others.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Lowest non-holiday show ever. The 1.8 number was for a non-holiday show, too.


1. 12/23/96 - 1.5 (taped - holiday)
2. 12/30/96 - 1.6 (holiday)
3. 9/26/16 - 1.75 (non-holiday)
4. 10/14/96 - 1.8 (non-holiday)
5. 7/4/16 - 1.87 (holiday)
6. 9/12/16 - 1.88 (non-holiday)
... (two shows from 96 and 97 here)
9. 9/19/16 - 1.97 (non-holiday)

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Debate ended at just about 11PM EST so there was no way people were coming back.

Debate started 9PM EST

But not everyone watches wwe on eastern time. Anyone in the pacific time zone with cable has it on 3 hour delay. The same would not apply for the debate

 

[M.C.G. 31]

Raw rating: -9% from last week
MNF rating: -30% from last week

 

[Shoalzie]

I hate ratings talk...never have I watched something because a lot of people are watching it. I watch wrestling because I'm a grown child and I still am entertained by it. It's going to be bad sometimes but you'll get those shows and events that keep you coming back.

Who here is not watching because of ratings? I think you're either going to watch it or not because of your own feelings on the product. It could be highly rated and just be hot garbage. TNA always got **** ratings but I'd watch it regularly because it kept me interested.

 

[KaseMeOutside]

Lowest non-holiday show ever. The 1.8 number was for a non-holiday show, too.


1. 12/23/96 - 1.5 (taped - holiday)
2. 12/30/96 - 1.6 (holiday)
3. 9/26/16 - 1.75 (non-holiday)
4. 10/14/96 - 1.8 (non-holiday)
5. 7/4/16 - 1.87 (holiday)
6. 9/12/16 - 1.88 (non-holiday)
... (two shows from 96 and 97 here)
9. 9/19/16 - 1.97 (non-holiday)

3 of the least watched shows in consecutive weeks. A good business would be looking at every facet of the show and considering big changes. But not them. Status quo.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

I hate ratings talk...never have I watched something because a lot of people are watching it. I watch wrestling because I'm a grown child and I still am entertained by it. It's going to be bad sometimes but you'll get those shows and events that keep you coming back.

Who here is not watching because of ratings? I think you're either going to watch it or not because of your own feelings on the product. It could be highly rated and just be hot garbage. TNA always got **** ratings but I'd watch it regularly because it kept me interested.

That's not the point of talking about the ratings at all. The point is highlighting how they've driven away a huge number of viewers because of their consistently crappy product (it's crappy more than good). Even when they don't have big competition like last night they're still putting up 1.xx ratings.

 

[M.C.G. 31]

You can pinpoint the exact day where things went to **** the past two years:

I have tables like this comparing it up to the 2012 ratings, too.

 

[bruins309]

They are burning out their audience. I have no desire to watch this much wrestling, especially with these storylines. Why do they constantly think "more = better"?

 

[Serac]

Trade Cesaro for Bray
Stick Bray with the club
Get all the jobbing stars together

 

[tp71]

You can pinpoint the exact day where things went to **** the past two years:

I have tables like this comparing it up to the 2012 ratings, too.

It's amazing to me just seeing this steady decline. Just sliding further and further.