The Official WWE / NXT Discussion Thread *May Contain Spoilers*

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Not trying to argue Ampulator but where are you getting that their bleeding that market? I stay pretty up to date with stuff like that and I haven't seen anything that has stated that. Is it your own perception or do you have some sort of source?</div></blockquote><p> That's a fair point. Unfortunately, these numbers are only known to the WWE and any private polling. If I had such data, I would show it. </p><p> </p><p> But I'm not exactly sure I need it. It's been clear for a while they lost the market to the UFC (and MMA in general). They were losing it after the end of the Attitude Era, but it came clear a couple of years ago, when the Ultimate Fighter came on. </p><p> </p><p> The proof is much in their PPV buys and overall audience. PPV Buys down. UFC's PPV's buys? Up. And since UFC can't take all the fans from boxing, they have to take some from wrestling. </p><p> </p><p> It's not just MY perception, though. It's Jim Cornette's perception. It's Paul Heyman's perception. It's been implied this is Shane McMahon's perception. Dana White thinks it's true. I don't think what I'm saying is false. Maybe I don't have it sourced, but I'm not the only one thinks this is true, and I'm certain someone with better polling information than me (which I can't get anyway) will probably confirm it. </p><p> </p><p> Though to be fair, I don't have a source, at least not a direct one. But In this case, I don't think I need one. I again, admit I don't have one, but you just have to look at the way it's been going with PPV buys and TV ratings, to know that WWE has lost a portion of their audience. They didn't lose the kids. Who could have they lost?</p><p> </p><p> And when bleeding their market, I mean specifically 18-29. I don't mean their whole audience. It's the hot-blooded young male fans. A lot of them are gone. They didn't go away overnight. but small portions went away, one portion at time. Is that not obvious? </p><p> </p><p> I don't think WWE even denies they have lost a lot in that market. They certainly didn't lose ALL of it. </p><p> </p><p> In any case, such information only the WWE only has. I doubt anyone else will pay to know how well WWE does, unless they are competing with them, and have the resources to do such a poll.</p>

[SaySo]

<p>Early Plans For WrestleMania 27 PPV</p><p> </p><p>

Credit: F4WOnline.com</p><p> </p><p>

WWE officials are hoping to have the top three matches for Wrestlemania 27 determined by November of this year.</p><p> </p><p>

Sources say that there a number of top WWE Superstars who will be turning heel or babyface on or around Wrestlemania, including one very big name.</p><p> </p><p>

Officials are still tossing around the idea of keeping the Money in the Bank match off Wrestlemania and only having it at the Money in the Bank PPV.</p>

[supershot]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="SaySo" data-cite="SaySo" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Sources say that there a number of top WWE Superstars who will be turning heel or babyface on or around Wrestlemania, including one very big name.<p> </p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> Heel turn for Cena so we can see Cena vs. Taker?</p>

[SaySo]

<p>The streak is going</p><p> </p><p>

down down down down down.</p><p> </p><p>

The U Been Screwed Job = new catch phrase.</p><p> </p><p>

"Taker, Cena Screwed Taker and stole your WrestleMania streak."</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="supershot" data-cite="supershot" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Heel turn for Cena so we can see Cena vs. Taker?</div></blockquote><p> I hope that's going to be it. He's overdue 5 years, if not more, for a turn, anyway.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I hope that's going to be it. He's overdue 5 years, if not more, for a turn, anyway.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> His merchandise sales and buy rates would say otherwise..</p><p> </p><p> But yeah..with all the rumors around it could be a Raw vs SD title unification, Streak on the Line, Heel Cena vs Face Undertaker...which would be good even without the turn.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>In 2004 just two years removed from the biggest year in the WWE, Monday Night RAW's highest rating was a 4.4 and their lowest rating was a 2.7, 3.0 and a 3.2. </p><p> </p><p>

In 2009 their highest rating was a 4.0 and their lowest was a 3.0</p><p> </p><p>

I mention television ratings because for the most part children do not control the remote in the house and for those families with Nielson boxes generally those boxes go on the adult t.v in the home. </p><p> </p><p>

