From the A1 Message Boards: Me and Jerseyboy on the Money in the Bank Buyrate

Don't worry 'bout Punk
Photo Credit: WWE.com

Normally, I hate talking about things like buyrates and ratings. Like Jason Mann said, they're boring. However, sometimes, you get dragged into conversations with people who take those sorts of things seriously. In addition to my post on why I don't think they need to be taken seriously at Fair to Flair, I got into it a little bit at A1-Wrestling with the people reacting to ratings and getting a bit in a tizzy because ratings haven't shot up.

I posted the now-determined-to-be incorrect buyrate for Money in the Bank, which was actually really good, before I was corrected by poster and sometimes TWB commenter KoppoKick bringing up Meltzer's analysis of the sheets bringing the number down a bit. The correct number, 185K as compared to the erroneous number of 276K, was still pretty good, at least I thought. Here's the passage of three posts over there that I think dictates why, regardless of how "good" or "not good" the numbers are, why, again, we shouldn't really worry about the business side when it comes to what they're going to do on the side we SHOULD care about, i.e. the shows themselves. Two of my posts will sandwich one by poster and regular TWB commenter Jerseyboy, with whom I may disagree from time to time. Despite that, he really is smart when it comes to this kind of thing, and I'm glad he reads and comments.

Yes, this will be directly C&Ped from the A1 board, but I think it's worth sharing. At least I hope you think it's worth sharing.

Me:

[Referring to the discrepancy between the originally reported 276K and the real 185K] It just goes to show that wrestling journalism has a long way to go, and wrestling fans such as myself have a long way to go before trusting any of these sites. My bad.

That being said, 185K is still a good number.

Jerseyboy:

I agree. To me, it meant that Punk/Cena had some juice.

The big thing that people need to keep in mind is that if there's going to be business turnaround with Punk as the centerpiece, it isn't going to happen overnight. Again, the things to look at over the next 3-6 months aren't the TV ratings so much, but to see if there's a bump in PPV buyrates and house show attendance and merchandise sales. If Punk means something, that's where the initial bump's [sic] going to come from.

Of course, the WWE might look at ratings and a less than expected PPV number and decide Punk needs to be shunted back down the card. But I'm thinking at this point that they're pretty much out of options and will go all the way with him.

Because if you move Punk back to the mid-card, who do you move up in his place? Exactly.

Me again:

Yeah, I think you're right in that they won't move him back down for whatever reason. They're already seeing the initial bumps in merch. MitB was slightly up, from this time last year, which is still up. Ratings are ratings, but in the last two months, they've been mostly stable. Plus, as Triple H gets more influence, I think the decision making might turn more rational over the long term. I think Punk will be fine.

Normally, I don't care about this kind of thing, but I posted the number just to try and allay concerns (before I found out that I had bitten on a bad one, again, my fault there) that something that we found good was going to continue to pay dividends and that really, we should probably stop worrying about the business end of things. 10 million people watch the Jersey Shore. Is that a measurement of how enjoyable that program is going to be to you? Hardly. Therefore, why should it matter how many people consume wrestling if what the company is producing is good? And unlike Fatty, there really isn't a consensus on this angle being good or bad (although most people I interact with have loved the last two months with hiccups here and there).

If WWE was proving to be reactionary, then they wouldn't have put Punk over Cena at MitB, they wouldn't have put him over Cena again at SummerSlam, and they wouldn't have programmed him against someone who is so obviously hateable and polarizing the other way that everyone, not just the "Attitude Era holdovers", men and anti-Cena crowd, would cheer him. Say what you want about Nash and Punk being programmed against him, but again, the logic there isn't to bury Punk or put him out of mind. It's to get everyone to cheer the man, and it's a prelude into a potential feud with the boss. Whether you think Nash should have been the segue into that or whether you think that a boss/employee feud in 2011 is a good idea is one thing, but I think it's undeniable that Punk is a priority to WWE right now.

This is program #1 or at least #1a (with Cena/del Rio being #1). The moment that Punk gets thrown back to the Dolph Zigglers and Kanes of the world is when we start panicking, at least in my estimation. But again, I'll be utterly shocked if that happens. Call me myopic. Call me overly optimistic. Call me a "WWE fanboy" (like that means anything among adults in 2011, even if there wasn't a shitload of evidence to prove that I come down on what I feel is bad wrestling regardless of company) even. Just don't call me late for dinner. But I have a really good feeling about the direction of WWE right now, and when it's all said and done, I really feel like come WrestleMania time, CM Punk is going to be fully integrated into the main event firmament.

I think that's a passage worth relaying. Again, numbers are numbers, and even if they do affect what they put on the screen, you always have the option to vote with your own remote control and not watch. Life's not long enough to the point where worrying about the performance indicators of WWE is worth it.

Also, I encourage you, like I always have, to sign up for an account at A1-Wrestling and post there. It's a really good community with great discussion for wrestling and so much more.

