Raw draws lowest rating of 2019

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Hour 1 - 2.34 million
Hour 2 - 2.24 million
Hour 3 - 1.90 million

The show lost over 400,000 viewers from the first hour to the third. Viewership is down nearly 30% percent from last year's episode.

It's hard to keep defending the increasingly low ratings WWE has gotten. Something clearly has to change.

[Slyfox696]

Hour 1 - 2.34 million
Hour 2 - 2.24 million
Hour 3 - 1.90 million

The show lost over 400,000 viewers from the first hour to the third. Viewership is down nearly 30% percent from last year's episode.

It's hard to keep defending the increasingly low ratings WWE has gotten. Something clearly has to change.
Every hour of Raw finished in the Top 5 for Monday night ratings (https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/monday-cable-ratings-april-29-2019/). Two programs ahead of them were the NBA Playoffs.

I think it's time people start to realize comparing ratings and viewership now against ten years ago or more is not good. And I believe the 3rd hour of Raw has dropped in ratings on a number of occasions.

[BestSportsEntertainer]

True but how low can it get before the whole thing collapses?

[mrluck_07]

Every hour of Raw finished in the Top 5 for Monday night ratings (https://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/daily-ratings/monday-cable-ratings-april-29-2019/). Two programs ahead of them were the NBA Playoffs.

I think it's time people start to realize comparing ratings and viewership now against ten years ago or more is not good. And I believe the 3rd hour of Raw has dropped in ratings on a number of occasions.

That's becoming increasingly apparent. Former creative writer Tommy Casiello tweeted once that WWE cares more about the demos than the raw numbers (no pun intended). Almost inconceivable when you look at ratings a decade ago and you see 4, 5 or 6's.

[Slyfox696]

True but how low can it get before the whole thing collapses?Quite a while. You cannot compare total numbers. TV networks don't care about those.

TV networks care about demographics, particularly demographics mostly attractive to advertisers. And Raw is a live program (not taped) that appeals to the correct demographics and does comparatively well in the ratings. They are going to be just fine.

That's becoming increasingly apparent. Former creative writer Tommy Casiello tweeted once that WWE cares more about the demos than the raw numbers (no pun intended). Almost inconceivable when you look at ratings a decade ago and you see 4, 5 or 6's.
Not to be THAT person, but Raw was not getting 6's (or even 5's regularly) a decade ago. If they got a rating in the 4s, it was a good night. Source (https://steelcageforums.com/showthread.php/148-Wrestling-amp-UFC-TV-Ratings-PPV-buys-and-Financial-Information-(Version-2018))

That said, your overall point is correct. It's not about total numbers, it is about comparative numbers in demographics.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Yeah. Articles like this are simply click bait for the haters and uninformed. Technology today simply makes the old ratings system much less significant than it once was. Obsolescence seems like an inevitability.

It does, however, provide entertaining comments from people who â??love wrestlingâ? doing nothing but wishing ill will upon it.

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Do you really think a 30% drop in one year is insignificant?

[Sufferin' Succotash]

But people said having a full time champ would make it better.

It's no coincidence that as the roster/product gets more wrestling focused, the ratings go down.

[Slyfox696]

Do you really think a 30% drop in one year is insignificant?No, but the explanations for it can vary wildly. It could be poorer product, or it could be more people doing like I do, where they keep up with Network shows but not regular TV. Maybe those people catch the replays on Hulu (as I do from time to time). Maybe those people have just cut the cord all together and only watch Netflix and Amazon Prime.

It is not insignificant, but the possible explanations extend far beyond just quality of product.

[BaconBits]

The ratings don't erally include the cordcutters streaming through apps like DirectTVNow, Playstation Vue, and Sling TV.

The ratings really aren't indicative of interest, and TV people completely understand that. It's why the WWE got billion dollar TV deals even with ratings on the decline.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

The ratings don't erally include the cordcutters streaming through apps like DirectTVNow, Playstation Vue, and Sling TV.

The ratings really aren't indicative of interest, and TV people completely understand that. It's why the WWE got billion dollar TV deals even with ratings on the decline.

Yeah that last paragraph makes the idiots who use those numbers to say WWE will be gone soon just look laughably stupid. If these numbers were a concern, do you think Fox would invest 1 billion dollars in them? Then again, Iâ??m sure some random internet wrestling â??fanâ? knows more than the top executives at Fox.

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Again WWE lost 30% of their viewership in one year. You can't brush that off like it's nothing. WWE certainly isn't. Ultimately they're fine for now, but what if the ratings continue to fall? How low can they get before something happens?

[Cereal Killer]

Quite a while. You cannot compare total numbers. TV networks don't care about those.

TV networks care about demographics, particularly demographics mostly attractive to advertisers. And Raw is a live program (not taped) that appeals to the correct demographics and does comparatively well in the ratings. They are going to be just fine.

Not to be THAT person, but Raw was not getting 6's (or even 5's regularly) a decade ago. If they got a rating in the 4s, it was a good night. Source (https://steelcageforums.com/showthread.php/148-Wrestling-amp-UFC-TV-Ratings-PPV-buys-and-Financial-Information-(Version-2018))

That said, your overall point is correct. It's not about total numbers, it is about comparative numbers in demographics.

I completely agree. However, after WWE's Q1 figures were released I found it odd that Vince used the excuse of talent injuries to explain the ratings and attendance decline. We know that Lesnar, Rousey, Triple H, HBK, Taker and co have been around the past year and ratings were still declining. And Roman Reigns? They were declining before and after his time off. WWE's talent pool is arguably the best it has ever been. The fact that Vince used this as an excuse has me concerned on this occasion. Especially because their revenue and operating income had declined this time and also because Network subscribers aren't growing at the rate expected. I think there were more subscribers around WM34 than there were for 35 (or it may have been the growth in subscribers that was higher around 34).

I've never really cared for the ratings decline, but the signs aren't looking good. The fact that they haven't found their new John Cena yet hasn't helped either. Nobody's stepped up to take that brass ring yet.

[BestSportsEntertainer]

Yeah that last paragraph makes the idiots who use those numbers to say WWE will be gone soon just look laughably stupid. If these numbers were a concern, do you think Fox would invest 1 billion dollars in them? Then again, I’m sure some random internet wrestling “fan” knows more than the top executives at Fox.

If the low ratings weren't a concern, WWE wouldn't have implemented the Wild Card Rule.

[Fire Marshall Bill]

Just another step towards ending the brand split, again.

[Cereal Killer]

They should never have done the split in the first place. There's only so many main event stars they have now, so keeping what top talent they have on the same damn show would be good.