So really in the past five years or six years there has been almost zero fluctuation in television ratings for WWE RAW. No growth but certainly no bleeding. Now is it down from the 5's and 6's they were doing in 2000 and 2001? Of course it is but this happens with everything. There are hot periods and cold periods. the WWE declined in fanbase well before UFC ever started to get popular. Just like music artists, movie franchises, and other forms of entertainment you can't sustain a period of record breaking success forever. At some point you fall either the fans get burnt out or you produce a lesser quality of entertainment. So yes if we're basing it off of the attitude era then sure business is down but I don't think its fair to compare wrestling today to wrestling a decade ago. </p><p> </p><p>

If we go with strictly the last half decade, five years, thats a good chunk of time and its the same amount of time that the UFC got hot in. Their ratings have stayed the same in television, their ticket sales seem to be the same. The only difference is pay per view buys and thats argually nothing to do with anything more than the crippled world economy.</p><p> </p><p>

As far as the UFC dominating them in pay per view buys there is no doubt about that. Some of those fans are boxing fans, and some of those fans are new fans. When the WWE shot up from doing 1.0's in the cable rating's to 6.0's those fans had to come from somewhere right? They came from NEW fans, thats exactly what the UFC is experiencing is new fans. Now have they taken some of the WWE's fans? Sure without a doubt but the UFC is the new WWE attitude. Its rebellious, its in your face, its new, its hot, its in style and most importantly its "real". Bars across the U.S air every UFC pay per view, Applebee's, Chili's, all sorts of restaurant are airing them as well. Not too mention you get together with your friends, you throw a party and you watch the UFC. Its the new Monday Nitro party. </p><p> </p><p>

I can't see a promotion who's television ratings haven't changed in six years, who tickets sales haven't declined in six years, and doesn't seem to be doing any less business now than it was six years ago. I can't agree that a promotion that has had sustained, constant success in those areas is being held together by kids. If there was the exodus of 18-29 that people think there is you would see a massive drop in television ratings. Do you really think there enough kids to fill the arenas? I still see them packed full of the same college aged guys along with the kids and the girls. If the young male audience was gone you would see the WWE take a much bigger hit in the last six to seven years than they have. Have some left? Sure but again that happened a decade ago before Dana White ever dreamed the UFC would be doing the numbers their doing. </p><p> </p><p>

televisoin ratings (the same) tickets sold (stayed the same), pay per view buys (down). </p><p> </p><p>

Honestly the WWE's business from the numbers I've seen is exactly where it was in 2004. The only big difference is pay per views which has some to do with UFC and some to do with the world. Either way the WWE is making a ton of money and I just don't accept that all these young males have bailed on the product and kids are the ones buying 300,000 pay per view buys or ordering 900,000 for Wrestlemania. </p><p> </p><p>

Is business down from a decade ago? Of course but again we can't compare that to now. Those of us that were in high school and college then are married with kids and jobs, those of us that were married with kids and jobs now have kids of our own to put through college, etc. </p><p> </p><p>

