Every wrestling website seems to report on ratings, obsess over them even. They seem to be the gauge of objective quality of a show, almost to the point of all the instant feedback for a telecast disappearing if the ratings contradict whatever vibe had come out from it. But what do ratings really tell us? Are they even relevant anymore?
Raw doesn’t have a direct competitor. Their closest competition in market share lobs weak grenades at it at a four-day offset. So basically, the ratings are a measurement of people who watch the program. Without context, it doesn’t tell us anything.
Yes, if ratings get low enough, shows might get cancelled, but as of right now that seems unrealistic. Corporate reactions to ratings might dictate show quality, or at least what the suits put on the air. That’s because ratings dictate ad rates. Without knowing the proportions of change in ratings to the change in ad rates, we don’t know how badly any change of 0.1 in either direction impacts the bottom line. So, we don’t know how much the rumored volatility in booking has to do with ratings changes.
Basically, because WWE programming is evergreen so to speak, safe so to speak, obsessing about ratings means two things: You care about watching a product that other people are also watching or you’re an investor or stockholder in the company.
Let’s break it down. Personally, I think if you care about ratings because you want to be a part of something popular, you’re in the wrong genre of entertainment. As discussed on our last podcast, pro wrestling, even at its height, never appealed to as large a portion of the population as even “American Idol” does now. It’s simply a fact. Being a wrestling fan will never make you one of the cool kids. So, wanting them to do things that will increase ratings at the detriment of your enjoyment of the show, or even worse, training yourself to break what has entertained you for what earns high quarter hours, feels so phony that I’m not sure I would want to associate with you.
Secondly, there are those with the financial stake in the company. If you are a stockholder, then yes, you should probably want them to maximize revenue and all that happy jazz. Let’s face it though; if you’re reading this blog, you’re probably not a shareholder (and if you are, then I’m extremely flattered), and thus you have no stake in commercial variety except for being annoyed at seeing that Twix spot 320 times a night.
Granted, there is a valid concern hidden in there with the ad rate argument. Yes, they may overreact to a 0.3 point drop in ratings and pull the plug on someone entertaining, although I’d say their continued faith in CM Punk right now despite him not moving said ratings all that much over the last two months refutes that a bit. That being said, if they keep putting on a terrible show and chasing everyone else away, who’s the foolish party: WWE for putting on a shit show, or you for continuing to watch even though you find it shitty?
Wrestling is such a weird beast, so hard to analyze that even the people whose jobs entail them to look at sports business get made fools of. So why should we get ourselves wrapped up in that realm, overreacting to things that we may or may not understand fully? Besides, ratings, as Jason said the other night, are so terribly boring. Wrestling is a far more interesting entity than what this overdiscussion on TV numbers would have you believe.
The sooner we look away from analyzing quarter hours, especially in weeks where change isn’t drastic at all, the more rewarding we’ll find discussion on here.
TH writes The Wrestling Blog and broadcasts The Wrestling Podcast. You can find him on Twitter, or at various other spots around the Internet. He also loves Chikara, and quite frankly, thinks you should too.
Edited by Jason Mann.
