Pretty obvious that they waited too long to cater to the hardcore fans. So they stopped watching and aren't coming back.

The ratings staying the same as usual isn't necessarily a bad sign.

It's possible that WWE were worried about the ratings dropping due to this edgier storyline rather than expecting the ratings to increase short term. The ratings staying the same won't give them any reasons to drop the edgyness, which is a good thing :)

I still don't understand the fascination with ratings and don't think I ever will. Ya, it was fun to look at during the Monday night wars to see who was "winning;" but now I could care less. I'm loving what's going on now and am thoroughly entertained. What more could I ask for?

Also, are ratings really all that relevant? Do they factor in how many people watch online or DVR? How about you use the amount of comments you receive on your blog posts as an indication of how well things are going. Unless you think it's something you suddenly did that is driving more people to this site and inspiring them to post with more frequency...

when do the by rates usually come in?

RAw this past Monday was very uneven.

The opening and closing promos were entertaining and promising, but the tourney matches in between lackluster and did not seem like anything special.

Instead of using the tourney as an exiting vehicle to elevate the arguable mid carders otherwise competing, it was essentially business business as usual and nothing special. I turned the TV off after the second match and likley not many really wanted to be glued to RAW this week more than me.

WWE and RAW specifically needs to up its quality start to finish to get better ratings. A 2 show that is only 20% interesting cannot be expected to set the world on fire.

I dnt think CM Punk can be blamed for the mediocre raw last monday.WWE championship tournament.What else can you expect.

It's the commercials RAW is unwatchable because of all the breaks

Ratings mean less than they ever have. I haven't missed a Raw in years, and I haven't watched one live in the same amount of time. If my DVR malfunctions for some reason, you can watch Raw on youtube pretty quickly after the show is over. Stop harping on the ratings.

RESPONSE FROM KE: The point your missing is that ratings may not matter much to you, but they mean a whole lot to WWE and the USA Network.

It's possible that a lot of the fans interested in these type of storylines are not only no longer regularly watching WWE programming, but are actually far enough removed from it now that they aren't even checking in with it occasionally through the Internet or channel surfing, and have friends who are similarly disinterested. I mean, if you shovel simplistic kid-oriented fare down everyone's throats for several years -- people who are interested in more adult storylines tend to drift away further and further as time passes. Doing one interesting attitude era type storyline doesn't necessarily get those viewers back because they have no way of knowing it's going on. The WWE has done a lot of long-term damage to it's brand and it's potential audience during the last few years, and this is probably the point where they're becoming most aware of it.

Of course, it's very possible that they'll simply say "See, people don't like these sort of storylines" and go back to Cena making poop jokes. They'd be misunderstanding the situation, though, in my opinion, and paving the way for further decline in the future if they go in that direction.

As good as that angle has been, the rest of the product is suffering. One good angle isn't often enough to get people to tune in to a 2+ hour program. I'd be interested in seeing the quarter hour break downs.

How many people watched when Stone Cold Steve Austin had his Top?

I'm chalking it up to Andy Pollin's "big-screen TV effect."

What constitutes success? RAW easily outdraws the Daily Show, the Colbert Report, the prestige series like MAD Men, the news shows on Fox News and MSNCS and CNN, all the reality shows. There are a lot more channels now than there were in the Attitude Era, and a lot more aggressive programming by those channels. I'm guessing McMahon yells and screams at the "low" numbers, but he and the "real" board love the fact that they outdraw everything on cable outside of certain sports. They may not get certain advertisers, but those they get pay a pretty penny. WWE brass is happy, the cable network is happy.

RESPONSE FROM KE: I agree that it's all relative because it's a different TV landscape now. But no matter what we consider to be a "good" rating for Raw, the fact that the ratings have not moved AT ALL despite a compelling and much talked about angle is disappointing.

It would be extremely disappointing for WWE to bail on this. I watch Raw ever week, even when I think it is getting a little stale. I don't know what attracts those casual viewers. This has been the best three weeks in Raw in the last 5 or 6 years. Myabe it is because Punk isn't yet established as a superstar in the general public's eye. Hopefully word of mouth will keep spreading and help gain interest. Also, how does DVR effect ratings?

Its hard to explain what this storyline is doing for the WWE, fan morale is way up. I think it will have more of an affect on buyrates and attendance. Also ratings haven't dropped without it being all about Cena.

Ratings or not, it's got my interest again. Over recent times (last couple of years), more and more of the same old thing has led to a decrease in interest for me. The Triple H factor will be interesting to follow with regards to WM next year and how it will play out with the Streak.

While I get the importance of ratings (high ratings= more ad revenue=yay, money!) I do think WWE dropped the ball with this week's show, minus the last 20 minutes. Coming out of the highly praised MitB PPV, I expected WWE to be firing on all cylinders, but got a relatively boring show. Sure, the angle is enthralling, but the show wasn't. It was all matches that led up to nobody being crowned WWE champion. Sure, there were a few good ones, but nothing mind blowing. Had I not known there would be some sort of big angle at the end, I would have turned off about halfway in.

Very interesting....I think this will be a slow turn for them. It will not be an overnight success despite a compeling story. Many viewers are somewhat bored with the product, and it is going to take some time and numerous interesting angles.

