Tough Enough dressing up as woman

[David Bazzy Basnett]

Personally I am beginning more and more every week begin to wonder . What is the point of Tough Enough ? Bloke dressing up as women . What has that got to do with wrestling anyway ? How does that prove you are a wrestler . Can't the guys just wrestle every week ? . Tough Enough like the Diva search just waste about 30 min of a 2 hour show . Where do the Tough Enough best wrestlers end up anyway . What do they become basically nothing and disappear .Can't we have some wrestling please !!!!!!!!!!!

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Guest-David said:

Personally I am beginning more and more every week begin to wonder . What is the point of Tough Enough ?

The 'point' of the Tough Enough segments is the same as the underlying 'point' of all of the content on the show, which is to attract an audience and deliver ratings for future ad revenue. If you look at the numbers objectively, it is undeniable that the segments have achieved their purpose.

www.gerweck.net/ratings.htm

Before the TE segments started Smackdown was doing more in ring 'wrestling content'. Meaning longer matches and less time devoted to 'non match' content. To be blunt...ratings wise the show was on it's ass. The months of August & September saw the numbers hovering between 2.5 (horrible) to 3.2. With November sweeps just around the corner Ad Execs certainly weren't going to be banging on Vince's door if the trend continued. Nor was investing more time in Spike Dudley vs Nunzio or Dudleys vs Basham Brothers matches likely to turn things around.

So like any good business man Vince shakes things around and switches up the content. On the October 7th show the Tough Enough segments begin. Not only does the special half hour opening TE score the _highest_ quarter hour of the show....but the overall number moves up .7 (over 700,000 viewers) from what it did the week before. For the next two months, week in and week out the TE segments delivered high (if not the highest) quarter hours of each show...while the overall numbers outpaced what was done in the months preceding it. By any rational standard, that's called a success.

People I know who long stopped watching pro wrestling on a regular basis were actually intrigued by the Puder/Angle shoot scenario, talked about checking out Mike the Miz (who they knew from the other reality shows) and just seeing how the popular TE show they remembered from MTV was doing. As the ratings show my experience was duplicated many times over as people keep tuning back in week after week. I have friends who said they'll actually buy the next PPV just to see Puder KTFO Mike the Miz in the boxing match. Two months ago the chances of them even being remotely interested in a WWE PPV was slim to none.

Whether or not the Smackdown 'wrestling' content can hold the increased audience TE built once the contest ends remains to be seen. Lord knows the booking of matches and angles alone wasn't getting it done before TE started. With ideas such as the shooting of Big Show with a tranquillizer dart it seems as if the blind are leading the blind when it comes to creative decisions.

Yet for what it was intended to be Tough Enough has been an overwhelming success and I'll be a little less entertained each week once it's gone.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Here is an insightful Smackdown ratings breakdown from this weeks Wrestling Observer. Notice that the biggest mover in terms of drawing ratings over the last two months has been the Tough Enough segments! Hopefully this gives a better understanding of the 'point' behind the TE segments and why a smart business direction would see similar material (along with more Diva content) hitting the show in the not too distant future.

Courtesy of Wrestling Observer Newsletter

"Smackdown on 12/2 drew a 3.4 rating (3.8 realistic rating; est. 5.03 million viewers).

The show did:

3.6 in New York (4.0 for Jackie vs. Dawn angle);
3.8 in Los Angeles (4.3 for Jackie vs. Dawn angle);
4.1 in Chicago (4.5 for Guerrero & Booker vs. Bashams)
4.9 in Philadelphia (5.8 for Tough Enough guys in drag);
2.9 in San Francisco (3.2 for Tough Enough guys in drag); 3.1 in Boston (3.4 for Undertaker vs. Jordan & JBL);
5.4 in Dallas (6.7 for Jackie vs. Dawn);
3.2 in DC (3.5 for Guerrero & Booker vs. Bashams);
4.4 in Detroit (5.0 for Tough Enough guys in drag);
3.7 in Atlanta (4.4 for Undertaker vs. Jordan & JBL);
6.0 in Houston (6.4 for Eddie & Booker arguing while stretching).