Times change, people change, business changes and wreslting isn't exempt from this. We can't compare the single biggest wrestling boom in history to the business of today.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In 2004 just two years removed from the biggest year in the WWE, Monday Night RAW's highest rating was a 4.4 and their lowest rating was a 2.7, 3.0 and a 3.2. <p> </p><p> In 2009 their highest rating was a 4.0 and their lowest was a 3.0</p><p> </p><p> I mention television ratings because for the most part children do not control the remote in the house and for those families with Nielson boxes generally those boxes go on the adult t.v in the home. </p><p> </p><p> So really in the past five years or six years there has been almost zero fluctuation in television ratings for WWE RAW. No growth but certainly no bleeding. Now is it down from the 5's and 6's they were doing in 2000 and 2001? Of course it is but this happens with everything. There are hot periods and cold periods. the WWE declined in fanbase well before UFC ever started to get popular. Just like music artists, movie franchises, and other forms of entertainment you can't sustain a period of record breaking success forever. At some point you fall either the fans get burnt out or you produce a lesser quality of entertainment. So yes if we're basing it off of the attitude era then sure business is down but I don't think its fair to compare wrestling today to wrestling a decade ago. </p><p> </p><p> If we go with strictly the last half decade, five years, thats a good chunk of time and its the same amount of time that the UFC got hot in. Their ratings have stayed the same in television, their ticket sales seem to be the same. The only difference is pay per view buys and thats argually nothing to do with anything more than the crippled world economy.</p><p> </p><p> As far as the UFC dominating them in pay per view buys there is no doubt about that. Some of those fans are boxing fans, and some of those fans are new fans. When the WWE shot up from doing 1.0's in the cable rating's to 6.0's those fans had to come from somewhere right? They came from NEW fans, thats exactly what the UFC is experiencing is new fans. Now have they taken some of the WWE's fans? Sure without a doubt but the UFC is the new WWE attitude. Its rebellious, its in your face, its new, its hot, its in style and most importantly its "real". Bars across the U.S air every UFC pay per view, Applebee's, Chili's, all sorts of restaurant are airing them as well. Not too mention you get together with your friends, you throw a party and you watch the UFC. Its the new Monday Nitro party. </p><p> </p><p> I can't see a promotion who's television ratings haven't changed in six years, who tickets sales haven't declined in six years, and doesn't seem to be doing any less business now than it was six years ago. I can't agree that a promotion that has had sustained, constant success in those areas is being held together by kids. If there was the exodus of 18-29 that people think there is you would see a massive drop in television ratings. Do you really think there enough kids to fill the arenas? I still see them packed full of the same college aged guys along with the kids and the girls. If the young male audience was gone you would see the WWE take a much bigger hit in the last six to seven years than they have. Have some left? Sure but again that happened a decade ago before Dana White ever dreamed the UFC would be doing the numbers their doing. </p><p> </p><p> televisoin ratings (the same) tickets sold (stayed the same), pay per view buys (down). </p><p> </p><p> Honestly the WWE's business from the numbers I've seen is exactly where it was in 2004. The only big difference is pay per views which has some to do with UFC and some to do with the world. Either way the WWE is making a ton of money and I just don't accept that all these young males have bailed on the product and kids are the ones buying 300,000 pay per view buys or ordering 900,000 for Wrestlemania. </p><p> </p><p> Is business down from a decade ago? Of course but again we can't compare that to now. Those of us that were in high school and college then are married with kids and jobs, those of us that were married with kids and jobs now have kids of our own to put through college, etc. </p><p> </p><p> Times change, people change, business changes and wreslting isn't exempt from this. We can't compare the single biggest wrestling boom in history to the business of today.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> This post won't make a difference... I posted something pretty similar a few times, in the stretch of years, and we will see people say all the WWE has is a "Kiddie" audience, especially since they are "PG" now. </p><p> </p><p> To me, the other side is more immature then the PG side, and the 18 to 29 year olds are Kids. So it's more like always been a "Kiddie" show to me, especially 10 years ago, lol.</p>

[Stennick]

<p>Perception is everything but the numbers say they are just as popular all the way across the board as they were six years ago. We have been fortunate to see two giant wrestling booms each one changed the way we look at wrestling forever. Its hard to wrap around the fact that if you're doing 5.0's you're losing fans. Truthfully there are more wrestling fans watching television now than there was in 1995 and 1996 combined. At the end of 1996 both shows were combining for about a 5.0 on the bigger rating nights. Now days their combining for 4.0's on bigger nights.</p><p> </p><p>

