June 1, 201213 yr Author comment_5505076 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching. Surprised viewing figures now seem to be up on those from the 90s -- given that watching live TV has been massively diminished as the primary source of entertainment (see internet, Sky plus, Netflix, etc.).
June 1, 201213 yr comment_5505089 Dixie Carter announced TNA is starting their own Hall of Fame. That should be fantastic. I love this woman.
June 1, 201213 yr comment_5505132 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching. Surprised viewing figures now seem to be up on those from the 90s -- given that watching live TV has been massively diminished as the primary source of entertainment (see internet, Sky plus, Netflix, etc.). You'd be surprised how much of America still didn't have cable television in the early 90's
June 1, 201213 yr comment_5505133 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching. Surprised viewing figures now seem to be up on those from the 90s -- given that watching live TV has been massively diminished as the primary source of entertainment (see internet, Sky plus, Netflix, etc.). You'd be surprised how much of America still didn't have cable television in the early 90's Nah, it was way worse in England.
June 1, 201213 yr comment_5505136 I don't have the exact numbers, but Dave has said that Sting barely moved any merch at all and that it was a running joke in WCW about how the little Stingers didn't actually exist.
June 1, 201213 yr comment_5505137 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching.American ratings seem like they're custom designed to be deliberately difficult to understand. Like, if you're not an insider, then you can't make heads or tails of these numbers; and the industry likes it that way. Of course, lots of people have said that Nielsen numbers are questionable at best anyway. Their process for gathering these statistics is often criticized for being wide open to massive inaccuracies.
June 1, 201213 yr Author comment_5505138 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching. Surprised viewing figures now seem to be up on those from the 90s -- given that watching live TV has been massively diminished as the primary source of entertainment (see internet, Sky plus, Netflix, etc.). You'd be surprised how much of America still didn't have cable television in the early 90's Nah, it was way worse in England. Absolutely it was. There was only ever 4 terrestrial channels, 5 from the mid-90s and the vast, VAST majority of people didn't have Sky until the 00s and the advent of digital TV. "Cable" has never been a thing here, it was always satellite operated by Sky, and then digital. Freeview was quite a major deal when it happened. I think that this might also be why viewing figures have been easier to come by in the UK, because every single household has the same channels for the best part and up until recently Sky had a lockdown on most of the other channels. So they could produce pretty accurate figures.
June 3, 201213 yr comment_5505479 Don't understand why they can't just release number of viewers like they do here. It's easy to see at a stroke then how many people are watching.American ratings seem like they're custom designed to be deliberately difficult to understand. Like, if you're not an insider, then you can't make heads or tails of these numbers; and the industry likes it that way. Of course, lots of people have said that Nielsen numbers are questionable at best anyway. Their process for gathering these statistics is often criticized for being wide open to massive inaccuracies. I remember one time a few years ago when I got one of those Nielsen "TV diaries" in the mail that I was supposed to fill out regarding what shows I watched in a given week and mail it back. It was postage paid, so I figured "eh, why not" and filled it out. Oh, and they sent a few dollar bills to me in the mail along with reminders to mail the diary back. I can picture most people just throwing the diary and reminders away and keeping the money -- even if it's not a large sum of money.
September 27, 201213 yr comment_5515797 WCW was a national promotion. We can argue about where they ran or didn't run and the success they did or didn't have. But they had national tv, national coverage in the wrestling magazines and the ability to promote over a huge geographical area that spanned outside of the Southeast. It's possible that ECW had a larger "base" at times late in their run than WCW did at their low point, but does anyone really think ECW was "more" of a national promotion? Hell I think the AWA even as far back as the late 70s/early 80's is damn close to a "national" promotion despite the lack of tv and wrestling coverage when you consider the breadth of their operation (Oakland, Vegas, SLC, Denver, Omaha, Chicago, Twin Cities, Milwaukee, Green Bay, Winnipeg) and the fact that their champ was a "touring" champ In 1991, WCW hyped three things (well four if you count the hotline). PPVs, Clashes, and Omni shows. They really hyped the hell out of Omni shows, each and every one of them. Honestly, I think more important things happened in the Omni than on PPV. If not, then close to it. I'm not saying that doesn't make them national, but it's very different than what WWF was doing at the time and what WCW would be doing later in the decade.
September 27, 201213 yr comment_5515798 So they hyped two national things and a local thing directly tied to their home market.
September 27, 201213 yr comment_5515799 I'm not saying they weren't a National promotion so much as I'm implying that we might take for granted how regional they still were.
September 27, 201213 yr comment_5515800 Who is taking that for granted? Back then I saw WCW a dozen or more times a year without traveling more than an hour and a half from my home.
September 28, 201213 yr comment_5515839 Dylan is correct: WCW in 1991 was a national promotion. Just one that did pretty shitty business. But it was far from a regional promotion. http://www.thehistoryofwwe.com/wcw91.htm
September 29, 201213 yr comment_5515878 You know what would be interesting ... and it's almost certainly impossible, I would think ... would be if you could go back and look at the data and compile a Wrestling GDP for each year: Getting a sense of how much money was drawn in the wrestling industry each year and through what revenue streams, and what percentage each promotion was responsible for gathering it. Again, I'm sure it would be impossible to do. But this thread made me think of what a valuable thing that might be to have.
Create an account or sign in to comment