Support NeoGAF

[Final Boss]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

 

[Sarobi]

Can't say I'm not disappointed with this.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

 

[RPGCrazied]

I no longer watch wrestling. It'll never be like it use to be in the WCW/WWF days. Those golden days are over. I don't blame him for leaving. Is it just me, or does it seem to be a Orton and or Cena fued every week? Gets old.

 

[Pavaloo]

Everyone should take these words to heart:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xOcCYCFnrk

Life SUCKS, AND THEN YOU DIIIIEEEEE

vintage McMahon

The point of the "pipe bomb" wasn't to change anything. It was to get Punk a nice contract with all the perks, and he got that. Punk even said so.

Seriously. He got his huge 434 day reign and his private bus and he stopped trying to "change the company from the inside"

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Seriously. He got his huge 434 day reign and his private bus and he stopped trying to "change the company from the inside"

Isn't that how much punk rockers are anyway? It's all vim and vigor until they get what they want, then they realize shit...this IS a good thing. I'll relax.

 

[blackflag]

I don't really follow wrestling, but CM Punk's interview on Marc Maron's podcast WTF was interesting and the guy has quite a background and love of the sport/art/whatever of wrestling. Hope things work out for him.

Same, that was a really good interview.

 

[jmdajr]

Isn't that how much punk rockers are anyway? It's all vim and vigor until they get what they want, then they realize shit...this IS a good thing. I'll relax.

 

[The Faceless Master]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8lusKyJaUw

 

[Kyoufu]

Seriously. He got his huge 434 day reign and his private bus and he stopped trying to "change the company from the inside"

Without Punk's influence, Ambrose and other youngsters would be rotting in OVW/NXT or whatever right now.

It's ignorant to say that he only did things for his own pockets.

 

[Nemesis121]

Without Punk's influence, Ambrose and other youngsters would be rotting in OVW/NXT or whatever right now.

It's ignorant to say that he only did things for his own pockets.

This.

I think you should expect more body builder wrestlers, if he ain't 6-5 and on steroids Vince does want him..

 

[Dark Ninja]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

Punks segments are usually the highest or second highest rated segments on RAW

 

[Perspicacity]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

Hey they finally approved Alex Riley's account.

 

[Malvingt2]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

 

[Ithil]

Punk didn't draw ratings, didn't draw PPV buys, basically was a loved only buy internet wrestling fans who will watch the WWE no matter anyway... and these same internet smarks just illegally stream every PPV anyway


good riddance to the short order cook

I didn't realise we were still in 2011.

 

[I Wanna Be The Guy]

Perfect response.

 

[CartridgeBlower]

lol

 

[yitdadee08]

For all of those who have been claiming these recent decisions by WWE is a work, I believe they are in denial. I'll even include myself in these ranks.

It's hard to believe with all of the recent bad decisions made by the company that all of this is without any foresight. Constantly keeping Daniel Bryan down and having Batista instantly win the Rumble, they had to have seen the potential backlash incoming. Now with CM Punk leaving, these are some huge hits to the company and their potential viewership.

If this is all a "work," then they have some huge nuts and my props to risk this. But if not and they suffer for it, then they deserve it.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Punks segments are usually the highest or second highest rated segments on RAW

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

 

[Mengetsu]

This promo is GOAT.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2YxQ_b_VHyk

This the answer to everyone asking is this true and why.

 

[Spider from Mars]

People who turn the channel when Layla was on were the biggest losers.

 

[Pavaloo]

Without Punk's influence, Ambrose and other youngsters would be rotting in OVW/NXT or whatever right now.

It's ignorant to say that he only did things for his own pockets.

rollins and ambrose were both signed before the pipe bomb though, i would be doubtful they owe their current careers to Punk because watching their OVW footage, crowd was very hot for their matches. Cesaro likely impressed on his own. So did Bryan. Chris Hero got stuck in NXT because of his own devices.

 

[RyudBoy]

People who turn the channel when Layla was on were the biggest losers.

Preach on, brother.

 

[rvy]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

How in the fuck does Kelly Kelly and Layla lose viewership?
HOW?!

Man, fuck ya'll.

 

[Rafa=FedKilla]

How in the fuck does Kelly Kelly and Layla lose viewership?
HOW?!

They want to see all the goods brah.

 

[Ithil]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

You notice that Punk is growing year over year. That's how it works once you're a top guy, it takes years to actually make you a draw on name value.

 

[KissVibes]

KOFI IS RATINGS POISON.

 

[Kyoufu]

rollins and ambrose were both signed before the pipe bomb though, i would be doubtful they owe their current careers to Punk because watching their OVW footage, crowd was very hot for their matches. Cesaro likely impressed on his own. So did Bryan. Chris Hero got stuck in NXT because of his own devices.