I think the split rosters is also a bit of a drag as we see the same matches /angles again and again. Have one WWE Universe and two shows. You would in theory have twice the opportunity to fresh TV

I don't understand ratings, but what I can see is that WWE is finally giving Punk his due, and it's a fascinating angle to watch with Punk, Cena, HHH and McMahon.
They can't really blame this angle for not increasing ratings when they've been putting out crappy shows on a continuous basis. I guess quite a few people just gave up and have moved on. I know had it not been for this angle, and if Punk had left the company, I probably wouldn't have bothered to tune in.
I hope they pursue the story- and hopefully their faith will increase veiwership. There's nothing in this angle that suggests any sort of failure. I've already read more than a dozen tweets of how viewers who had given up on wrestling were pulled back by this angle.

"Ya, it was fun to look at during the Monday night wars to see who was "winning;" but now I could care less."

so when WWE's show is cancelled due to low ratings, it still won't matter to you?....okay, keep living in denial, that sure worked out for the Roman Empire.

It's funny...TNA would kill for this "problem."

Bought my first non-Wrestlemania/Royal Rumble PPV ever. Great matches and great storylines will do that. Keep it up WWE and I might have to buy Summer Slam!

The ratings are actually decent for summer. If this was happening in the Fall, you'd be seeing at least a .5 higher. People have better things to do than watch tv in July and August.

RESPONSE FROM KE: Actually, the Raw ratings usually take a hit when NFL season starts in the fall.

All right...as you know, I have the utmost respect for your writing, Mr. Eck, and your acumen. But when I disagree, I have to say it.
Two shows does not equal a "trend". Not even close. A trend, to be completely accurate, and for the term to be accurately used, is LONG-TERM. If you want to treat this as if it's scientific, then let me point out that you have no control for comparsion, you have no context that you're providing of long term trends found in past data for comparison, and once again---two numbers as a "trend" might get you a job at Oral Roberts University, but it sure will get you laughed out of MIT.
I know last time you did this, you said you wanted to be fair and appear unbiased. I don't see anyone complaining in the first place, dude. Almost 100% of the commenters on your blog like this storyline and are willing to anxiously await what will happen next. Several of the commenters, including myself, have pointed out that this sort of dynamic overhaul that WWE is performing, (if it keeps going), is not a wham-bam-thank you ma'am situation. This needs to be a block to build on, and it will take a long time to see if WWE can catch up and relate itself to the times and to pop culture in a way that will bring back fans that have left in the past few years, and will attract new viewers in a socially relevant way.
It's almost like you WANT this to fail. Journalism is a powerful tool---and when you put out articles like these, you are creating an atmosphere of authority about your statements. Why don't you use it the other way, and point out what your readers by and large are---that common sense wise, you aren't going to fix YEARS of a slow bleed in one f***ing month.
It really seems that you're trying to poo-poo the efficacy of this storyline. I know that iPhones and 3,000 television channels and the internet have given everyone this Attention Deficit, RIGHT NOW ridiculous way of looking at things and of having expectations, but all the technology in the world will never change the fact that real quality is achieved through long-term planning, riding intermediate ups and downs out to reach a goal, and taking a long view of things in general.
You are a better writer than this. You're far too good to start calling two weeks worth of ratings "trends", and to not objectively support the reason and logic of not judging what WWE is doing until the dynamic changes they are starting to introduce have a chance to build.
Again, you have one of the most successful and well-regarded wrestling blogs on the web. Your taking legitimacy out of what's going on instead of more reasoned analysis is hurtful to the positivity that this could bring about in wrestling. If you had something to back it up, fine...but you don't.
Calling this a "trend", and saying that it's all a failure before it's even out of the gate is inexplicable to me. It's bad thinking, and it's, (I'm very sorry), bad journalism. Here, let me give you an example.
It rained yesterday. It rained today...EVERYBODY RUN FOR THE F***ING HILLS---WE'RE GOING TO DROWN!
That's not all! An hour ago the sun started to drop from the sky...Now it's dark! THE SUN HAS BURNED OUT--WE'RE ALL GOING TO FREEZE TO DEATH! NOOOOOooo...
Does that make sense to you? I don't give a flying f**k how USA or WWE might interpret two weeks worth of ratings. If they decide to nix the change--then they are foolish, unscientific and doomed to failure. Somehow, I think that they might be taking more of a longer view. TNA are the morons who think every week counts---which is why every week it's a different show. How is that working out, from your professional perspective?
You're a hell of a writer, and everybody slips up I guess. Leave it up to all of us to tell you when you're wrong, and you please be open enough to realize it. It's OUR job to be reactionary and foolish--we aren't the ones writing the articles.

Also agree with Billdozer....

There is a huge void of stars at the top. People are hurt. People like Jericho don't seem like they're coming back. WWE is starting from square one in many cases building up talent again. It might take a while even WITH Punk's angle.

Kev, I'd say the same thing to the WWE and the USA network. Ratings don't mean what they used to, and I think they know that. I have a feeling you care about the ratings more than they do.

RESPONSE FROM KE: I can guarantee you that's not true. BTW, have you ever noticed those "Did you know?" segments on WWE TV that always tout how Smackdown is the highest-rated show on SyFy?

It's summer...Homes using tvs are always down..Many families are on vacation or doing other things..

For anyone who doesnt understand why ratings are important. THEY ARE WHAT DETERMINES IF A SHOW IS STAYING ON TV. Superstars, nxt ect got pulled becauae of poor ratings. Wwe are pulling the worst ratings in a long time. I think this was the first year the lead to mania didnt pull at least a 4. Snookie ( whether u hardcore fans agree or not) is what put mania over a million buys.

