Jump to content
DVDVR Message Board

Recommended Posts

Posted

CW is more of a scifi/fantasy network now, and don't really cater to the teen girl as much as they used to.  Gossip Girl and 90210 haven't been on in at least a year.  Scoff all you want, stuff like Arrow, Supernatural, and the 100 actually are doing numbers on par with Smackdown, often times higher.

Posted

I wonder how advertisers view the demos that watch The CW. The writing quality of WWE is higher than Gossip Girl and 90210.

 

The WWE would wet its collective self if it developed a devilish dandy like Chuck Bass as a heel manager.

  • Like 1
Posted

No one in my family has ever made $48,800/year.  Not my mother, father, aunt & uncle (whom own their own family pizza restaurant for over 20 years now), my brother, none of them. My parents first house, which was a 3-bedroom, two story home with a fully renovated basement was only $19k.

 

If I made anywhere close to $50k/year living in this city, I would have so much disposable income I wouldn't know what to do with it all. Where the fuck was this poll of "poor" people taken? Not everyone that watches TV lives in a big-ass city with a higher cost of living. The most expensive houses in my city only go up to like $600k & those are mansions.

  • Like 1
Posted

Has anyone been able to factually dispute the idea that wrestling fans are an undesirable demo to advertisers? From what I've gathered from Meltzer, the understanding is that your average wrestling fan is 18-34 (good in the eyes of advertisers), male (good), but that they are also non-white (not good in the eyes of the racist old white guy who runs your average Fortune 500 company, and recognizes that minorities are so often underpaid/working lousier jobs). If wrestling fans don't have much disposable income, it makes sense given that list of "poorest" shows: if this board alone is any indication, the audience watching wrestling is the same audience watching cartoons and sci-fi.

 

I haven't watched WWE live on USA/Sci-Fi/Ion (or even DVR) in years, which is another part of the problem: advertisers don't want to spend money on a show that's being pirated by its core audience, and rightfully so. I'm hearing so many people say that wrestling is undervalued as a property, and that the intelligence of fans is being undermined by those who won't advertise or pay a huge rights fee. What seems obvious is that it isn't really a matter of saying "wrestling fans are stupid" so much as it's that wrestling fans aren't receptive to ads from the pharma/retail/tech/food entities who pay the most in advertising.

 

And yes, those income #s on rich and poor shows do have a lot to do with who lives in big cities, and who's watching primetime network TV from 8-10PM. The older people making a lot of money are the same people who come home and turn on that night's inane, lilywhite CBS sitcom so that they can fall asleep to something easily digestible.

  • Like 1
Posted

I think that's part of why a lot of people were "rooting" for the WWE to get 2-3 times, or at least some semblance of NASCAR money, to be honest; to make themselves feel better. 

 

It's all along the same lines as why most comic fans are so excited about mainstream comic movies. 

  • Like 2
Posted

Well sure. What wrestling fan hasn't grown tired of the friends asking if you know it's fake, or looking at you like you just admitted to enjoying snuff films when you say you watch wrestling? I have friends who used to come over each week and talk about Jersey Shore and the Kardashians, and they would then mock my wrestling fandom. THAT is how low down the totem poll of pop culture we are.

On top of that I've really enjoyed the network and I'd love to keep paying ten bucks a month for the next few years. All the recent terrible business news probably means that isn't happening. So I was rooting for them on that front.

  • Like 1
Posted

I remember when I was in school, I would just respond to "you know it's fake right" by saying "so is ER" to the point where I didn't even have to think about it.

 

Usually someone would respond with something along the lines of "that's different" but nobody could ever explain how it was different.

 

Then wrestling suddenly got really popular which was kinda cool.

  • Like 1
Posted

Go back and watch Royal Rumble 1999 and look at that crowd. Dial it up on the network and watch the first five minutes. We don't really want that again.

  • Like 1
Posted

I remember when I was in school, I would just respond to "you know it's fake right" by saying "so is ER" to the point where I didn't even have to think about it.

 

Usually someone would respond with something along the lines of "that's different" but nobody could ever explain how it was different.

 

 

 

They're not.  Neither one was ever able to make new stars.

  • Like 1
Posted

Go back and watch Royal Rumble 1999 and look at that crowd. Dial it up on the network and watch the first five minutes. We don't really want that again.

 

FWIW, the acoustics in the Pond have never translated well to TV.

Posted

No one in my family has ever made $48,800/year.  Not my mother, father, aunt & uncle (whom own their own family pizza restaurant for over 20 years now), my brother, none of them. My parents first house, which was a 3-bedroom, two story home with a fully renovated basement was only $19k.

 

If I made anywhere close to $50k/year living in this city, I would have so much disposable income I wouldn't know what to do with it all. Where the fuck was this poll of "poor" people taken? Not everyone that watches TV lives in a big-ass city with a higher cost of living. The most expensive houses in my city only go up to like $600k & those are mansions.

 

The median household income in the US hovers at around $53,000 for a family of four. I am going to assume that the income in this data refers to household income and not individual income (unless you're a single person household). What this says to me is that the "poorest" TV shows are watched by a spectrum that represents the average American income distribution. American Dad and Bob's Burgers are the only ones who fall below that threshold. 

 

I assume that Family Guy, American Dad and Bob's Burgers are dragged down because of their popularity with college students, who have a very low household income because they're students. This data is TERRIBLE for figuring out what poors watch because students will drag down any income based data set if they're included.

 

That being said, the way we measure income and poverty is skewed in this country because the poverty line in Manhattan, New York is the same as Manhattan, Kansas so any data that includes income and poverty information is suspect to begin with.

  • Like 2
Posted

Go back and watch Royal Rumble 1999 and look at that crowd. Dial it up on the network and watch the first five minutes. We don't really want that again.

What, Road Dogg?

Posted

Go back and watch Royal Rumble 1999 and look at that crowd. Dial it up on the network and watch the first five minutes. We don't really want that again.

FWIW, the acoustics in the Pond have never translated well to TV.

It's ok. Your eyes are all you need for this.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...