Ouch that's bad... Maybe the 101st show will do better. Can't do much worse.
Posted By: Sam (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:30 PM
I told you Kane winning the world title was brilliant!!!!
Posted By: WWE mark (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:34 PM
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Posted By: Black Scorpion (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:36 PM
Will TNA do it this week?
Posted By: natedoggcata (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:40 PM
I'll say it again. Mike Adamle, The Ratings Killer.
Bring back Joey.
Posted By: Guest#2169 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:47 PM
To the utter morons who are constantly slating this show...please just
leave,
there's no room for your idiocy here.
We have two fantastic matches and two very good matches. We have Punk winning
the main event with Kane how awesome was that - and yet still you people
find
stuff to bitch about. That is what is wrong with the IWC; no matter what you
find the negatives to whine and complain about. This was clearly a great
show,
by any standard. The crap I read in the comments sections is why
McMahon and Co. ignore the majority of what the IWC have to say, you're never
happy.
Match too long, match too short, they buried Chavo and Shelton the
Delaney match ending is too obvious WAH WAH WAAAAAHHHHHH!!!!!!
Listen to yourselves! Csonka mentions "No Buys" "Berried"
etc. in proper contexts, you parrots simply regurgitate with no thought or
sense of what you're talking about. Frankly, many of you are making a great
case for the comments section being disabled, a good 90% of what is said is
worthless crap, spouted by morons with hidden agendas and puppets who hear all
the terms but fail to apply them properly.
Apter and Csonka have both rated this show quite highly...think I'll trust
their opinion over a bunch of retards who either have no love for wrestling,
or
are masochistic to the extreme in watching something they so clearly hate. To
all the junior Scott Keith's - You're Ruining the I.W.C. Hope you're happy.
Posted By: Dennett316 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 06:57 PM
WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHhhhhhhhhhhhhh everyones whining about
WWE and no brains allowed here.
Posted By: Dennett316 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 07:41 PM
Having Chavo beat Mr. Kennedy REALLY drew some ratings. WOW! I bet TNA ties
them this week.
Posted By: ECWSUX (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 07:48 PM
dennett316, shut the fuck up with that copied and pasted response from the WM
recap. Pull your head out of your ass and realize that not everyone will have
your opinion on the matter. You make it seem like anyone who doesn't like what
you like is a cynic, and that's just a stupid generalization. We're making fun
of the bad rating, anyway.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM
ECW's rating was even worse last week and TNA STILL failed to top EC-Dub's
rating. I don't think ECW is in any danger.
Posted By: A-Ron (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:21 PM
Somewhere in Orlando, Kurt Angle is jacking off.
Posted By: Engel (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:43 PM
JJ hit it right on the head. Everybody doesn't have the same viewpoint on
certain things and you shouldn't get pissed at them for it.
Posted By: Mista Grimm (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:47 PM
Dennett i agree with you wholeheartedly. And like I've been saying all
along...
RATINGS DON'T MEASURE QUALITY
Posted By: bighustle (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:49 PM
EPIC FAIL.
Posted By: You know it was coming. (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:54 PM
with crap shows like ecw i'm glad they have the nba playoffs on! chavo as the #1
contender is a joke
Posted By: houston's finest (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:57 PM
Keep in mind ECW got something like a 2.1 on its initial broadcast because
people were under the impression it would be run like the ECW they remembered.
Now, with Vince McMahon's vision of ECW firmly in place, it's down to a 1.0.
Yes, massive fail goes to Vince's vision. It's a failure. There's no way to
spin it otherwise.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 08:59 PM
I happend to agree with Dennett. For a long time before WWF ever overtook WCW in
the ratings war they had the better product. You people need to stop bitching
and actually try to allow themselves to be entertained because that's what got
all of us to love this business anyways.
Posted By: Justin (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:00 PM
Justin, it's pretty hard to enjoy the current product. During the Attitude era,
nobody as bitching because it was GOOD, but it sucks now. Which is why I
haven't watched an episode of ECW since June 19, 2007.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:12 PM
"RATINGS DON'T MEASURE QUALITY"
You do realize that when something is in a continual state of ratings decline,
it's adverse both for the show and the company, right? I mean, this is a
business. It isn't just about matches.
Posted By: Amazo The Wizard (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:14 PM
"You do realize that when something is in a continual state of ratings
decline,
it's adverse both for the show and the company, right? I mean, this is a
business. It isn't just about matches."
Exactly. And if you were to look at WWE's financial report, business is damn
good right now.
Posted By: Guest#4696 (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:25 PM
Yup, Guest #4696, it's so good that WWE has to increase their prices to make a
sufficient amount of money AND whore themselves out in other countries to get
good buyrates (and in 2000, a year where every PPV did 400,000+ buys, 90% of
the buys came domesitcally, while these days, about 30-40% of the buys come
internationally).