Anyway I hate this argument because the numbers don't support a drop in anything but pay per view buys and thats the economy, plus UFC, PLUS a raise in prices, plus Justin T.V, plus the internet being more prevelant and affluent than it was in 1997. So many factors go into lesser ppv buys besides them bleeding fans and aside from low ppv numbers their not "low" on any other number for the last half decade plus.</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Stennick" data-cite="Stennick" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>In 2004 just two years removed from the biggest year in the WWE, Monday Night RAW's highest rating was a 4.4 and their lowest rating was a 2.7, 3.0 and a 3.2. <p> </p><p> In 2009 their highest rating was a 4.0 and their lowest was a 3.0</p><p> </p><p> I mention television ratings because for the most part children do not control the remote in the house and for those families with Nielson boxes generally those boxes go on the adult t.v in the home. </p><p> </p><p> So really in the past five years or six years there has been almost zero fluctuation in television ratings for WWE RAW. No growth but certainly no bleeding. Now is it down from the 5's and 6's they were doing in 2000 and 2001? Of course it is but this happens with everything. There are hot periods and cold periods. the WWE declined in fanbase well before UFC ever started to get popular. Just like music artists, movie franchises, and other forms of entertainment you can't sustain a period of record breaking success forever. At some point you fall either the fans get burnt out or you produce a lesser quality of entertainment. So yes if we're basing it off of the attitude era then sure business is down but I don't think its fair to compare wrestling today to wrestling a decade ago. </p><p> </p><p> If we go with strictly the last half decade, five years, thats a good chunk of time and its the same amount of time that the UFC got hot in. Their ratings have stayed the same in television, their ticket sales seem to be the same. The only difference is pay per view buys and thats argually nothing to do with anything more than the crippled world economy.</p><p> </p><p> As far as the UFC dominating them in pay per view buys there is no doubt about that. Some of those fans are boxing fans, and some of those fans are new fans. When the WWE shot up from doing 1.0's in the cable rating's to 6.0's those fans had to come from somewhere right? They came from NEW fans, thats exactly what the UFC is experiencing is new fans. Now have they taken some of the WWE's fans? Sure without a doubt but the UFC is the new WWE attitude. Its rebellious, its in your face, its new, its hot, its in style and most importantly its "real". Bars across the U.S air every UFC pay per view, Applebee's, Chili's, all sorts of restaurant are airing them as well. Not too mention you get together with your friends, you throw a party and you watch the UFC. Its the new Monday Nitro party. </p><p> </p><p> I can't see a promotion who's television ratings haven't changed in six years, who tickets sales haven't declined in six years, and doesn't seem to be doing any less business now than it was six years ago. I can't agree that a promotion that has had sustained, constant success in those areas is being held together by kids. If there was the exodus of 18-29 that people think there is you would see a massive drop in television ratings. Do you really think there enough kids to fill the arenas? I still see them packed full of the same college aged guys along with the kids and the girls. If the young male audience was gone you would see the WWE take a much bigger hit in the last six to seven years than they have. Have some left? Sure but again that happened a decade ago before Dana White ever dreamed the UFC would be doing the numbers their doing. </p><p> </p><p> televisoin ratings (the same) tickets sold (stayed the same), pay per view buys (down). </p><p> </p><p> Honestly the WWE's business from the numbers I've seen is exactly where it was in 2004. The only big difference is pay per views which has some to do with UFC and some to do with the world. Either way the WWE is making a ton of money and I just don't accept that all these young males have bailed on the product and kids are the ones buying 300,000 pay per view buys or ordering 900,000 for Wrestlemania. </p><p> </p><p> Is business down from a decade ago? Of course but again we can't compare that to now. Those of us that were in high school and college then are married with kids and jobs, those of us that were married with kids and jobs now have kids of our own to put through college, etc. </p><p> </p><p> Times change, people change, business changes and wreslting isn't exempt from this. We can't compare the single biggest wrestling boom in history to the business of today.