The worst thing WWE can do is get worried and change this path. This storyline has the chance to get back to Attitude Era Awareness...

It seems like they really are working on a multi-month long term storyline and I applaud that.

Stay The Course, Vince (er, sorry, Triple H!)

I can honestly say that this has been the most appealing story they have done in a long time. I would have called the "Invasion" angle the best one before, but they botched that one severely. So this is with out a doubt the most compelling story since the Ric Flair retirement angle.

I've been keeping tabs on wrestling online for a while. So what did I do when I heard about this amazing promo? I went straight to YouTube. When other promos happened, I went straight to YouTube. Know why?

Because there is no way on God's green earth I am actually going to sit and watch RAW, because it is a horrible TV show.

Bad wrestling. Hokey plotlines. Awful comedy. And you know what? Anyone who came back to WWE because of this Punk plotline didn't turn on RAW: they checked out the clips on YouTube, they ordered the PPV, and then waited until the next day to see what would happen, because there was no way on God's green earth they were going to invest any time in RAW at all, because why bother.

And look! They were right. The hottest angle in years, the one that pulls in more interest than anything in the last decade, starts with Vince proclaiming that all the awesome stuff that just happened doesn't matter at all. No mentions of Punk, just straight into a tournament. What? WHAT? Seriously? And it ends with "I love you, pop"?

That's why there's YouTube. So I can hit the few good or at least tolerable parts of their crappy TV show and avoid the terribleness that I have come to expect from WWE programming.

So they should really be talking to Google, not USA.

kev is right the storyline should at least get raw above average rating, the reason they are getting below or average rating is because cm punk is not a top dog, cena mere presence gets ratings up and scsa and rock always spike the tv rating

Variations on this same storyline have been seen on many occasions in wrestling history -- e.g., the "Champ" leaves with the belt and doesn't come back, defends the belt elsewhere, rerturns but refuses to defend against the top contender, is absent for an extended period, with weekly editorial commentary from the company, relinquishes or is stripped of the belt rather than defend it under the company's terms.

A lot of these epiosdes were not worked storylines, but legitimate issues. For example, Jerry Lawler didn't return to Vern Gagne's AWA promotion to defend the title he won in SuperClash 3 against Kerry Von Erich. He claimed in the "Spectacular Legacy of the AWA" video that he hadn't been paid and therefore kept the belt.

Don Muraco left Stampede for a short period with that title belt in the late 80s until he finally came back and did a quick job for Davey Boy Smith.

Madusa left the WWE and threw the belt in the garbage at WCW. Ric Flair stayed in the company but constantly refused to defend against Lex Luger in the NWA in the late 80s, to build heat. Flair came back to the WWE posing with an NWA title belt for a short time in 1991, after he left the NWA on less than good terms.

Stan Hanson ran over the AWA title belt with a truck which he had won from Rick Martel, before returning the belt to the company to go to Japan.

Wasn't Buddy Rogers physically unable to defend his title for weeks before he came back to lose it to Bruno Sammartino in 47 seconds? Again, not a work, but a champion out of the company while holding the main belt.

Compared to the tepid and generally predictable booking that we've seen in the last few years in Vince's WWE, this is an interesting storyline, but it really isn't anything which is particularly creative, unique or original.

Yeah, I already addressed this as well as I can, but here's a link...

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2011/07/19/cable-ratings-pawn-stars-american-pickers-top-night-eureka-rizzoli-alphas-teen-wolf-much-more/98439/

This will take anyone interested right to the Nielsen daily final ratings, which are a pretty staid system. For cable RAW was third---However it was almost dead even with "American Pickers", which both lagged a bit behind "Pawn Stars". There's a lot to extrapolate insofar as "Pickers" and "Pawn Stars" deal with similar themes---and are both reality shows. I think whatever may be concluded there has little to do with Punk and more to do with general television and societal trends. One point is that RAW was not far off from the highest ratings ANY cable show is getting right now in that timeslot for that demographic.
Also, there are plenty of sites that will give a breakdown of RAW throughout the last decade. Numbers have slipped steadily, and the ratings for any of the "Punk" shows is not significantly far off from the average for the past few YEARS. Again--it is OBVIOUS and indisputable that WWE has been losing television audiences for a great number of years now---so again, is it reasonable to say that Punk's moment--ONE INCIDENT---is enough to instantly offset an actual, provable trend that is years old?
Seriously Mr. Eck, the perception you're offering is wrong---this is not journalism. If you wanted to write an article about the significance of WWE making a bid to raise ALREADY sagging ratings by taking a new direction, which we will have to wait and see if they follow through on--that would be journalism.
However, to suggest that the final analysis after two shows is that "Punk hasn't raised the ratings" is ridiculous and irresponsible. The ratings issue is bigger than one angle. Rather, it would seem more beneficial to discuss the potential efficacy of WWE taking a new direction to try to improve ratings and what the eventual outcome might be.
You are wrong, and so far in the wrong that there really isn't any defense. This is not some personal attack, and as I've said, I respect you and I respect your blog. This is not a difference of opinion between you and many of the commenters. This is simply that you have irresponsibly and overtly interpreted something in a way that logic and reason and evidence would not see interpreted in that way. I don't get it. You're always much, much better than this.

RESPONSE FROM KE: Why is this so hard to understand? No one is saying that the Punk angle is going to take ratings for a 3.1 to a 4.1 in two weeks, but is it really so unreasonable to think that viewership should have increased even slightly? When Raw started doing the guest hosts a while back, there was an immediate spike in ratings. Eventually, it ran its course, but there is no denying there was a cause and effect. WWE did something new and viewers tuned in. It's not that complex.