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 09:38 PM
Ratings could also be done simply because there are too many hours of WWE
programming on? Since Vince decided to be lazy and not run ECW as a separate
promotion, people are tuning out. If they want the WWE they can just watch RAW
or Smackdown.
Posted By: Michael (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 10:19 PM
Nobody ever mentions the fact that ECW is available in its entirety on WWE.com.
People probably just watch at their leisure...
Of course, then there's the whole "traffic downturn" on the website
itself... I'm sure ECW probably garners itself hundreds of thousands of more
viewers via that medium... *cough*
Posted By: Jon P (Guest) on May 07, 2008 at 10:41 PM
Someone please put ECW out of it's misery. Shoot it! And Smackdown ratings are
heading that way too. And Raw's ratings are falling. What's going on? Are the
casual fans and little kids fed up with WWE and Vince?
Posted By: Steve (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 12:09 AM
And Metzler proved that DVR viewers are factored into the ratings upwards to a
month after the show aired. The average ratings adjustment has been around
.1-.4 additional rating points. Take that to the bank ya dumb smarkasses
Posted By: Guest#8961 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 12:10 AM
I am not really Dennett316 I posted that to show how stupid that rant was and
there were WWE marks that actually went along with it claiming this was a great
show my goodness you WWE marks are really something else. I don't think the real
Dennett thought this was a great show and no one would call it a great show a
good show maybe but great ugh.
Posted By: wow (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 01:49 AM
Lol, i actually enjoy watching ECW. Sure its a half assed show with half the
time, 1/4th the titles, 1/3rd the roster and half he effort and yet it
continues to do better then TNA. So why do people laugh and lull at ECW's
mediocre rating but praise and support the lesser(unchanging) rating that TNA
gives every week? Lol i smell a hypocrit. - and to Dennet i noticed this site
has a really bad trend of one person's opinion of a product being blindly
followed like a cult since i started comming to this site.
Granted some of the writers are i think are far worse then the ones previously
alot of them all seem to lack their own opinions.
The trend.
Its customary to berate and hate ecw, complain about Russo-tna decisions,
despise, hate and question new talents abilities and push's - then later on
suddenly "like" them(i.e. Umaga, MVP - Khali(somewhat).Hate mark
henry.
Worship the ground HHH walks on, and hate Michale cole's commentary.
Posted By: rellik kram (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 02:22 AM
rellik kram, ECW has WWE behind it. So it was built in with a huge advantage of
a WWE fanbase. WWE marks started watching like good little sheep and ECW was
getting in the 2.0s when it first started.
But then they realized that Vince sold them snake oil. The show sucked. Nothing
ever happened and it was dull as crap. So little by little they jumped ship and
ECW's ratings tanked. ECW's ratings are likely to even get worse since the
audience is running away.
TNA on the other hand had no WWE fanbase. They've earned their slow climb from
0.6 to 1.3 and back down to 1.0.
And anyway, why do WWE fans always bring up TNA when one of WWE's shows have
poor ratings? TNA beating ECW isn't much to crow about anyway since ECW might
be on it's last legs.
Posted By: Reaper (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 02:35 AM
"And anyway, why do WWE fans always bring up TNA when one of WWE's shows
have
poor ratings? TNA beating ECW isn't much to crow about anyway since ECW might
be on it's last legs."
WWE fans? The hell? Read the first few comments, just about all of which
consist of insidious fapping at the concept of their precious garbage broadcast
managing to pull off an insignificant milestone. "Will TNA pull it off this
week?" Looks like TNA fanboys to me.
And good grief at the rolling of eyes that ensued at the idiot claiming that
the attitude era had nothing to bitch about. So in order for a promotion to do
well, you need to have a show consisting of nothing but brief fist-fights which
end up with a run-in? Oewait-! There is one of such right now! And it's not
doing all that well, now is it?
Posted By: Aname (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:16 AM
Yup, Guest #4696, it's so good that WWE has to increase their prices to make a
sufficient amount of money AND whore themselves out in other countries to get
good buyrates (and in 2000, a year where every PPV did 400,000+ buys, 90% of
the buys came domesitcally, while these days, about 30-40% of the buys come
internationally).
Actually, more than sufficient. The most money WWE has ever made. 2007 was
WWE's biggest financial year ever (yes, better than 2000), and the first 3
months of 2008 was WWE's biggest quarter ever. How the hell is business bad
when your breaking your own records?
And, yeah, WWE is sure stupid for expanding internationally and trying to
expose their product to untapped markets.
Please shoot yourself.
Posted By: Guest#9420 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:24 AM
bring back Kerwin White!
Posted By: Jake_Fury (Registered) on May 08, 2008 at 11:12 AM
Tell you the truth, i'm not an E-mark. And i didn't even really watch the show.