We don’t have full details on the shows segments other than vague details that the first Tough Enough segment gained about 290,000 viewers, the Bashams vs. Guerrero & Booker gained about 145,000 viewers, the Angle challenge plus Big Show angle with Team Angle and Joy Giovanni gained about 290,000 viewers to a 3.6 rating, which was the peak of the show.

Ratings for Smackdown have gone from a 3.03 average in August and record low 2.83 in September, to a rapid rise to where the October average was 3.40. Some could say part of it is seasonal, as more people watch television in October, but last year, the same three month were 3.27, 3.32 and 3.41 showing the seasonal evidence can only make up a very small degree of the increase. Various people have tried to credit the increase to either JBL catching on finally as champion, the introduction of a fresh new character getting a serious main event push (Carlito) which was desperately needed, or Tough Enough (Linda McMahon brought this up at the investors conference).

Based on gaining and losing viewers regarding the stars of the brand since the first week of October when the turnaround has come, as far as average viewership gain or loss when this person was in a match or focal point of a segment, the numbers are as follows:

JBL (-100,700)
Big Show (-249.400)
Carlito (-39,400)
Kurt Angle (-192,500)
John Heidenreich (-68,000)
Eddie Guerrero (+118,600)
Tough Enough (+128,700)
Booker T (-56,100)
Rob Van Dam (+112,400)
Undertaker (-4,000)

[Mark 138]

I don't even want to get an argument started here, but these observations are based on spikes in ratings in a handful of major markets, and are no indicator of the national viewing climate as a whole. This is one of the things that is horribly flawed in the neilsen ratings and why companies that blindly follow what ratings analysis dictates are bound to fail.

The ratings are a good indicator of what the people hand-picked to be "neilsen homes", those selected to have their viewing habits monitored, are watching. There is no evidence (and in fact more to the contrary) that these numbers are anywhere near accurate. They simply take the percentage of neilsen homes watching a particular show at a particular time and multiply that by the number of estimated(very important word there) people who are potential viewers in that area to come up with the final numbers. I have seen the selection process to determine who gets to take part in these ratings surveys and it is not nearly all-inclusive as regards to economic and social class representation. This is why, for instance, in many areas of the country, far more people seem to know what happened on Raw than on "Desperate Housewives", but Raw ranks far lower in the ratings.

The spikes in viewership that you, and apparently Meltzer in the Observer, are basing your judegement on as regards Tough Enough occur in two markets, with a minor increase in a third. What can be gained from the knowledge that Philly, San Fran, and Detroit saw more people tune in to see young men in drag? Well, Philly was the area that saw the birth of the "hardcore" phenomenon of the 90's, Detroit is the home of the Insane Clown Posse, and San Fran is perhaps the most deflated major market from a wrestling standpoint and has a culture that's tastes do not, by and large, reflect that of the rest of the country. So you can draw your own conclusions there.

All humor aside, this really shows nothing except how unreliable these ratings are if one wants to shape the future of their company on them. In my conversations with fans in my weekly area of travel, encompasing western Indiana, central Illinois, and Eastern Missouri, I have not spoken to anyone who has seen Tough Enough on Smackdown as a positive or anything to go out of their way to tune in to watch. In fact, it has been quite the opposite. Most see it as a chance to see what's on another channel. They've seen what the previous Tough Enough shows have produced and no one seems to want to see another "gem" like Linda Miles, Maven, or Nidia dumped upon the audiance.

You have stated that you enjoyed the segments, so this article from the Observer is seen as your proof. It is seen as my proof that ratings do not accurately reflect tastes of the wrestling vieweship, or any other audiance, as a whole. They are a fair loose indicator of success at best, and a total travesty that has caused several bad business decisions at worst.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Storm said:

"I don't even want to get an argument started here,"

I always welcome challenging dialogue.

Storm said:

"but these observations are based on spikes in ratings in a handful of major markets, and are no indicator of the national viewing climate as a whole This is one of the things that is horribly flawed in the neilsen ratings and why companies that blindly follow what ratings analysis dictates are bound to fail."