After years of nonsensical storylines, fans are going to need more time to come back. WWE needs to stay the course. As the hardcore fans praise the product, the casual viewer (like me) who used to watch consistently but now just checks in from time to time find themselves with a reason to check it out again. Then we talk with others who we used to talk wrestling with, and it spreads. It just spreads slowly.

This angle is built for the long haul, so WWE needs to give it time. WWE has many things they need to do to fix their problems before the ratings change for the better. Let's see in a year. I am not going anywhere until I see what they do with Punk.

Ratings do include DVR viewers, BTW.

I would argue that content like the CM Punk storyline isn't great in the sudden ratings-spike way that (for instance) the Undertaker's comeback is. But storylines like this one can build ratings at a more foundational level. If I'm WWE, I would rather have a solid 3.0 that I can count on week-to-week than a soft and occasional 4.0.

Keep in mind that the ultimate value of ratings is the network's ability to sell advertising. Consistency is king.

What Mike posted is true, ratings determines if a show stays on. People really can't compare Raw ratings to Impact ratings because it depends on the network. I think that USA is the #1 cable channel, while Spike is somewhere near #25. Impact can get away with getting ratings in the 1.1 - 1.3 range because those are high ratings for Spike. Whereas for Raw, a 2.9 is disappointing. Also, this sort of proves Bischoff's point about 10%. The IWC over-hyped the Punk angle, but it seems that the casual fans didn't think it is anything special.

In the last two weeks, I've told five people to watch RAW or at least "Youtube" Punk's promos. Before that, there was no motivation to do so because there story-lines were embarrassing to mention to a casual fan that I want to, err, still have respect for me at the end of the day.

This CM Punk angle has done that. Friends of mine may watch RAW again as a result. Word-of-mouth's the best form of advertising and it takes time to build that up. WWE and USA may not like it RIGHT NOW, but my time and energy are valuable commodities. Sell me, dudes.

Let's talk MITB rates and then we'll talk about a statistic that may actually matter (in the long run). The idea behind this blog is solid, but it's too short-term even if the network and company brass wants to micromanage here.

What really matters is the PPV ratings... which were?

Anyway, note that the WWE stock has been going down precipitously since early 2010. With a lot of the WWE greats now being former WWE greats, one story line with CM Punk wasn't going to single-handedly save the company. The company has issues. When they're relying on wet behind the ears Nexux members in a PPV and guys like Alex Riley - who can't rassle his way out of a Cody Rhodes paper bag - they got problems.

Agree completely with this comment:

"As good as that angle has been, the rest of the product is suffering. One good angle isn't often enough to get people to tune in to a 2+ hour program. I'd be interested in seeing the quarter hour break downs."

Now that WWE seemingly has turned a corner, it's time to shore up the rest of the ship.

I have a good friend who really inspired me to start watching wrestling. He only watches it on YouTube the day after. It is not "event television" for him and his view was that while the CM Punk storyline was interesting it would be largely forgotten and ushered away in the near future.

Last night's Raw makes me think he is right. I think the CM Punk event was bigger than just CM Punk. It was really about the WWE product and what it could be versus what it is. Last night seemed like a fairly big step in the opposite direction from where things were going. Sure, I liked seeing more of a focus on Kofi and Swagger but this really gave the WWE such a great reason to really do something special that they seemed to cower from it. I think it's more likely that they don't understand why it was special and they wouldn't be able to continue that excitement even if they wanted to.

So, for one friend who has been following wrestling a lot longer than me he didn't start watching Raw or anything because he didn't have any hope it would fundamentally change. I imagine he's not alone in being cynical.

I'm having fun, though, and it's become something I look forward to watching.

I do think Doug is onto something, though. Last night stayed consistent with previous weeks without being all about Cena. I hope that empowers them to realize that they can build up other wrestlers and take some risks on different angles and personalities and that they don't need to rely so heavily on one person to carry the brand. I think now would be a great time to really push some of these guys to the forefront.

Maybe I'm naive but I know my job requires me to do all I can so that if I get hit by a bus that they will be able to manage without me. It seems that the WWE should do the same things and really start being more proactive in investing in some of their wrestlers so that if Cena gets hit by a bus they aren't left with a bunch of guys no one has had the chance to grow attached to.

Evidently enough, DumbSmark is really dumb.

RESPONSE FROM KE: Why is this so hard to understand? No one is saying that the Punk angle is going to take ratings for a 3.1 to a 4.1 in two weeks, but is it really so unreasonable to think that viewership should have increased even slightly? When Raw started doing the guest hosts a while back, there was an immediate spike in ratings. Eventually, it ran its course, but there is no denying there was a cause and effect. WWE did something new and viewers tuned in. It's not that complex.

I don´t think that comparison sustains. When WWE started the guest host thing people who normally don´t watch wrestling may have tuned in because they wanted to see the celebrity. But who outside of the wrestling world knows who CM Punk is? This storyline is catering to the hardcore fans but as somebody else already pointed out most of them don´t watch RAW on TV. They go to YouTube and watch only the part they are interested in. At least for so long as the overall quality of RAW will go up.
The first and the last segment of RAW were fine but the tournament felt pretty rushed and was not very interesting.

@kEVIN

Like you said about the "do u know" wwe segments where it has been referred a million times that Smackdown has been the no.1 show in thier history n crap.If a boring as hell show like smackdown is no.1 rated then SyfY sure must be one s**tty network.