But I share the sentiments about this site that you expressed in your
"rant", whether you believe them to be true or not. This comment
section is a sesspool of bitching, smarkiness, and negativity. It urks me and
entertains me at times. I can write a list of a hundred things that i don't
like about the New ECW (and i'm over the fact that its not like the original).
The difference is i can back those complaints with logical ideas that stay in
the realm of WWE's vision. Most people would come on here complaining and
begging for the product to be just like TNA or just like ROH or just like the
original ECW. Sad to say it, but each company is different. Its crazy,
because people will always beg for a company to go in a direction that they
want it to go in, and have a bitch fit when one thing doesn't go according to
their logic. Get over yourselves and try to enjoy the show for what it is.
YES, there are going to be things that don't agree with your liking. Accept
that and move the fuck on.
Posted By: bighustle (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 11:21 AM
It is a milestone for a company thats only been around a few years to have
accomplished this much while WWE has dropped considerably since the late
90s-to the early part of this decade. TNA celebrating their accomplishments
when unlike WWE they have a small company is well deserved. There is a reason
why no one celebrates ratings in WWE they have nothing to celebrate. Their
inflated earnings have been more of a product in prices being raised and more
shows being produced then what was being done in the earlier parts of this
decade. In 6 years TNA has gone from a weekly ppv company with what seemed to
be no chance of surviving to a company that has monthly ppvs to go along with a
weekly 2 hour primetime show which is remarkable while WWE has suffered a
decline in ratings and ppv buys with the lone exceotion of WM but if you think
thats going to keep going you truly are delusional. TNA has only started to get
its feet wet and does well for a small company and can still make a move higher.
Joe as World Champion is more interesting then HHH or your hero Cena being
Champion.
I think TNA has earned the little joys which unlike the original ECW who
couldn't get these ratings because of numerous reasons. The current ECW pisses
me off because it does take away from what the original ECW was. I don't care
if you WWE fanboys think its great you all will suck on anything Vince hands
out to you because you're obviously not bright enough to take a stand since you
love everything he puts out.
By the way the excuse about Tivo causing low rating was more of a reference to
Raw then to ECW no one cares about ECW ever since they changed the whole
concept a year ago.
If you want to kiss Vinces ass all day go ahead judging by the ratings you're
in the shrinking population that still does.
UFC shows do 1.1 sometimes I wouldn't call WWE a higher success as of late
would you? You marks and your rating are why no one really cares anymore about
your cries of supremacy because they're a joke.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:06 PM
Oh and Aname by the way I would rather have some run ins then a company whose
idea of innovative is turning off the lights 3 or 4 times a show.
By the way TNA is doing fine of course you probably think UFC is struggling
because their ratings are in the same range. Seriously WWE marks can I smoke
some of what you all use because really this is downright absurd.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:10 PM
THANK YOU PAUL!!! I hate when people bring up TNA's ratings whe we make fun of
WWE's floundering popularity. TNA's ratings are good in proportion with the
size of the company. In the past 6 years, WWE has lost 50% of its fanbase while
TNA has grown. WWE's success these days has more to do with market share, DVD
sales, and 24/7 subscriptions. Even people who don't watch the current WWE
product probably have 24/7 subscriptions and buy the classic DVD's. Take Scott
Keith for example. He hasn't watched non-special current WWE programming in
over a year, but watches 24/7 religiously.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 05:39 PM
THANK YOU PAUL!!! I hate when people bring up TNA's ratings whe we make fun of
WWE's floundering popularity. TNA's ratings are good in proportion with the
size of the company. In the past 6 years, WWE has lost 50% of its fanbase
while
TNA has grown. WWE's success these days has more to do with market share, DVD
sales, and 24/7 subscriptions. Even people who don't watch the current WWE
product probably have 24/7 subscriptions and buy the classic DVD's. Take Scott
Keith for example. He hasn't watched non-special current WWE programming in
over a year, but watches 24/7 religiously."
Do you realize how small 24/7 is? I don't even think it has 200,000
subscribers. WWE makes $4-5 million a year from 24/7 when they make nearly
$500 million in a year. Plus, ticket sales have been improving each year since
2005.
Not liking WWE is perfectly fine, but it is pathetic that you hate WWE so much
that you have to pretend their business is bad when money is the most important
thing, and they're making more of it than ever.
Posted By: Guest#4176 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 06:59 PM
According to sources, 24/7 has over a million subscribers.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 08:27 PM
And look at it this way: prices are far higher than they were in 2000. PPV's
cost 10 bucks more, and if you deflated 2008 prices to 2000 prices, WWE would
probably be in some deep shit. And if you inflate 2000 prices to 2008 prices
and add in the DVD sales and 24/7 subscriptions, they'd be making twice as much
money as they are now.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 08:32 PM
"According to sources, 24/7 has over a million subscribers."