No doubt one can assume 'flaws' in the Nielsen system. A fan has the luxury of ignoring it altogether, a television product does not! Putting aside one's doubts, the fact remains Nielsen is the industry standard in setting ad rates, established in over 40 countries around the world. It's impact is inescapable.

www.thefutoncritic.com/cgi/gofuton.cgi?action=adrates&id=2004

"Note: If a show does not meet its rating guarantee to advertisers (generally the average number of viewers in its time slot last season), refunds and/or make goods (free ads) are issued, severely decreasing a show's income per episode. If a show continues to fall below its rating guarantee it becomes financially irresponsible to continue the show, which leads to its cancellation."

While I can understand questioning the veracity of the source data, the reality is a business such as WWE can never escape the consequences said data has on a show financially.

Storm said:

"The spikes in viewership that you, and apparently Meltzer in the Observer, are basing your judegement on as regards Tough Enough occur in two markets, with a minor increase in a third."

Uh...no! The ratings on Tough Enough are broken down as follows:

Monthly Nielsen average

August 3.03
September 2.83
October 3.4

That is the monthly breakdown, which saw a significant increase on the overall number for the show once TE began as opposed to the two months preceding it's inception. Obviously this shows the overall number has risen. Yet we're not done yet.

From there the months of October and November are then broken down segment by segment to show how each quarter hour effected the overall number throughout the show. When isolated, the Tough Enough segments increased ratings on average 128k over the period of the study. This is the same trend WWE CEO Linda McMahon cited at the investor conference.

The data you elude to were based on a large market breakdown of the 12/2 Smackdown. It sites the overall rating along with the quarter hour peak for several major markets (Note this was not the entire list of all the markets comprising the data, just a select breakdown).

With regards to Philadelphia for example, the overall number was a 4.9 with the show peaking substantially during the TE segment (5.8) The number simply is what it is. The TE segment in Philly was the most watched segment of the show. End of the story.

Storm said:

"All humor aside, this really shows nothing except how unreliable these ratings are if one wants to shape the future of their company on them."

WWE is primarily a television product. Aside from PPV, it is ad revenue which drives the company. The idea that these numbers 'mean nothing' is beyond ludicrous given the fact that they are pivotal to negotiating future television contracts.

Storm said:

"You have stated that you enjoyed the segments, so this article from the Observer is seen as your proof."

As a fan I enjoy many things which turn out _NOT_ to be good for ratings. For example I loved the Iron Man match between Brock Lesnar & Kurt Angle last year. Yet the ratings showed that people tuned in for the intros...and then ratings crashed until the last 5 minutes when people tuned in for the finish. Numbers to me simply are what they are...meaning they are Nielsen indicators that effect future ad revenue negotiations. They are never some sort of 'proof' of my preference being good for business (often the stuff I like tanks and the numbers give me a reality check).

Storm said:

"It is seen as my proof that ratings do not accurately reflect tastes of the wrestling viewers, or any other audience, as a whole. They are a fair loose indicator of success at best, and a total travesty that has caused several bad business decisions at worst."

Obviously there is no such entity as 'wrestling viewers' or a measurement of 'tastes' that can be objectively quantified. These are simply abstraction of the mind. A fan does not face consequences for ignoring Nielsen data that effects WWE's bottom line with regards to ad revenue.

I prefer to live in the real world. As someone with my own business, I view WWE as entertainment that functions as what it is...a business. As such I have an appreciation for standards it CANNOT escape being measured by (such as Nielsen ratings) and enjoy understanding how these measurements guide the creative content that is chosen.

Whether one agrees with the Nielsen system or not...understanding it's impact and being knowledgeable on what the numbers show can better help fans to understand 'why' the creative content is what it is.

If not one finds themselves back at square one asking questions like 'What is the point of Tough Enough?' The 'point' is there for all to see, but only if one is willing to grasp it!

[Swarm]

Ya know, all the guy who started this thread wanted to know was "what's the point" with Tough Enough.

These humongoid posts are ridiculous.

Dave, seeing as that Tough Enough sucks, I don't see the point either.

I knew what you meant.

[Mark 138]

"Mr. Paint Dry", I completely understand what the ratings are supposed to represent. I also know why the fearful advertisers continue to cling blindly to the data they provide. And in turn I understand why the people responsible for the shows' continue to let them dictate the content of the shows. I'm just stating that my "grass roots" observation of the general public opinion of the Tough Enough segments indicates the ratings are not consistent with the general opinion. What that tells me is that the people selected to take part in the Nielsen study are not in line with the rest of the population in viewing habits and therefor the ratings are causing bad overall decisions as regards to the content of the shows.

