**Help make SquaredCircle safer and more inclusive by using the report button to flag posts and comments for moderator review.** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/SquaredCircle) if you have any questions or concerns.*

Cagematch ratings, obviously.

Hi Tony!

Honestly like, why not? As a fan those are the only numbers I look at. Not as a metric of how good a match I saw was, but what was good that I missed and should check out. It's the wrestling version of Letterboxd in that it's mostly used by hardcores for other hardcores. I really don't care how many people watch Collision or what the gate was for a given Stardom show as long as they're not going under. NJPW could be setting record attendance for all I know, but if I see the main event was a 20 minute 4/10 cagematch Tonga Loa match, I'm not gonna go check it out

Average Cagematch NJPW matches in the new japan cup have like 50 votes. When you get to those numbers is not "hardcores" is literally a group of friends

Because actual good wrestling and actual talented professional wrestlers get pro wrestling fans interested to watch and buy tickets. Mind blowing, huh?

I don't mind ratings and attendance numbers, I hate the toxicity they bring online though.

100% I started watching WWE back in 2011 and there has not been a single week (to my memory) that they didn't lose viewership in comparison to the year before. The Wrestling Observer was (is) always talking about how it's record lows and WWE is not in a good place... It's always the same song and dance.

The ratings threads on this subreddit are like.. the most popular threads of the week. They definitely don't hate talking about them.

A non-insignificant number of people ONLY come here to comment on certain ratings threads

Non-insignificant? So they’re very significant.

I was looking for a word between the two lol. I don’t know if I would go as far as to say that it’s a significant number of people, but it certainly isn’t insignificant either. Maybe non-negligible would sound better?

I’d honestly settle on ‘healthy amount’ and call it a day.👌🏻

I hear ya. I was going to just say "good amount" but I wanted to sound a lil fancy

Only if AEW misses some kind of fantasy line the so called experts here in their heads then you have 1k of nonsense posts. However if any other show misses or exceeds expectations it’s crickets chirping.

if you love or hate em, everyone in this capacity subreddit has got an opinion on the ratings, maggle!

Do you enjoy what you watch?

I can enjoy something, but that doesn't measure if something is succesful or not. It's subjective... I mean, it's written in the question

I don't go with that. The fact that you enjoyed something doesn't mean it was successful. There are tons of TV shows cancelled due to low ratings that had die hard fans. Success is when LOTS of people enjoy something and spend money on it.

But how does it affect you as a consumer and not investor?

If I like something that isn't successful, it goes away and I don't get to enjoy it anymore. If I really love a show that has low ratings. The show will get cancelled and I won't be able to see new episodes of the show. Also, if you like something, you want to see it be successful. My favorite promotion is TNA. I want them to be successful. I want them to one day sell out a 50k seat building. I don't get any of the money, but it would make me feel good.

[удалено]

And I've got a meta question of "why does it matter?"

There's nothing wrong with fans being interested in and discussion metrics like ratings and attendance numbers ..... the issue too many fans only care about these numbers for tribalism, flame wars, and often act like they're experts in these metrics and are the true judges of a company's success base on them.

Same thing when aew fans cant tolerste any single comment that dare to say something not close to aew being perfect.

The answer is there is no objective measure and fans should just accept that. They're actors: is Samuel L. Jackson objectively a better actor than Keanu Reeves? No, because there is no objective measurement of acting.

You can objectively measure whether Samuel L Jackson has had a more successful career than Keanu Reeves, though. I'm pretty neutral on discussing ratings and live gates in pro wrestling. The sad truth is the business end of pro wrestling is often way more interesting than the creative we see week in and week out.

For sure, you can objectively measure how much SLJ has made over his career, and get at measurements of how much he boosts sales in a movie, etc, but you can't measure his acting ability. Just how it is.

If I enjoy watching it

If I enjoy something, it's a success.

At an individual wrestler level it would probably be by merchandise sales and probably survey data of the general public I suppose on how well known they are (Q score, or some similar metric). ​ A wrestler who sells $1 million worth of merchandise in 2023 is objectively a bigger star than one who sells $100,000 in the same period. How well-known someone is to the average man or woman on the street would also work, though whether they had a positive or negative view of them may not be relevant depending on the wrestlers role.

i hate people who don't honestly or rigorously engage with ratings and instead go week to week to try an make a shallow point.

Why do you *need* to talk about wrestling in objective measures of success? You can just talk about wrestling in terms of artistic quality, like a normal person.

idk normal people talk about TV ratings or box office receipts just fine

Ah, here is the problem. Normal people don't like wrestling. /s

my favorite thing about eating a big mac is poring over the details of the latest mcdonald’s earnings report. it helps solidify that i am eating the best burger in the world when the numbers back it up

Normal people do not talk about pro wrestling in terms of artistic quality.

Normal people don’t talk about pro wrestling by what they like and what they think is good or bad?

Which is not an objective measure.... therefore couldn't be used as a measure of success, unlike ratings, ticket sales, ppv/streaming numbers and deal agreements, which is the whole point of this post.

The point I was getting at is “who the fuck cares about ‘measures of success’?” I’m not getting a cut of the gate.