</p></div></blockquote><p> I don't disagree with this post, but having a 2.0 rating now and 2.0 rating back then is different. And they are bleeding the young male demographic, but making it up in others. They have younger kids, families, and more womean watching. This negates any lose they have in young male demographic for TV. Also, we DID see a good drop in the ratings since the Attittude Era, but it wasn't a single drop. It was a consistent dribble since that era. WWE, like I said, has managed to slowly switch from one demographic to another, but it doesn't mean they staunched the bleeding in the 18-29 market. Remember the issue isn't OVERALL ratings, though they have dropped. It's the 18-29 I'm talking about. </p><p> </p><p> But for the PPV? I just don't see a mother of families buying PPV's on a constant basis for their kid to watch it.</p><p> </p><p> Second, I never said the WHOLE demographic bailed. That's just improbable. I AM saying a lot of them bailed. </p><p> </p><p> Did all of them go to the UFC? No. Did some of them switch? Yes. With our without the UFC, WWE's young male demographics numbers likely have dropped, even as WWE has tried to make up for it other areas.</p><p> </p><p> No one is arguing WWE has managed to make their TV ratings consistent. But if you look at who buys the PPV's and who attends the shows, it's clearly less young adult males. They are the most willing to shelve out money for PPV's.</p><p> </p><p> No one argues about WWE's RAW TV ratings. It's the young male demographic. That's the issue.</p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="ampulator" data-cite="ampulator" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I don't disagree with this post, but having a 2.0 rating now and 2.0 rating back then is different. And they are bleeding the young male demographic, but making it up in others. They have younger kids, families, and more womean watching. This negates any lose they have in young male demographic for TV. Also, we DID see a good drop in the ratings since the Attittude Era, but it wasn't a single drop. It was a consistent dribble since that era. WWE, like I said, has managed to slowly switch from one demographic to another, but it doesn't mean they staunched the bleeding in the 18-29 market. Remember the issue isn't OVERALL ratings, though they have dropped. It's the 18-29 I'm talking about. <p> </p><p> But for the PPV? I just don't see a mother of families buying PPV's on a constant basis for their kid to watch it.</p><p> </p><p> Second, I never said the WHOLE demographic bailed. That's just improbable. I AM saying a lot of them bailed. </p><p> </p><p> Did all of them go to the UFC? No. Did some of them switch? Yes. With our without the UFC, WWE's young male demographics numbers likely have dropped, even as WWE has tried to make up for it other areas.</p><p> </p><p> No one is arguing WWE has managed to make their TV ratings consistent. But if you look at who buys the PPV's and who attends the shows, it's clearly less young adult males. They are the most willing to shelve out money for PPV's.</p><p> </p><p> No one argues about WWE's RAW TV ratings. It's the young male demographic. That's the issue.</p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> You have no basis, nothing at all that I've read that supports you claim here. The only thing I can think of is your thinking "Oh, they went PG for the kiddies" and figure that done it. However, this happened rather recently, and the ratings were effected alot longer before that happened. </p><p> </p><p> You said "bleeding". When someone says that, it sounds like you mean they are losing them in droves. </p><p> </p><p> A 2.0 back then, and a 2.0 rating now is alot different. The rating numbers are based on a population percent. There are more people now, so a 2.0 now is more people then a 2.0 10 years ago. A 4.0 now is alot more then it was then as well.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<p>The more people argument does not hold as it is all about market share which is the reason they use ratings, WWE's market share has declined. Now the fact that due to diversification average market shares have gone down across the board does count if that is the case.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>