So the general population will continue to ask why they are subjected to this nonsense, even though the answer seems so clear to the powers that be in the WWE. They believe the people really want that stuff because the ratings tell them so. They also see that the ratings tell them that there is no interest in an Eddie Guerrerro match, or any match at all, so they program less meaningful wrestling content each week. But all I hear from fans is that they no longer watch Smackdown, or watch much less, because there's not enough wrestling on the show.

Could it be that the people in "Nielsen homes" are for the most part casual fans or curiosity seekers and a sizeable number of real fans just fall into a demographic that the Nielsen people don't want to recognize? Perhaps one that they deem "less desirable"? I would hazard to say that the preceding statement has more validity than a lot of people would like to admit.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Storm said:

" I'm just stating that my "grass roots" observation of the general public opinion of the Tough Enough segments indicates the ratings are not consistent with the general opinion."

Fair enough "Mr. Storm Rider". I'll just say it appears our first hand observations are markedly different from one another. My experience in discussing the content of WWE programming with friends and acquaintances is much more in line with the viewers preferences reflected in the Nielsen ratings data. Meaning the people I know tend to prefer a mixture of sports entertainment skits, promos and diva stuff mixed with the matches as opposed to a heavy investment of wrestling as 'fake sport' throughout the show.

For example, in August/September when Smackdown was running Guerrero/Angle Iron Man and 2 out of 3 matches every week, many people I know couldn't have cared less. I personally loved it, but I was alone in my work place in finding people who cared. Once the show introduced more skits, new characters, divas and the TE segments the casual interest among the people I know slowly returned. In other words my experience reflected the Nielsen data.

Storm said:

"So the general population will continue to ask why they are subjected to this nonsense, even though the answer seems so clear to the powers that be in the WWE. They believe the people really want that stuff because the ratings tell them so."

It's been my experience that it's not the 'general population' that engages in such discussions, but a small minority of hardcore fans who find themselves discontented because their preferences are askew from the majority that product is rightfully targeted toward. It reminds me of listening to a right (or left) wing radio talk show, where a drum beat agenda of unanimity is repeated day in and day out by the host and his viewers. Then come election time, the audience is shocked to find their views are on the fringe and not reflective of the population as a whole. That's how the 'disinterested' wrestling fans come across.

Storm said:

"Could it be that the people in "Nielsen homes" are for the most part casual fans or curiosity seekers and a sizeable number of real fans just fall into a demographic that the Nielsen people don't want to recognize?"

I suspect the Nielsen data is representative of the population at large, and thus would likely be comprised of more 'casual viewers' simply because the larger population of those who watch pro wrestling are just that...casual viewers. This is precisely what the vast majority of WWE's fan base is comprised of. That the ratings show these fans want a mixture of content, not just wrestling presented as a fake sport as supported by the hardcore minority should really come as no surprise.

Ratings consistently show the longer the match time devoted to the shows...the lower the ratings and the lower the corresponding PPV buy rates. This is not a favorable trend for business.

As for the 'real fans' comment, I'm not quite sure what you mean. A father who rarely pays attention to the shows but takes his kid to a house show once a year, or a woman who buys who boyfriend a WWE DVD for X Mas or a group of guys who order a WWE PPV on the spur of the moment are just as much 'real fans' and likely far more representative of the consumer base than some guy who watches every minute of every show of WWE television and gripes about how the wrestlers are used or the content is presented because he's a 'real' fan. In the end, there's no more 'real' form of customer than any other who spends money on the product.

Storm said:

"Perhaps one that they deem "less desirable"? I would hazard to say that the preceding statement has more validity than a lot of people would like to admit."

LOL. I suspect the goals of Nielsen is far less nefarious than you suggest. Then again I view the entire Nielsen process with much less of a jaundiced eye!

[WIldfire at Home]

[I don't even want to get an argument started here, but these observations are based on spikes in ratings in a handful of major markets, and are no indicator of the national viewing climate as a whole. This is one of the things that is horribly flawed in the neilsen ratings and why companies that blindly follow what ratings analysis dictates are bound to fail.

