>Raw had a 15% ratings drop between hour 2 and hour 3. There

>>2640269
It's funny how the WWE is going to go out of business and based Kidani will buy the company at a ridiculously low price

>>2640269
BUT BUT MUH SOCIAL MEDIA SCORES

It's over E-Drones. Even Le Meltz agrees the show sucks.

>>2640269
>who would constantly make excuses for them

When was that supposed to be?

File: vince.jpg (90KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 500x500px

>>2640269
Reminder that these people that are "turning off" are the most important demo, the ones that buy WWE shit. These are the "average family" that have Nielsen boxes installed in their homes.

2 0 1 9 - hold on to your butts.

Yeah but again, let's be real. It was a taped show that basically championed midcarders and didn't progress any plotlines. Of course people would tune out.

>Reigns gets the highest hour
>ratings fall off a cliff in manlet hour
really activates my almonds

>>2640300

That is every RAW these days though.

Not a single decent story going atm due to Stowman's injury.

Only the tag team division has a decent direction.

The big title is off TV for 3 months.

Why are we supposed to watch this again?

Yeah we already know that deanetty is a ratings cancer anti draw

File: 1492019173797.jpg (107KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 640x640px

>Maybe WWE should really bring back Big Ratings Russo. He even said on his podcast today that he would write for Roman Reigns for FREE because of how entertaining it would be because of the Roman vs Smarks situation.

RUSSO WRITING A ROMAN HEEL TURN

WE NEED THIS

Appealing to casuals is only way to grow audience and I don't know why WWE doesn't do it. They already have hardcores money ye they continue to serve IWC (most of time). Only thing I care about is Reigns/Strowman and Juicy Jinder challenging for title.

Only way smarks voices in arenas will drown out is if casual fanbase is increased. Instead audience keeps getting smaller therefore vocal minority voices louder.

>>2640316
>Only way smarks voices in arenas will drown out is if casual fanbase is increased. Instead audience keeps getting smaller therefore vocal minority voices louder.
Fucking this. How many people say "lol Ramen doesn't get booed in just smark towns like Philly, he gets booed EVERYWHERE!"
That's because everywhere has become a smark town since smarks are pretty much the only ones still watching the product.

File: C887jy7UMAA0SGZ.jpg (388KB, 1536x2048px) Image search: [Google]

388KB, 1536x2048px

>>2640273
praise be!!!

>>2640308
That's fair. But the injury just happened so it's going to take another week or so for them to find the right footing.

I do think it's a wake up call for them to start paying attention to the lower card angles so they can start building up people for the long term because right now people couldn't care less what's going on with the other belts. Even that tag scene is only being propped up with the novelty of the hardys.

Thing is, they actually could've had a really hot product coming out of Mania by turning Roman heel off beating the Undertaker, but they just immediately went back to Beloved By All Babyface The Big Dog, and, whoops, people are tuning out in droves. Weird how that works.

>>2640316
They do try and appeal to casual's, certainly a lot more than every other wrestling company, the problem is that they're horrible at it and even if they weren't casuals don't care about wrestling.

>>2640269
It's a fucking kids show. You think kids can stay up as late as they want? Parents make them go to bed at 10.

Of course it's boring to Meltzer. He's watching a kiddie show so he has to make excuses so he doesn't have to come to terms with spending his life analyzing a kid's show.

Nobody wants to watch RAW for 3 goddamn hours.

could WWE realistically go out of business?

>>2640357
It's such a weird thing, going back to the idea of an 80's style babyface. It worked with Cena, sure, but Cena actually has enough charisma to carry it.

The idea of a whiter than white babyface is seriously outdated, and it boggles the mind that the Attitude Era did nothing to teach them that. Neither The Rock or Austin were the typical babyface. Sure The Rock was originally, but then they turned him into a self obessed prick. And Austin was only interested in being a good guy if it benefitted himself.

>>2640363
If it was a kid show it would air during the morning

File: 1492032053431.gif (399KB, 200x150px) Image search: [Google]

399KB, 200x150px

>>2640378
Really? So Nickelodeon, the Disney Channel and Cartoon network all go off the air at noon?

>>2640350

There still was only one story going on though.

Miz vs. Dean happend on SD like...was it even half a year ago?

Finn and Bray hasn't even really started yet.

Seth and Joe kinda goes on, without anyone really knowing why.

The women's division is a mess. Bayley was pinned twice by Alexa...does she even get a rematch? What is the bullshit with Nia? Why is she supporting the woman who cost her a title match and wtf are they doing with Sasha?