The average ratings have gone down the last couple of years. Their fluctuation has staid the same but the average is down. Now if there was separate data available for their 18-29 male demo we could make some conclusions. While I know there is separate data for the 18-39 group rating's wise I have never seen that collected and averaged out over time.</p><p> </p><p>

I do agree that the impact of UFC on the wrestling business is vastly over estimated by wrestling fans.</p>

[eayragt]

But it's not all about market share. That's the quoted number as that's what Nielsen boxes measure- what proportion of those with a box are watching. Turning that to an actual volume is not an exact science, but that does not mean the volume is not important. Both share and volume have their uses.

[Hyde Hill]

I know that eaygrat but dj was talking about the fact that WWE's total number of viewers have not gone down. That does not matter as it is market share that rates popularity etc. The total number of potential viewers has gone up etc but the E has not been able to attract the same percentage of viewers from them as before. Thus they have declined in popularity.

[sabataged]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know that eaygrat but dj was talking about the fact that WWE's total number of viewers have not gone down. That does not matter as it is market share that rates popularity etc. The total number of potential viewers has gone up etc but the E has not been able to attract the same percentage of viewers from them as before. Thus they have declined in popularity.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> </p><p> Your Math is backwards i think. If they are doing a 4 then, and a 4 now. They are actually gaining more viewers because a 4 is the share based on the number of tv sets now and the number of tv sets then. If their are more tv sets now then the current 4 is weighted out higher. Think of it as percents, that is basically how they figure the share. If there used to be 110.9 million tv sets in the United States 5 years ago and now there are 115.9 million in 2010. A 4.0 share or 4% of that audience would be higher now. </p><p> </p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings" rel="external nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings</a></p>

[djthefunkchris]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="sabataged" data-cite="sabataged" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Your Math is backwards i think. If they are doing a 4 then, and a 4 now. They are actually gaining more viewers because a 4 is the share based on the number of tv sets now and the number of tv sets then. If their are more tv sets now then the current 4 is weighted out higher. Think of it as percents, that is basically how they figure the ratings. If there used to be 110.9 million tv sets in the United States 5 years ago and now there are 115.9 million in 2010. A 4.0 share or 4% of that audience would be higher now. <p> </p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings" rel="external nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nielsen_ratings</a></p></div></blockquote><p> </p><p> As has TNA's, for example.</p><p> </p><p> edit: Just to add to this. The overall percentage has NOT increased, but the viewers have.</p>

[lazorbeak]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>I know that eaygrat but dj was talking about the fact that WWE's total number of viewers have not gone down. That does not matter as it is market share that rates popularity etc. The total number of potential viewers has gone up etc but the E has not been able to attract the same percentage of viewers from them as before. Thus they have declined in popularity.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> What DJ is talking about is the complete opposite of a decline.</p><p> </p><p> Kudos to Stennick and DJ for being the voice of reason here.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<p>Yes total number of viewers is up</p><p> </p><p>

Market share is stable or slight decline.</p><p> </p><p>

Ratings cover market share and sponsors and television execs look for market share.</p><p> </p><p>

I am not arguing ampulator's point and I agree with Stennick but just pointing out that just because the total number of viewers has increased or stayed the same does not mean that WWE has not lost popularity.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

<p>Let's just make this real clear.</p><p> </p><p> First off all I am talking about the E's market share of total television viewers. Not their market share of wrestling fans.</p><p> </p><p> Second your relative share of the market determines your popularity not the total number of consumption.</p><p> </p><p> A quick example.</p><p> </p><p> Say you are in the candy selling business.</p><p> </p><p> At one date 100 people are able to buy your candy and 3 people do.</p><p> </p><p> Now at a later date 1000 people are able to buy your candy and still just 3 people do.</p><p> </p><p> This is a sharp decline in popularity and what I thought DJ was talking about in his 2.0 example then he is wrong.</p><p> </p><p> Now if at that first date with just one hundred people you only had say ten competitors and they where all selling 12-8 candy bars then your relative market share is weak.</p><p> </p><p> Now if at that latter date with one thousand people you had a thousand competitors and they where selling 1-2 candy pars then your relative market share is strong.</p><p> </p><p> If this is what DJ was talking about then he is right. As I already said with this:</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Now the fact that due to diversification average market shares have gone down across the board does count if that is the case.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I am also not saying that volume does not matter when it comes to base numbers profit or that market share determines everything when it comes to base numbers profit just saying that a decline in relative market share is a decline in popularity and does effect </p><p> base number profits.</p>

[Hyde Hill]

What eaygrat was talking about was the (in) accuracy of Neilsen numbers. While I agree with that. It does not matter so much as they are the industry standard when it comes to determining a show's relative drawing power -> popularity.