The ratings are a good indicator of what the people hand-picked to be "neilsen homes", those selected to have their viewing habits monitored, are watching. There is no evidence (and in fact more to the contrary) that these numbers are anywhere near accurate. They simply take the percentage of neilsen homes watching a particular show at a particular time and multiply that by the number of estimated(very important word there) people who are potential viewers in that area to come up with the final numbers. I have seen the selection process to determine who gets to take part in these ratings surveys and it is not nearly all-inclusive as regards to economic and social class representation. This is why, for instance, in many areas of the country, far more people seem to know what happened on Raw than on "Desperate Housewives", but Raw ranks far lower in the ratings.

--- Not that it makes much of a difference to your arguement, but I'm a neilsen family.. I watch Raw semi regularly, but not Smackdown. Just thought I'd share

-- Wildfire

[Joe]

Guest-Like said:

I suspect the Nielsen data is representative of the population at large, and thus would likely be comprised of more 'casual viewers' simply because the larger population of those who watch pro wrestling are just that...casual viewers. This is precisely what the vast majority of WWE's fan base is comprised of. That the ratings show these fans want a mixture of content, not just wrestling presented as a fake sport as supported by the hardcore minority should really come as no surprise.

This isn't an observation about the Smackdown programming so much as it is about the Nielsen ratings.

Considering his vast knowledge of television ratings, LWPD should realize that his statement quoted above is, shall we say, very open to debate.

Through the years, there have been numerous complaints lodged that the Nielsen ratings do not accuately reflect viewing habits. Perhaps the most obvious example of this is the early seasons of Beverly Hills, 90210. The show fared extremely poorly in the Nielsen ratings, yet for some inexplicable reason, every item that featured Dylan, Brandon, Brenda, or Kelli flew off shelves. It ranked in the bottom third of all prime-time programs, yet everytime Luke Perry and Jason Perry caused panic attacks and traffic shutdowns both domestically and internationally. My point? Somebody was watching the show or the actors would not have become household names and major celebrities.

Another case of questionable Nielsen ratings involves shows with Black stars and casts. In the early 90s, a study found that over 1/3 of all Blacks in this country were regular viewers of Martin and Living Single 1/3! With Blacks making up about 15% of the nation's population at that time, that would place an estimated figure of the Black viewers of that show in the neighborhood of 12 million (forgive me if my math is slightly off). That is not counting white viewers. With those impressive numbers, however, neither show ever cracked the Nielsen Top 20. Once again, the system appears to be flawed.

I realize this has nothing to do with WWE, so please forgive me. This was simply a response to LWPD's statement that the Nielsen ratings are a fair and accurate representation of the nation as a whole.

By the way, some of the TE segments have been entertaining, but I, too, would rather see Eddie Guerrero vs. Kurt Angle.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Joe said:

"I realize this has nothing to do with WWE, so please forgive me. This was simply a response to LWPD's statement that the Nielsen ratings are a fair and accurate representation of the nation as a whole."

Joe...I said in the comment you quoted that "I suspect the Nielsen are representative of the population at large'. This is what the system measures and claims to measure in it's mission statement...a representation of the population at large. This is not the same thing as making a qualitative statement like it is a 'fair and accurate representation of the nation'.

In point of fact I don't see the words 'fair and accurate representation of the nation as a whole' anywhere in any of my posts in this thread. To the contrary, I said from the outset:

Like Watching Paint Dry: "While I can understand questioning the veracity of the source data, the reality is a business such as WWE can never escape the consequences said data has on a show financially."

It's a fact that the Nielsen system is the industry standard for tracking ratings trends and setting ad rates. The main point of my posts in this thread concerns the impact Nielsen ratings have on WWE business trends, and how this effects the chosen content. The veracity of the Nielsen system itself is of no concern to me either way, only it's impact is.

As you pointed out, your post really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. I kindly ask you to please read more carefully going forward to avoid unintentionally misrepresenting my views in the future.

[Mark 138]

Mr Paint Dry(if that is in fact your real name), it is clear that you will never sway me from my statement that the ratings flawed, just as you will continue to defend them with your own lengthy posts for your own reasons. The previous post from "Joe" (that must be an assumed name as no one would name a child something silly like "Joe", right Mr. Dry?) does give actual examples of what have been suggested as Nielsen flaws and oversights in the past.