Delete a zero, and you'll be much closer to the real number.
Again, it's quite sad you have to make excuses for WWE rolling in the dough
right now. Care to make one for the all recent sellouts at live events that
WWE has been having both domestically and internationally?
Posted By: Guest#3839 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 09:36 PM
I don't recall any recent domestic sellouts. WWE patted itself on the back for
selling out Canada, but many people pointed out Empty seats. WWE has always
been known to exaggerate crowd numbers.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:13 PM
"I don't recall any recent domestic sellouts. WWE patted itself on the back
for selling out Canada, but many people pointed out Empty seats. WWE has always
been known to exaggerate crowd numbers."
They've had sell-outs at house shows lately, plus Royal Rumble, No Way Out,
Backlash, and most of the TV tapings so far in 2008 were sell-outs as well.
Posted By: Guest#6424 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:19 PM
WWE marks who're crying about their high ticket sales theres a ppv out here in
san diego next month and its not even close to a sell out you can still get
good seats out here, and people like their wrestling out here. You can keep
talking about what you've done in the past but the current stats aren't going
so well.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 10:47 PM
"WE marks who're crying about their high ticket sales theres a ppv out here
in
san diego next month and its not even close to a sell out you can still get
good seats out here, and people like their wrestling out here. You can keep
talking about what you've done in the past but the current stats aren't going
so well."
Great American Bash 2007: sell out
SummerSlam 2007: sell out
No Mercy 2007: sell out
Armageddon 2007: sell out
Royal Rumble 2008: sell out
No Way Out 2008: sell out
Backlash 2008: sell out
You were saying?
Posted By: Guest#0452 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 11:06 PM
You're simply by going by what WWE's telling you. They've been known to
exagerrate numbers. They said that WM23 drew 80,000, when it actully drew
75,000, and I myself have noticed a few empty seats at shows and people have
pointed out that there are empty seats. While WWE can't lie about the money thy
made, they an make up attendance figures all they want. That's just how it is.
Posted By: JJ (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 11:10 PM
"They said that WM23 drew 80,000, when it actully drew
75,000, and I myself have noticed a few empty seats at shows and people have
pointed out that there are empty seats. While WWE can't lie about the money thy
made, they an make up attendance figures all they want. That's just how it
is"
Those PPVs and events did sell out and not just according to WWE's numbers.
Meltzer even made a point of acknowledging Backlash's sell-out a couple days
before the show.
Why must WWE be doing bad business because you don't like their product?
Posted By: Guest#7021 (Guest) on May 08, 2008 at 11:25 PM
Uh I was saying the ppv hasn't sold your stupid stat didn't change that moron.
Ugh can someone get some of these marks a brain please so they can know how to
argue.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 12:05 AM
"Uh I was saying the ppv hasn't sold your stupid stat didn't change that
moron.
Ugh can someone get some of these marks a brain please so they can know how to
argue."
Way to miss the point, idiot.
You said the current stats aren't going well, and I gave you a whole list of
recent PPVs that sold out, including the most recent one (Backlash).
Posted By: Guest#1827 (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 12:26 AM
"Uh I was saying the ppv hasn't sold your stupid stat didn't change that
moron.
Ugh can someone get some of these marks a brain please so they can know how to
argue."
Way to miss the point, idiot.
You said the current stats aren't going well, and I gave you a whole list of
recent PPVs that sold out, including the most recent one (Backlash).
Posted By: Guest#5650 (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 12:26 AM
All this ranting over an ECW rating... lol.
WWE makes more money as well as your not factoring in how much prices go up
across the board, especially merchandise and the like.
Also, international buys are way higher now, because programming is more
readily available. Wrestling was not exactly a widely shown show in Australia
15 years ago, now every show is on every channel. It's only natural for an
international market to get a big share of buyrates.
Posted By: Banz (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 03:56 AM
look at the next two ppvs you know ones not effected by WM fallout there are
plenty of seats still available kiss Vinces ass somewhere else.
Posted By: Thats nice guest (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 03:31 PM
"look at the next two ppvs you know ones not effected by WM fallout there
are
plenty of seats still available kiss Vinces ass somewhere else."
What the hell does WM fall out have to do with anything? The last 3 PPVs
before WM sold out, too.
Posted By: Guest#2399 (Guest) on May 09, 2008 at 05:59 PM
the build to WM had a lot to do with it moron as did backlash was the same. MSG
always sells out and Vegas rarely gets ppvs for some reason.
Meanwhile your ranting fails to mention not surprisingly you fail to mention
how the ratings have dropped.
Posted By: Paul (Guest) on May 11, 2008 at 05:52 PM