[SaySo]

<p>Dave Meltzer wrote:</p><p> </p><p>

One interesting thing to look at is that as much as people talk about the millions and millions of viewers who no longer watch wrestling, the reality is that the WWE audience, despite the ratings being in the low to mid-3s, isn't down significantly from the base audience during the boom period. The difference is that because more people have TVs and the audience for USA Network is so much bigger now than it was during the late ’90s/early ’00s, the ratings for the show would be down significantly even if all else remained equal. Ten years ago, on July 10, 2000, Raw did a 6.03 rating. You look at a 6.03 ten years ago and a 3.38 today and you think, wow, WWE is sinking fast. But in reality, that 6.03 is the percentage of people watching the show based on the number of homes that have the channel, the latter of which is much, much larger today. In terms of average number of actual viewers, the July 10, 2000 Raw did 5 million viewers and the July 19, 2010 Raw did 4.8 million viewers, statistically pretty much a dead heat. Now, granted, that's not to say there is as much interest in wrestling today as there was ten years ago because that's not the case at all. You had an extra three million viewers watching on Monday nights, they were just watching the other show (astounding when you consider the state of WCW in mid-2000, and really embarrassing for TNA today). Plus, a lot of those WCW viewers and viewers who didn't bother watching the shows normally were willing to switch to Raw during major segments in the 10:00 hour, often involving Rock and Austin, leading to some of them hitting eight and nine million viewers, numbers Raw today isn't approaching anytime soon. So yes, Raw was much, much hotter, but a boom period is about adding casual fans to whatever your base audience is, and at the end of the day, the base audience today is not significantly different for Raw than it was during the boom.</p>

[PeterHilton]

<p>Over the last FIVE years, I don't think the E has lost anything except their PPV numbers are down across the board (and who knows how much of that is popularity and how much is economy)</p><p> </p><p>

If you want to make the "losing young males" argument, it's much easier to see comparing numbers from 10 years ago to now. But as Stennick said, 10 years is a long stretch of time to make that comparison.</p><p> </p><p>

If the underlying question is: Is the WWE losing The Young Male Audience? </p><p> </p><p>

My response would be: Maybe, but do they care?</p><p> </p><p>

Their profits are solid. Their ratings are steady. They've figured out a way to make money even when their live gates and PPVs are down. The biggest effect is arguably the loss of the "cool" factor, because it's just hard to be considered part of cutting edge mainstream when you're marketing yourself as family friendly entertainment.</p><p> </p><p>

So yeah..I actually do think they've lost a chunk of the male 18-39 audience. And I definitely feel like that demographic is probably where they lost most of their PPV buys. But I'm not sure it's that important. Because..in the long run...the family values market makes them more money, more reliably, and is far more predictable</p>

[PeterHilton]

<p>To what Hyde said: </p><p> </p><p>

Market share is down.</p><p> </p><p>

Popularity is down.</p><p> </p><p>

I think both are true and it would be hard to argue otherwise.</p><p> </p><p>

But that's also why they changed their business model. Honestly, i feel like if you were to ask the people in charge there and they gave you a straight answer, they'd tell you that they went after a softer, safer, less volatile market because doing the wrestling boom & bust is just too damned volatile.</p><p> </p><p>

Vince McMahon came damn close to losing everything and he's spent every day since then making sure it could never happen again.</p>