You mention that the people you know enjoy the Tough Enough segments and did not care for the Angle/Guerrerro match. Well, we clearly know different people and I would like to state for the record that I am grateful for that fact. Clearly the very vocal minority that favors those segments over actual wrestling content in a wrestling show, the same minority that claims to be the majority on the basis of ratings that are set up to reflect them and not a broad range of people from across the country(as is claimed), will continue to be happy with the product. In the meantime, house show attendance will continue to drop, merch sales will be sluggish, and overall interest will continue to decline until that "Nielsen supported majority" will be all that is left. Those should be the numbers that count.

[Joe]

Guest-Like said:

I suspect the Nielsen data is representative of the population at large...

I will narrow your quote down even more. True, you did not use the phrase 'fair and accurate representation of the nation as a whole", but your statement is essentially voicing the same faith in the Nielsen ratings as I paraphrased.

Please forgive me. Reword my initial post and read as the Nielsen ratings are "representative of the population at large".

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Joe said:

"I will narrow your quote down even more. True, you did not use the phrase 'fair and accurate representation of the nation as a whole", but your statement is essentially voicing the same faith in the Nielsen ratings as I paraphrased. "

You're mind reading again Joe. Nowhere did I express 'faith' in the Nielsen sampling system, In point of fact I couldn't care less on the issue. If you could find supporting comments where I break down the merits of the Nielsen sampling system you'd have a point. The fact that no such statements were made should tell you something.

Joe said:

Please forgive me. Reword my initial post and read as the Nielsen ratings are "representative of the population at large".

Why do you further chop the sentence? What I said in full was: "I suspect the Nielsen data is representative of the population at large, and thus would likely be comprised of more 'casual viewers' simply because the larger population of those who watch pro wrestling are just that...casual viewers. "

To clarify for you, the term 'representative' was speaking to size, not referencing the quality of the sample. In other words I was referencing Nielsen ratings provide a large sample size...nothing more and nothing less. I would assume that would be clear to anyone reading my posts in context.

Consider yourself forgiven. Joe I would however respectfully advise you in the future to quote me on what I say verbatim WITHOUT chopping my sentences or mind reading your own meanings into my posts. Helps avoid misunderstanding.

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

Storm said:

"Mr Paint Dry(if that is in fact your real name),"

Like Watching Paint Dry is actually just a posting handle. Assuming you were not born with the name Storm Rider, it's peculiar you would not be familiar with the practice of message board participants using such monikers. If you read just this board alone I'm sure you'll site quite a few!

Storm said:

"it is clear that you will never sway me from my statement that the ratings flawed, just as you will continue to defend them with your own lengthy posts for your own reasons."

Just to clarify, 'changing your mind' is not the purpose for my participation in this thread. I post both to inform, and gain information. I learn and become entertained by engaging in dialogue...even from those whom I disagree with.

I consider my time well spent in this thread if one of the readers out there has learned either:

i. The importance Nielsen ratings have in effecting WWE ad rates and/or

ii. Information on recent rating trends as documented by Nielsen

If either or both are accomplished, then my job as a poster is done. For such a reader questions like "What is the point of Tough Enough" should become much clearer to understand assuming they are able to grasp the underlying concepts.

Storm said:

"The previous post from "Joe" (that must be an assumed name as no one would name a child something silly like "Joe", right Mr. Dry?) does give actual examples of what have been suggested as Nielsen flaws and oversights in the past."

I'm not sure whether 'Joe' is his birth name or is simply a posting handle. Rather than hazard a blind guess, I'll step aside and allow him to answer said question if he so chooses. BTW....I don't think 'Joe' is a silly name!

Storm said:

"You mention that the people you know enjoy the Tough Enough segments and did not care for the Angle/Guerrerro match. Well, we clearly know different people and I would like to state for the record that I am grateful for that fact."

I hope you're not making judgments on people based upon their tastes in pro wrestling!

Storm said:

"Clearly the very vocal minority that favors those segments over actual wrestling content in a wrestling show, the same minority that claims to be the majority on the basis of ratings that are set up to reflect them and not a broad range of people from across the country(as is claimed), will continue to be happy with the product."