Well like some people have already said, its going to take a while. You can't just expect ratings to shoot within 1/2nights; wwe needs to be consistent with what they bring otherwise they will be losing real wrestling fans from the past. They need to change many areas within the company; cm punk is just story line is just one very good angle.

Now they need more changes; i.e. the divas division. try and bring wwe smackdown live and make it longer, use all the superstars they have and not just write them off; especially they need to look back in the attitude era and see what made them reach their peak.

Don't want to get ahead of anything here...but what were the ratings like at the start of the attitude era? I'm guessing it takes more than week for them to jump!

Americans care too much about ratings, fact is 48 million people watched the show, don't shake a stick at that

RESPONSE FROM KE: That's 4.8 million, actually.

I keep hearing "Attitude Era" this and "Attitude Era" that. No one seems to remember how uneven those shows could be.

Beaver Cleaver, anyone?

I've also heard that journalism should be used more properly in a blog - this one in particular. But blogs are not about journalism necessarily - they're about opinions.

And finally, what made Vince Russo more effective in WWE/F than in WCW or TNA? He was edited in WWE. Lookin' at you, DumbSmark, among others.

Thanks for the space to hear and be heard, Kev!

I must have missed your fascination with the ratings when HHH, Edge, Orton, etc were the main players on Raw?!?

This is the best story line the WWE has had for years.

The ratings seem to stay the same as its usually the same people who watch wrestling!

RESPONSE FROM KE: Yes, you must have missed it. Whenever there was news value (in my opinion) in the ratings, I have written about it.

What the WWE needs to do is stop with the RAW and Smackdown thing. Its not going to get ratings one way or the other for the 'lesser' show and limits the matches you can have on both shows. I think they need to stop with the Cena and Orton being the two main guys. I'm not saying do away with them, but who was really surprised when Orton went to Smackdown that he became champion right away.

Where are the years when there was room for a bunch of superstars? When Hogan, Savage, Warrior, etc were all there. Stop with the Cena era. Orton era. etc. Because if one of those guys is hurt, or quits. The WWE is forced into a scramble to find the next guy.

As for the PPV. *sigh* They're same old same old. You can't have the same two people fight for 3-4 PPVs. Why do people want to see the same match?
Theres no time to build things up anymore. They seem to rush up to a 'feud' and then drag it on for months with the same old gimics week in and week out.

TNA isn't pushing the WWE like WCW did. When theres more than one game in town, you're forced to out do each other for fan support. When that happens, the fans win in the end.

I won't start on TNA because thats another ship thats quickly sinking. Didn't learn a thing from WCW. nuff said.

They need to be more hardcore, with bloody matches ...nobody wants to see silly kid matches....long live MMA

It's hilarious how many people are trying to pretend ratings are not important, for WWE and the network they are the most important thing! People watching the programme is what makes them money!

The point everyone is missing is that whilst RAW isn't suffering in the ratings due to this angle, they aren't benefiting either which clearly Vince McMahon would have been hoping for. Yes, we do not know what the long term trend will be yet but a handful of episodes is still important. The fact that TV networks take interest in the ratings for every single minute of their shows proves this.

To put it in context, despite all the effort of TNA to increase their ratings they remain more or less constant. Yet TNA is still attacked for failing to achieve what they want. It is the exact same for WWE - their increased efforts to increase ratings have so far failed. The actual number isn't the problem Kev is identifying, it is the lack of movement.

RESPONSE FROM KE: Exactly. You expressed that more clearly than I have, obviously.

It wouldn't hurt to have something else interesting them besides living off of a guy who isn't on the show anymore. No Kharma, no Punk, no Jericho and more HGH. Forget that. I’m done with them for quite a while. For me it's going to take a lot to get me interested again.

I found out about Punk's comments when 1370 was still sports (still pissed over that situation). Then like I do when something is worth watching I go to Youtube and check it out. I was hardly watching at all until Punk said what he said. If they gave a time for his segments I would have tuned in then and not sat through the rest of that boring crap they serve up every week. I read your blogs and other sites so I don't have to sit through the torture of watching the usual boring stuff they do. I read because may be just maybe it’s something worth watching on.

At heart I am a wrestling fan not an entertainment fan. That is why I loved the Punk stuff. The entertainment fans don't care about a "shoot". They want their 5 knuckle shuffle and sloppy stfu's. Masahiro Chono would be rolling in his grave if he was dead at the site of that disgrace.

Don't get me wrong there are a few and I mean a few guys I like but it’s not enough for me to sit through any of their programming. Best thing they have going is WWE 24/7. That way you can see their extensive library of good wrestling. I understand what you’re saying about the ratings. Some people obviously don't get it.

I believe so many have grown bored with them that the WWE doesn't care about old fans, because they can never win them back (me) on a full time basis. The WWE wants their current young fans and new ones that may find their product interesting. When Punk said he is speaking for the voiceless he was speaking for people like friends of mine and I that don’t like today’s product. I understand things change but in my opinion it has changed for the worse.

What were the ratings like when Dwayne came back?

DumbSmark makes some good points, but my God, too long winded and please break up those paragraphs!

Kev, let's forget about the ratings and talk about something that I'd love to read your opinion on. That being Cena vs. Punk getting Meltzer's first WWE five-star rating in 14 years and the USA's first since '06. Living in South Africa, I haven't been able to catch the independents' five-star matches, but I've seen all the WWE ones. I knew I was witnessing something special during the match and actually said to my (patient) girlfriend that this was pure five-star awesomeness.