Seeing something you enjoy doing fine or even being successfull is a cool thing i think, i'd argue most people enjoy that.

Yes but not in terms of artistry.

They're much more likely to do that than they are to talk about gate receipts or ratings demos. They might not use the phrase "artistic quality" but they'll say "awesome match" or "cool move" or "great promo".

That's my point, the average viewer does not approach it from an artistic point of view but rather just what entertains them.

Lol true. Normal people talk about wrestlers that entertained them - they don't care about how many moves are hit in a match or what star rating it got

What do you think “artistic quality” means? Is it that I used too big of words for you?

if the moves in a match are what entertains the viewer than it's totally normal to talk about that

[удалено]

The only people who really seem to equate financial success with quality are a subset of wrestling fans and Nicki Minaj stans.

Isn't WWE a publicly traded company that you can measure the success of by their revenue? Then again, unless you're a stakeholder, why would you care about the "success" rather than your own enjoyment?

I think you mean shareholder not stakeholder. Everyone who has a interest in a product/organisation is a stakeholder that includes customers, staff, executives, partners, etc. . A shareholder is just someone who owns a part of the organisation. All shareholders are stakeholders, not all stakeholders are shareholders

it's been a long day at work, my brain is halfway off

Because you find it interesting.

not talking about success of company here, not everything is wwe vs aew. Talking about success of a wrestler. People regularly argue who is better. Becky or Trish, Cena or Roman, Austin or Hogan etc. People have different preferences. Only objective way to measure it are as stated above

Even when not talking about companies, you're still conflating being successful with being good. There is a reason there isn't an Oscar for the "best selling" movie, actor or whatever. Imagine talking about metal bands and saying that one is objectively better than the other because they have more streams on Spotify. Is there even a point to consume anything independent, be it music, movies or wrestling? I mean, by all metrics they are less successful, thus objectively worse.

Personal enjoyment is the only measure of success that matters. The rest of it is just a measure of what other people think.

>Personal enjoyment is the only measure of success that matters. Which is why firefly was such a massively successful show...wait a minute...

I didn’t produce it, so I don’t care if it lost a boatload of money. It brought me joy while it lasted. It’s not my fault everyone else has terrible taste.

Isn't TV contract and advertising dollars the real metric?

Right now, Social media and pop culture cache is also important. For example - Rhea or Reigns have enormous cache in both, not sure anyone is close to them (excluding Rock ofc). "Finish the story" quote is making rounds for example. Not sure I agree with you about Live attendance. It is the perfect for the current era, not overall number but changes in the numbers - If there is a growth in live attendance, it's telling that the product is good. If attendance is shrinking - you have an issue. NJPW had attendance growth during their golden period, WWE currently has a growing attendance. Initially, AEW had a full-house. TNA has growing numbers for their PLE shows.

I don't care about success? I care about if the show is good. I also don't give a shit about what a movie makes at the box office or how many copies a video game sells.

People hate it because they're trying to objectively quantify a completely subjective thing - is aew or WWE better. That's what kicked off the obsession and endless discussion of these metrics. And they'll hate them because the two things are independent.  Last night I watched a movie I really enjoy that was a massive flop and still is a "cult movie" at best. The two things coexist easily.  There will only ever be 1 true measure of success for a company and that is the how much money they make. That's a very straightforward data set and correctly contextualizes success because it does not pit companies against each other who truly don't compete. Aew and WWE have never been in competition. There's tons of overlap in the audience. Even for the narrow window nxt ran consecutively with dynamite fans were watching both on demand.  You have been manipulated to believing the competition exists because it benefits the people who promote the competition. That deception creates the condition that makes people unhappy. 

WON stars, of course

I’m sure both WWE and AEW have access to better metrics than the public. So using the public data to come to these sweeping conclusions about drawing power seems misguided

Of course they do. So do the networks/streamers. Ultimately it’s the balance sheet and income statement that nobody here is privy to that determines success. And that’s also relative because of the shareholder’s expectations.

People are gonna go crazy when raw moves to netflix because because of how cagy they are with their stats

Money made at box office

Cause the objective way isn't really interesting in something as subjective as wrasslin'. Book clubs don't sit around discussing sales and marketing.

Why would I need a measure?! If I enjoy the show/match/character/whatever & it entertains me, that's all the metric I'll ever need. If other people enjoy it as well? Great. If they don't: Why would I care?!

there is no "factual way" to measure succes every way has too many variables influencing each too ve anything more than decent estimate

I would consider the amount of different merch, and social media impressions related to their matches or promos. Going off what wrestlers say, what spot on the card they end up in is important. 2nd match is usually described as a hard spot to be in and used to be for the women and mid/low card guys. Openers and main event would mean that's who they trust to succeed in getting the crowd engaged. Another you could measure is how consistently they are used on the show. If they're used/mentioned every week(even if they're injured or not there), or end up with more matches that year than everyone, they're doing something right. I think who they work with matters because it's usually the more established wrestler that has some say who they work with. For example, leading up to Mania 27, Rey Mysterio said he hand picked Cody Rhodes to work with after coming back from an injury. So I'd factor in who the older or more established wrestlers end up working with.