I don't think it's that simplistic. As with any medium of entertainment, most pro wrestling fans are just simply casual viewers. You can tell when they are interested in the content largely through changes in the Nielsen ratings. PPV buy rates and house show attendance typically mimic fluctuations in said ratings data. There's no 'conspiracy' just reality.

Storm said:

"In the meantime, house show attendance will continue to drop, merch sales will be sluggish, and overall interest will continue to decline until that "Nielsen supported majority" will be all that is left. Those should be the numbers that count."

I would hope business would turn around, but I'm not too confident in that happening. My tastes in pro wrestling are as far from the main stream as could be. From watching The Destroyer and Billy Robinson classics from 1970's AJPW to Bob Luce footage of Verne Gagne to 1980's JCP. I love all different styles of wrestling.

Yet I'm not going to delude myself into thinking my preferences represent what's good for business. Not when there's only one profitable full time pro wrestling promotion in the entire country and all alternatives products are financial flops reduced to stacking their cards with ticket sellers or living off the funding of naive money marks.

I'm someone who's always loved the idea of pro wrestling as a 'fake sport', yet I'm honest enough with myself to realize that people who share my view are few and far between in terms of pro wrestling viewership at large. Rebelling against the Nielsen data and living in some sort of fantasy world isn't going to change that.

[Joe]

Guest-Like said:

You're mind reading again Joe. Nowhere did I express 'faith' in the Nielsen sampling system, In point of fact I couldn't care less on the issue.

Why do you further chop the sentence? What I said in full was: "I suspect the Nielsen data is representative of the population at large, and thus would likely be comprised of more 'casual viewers' simply because the larger population of those who watch pro wrestling are just that...casual viewers. "

To clarify for you, the term 'representative' was speaking to size, not referencing the quality of the sample. In other words I was referencing Nielsen ratings provide a large sample size...nothing more and nothing less. I would assume that would be clear to anyone reading my posts in context.

Consider yourself forgiven. Joe I would however respectfully advise you in the future to quote me on what I say verbatim WITHOUT chopping my sentences or mind reading your own meanings into my posts. Helps avoid misunderstanding.

In strictly reading the wording of the post I did draw the conclusion that you believed Nielsen ratings to be, for the most part, accurate. That is what your statement that you "suspect the data is representative of the population at large" implies. That is where the use of the term 'faith' came from. You said you 'suspected' which would generally be taken as a 'belief'. 'Faith' could very well be substituted for belief, so there is my explanation of the use of the word. It is not mind reading, dear friend, it is simply choosing a different word to say essentially the same thing.

The statement labeling the ratings as 'representative' did also imply that you were confident in the quality of the survey. In my earlier post, I simply pointed out documented situations that may lead one to believe that Nielsen ratings are not accurate or, "representative of the population at large."

[Like Watching Paint Dry]

It's not a big deal Joe. Perhaps I'm just as much to blame in not relaying my thoughts more clearly.

Regardless, the veracty of Nielsen data is of no concern to me either way. My only concern is with people understanding the impact said data has on setting industry ad rates.

[Joe]

Fair enough. I, too, agree that this is not a big deal, but it was rather fun to discuss.

[Swarm]

If there is a reason the TE or Diva segments get good ratings it's because of the kind of thing that happened tonight with Snitsky. Who out there can honestly say they were enjoying that segment before he came out?

To casual fan, they must be thinking "this is WRESTLING. WHAT is this crap? They must be leading up to something...I bet Austin comes out and stuns all these drag queens..." or something to that effect.

I know I started looking forward to the Diva search much more after The Rock made an appearance.

I call it NASCAR theory. Don't like it, don't watch it, but if there is a highlight of a crash on SportsCenter, I'm not necessarily changing the channel.

[why we shouldnt post]

You know, it is now quite clear to me that Mr. Paint Dry is the same individual who was posting as "Why we post" on the LOW board some months back. He has the same penchant for abusing the "quote" function of the board, the same post structure, and the same propensity for attempting to cause a war, either intentionally or through his lack of social skills and overinflated sense of self. Notice how he writes down to Joe, almost as a teacher scolding a student? The guy also has absolutely no sense of humor, as evident by the fact that he really thinks someone is questioning whether "Paint Dry" is in fact his real name.

Just quit replying and let this go away.