I just thought it would be fantastic if you blogged about this fact and maybe other WWE five-star matches.

Keep up the rad blog, sir!

Coming up next on Ratings Post! Will Sting equal ratings?!! Wait and see! Can't wait to talk about those ratings!

RESPONSE FROM KE: Nothing in TNA equals ratings

The only time ill watch RAW again is when The Rock comes back. The current roster is a joke.

I think the problem is that the WWE has relied too heavily on one or two 'name' wrestlers and has failed to elevate new ones. Recently, they have seen the departure of Edge, Batista, Jericho and Shawn Michaels. To a lesser extent HHH and Undertaker have gone as well. The Rock and Stone Cold have pretty much ridden off into the sunset. Jeff Hardy, Rob Van Dam and Kurt Angle have gone to TNA. The only remaining big names left are Cena and Orton. Yeah, Mysterio is there, but I never have considered him a superstar in the ranks of a Rock or Stone Cold or even HHH. Maybe that's my opinion. I, for one, grew tired of the Cena character years ago, yet, he is still shoved down my and other fan's throats while no other mid carders have been elevated to his status in the company. I've grown to really like Sheamus over the past year as well as CM Punk and The MIz.

It really seems to me that when Stone Cold was feuding with Undertaker and Kane in 1998, WWF was doing a much better job keeping the mid card exciting and it wasn't a stretch that any of those guys could elevate to the World title at any moment (hence, the need to keep the IC and US belts relevant). Wrestlers at that time who were mid card were The Rock, HHH, Shamrock, Mankind, Edge, Christian, etc. It just seems to me that the mid card has been neglected for a while now, and no one is ready to be elevated logically if Cena or Orton were to go down with an injury. I really think the WWE put all it's eggs in one basket so to speak, and are seeing the result in the years-long ratings slide. Honestly, the only reason I watch now is because my son loves it so much and it is something he and I can share together, not because I feel like I can't miss it each Monday.

Really, when was the last time the World Title ha changed hands on RAW? When was the last time you felt like you just couldn't miss RAW?

Also, can we please get a new belt? The current WWE championship is so ugly and has outlived its quasi-usefulness.

The way WWE has been booking is a little bit like when politicians "cater to their base." Pundits always say it's more important to impress independents because the die hard supporters will be there with you no matter what. I don't know if wrestling works the same way, but if there's some hard bottom line (a few million people?) that will watch wrestling no matter what- like me- then what's the point of doing what they want?

The guest host gimmick was a way to bring in people who didn't otherwise care about wrestling, but it probably cost them some money. I agree with those who said that it will probably take some time for a bump to occur from a change in booking direction. I also agree with Kevin that ratings still matter, and it would be nice if there was a short-term spike. But the fact that they're not spending any extra money and getting free publicity (in GQ, on Bill Simmons' podcast, on ESPN) is a positive by itself.

Short version: no way to know how it plays out in the long run. Short run has been somewhat disappointingly neutral.

I think that a short-term spike in the ratings isn't very realistic for this storyline. Yes, there has been some tremendous buzz for Punk and for his work these last few weeks. However, Punk just doesn't have the mainstream name recognition that may entice non-viewers or old viewers to tune in.

What is more realistic is for them to continue in this direction of realistic storytelling catering to hardcore fans while not alienating casual fans. The product, while still PG, has been showcasing that unpredictable edginess of the Attitude era. This is what has been missing for the last few years.

Hopefully, they can string together a couple months worth of compelling storytelling like the Punk angle the "Vince is fired" angle. I agree with the above post in that there seems to be a shift in tone for the entire company.

There is some definite momentum here. I think over time, the ratings will reflect that.

It is evident that the Punk angle isn't designed for television exactly. This looks like an experiment in social media, which gives credence to what John Cena said before MITB that they were going to go where they have never been before.

KEvin,

Whatever is the story behind WWE ratings, the posts on your blog are up it seems plus I bet also the page hits.

You owe Punk some money......

It takes time. Austin's first run as 'the man' didn't move ratings for a while.

The NWO didn't move ratings for a little while either.

Things. Take. Time.