The tag team division is set okay enough with Cesaro and Sheamus as the new top heel now that the Revival is out. They will likely cheat to beat the Hardys.

Lesnar and the Universal Title is pretty much AWOL.

Sure, Braun getting injured isn't their direct fault, but they didn't build up anything else since Payback.

>>2640375
No. They're literally making good profit right now.

>>2640375

That depends on the TV contract they can get after the current one runs out in 2019.

>>2640374
This. The amount of weekly WWE programming is already too much to bear. And god forbid if you're also a fan of other promotions that might air PPV's during that same week.

File: 1397431053789.jpg (6KB, 223x226px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 223x226px

WWE has two choices:

>consolidate and go back to late-90s style of having a lot of talent on a 2-hour weekly show with monthly PPVs
>get better talent

I say go with the former. It'll be refreshing after how many years now of watered down, tons-of-hours-per-week programming. Part of the reason why late 90s WWF was so great is because

>it felt special and cozy because it was only two hours per week (too much of anything is not good - there's too much wrestling on every week)
>all creative efforts were focused on that one show, so there was very little filler
>all of the talent was on that one show, so you got to know the talent better, and they could interact with everyone on the roster, and every episode was the A episode and must-watch all the way through
>2 hours was the perfect length

Just for a couple years. Then bring back Smackdown when people start begging for more again. But as it stands, WWE is like WWF in 1995/96, there's just not enough prime talent to carry 5 hours a week of programming. The difference is in 1995/96 RAW was only 1 hour... not 3.

>>2640375
No. They can easily cut useless overhead like gut the roster/merge back to one show, eliminate the performance center, use less production expenses, and cut half their staff down.

>>2640391
Even then the worst case scenario is they downsize.

>>2640402
>back to one show
but they can't. that's the reason smackdown went live is because USA wanted more live programming from them. but maybe that changes next contract, who knows

>>2640377
Their main problem is they try to book all their babyfaces one of two ways.
1) The Cena way, what you mentioned.
2) The Daniel Bryan way - by having them lose all the time with the idea it'll get the fans behind them and get the fans hungry for that eventual big win.

The problem is this ignores that those two guys are so fucking ridiculously charismatic and talented (albeit in very different ways), they pretty much would've gotten over with anything and in many cases, they were over in spite of their booking, not because of it, especially Bryan. And the fact that they give themselves credit for Daniel Bryan getting over at all is ridiculous.

Seeing them try to book Roman like Cena and Sami Zayn or Bayley like Daniel Bryan is just painful.

>>2640399
You're a fucking MORON.

1) There was plenty of filler during the late 90s and it was still awful
2) WWE owns a network. They need more content, not less to make money. Learn fucking advertising
3) Any "better" talent they get either in front, or behind the scenes gets run off by the carnies who run the company with their carny ways.

>No, before we give you a push, JBL has to whip you with a towel in a shower, and then we all have to do lines of coke off Vince's dick, while two gay guys in the corner jerk off to it. This is your initiation into the inner circle. Then after that, you have regularly get embarrassed live on TV with ribs, and jump through any hoop like a circus monkey.
>Wait, where you going? You're going to use your talents elsewhere?

>>2640402
I don't want them to cut down to one show. Separate rosters is working.

In all this shit about Raw, has anybody mentioned that SD's rating went UP?
Raw just needs to cut to two hours and stop sucking.

>>2640375
Like a couple said, absolute worst case scenario is they lose TV, in which case they'd downsize and go Network only.

Fact is, they actually made a pretty smart move by starting the Network three years ago. If (more like when) the bottom falls out of TV, they have a parachute, and they'll have had the parachute for a very long time so it'll have had time to grow and become profitable on its own.

>>2640407

It still could be the beginning of the end. If the contract is pretty short because of the dwindling rates and then they don't get a new one after that, it would be over.

It isn't super likely, but they need to turn things around if they don't want to shrink further in the next 5 or so years.

At the moment the TV contract that rises each year independent from the ratings covers a lot of problems the company has when you take a closer look.

>>2640416
>>2640426
It's a downsize scenario, you idiots. Not a reply to fix the current show.

Normies aren't into wrestling anymore

Just the hardcore marks are the constant 2.3 minimum million who tune in each week because they have no lives

wrestling is dead

>>2640428
You need a platform to advertise your network. Word of mouth works for netflix, but no one says at the water cooler "hey man you don't have the network yet??"