[ampulator]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="PeterHilton" data-cite="PeterHilton" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>Over the last FIVE years, I don't think the E has lost anything except their PPV numbers are down across the board (and who knows how much of that is popularity and how much is economy)<p> </p><p> If you want to make the "losing young males" argument, it's much easier to see comparing numbers from 10 years ago to now. But as Stennick said, 10 years is a long stretch of time to make that comparison.</p><p> </p><p> If the underlying question is: Is the WWE losing The Young Male Audience? </p><p> </p><p> My response would be: Maybe, but do they care?</p><p> </p><p> Their profits are solid. Their ratings are steady. They've figured out a way to make money even when their live gates and PPVs are down. The biggest effect is arguably the loss of the "cool" factor, because it's just hard to be considered part of cutting edge mainstream when you're marketing yourself as family friendly entertainment.</p><p> </p><p> So yeah..I actually do think they've lost a chunk of the male 18-39 audience. And I definitely feel like that demographic is probably where they lost most of their PPV buys. But I'm not sure it's that important. Because..in the long run...the family values market makes them more money, more reliably, and is far more predictable</p></div></blockquote><p> That's my point though. I don't think anyone ARGUES those points, if at all. But I'm not exactly sure WWE can rely on being more family-oriented. Of course, it worked for them in the past, but it feelis like a losing strategy for an industry that seems less family-oriented. Not necessarily family-unfriendly (there were NWA promotions that were family-friendly), but they seem to mistake being family-oriented to being family-friendly.</p><p> </p><p> </p><blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="djthefunkchris" data-cite="djthefunkchris" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>You have no basis, nothing at all that I've read that supports you claim here. The only thing I can think of is your thinking "Oh, they went PG for the kiddies" and figure that done it. However, this happened rather recently, and the ratings were effected alot longer before that happened. <p> </p><p> You said "bleeding". When someone says that, it sounds like you mean they are losing them in droves. </p><p> </p><p> A 2.0 back then, and a 2.0 rating now is alot different. The rating numbers are based on a population percent. There are more people now, so a 2.0 now is more people then a 2.0 10 years ago. A 4.0 now is alot more then it was then as well.</p></div></blockquote><p> The reason I have no basis is because they are no public numbers available. Ask any industry person, though, and they won't dispute it. And issue isn't GOING PG. They are a lot of good PG programming. The problem is WWE hs been losing this demographic. </p><p> </p><p> Look in a couple of years, we'll see who's right. I can sit back let this happen, and not say anything, or I can say something beforehand. </p><p> </p><p> The thing is, I WANT TO BE PROVEN wrong. But nothing you have shown has proven me wrong. All it was proven is their OVERALL numbers have been down since 5 years ago. Yeah, but that's really doesn't say anything. The thing is, they lost their original core audience, and they have new one. The difference is, it was a slow change, not a big one. </p><p> </p><p> Has anyone ever argued their overall numbers have been down? No. At least, not by much. The argument isn't about PG either. It's about losing the young male demographics for me. If they continue to make a less young-male friendly product, it will hurt them. Not now, not in a year. but in a couple of years, it will likely do so.</p>

[eayragt]

<blockquote data-ipsquote="" class="ipsQuote" data-ipsquote-username="Hyde Hill" data-cite="Hyde Hill" data-ipsquote-contentapp="forums" data-ipsquote-contenttype="forums" data-ipsquote-contentid="25169" data-ipsquote-contentclass="forums_Topic"><div>What eaygrat was talking about was the (in) accuracy of Neilsen numbers. While I agree with that. It does not matter so much as they are the industry standard when it comes to determining a show's relative drawing power -> popularity.</div></blockquote><p> </p><p> I'm not to worried about whether Nielsen figures are inaccurate or not, I was just pointing out that volume matters to. WWE's share may have slipped by say half (for simplicity), but if their volume of watchers has slipped by 1/10th, are they 10% or 50% worse off? The simple answer is somewhere in the middle.</p><p> </p><p> Someone like Stennick would have to confirm, as these are just my thoughts, but which demographics have increased in volume in the last ten years? I would guess females and the elderly. <em>If</em> I'm right (I may be completely off base), then the WWE isn't going to care about decreasing shares nearly as much (therefore in my example would likely by ~10% worse off) as if the increased volume came in the 18-29 yo males (where they'd be ~50% worse off).</p><p> </p><p> In the end it comes down to revenue, and WWE has shown a decreased share. However, if there aren't alternatives to invest revenue into that appeal to the same demographic that has increased to take WWE's shares then they are no worse off, assuming investment maintains overall at a status quo level (which it does not).</p><p> </p><p> Now, we know there are some alternatives that have increased (e.g. MMA), while others have shown even my significant decreases (e.g. boxing). We then also know that WWE have tried to reposition themselves to investors, confusing things even more.</p><p> </p><p> So in my opinion, what does it mean? Same as, really. WWE have lost a few viewers, and changed demographics (in reality they've lost a lot of viewers and gained a lot of viewers). As long as revenue's coming in, all power to them. And revenue is coming in, even through a period of recession. I don't think I'm in a position to knock what they're doing.</p>