Crowds being hot for someone doesn't mean they'll get a push. I don't think I need to list all the guys that the crowd has loved only for them to be swept under the rug. I mean, you saw one example at Royal Rumble...

Punk even did this on his day off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVKIelxvb8w

There's video evidence on YouTube if you don't believe Punk had any role in these guys being on TV. Of course, there's only so much he can do, but he tried and it wasn't just for himself.

 

[Aiii]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

Unfortunately this doesn't say too much, given it's dependent of who they're in program with and what the company is actually doing with them.

Look at AJ, when she was in a program with Punk and Bryan in 2012, she was gaining viewers and in 2013, when she has to work with the Bella's, Aksana and Cameron instead she's losing viewers.

If we're talking about Punk, of course he's going to gain more viewers working with Taker and Rock compared to working with Bryan and AJ.

It's a nice stat and a decent guideline, but in the end it says very little exactly how well a talent draws and moreover how much a talent COULD draw if they're using them one way or the other.

 

[Arrowgigantic]

Somewhat original work, do not steal

I call it "You’re Going to Try to Convince Me to Save the WWE Universe".

 

[Ithil]

Unfortunately this doesn't say too much, given it's dependent of who they're in program with and what the company is actually doing with them.

Look at AJ, when she was in a program with Punk and Bryan in 2012, she was gaining viewers and in 2013, when she has to work with the Bella's, Aksana and Cameron instead she's losing viewers.

If we're talking about Punk, of course he's going to gain more viewers working with Taker and Rock compared to working with Bryan and AJ.

It's a nice stat and a decent guideline, but in the end it says very little exactly how well a talent draws and moreover how much a talent COULD draw if they're using them one way or the other.

I mean, in the 2012 list, Vickie Guerrero is higher than John Cena. Are we going to claim she's a bigger draw than Cena?

 

[Deleted member 47027]

I mean, in the 2012 list, Vickie Guerrero is higher than John Cena. Are we going to claim she's a bigger draw than Cena?

Bigger ratings bump. Not draw. The numbers don't lie! #bigpoppapump

 

[GaimeGuy]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

Does this research normalize for WHEN the individuals appear??

Case in point: AJ.

In 2012 she was involved in the main event program with Punk, Bryan, and Kane.
In 2013 she's been just another Diva (However, there's a huge gap between her and the rest of the Divas)

Cena always appears at the top of the hour and in the main event.

 

[RBH]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

Wow, never seen this before.

I love how the 2013 Top 10 losers is composed almost entirely of Divas. :lol

 

[kirblar]

Does this research normalize for WHEN the individuals appear??

Case in point: AJ.

In 2012 she was involved in the main event program with Punk, Bryan, and Kane.
In 2013 she's been just another Diva.

Cena always appears at the top of the hour and in the main event.

It doesn't, but you can use logic to suss out the problematic cases - Axel/Vickie/Maddox/Heyman are all obviously drafting off bigger stars, Steph almost never appears without HHH, etc.

Impossible not to see that the audience is indifferent to Orton though.

 

[Pavaloo]

Crowds being hot for someone doesn't mean they'll get a push. I don't think I need to list all the guys that the crowd has loved only for them to be swept under the rug. I mean, you saw one example at Royal Rumble...

Punk even did this on his day off:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVKIelxvb8w

1) If the FCW events all take place at the same venue week in and week out, the building being hot for the match means the people booking those matches are loving it and recommending those superstars. Big surprise that The Shield features 3 superstars who regularly feuded and triple threat'd against each other in FCW before getting called up.

2) Still unsure on the Bryan thing. On Monday it was being wildly reported that RAW was being frantically rewritten. Everyone immediately said "well yeah, they realized they fucked up this Daniel Bryan thing." Today those same reporters are saying "Well RAW appears to actually have been frantically rewritten because CM Punk quit." It was so 100% because of Bryan's reaction before it was 100% because of Punk quitting. Not to mention all the dumb cries of "turning down Bryan's reactions on live RAW."

3) And other superstars like Ziggler, Cesaro, Natalya, Sandow, Regal, etc. regularly go to NXT and work with younger stars. Cena lifts and trains with them. Punk isn't the only guy to do this stuff. I feel like it diminishes the accomplishments of superstars like Ambrose, Rollins, or Reigns.

 

[Perspicacity]

Fortunately there's been real research done on this:

Yes and no. Sometimes the correlation of Ratings Gainerformer is not because of the Performer, but rather the surrounding circumstances that puts the performer in a position to get the ratings.

As Harrington himself indicated this only paints a partial picture. For a complete one we would have to see the numbers normalized against

1. The average ratings trends of the quarter hour for the segment (if someone were gaining 10k at a :15 minute point that would be statistically more significant than gaining 100k at :00)
2. The ratings trends for that week year over year (if The Undertaker is being used in the highest ratings period for the company, that doesn't mean he's causing it alone - and given that he only has a few data points to work with during peak periods it gives him a huge artificial inflation)
3. The rating trends for that particular year (years can be up or down as a measurable trend over a long period of time, and these trends cause greater peaks and valleys)

That kind of work would be long and tedious and not worth it unless WWE was paying large sums of money to you in order to analyze TV ratings. Which really wouldn't be worth it to them as they have access to more data than we do in order to measure popularity, such as website metrics, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc.