>>2640399
>there's just not enough prime talent to carry 5 hours a week of programming.
That's wrong though. They have good talent. It's their creative that's shit. Hack sitcom reject writers do not make good pro-wrestling.

>>2640428
Without TV they have no real way to get new subs. That would only be a slow but sure death, Network or not...

My grandpa who is a wrestling fan only tunes in for Roman Reigns and Braun Strowman and then switches to the playoffs or something.

>>2640375
Not realistically in the next 5-10 years unless Vince wants to try burning money with another XFL venture

>>2640428
>>2640436

They are not going to lose TV. Their next deal is just going to be shit and possibly on a new network. It will hurt their stock scam, but not the actual company itself.

>>2640444

Considering that TV is still the biggest contributor to their revenue and pretty much keeps the bottom- line positive, a smaller contract would mean they have to massively cut costs.

>>2640436
>>2640439
Yeah but we're pretty much already in uncharted territory regarding where media is and where it's going.

Who knows what the platforms people consume in 5 years will be? Maybe they'll be fucking beaming "WATCH CYBER ROMAN REIGNS FIGHT BRAUN STROWBORG FOR ONLY 9.99" into our heads from space.

>>2640444
33% of their current revenue is the tv deals. They can't afford a big hit there or move to a channel that isn't in basic cable packages.

>>2640444
I know, I just mean absolute worst case scenario. For all the product's faults, it's still live sporting of a kind, and that's gonna keep it on TV for the forseeable future.

If UFC gets a shit deal next year, they're gonna start sweating buckets though.

>>2640337
So they should stop pandering to the only audeinec they have left and instead to casuals that left them years ago and are never coming back?
Wrestling's time in the limelight is over while UFC exists. That it manages to tell more engaging feuds by pure chance than a show where everything is scripted and written by a dedicated team is embarassing.

>>2640374

No one wants to watch anything for 3 hours. People bitch about how any movie over 2 hours is too long.

3 hours was a mistake

>>2640418
Those are literally the only two top tier

>>2640972
>So they should stop pandering to the only audeinec they have left and instead to casuals that left them years ago and are never coming back?
Yes. The hardcore smarks aren't going to leave if you stop pandering to them because they're obsessed with wrestling like Garfield is to fucking lasagna.

>Wrestling's time in the limelight is over while UFC exists.

Sure, if they keep trying to BE UFC. If they focused on characters and storytelling, they're viewership would go up. Would it be the same as the Attitude Era? Maybe, maybe not. But it would at least be better than it is right now.

>>2640361
>casuals don't care about wrestling.
The Attitude Era proved this false, lad.

>>2641204
>>2641210
The 90s are dead and they ain't coming back lads. Accept it.

>>2640384
All of those channels start playing more teen and adult focused programs around the time Raw is on.

>>2641215
Not saying they should literally replicate the Attitude Era. Just go back to the storytelling formula and put a modern spin on it.

>>2641217
Yep, because kids go to bed, thus bringing us right back to the original point of why RAW, the kiddie show, drops in ratings the later it gets. Not a fucking mystery except to grown men who still don't understand like Meltzer.

>I'm bored because I'm not mentally stimulated by a childrens show.

Big shocker Dave. Maybe do something better with your time, you fraud. Hand out stars to dances on ABC or try critique the reality TV storylines on VH1 and Bravo. Giving phony speculative background on worked shoots is right up his alley. He'll have a field day with Vanderplump Rules and the Real Nig Nogs of Atlanta.

Maybe they should stop with the 3-hour shit?

They were already having issues with a 2-hour RAW; adding another hour wasn't going to improve things.

>>2641889
Isn't that down to USA Network? But yeah, 3 hours is too much even if it was a show I liked.

>>2641896
It was USA's decision, yes.

>>2641889
Yes, Brilliant idea!!

USA throws away all that ad revenue to air Nig Nogs "coaching" football, and with less money to offer WWE to air their program,, WWE's TV contract shrinks.

You're a fucking genius. Flush millions down the toilet because of a less than a point drop in ratings. Get a fucking clue.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (183KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

183KB, 1280x720px

>>2640269
>There is no way to explain that

yes there is

>>2640269
If Russo was rehired we would have more stupid shit like the "house of horrors" match

>>2641905
Ad revenue is more important than quality of show.

Yes, I agree.

>>2641906
Mizetty, Deanetty and Wyattetty are the absolute worst.

>>2641909
They're not giving up millions for quality of show meathead. It's not even up for discussion dunce. I don't even want to sit through more than 3 hours of Wrestlemania but that shit ain't happening.