Too dumb to quit, I guess, but I never do when I see a problem. Again, the article states that the CM Punk angle has failed to raise ratings. This is based on two weeks worth of ratings---(and there was a slight increase from the first week to the second anyway as you said yourself). What is hard to understand is how two numbers equal a "trend". Simply it does not, and if I wrote that two numbers make a trend at my job, I would quickly lose a market for my writing. What exactly was the magic number you were looking for to compare this to as a failure anyway? We didn't get that either. Perhaps that would have been helpful.
I do not know the specific numbers for the spike after the RAW guest hosts appeared, nor do I remember when this was, as I am one of the people that stopped watching WWE for a long time, because frankly, they sucked. Persistent ratings slippage shows that I was not alone. Perhaps you could have thrown that into the article, so at least there is a basis for comparison. I do know that anyone can look up the objective general ratings numbers, and find that around 3.1 has been an average for RAW for many years now. This is indicative of previous slippage, and that DOES make it complex. WWE has dug a hole--it is entirely reasonable to posit that Jesus coming back from the dead on Monday Night would not significantly raise ratings at this point. This is no reason to put the blame on Jesus's shoulders. (hey, that happened before, didn't it?)
Again, an article which provides the correct context that WWE ratings have been falling for some time and that there has not been an immediate spike in ratings following the risk of the Punk storyline is one thing. Maybe that's what you meant---Yet that is not what you have written. You have written that CM Punk failed to raise ratings in general, and reference two weeks as a trend with no previous context. This is misleading and inaccurate.
It also glosses over the entire potentiality of this being the first step in a long-term plan of overhaul to WWE creative direction. As soon as that is recognized, there is no reason to talk about failure in two weeks worth of television ratings, because you're already positing the fact that long-term means just that. This would also be a way to frame an article that doesn't come across as reactionary. Again--the way it stands, it could have been written about ANY angle for the last few years that ratings have slipped. We could even blame John Cena or Rey Mysterio if we went in that direction. Maybe it's the Miz's fault? Maybe we could blame the Flying Lizard because he's NOT on T.V.? Hissssss. Punk garnered interviews with prestigous publications and made mention in many mainstream outlets. Whether that results in people tuning in after years of WWE non-relevance is NOT a black and white subject---but points to a success of the angle on another level--which may take longer than two weeks to raise ratings in the current circumstances. These circumstances are NOT simple, and you will never be able to prove that they are except to people who insist on seeing things simply---this is traditionally not a successful viewpoint. That's where the word "simpleton" comes from, in fact.
I can see that we're disagreeing, and that's fine, and we both seem to be frustrated that we're not understanding one another's points. I think we're looking at the same thing, but from two different perspectives that negate the validity of the other.
Can we at least agree that it will be a shame if trends in ratings, (your side), or short-sighted application of the concept of a trend to something which cannot be accurately analyzed yet, (my side), result in a lack of willingness in WWE to commit to dynamic change? We're both wrestling fans, and I feel that we can see eye to eye on that.

I like DumbSmark. I don't always read everything he writes. Of course, I like Ernest "the Cat" Miller, also.

The opening of Raw was terribly disappointing. I am sure many TV's went click. I bought the PPV and it was maybe the best in a long long time, but there was no payoff at the start of Raw, so you lose any mo you had. Ending was strong, but the crowd in Green Bay seemed to be acting like the viewer...so what

Kev- the ratings that Raw draws beats almost everything else thats on TV. Why would WWE be worried about that? Vince has always said, the business is cyclical. If the ratings were plummeting, then maybe report on it. If they're staying the same, after Wrestlemania, during the summer, then it's not a story. Also, as others have said, the product has been crap for a while now, it'll take a sustained effort to keep storylines as fresh and entertaining as this one to see the ratings climb. As of right now, it means nothing and it's not a story.

I knew the Punk/Cena match at Money in the Bank was special, but I didn't realize how special until I saw earlier this morning that the match got a 5-star rating from Wrestling Observer Newsletter. That really made me sit up and take notice. WWE hasn't had a 5-star match since 1997, and there hasn't been a 5-star match anywhere in the world since 2006. That is extremely impressive. Huge kudos to Cena, Punk, and WWE for that match.

Have you seen the vid of Punk crashing WWE's seminar @ San Diego Comic Con?

Lot's of spirited discussion regarding the ratings.I must say I am intriqued by the results, or lack of increase of ratings.I skimmed over the comments so I apologize if this has been mentioned.Does this mean that despite the promotion and storyline fans arne't interested in the story, or.. Is Punk not a marketable star?? It seems the promotion was the same but the drew only a certain amount of the viewing public. Would it have been differant if Orton or Cena was the focal point of this angle? Do new fans embrace Punk, Ziggler, Miz, or Wade Barret? Has Mr. McMahon been away too long that fans aren,t concerned about him being involved in an angle. Is the WWE hurting due to no.HBK, Taker, HHH, or Edge involved in these angles?? Just some thoughts. Or, is this the time for growing pains forthe new stars?

Anyone who wants a return to the Attitude Era should ask themselves why WWE left that era behind in the first place: the product was not sponsor-friendly. Yes, the ratings were higher than they have ever been, but high ratings don't do you much good unless they are accompanied by sponsorship.

I have not watched the show in about five years, yet this storyline makes me want to watch. I was bored watching Monday's show, but I will stick around for a few more weeks to see what happens. If they don't keep it going, I am gone again. I am sure that the ratings have not changed a bit, but if they can get me - and I am sure I am not the only one - to watch again, others may follow. I am a hardcore fan who said, "Screw this" many years ago. If they can get us to come back, all may be well again.

Evidently enough, DumbShark is really dumber than a shark.

I wasn't that into RAW this week as most people weren't. They failed to capitalize on a great storyline and ppv. The person who said RAW wasn't all about Cena, what show were you watching? The majority of the ratings this week were based on 2 things:
1. Will Cena actually get fired? (Which we all knew would never happen.)
2. Would CM Punk show up?
The tournament was so-so, but no one cared about that. It seemed like it didn't really matter and it didn't b/c was a new champ crowned? NO, the belt doesnt change hands on RAW and what would the winner been given if they did have the match? No title remember? Ratings wont increase until wrestlers who people can get behind are given a push. RYDER OR RIOT!!!
Gets 3 million views on youtube and gets no time on Raw. Others like Drew Mcyintyre, Wade Barrett, Sheamus, etc all come into the WWE w/ big hype and get lost in the creative shuffle. You want ratings? FIRE your writers and stop shoving the same recycled storylines down our throats.
And what's w/ the TNA bashing on this site? It has gotten much better as of late and they are obviously getting Vince or HHH's attention if Cena is threatening to show up on that other wrestling show BROTHER!

lol eric hardcore fans are watching the casual fan does not care about this angle nor colt cabana its just the internet smarks that care

Those ratings certainly aren't out of this world. I'd be interested to see last week's rating compared to the same week the previous year...it's summer, ratings this time of year are traditionally the lowest out of any time of year so this type of comparison would help compare apples to apples. Also, I wonder if Money in the Bank's buy rate was higher than last year's and how was it compared to Capitol Punishment...this adds good perspective in addition to the week-to-week comparisons. I love this CM Punk angle and hope it does well for the sake of wrestling's future.