I really appreciate the work Harrington does, but in a lot of ways he's just giving limited data to smarks to use to fit their agenda. But he's still much better than Dave Meltzer that useless fuck.

 

[jmdajr]

Look at Big Show in the green

And great leader obviously consistent top 5.

 

[Deleted member 47027]

Yes and no. Sometimes the correlation of Ratings Gainerformer is not because of the Performer, but rather the surrounding circumstances that puts the performer in a position to get the ratings.

As Harrington himself indicated this only paints a partial picture. For a complete one we would have to see the numbers normalized against

1. The average ratings trends of the quarter hour for the segment (if someone were gaining 10k at a :15 minute point that would be statistically more significant than gaining 100k at :00)
2. The ratings trends for that week year over year (if The Undertaker is being used in the highest ratings period for the company, that doesn't mean he's causing it alone - and given that he only has a few data points to work with during peak periods it gives him a huge artificial inflation)
3. The rating trends for that particular year (years can be up or down as a measurable trend over a long period of time, and these trends cause greater peaks and valleys)

That kind of work would be long and tedious and not worth it unless WWE was paying large sums of money to you in order to analyze TV ratings. Which really wouldn't be worth it to them as they have access to more data than we do in order to measure popularity, such as website metrics, ticket sales, merchandise sales, etc.

I really appreciate the work Harrington does, but in a lot of ways he's just giving limited data to smarks to use to fit their agenda. But he's still much better than Dave Meltzer that useless fuck.

I can't wait for the WWE Network, they're gonna have some insanely awesome metrics instead of relying on the old and busted (and nearly worthless) Nielsen ratings.

It's gonna be fascinating.

 

[bone_and_sinew]

Come to MMA, save our dying sport.

 

[rvy]

How Trips isn't the biggest loser of viewership is beyond me.
Does he ever shut up? I swear his promos go for 15 minutes and he says the same thing over and over again while making snarky jokes that only he understands and enjoys.

 

[Penguin]

People are noting that @WWE stopped following @CMPunk, which is kind of funny to notice

 

[OnPoint]

Why does Fandango lose viewers on that chart? It's obviously wrong.

 

[kirblar]

How Trips isn't the biggest loser of viewership is beyond me.
Does he ever shut up? I swear his promos go for 15 minutes and he says the same thing over and over again while making snarky jokes that only he understands and enjoys.

Yeah, but his storylines are always important. That's the problem with the "Jobbermania" undercard that never has ongoing storylines - they've completely lost the art of what Russo started (and Kreski perfected) back in the attitude era going into the high-water mark of '99-'00.

 

[Ithil]

Nielsen rating were only ever a percentage of homes even at its prime. In 2014, that stupid thing is so dated that I can't wait for SOMETHING to come along to replace it.
I guess nothing ever panned out with that talk about Twitter introducing a ratings thing to gauge how many people are talking about a show while its airing.

I'm not even sure how many homes factored into the Nielsen ratings anyway, but there's so many people watching in various ways that it in no way represents the real number of viewers RAW (or any other show) has.

 

[Kyoufu]

People are noting that @WWE stopped following @CMPunk, which is kind of funny to notice

:'(

Definitely not a work then.

 

[Pavaloo]

People are noting that @WWE stopped following @CMPunk, which is kind of funny to notice

meta

Why does Fandango lose viewers on that chart? It's obviously wrong.

agreed

 

[rvy]

Yeah, but his storylines are always important. That's the problem with the "Jobbermania" undercard that never has ongoing storylines - they've completely lost the art of what Russo started (and Kreski perfected) back in the attitude era going into the high-water mark of '99-'00.

Far be it from me to defend Russo in anything that relates to wrestling, but at least most everybody had something going on. Even if a lot of it was shit, it was something.

 

[kirblar]

Nielsen rating were only ever a percentage of homes even at its prime. In 2014, that stupid thing is so dated that I can't wait for SOMETHING to come along to replace it.
I guess nothing ever panned out with that talk about Twitter introducing a ratings thing to gauge how many people are talking about a show while its airing.

I'm not even sure how many homes factored into the Nielsen ratings anyway, but there's so many people watching in various ways that it in no way represents the real number of viewers RAW (or any other show) has.

The problem is that networks are scared to death of the chance that they're overcounting households, rather than undercounting. A "If it's not broke...." situation.

 

[Dark Ninja]

People are noting that @WWE stopped following @CMPunk, which is kind of funny to notice

Damn Joey Styles putting his team to work