Mark Madden Misses the Point

Photo Credit: Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Site

Oooh look, mommy! FJM material! AND IT'S WRESTLING RELATED TOO! Mark Madden comes with the unbridled negativity towards CM Punk's return last night. I shall skewer him here. Why? BECAUSE I CAN BITCHES.


When Brian Pillman did his worked shoot in 1996, it lasted MONTHS. Pillman bounced from WCW to ECW to WWE, legitimately double-crossing WCW. Eric Bischoff had fired Pillman assuming he’d come back. He didn’t.

When Brian Pillman did his worked shoot in 1996, there were two major wrestling companies and a cutting-edge indie that hadn't become a national force by itself yet. It's 2011. WWE is the only game in town. Impact is a wannabe promotion and ROH isn't even close to Impact yet.

But by all means, continue.

C.M. Punk left WWE for two weeks.

So, what was the point?

To get Vince McMahon fired and to get himself more leverage on his contract situation. Oh, and because he can. Try to keep up.

Oh, Punk and Cena had a cute staredown at the end of Raw. But Punk has clearly been reestablished as just another WWE guy.

Because everyone in WWE has their own Spinner Belt that they won because they beat John Cena clean in a PPV main event.

The absence of Punk’s title didn’t make WWE sweat, not even for two weeks. They just crowned another champ, then passed the belt right back to John Cena. Now Punk and Cena have a UFC-style real champ vs. interim champ unification match at SummerSlam. Cena wins, then heads for WrestleMania and The Rock.

Hey guys, who leaked Mark Madden the script?

I'd also say that the fact that VINCE MCMAHON WAS FIRED THE WEEK BEFORE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF CM PUNK WINNING AT MONEY IN THE BANK was WWE sweating. But hey, what do I know, I never worked for a failing wrestling company in the broadcast booth!

Punk? Maybe he turns babyface and becomes the new Steve Austin, the anti-authoritarian.

Because that's such a bad thing.

Or maybe he drops back down to the mid-card.

Yeah, because a guy who gets the WWE this much media attention is going to drop like a stone. At least wait until the MitB buyrates come in before you start peddling such doom 'n gloom.

But how does Punk remain anti-authoritarian? Vince McMahon is gone, and the doofus son-in-law fixed a lot of the crap Punk bitched about.

Uh, there was that whole thing where they both insinuated that they slept with each other's significant others. Oh, and Punk could remain anti-authoritarian by just rejecting what Trips has "fixed". Or you could grow an imagination or wait and see what's next.

I hope Punk came back for the money, because I’m praying he wasn’t stupid enough to fall for the promises.

Q: What will you do if wwe misuses you like they did with guys like shannon moore [sic] and so on?

A: I'll go out and purchase a hummer and buy a nice house, just like he did.

But I have my fears.

OH NOES! CM Punk is going to make gobs of money to not be featured the way I, Mark Madden, Internet slob, want him to be featured! I AM OUTRAGED!!

Smarter people than Punk have been set up, blinded to some degree by their own brilliance (and BS).

This doesn't even fucking make any sense.

If Raw’s rating drops, who gets blamed? Not Triple H. Original plans called for Trips to pedigree Punk. Why? Because Triple H is a REAL star. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was. Same as it ever was.

RAW's rating was 2.9 the week before Money in the Bank. It was 3.2 the night after. Sounds like an increase. I'll be shocked if it's not increased or at the same level again at least, despite the fact that Punk wasn't even advertised for the show.

Also, lol @ looking at ratings as a success point in 2011.

Nobody ever wants to let an angle marinate. Just hot-shot for TV. Hot-shot for the pay-per-view.

I'd say that the fact that the angle on the whole has been going on for a month now makes me believe that they've set up for SummerSlam nicely.

Punk should have been gone for MONTHS.

Because that's how you capitalize on a guy being made into a star in a month's time. YOU LEAVE HIM OFF THE SHOW FOR MONTHS AFTERWARDS! Then, when he comes back, he'll certainly get the same pops as the guys who were left to carry on in his place, especially Triple H, a guy he decried as being the egomaniac a paragraph prior.

The title should have been gone for MONTHS. The belt would have gained credibility by its absence. Instead, it’s just another prop.

I'm sorry, but how is not being defended, or worse, being replaced by a paper Championship in the interim, going to give the title credibility? If anything, it would have submarined the guy holding the belt in the interim because he wouldn't have beaten the guy who waltzed out of the company with it.

Memo to bookers: You BUILD ratings. You don't SEIZE ratings.

Memo to Mark Madden: You were never part of any successful wrestling company. People in WWE right now have been.

Fire Vince? The WWE board should have fired EVERYBODY.

I wonder if Mark Madden and Darren Rovell are BFFs.

P.S. – Gee, I really enjoy the new comments section on these columns.

Maybe you shouldn't write utter tripe then.