A major point that chafes me is the clamoring for "the return to the Attitude Era" versus "The PG Era." TNA is proving right now that pretending to be edgy, using profanities needlessly, and constantly breaking the 4th wall does not equal ratings. Good booking, good wrestling, and showmanship equals ratings. (TNA has awful booking.)

Good storytelling does not have to be crass. Professional wrestling would probably be at its peak if it strived to be a "higher art form" while maintaining an audience of all ages while respecting the intelligence of its 'base customers' at the same time. Punk has laid down a template for all of us to see how it can be done (again).

The original Punk promo came as a surprise. So you can't count that in the ratings level for the angle. If memory serves me, the next week he was off Raw serving his "suspension", so I wouldn't count that in the ratings so much. I would have thought there would have been a bit more of a ratings jump for his return from "suspension". But i think you can throw out this weeks ratings with regard to the Punk angle. Everyone knew he wasn't going to be there this week.

If they are doing what it looks like they are doing and putting Punk out to as many mainstream audiences as possible before he returns(Kimmel, ComiCon, TMZ, etc...) then the numbers that will really count will be his return and the weeks and months after. Right now they are just in a holding pattern and static ratings while he's gone would make sense.

Personally, there's very little compelling about anything on Raw. Cena is Cena. But aside from Punk(who's gone), I generally fast forward through the majority of the show.

Part of the problem, and this goes for Raw and Smackdown is too many of the top guys really suck on the mike. Cena is great at delivering his stuff without sounding like it was scripted.. I thought for a minute there that Alex Riley might be the next really strong talker. He is good, bordering on great on the mike. He flows very well. Edge was great too, but gone. But all the other top guys beyond those two suffer from the same issue:

Slow talking, script reading, repetitive mike work. Miz is terrible. Orton is terrible. Christian is terrible. All three of them hide their inability to talk/deliver their lines naturally by talking very slow or repeating themselves, over and over again. Cody Rhodes does this too, though I wouldn't call him a top level star.

I can live with the lower card guys not being so strong on the mike. That's what makes them lower card guys in some cases. But when all your main stars, but for a couple, maybe 3, suck on the mike, it makes for some really bad television. Why do you think they are constantly bringing guys like Austin and the Rock back as often as they do? Cena can't carry it all.

That, to my mind is what makes this Punk angle so potentially compelling. A top guy who can throw down verbally at or above Cena's level.

at this rate, the ratings aren't going to increase now, nor in the future. one good promo per week cannot save an entire show. raw is boring as hell and has been boring for a long time. at this point people are convinced that they will find no entertainment in sitting through two hours of raw. so even when they hear about something good like the punk promos, they just go and watch it on youtube and save the rest of the remaining 90 or so minutes for something better.

wwe needs to make every ongoing angle/scene/match/promo entertaining, or at least worth sitting through - and they need to do so for a long term period to re-gain the audience's trust in their ability to entertain. like the old saying goes "trust is a hard thing to earn back after it has already been lost once". if they cannot invest some effort into the show as a WHOLE, then they are forever doomed for mediocrity or eventually worse.

P.S.
@the people who always complain about ratings being lower than the attitude era.

even if wwe had excellent entertainment value right now, people should NEVER expect the ratings to ever go back to as high as the attitude era.

wrestling and its fans have been stigmatized and its got the reputation of being "fake" right now. so people who dont want to be labeled an idiot or a hillbilly will stay as far away from wrestling even if they once liked it.

of course, even though the ratings will never be as high as the attitude era, they could still be higher than they are right now if they stop putting on a BORING show every week.

With Punk promoting that he was a couple hundred miles away, what was the hook for anyone who was drawn in because of the work he did before? Even the Little Jimmies knew Cena wasn't going to get fired in any meaningful fashion. The show got off to a dreadful start. The announcement of the tournament was met with crickets basically and the hottest segment of the show came out of nowhere. Thank God they did that because no interest was building in that Finals match.

The firing of McMahon was pretty compelling TV, but it seemed like too little too late. There's nothing that's making next week seem "must see." You have no idea where it's going, but you don't have an investment in it since the Cena character has yet to be compelling in months.

On the plus side, there is starting to be that feel again that "anything can happen." That's what used to make Raw can't miss as opposed to just can't forget to set the DVR. Here's hoping they find a way to keep this thing hot.

I don't think the problem has been the story line as so much the character. Punk isn't compelling as a real superstar to rival Cena. That is too bad and was in my opinion caused by WWE constantly jobbing Punk for so long while he was on Smackdown. The story line with him and his two fellow members constantly losing to the Big Show despite having a three to one advantage really hurt his stock IMO. He loses to Ray Mysterio and has to have his head shaved. He just kept getting buried. Now all of a sudden we are to consider he is a rival to Super Cena and the other top card players. Just hard to do IMO.

do not care, I'm watching wrestling again.
CM PUNK CM PUNK
BEST IN THE WORLD! IN THE WORLD!