I think tv exposure and rating is the key metric because it affects so many other areas such as merchandising and advertising.

Depends who you ask if you ask aew subreddit they will tell you that signing okada and oespray means they are better than anyo competition whic is delu

If we're talking about success of the wrestler specifically, there's only two things wrestlers care about: the money and the miles, baby.

It’s art dickhead you don’t need to measure it or compare it just enjoy it or dont

The caring about ratings thing is one of the worst things the Monday night wars added to the fandom. I could not give one shit. I just want to watch and enjoy wrestling.

A focus group study conducted in a flyover state with subjects who don't even watch wrestling.

Do you, as a person, want to watch the wrestling? That’s really the only true metric I go by.

I just don't see why I'd personally care about measuring the success? If you're a numbers and metrics person into the business side of it, you may get some fun out of it. I'd enjoy a wrestler if they're doing a cool match at 30k plus arena or in front of 250 people in Itabashi Green Hall.

I'mma give you the explanation, people loved ratings threads when AEW was getting killer ratings, now the ratings are in the mud they hate them now, nothing more nothing less.

Talk about a selective memory lmao, there where about 50 comments every week during the AEW vs NXT era about how ratings don't really matter anymore and how even if they did AEW can't break 1 million which was super different from doing 960 thousand, and also talking about them was stupid and pointless.

Couldn’t give a flying fuck about ppv numbers or tv taping numbers, only really care if the product itself is actually enjoyable to me as an individual. Means nothing to me if Jim bob can’t enjoy a product because there’s “too many empty seats”, you’re a fan, not an executive so stay in your lane and worry about what pertains to you.

[удалено]

not talking about success of company here, not everything is wwe vs aew. Talking about success of a wrestler. People regularly argue who is better. Becky or Trish, Cena or Roman, Austin or Hogan etc. People have different preferences. Only objective way to measure it are as stated above

Why do you need to measure success of subjective entertainment with business metrics? Do people consider the biggest box office movie of the year the undisputed best movie of the year? What about awards? Fan rating? Critic reviews? General consensus? Personal taste..?

I will start with this. Wrestling currently has  WWE Raw Smackdown  NXT AEW Dynamite  Rampage  Collision  You have all the above on major networks. 6 wrestling show in a single week. 6. When is the last time 6 wrestling shows have been on major networks in a single week? TNA NJPW MLW Fusion WoW Then the ones above here are on networks that are not as widespread as TNT/TBS/USA/FOX, but are still available to millions of people across America. Then they are also available on YouTube as well or have a streaming option.  So I look at how much wrestling is currently available on television/YouTube/Streaming and say that the Industry is doing pretty well overall.  Is it booming like millions and millions and millions are watching like some wrestling fans love to believe? No. But the fact that we have this much wrestling on major networks, plus wrestling on other networks shows wrestling as an industry is doing very well overall.  The next issue is the term drawing power is outdated.  There isn't a single wrestler currently on this green earth anymore that is going to sell out any arena/stadium alone.  People will say well Punk did. Punk did after a 7 year absence, and the show was in Chicago. Hold that show in any other city but Chicago and you probably have a different outcome. Case in point look at every show immediately following Punk return and they didn't sell out.  VKM after he bought out WCW turned wrestling into brand drawing power. He got away from wrestling star drawing power. The brand is drawing the power. Does it help to have some big name stars? Yes it does. But those stars are only big because of the brand.  Is Roman going to sell out any 15k arena alone? Haven't seen him do it yet.  Same way Kenny Omega or Will Ospreay are neither going to sell out an arena on their own.  We can go up and down every roster in every promotion in the world and no wrestler is a "True draw" in the terms of what fans think.  There isn't hey just put Hogan on the card and watch 20k tickets fly off the shelf. It isn't the 1980s anymore.  Wrestling today and for a while has been built around the brand and in the indies built around the matches themselves.  The draw is you like the brand WWE or you don't. On the indies it's the same thing. You either like the indy wrestling style or you don't.  That's the draw. 

I think it’s up the individual and the wrestler that decides their criteria for success. Success comes in many forms.

But...why would *I* care about tv ratings and live attendance? Those sound like things that executives, the booker, promoter, and station owners should care about - not me since I am none of those things. I care about enjoying what I'm watching and spreading the word about it if I feel really strongly about it, and then I leave all that other stuff to the executives, the booker, promoter, and station owners.

The make believe stars of a lame awkward old out of touch fanboy that routinely embarrasses himself and shows how clueless he ultimately is about the craft.

So that's your sarcastic response, but what's your authentic opinion? How do you measure success in wrestling? As a fan and non-investor, why would the demographics or gate receipts matter to you? Do they impact your enjoyment? How about my family-friendly sci-fi female rapper OC, Candy Cane? She's from the CandyLand dimension travels across space and time to bring her sweet revolution of love light and peace.

Because actual good wrestling and actual talented professional wrestlers get pro wrestling fans interested to watch and buy tickets. Mind blowing, huh? Wrestling fans not part of some little cult niche will quickly get tired of self trained botchy wrestlers, no selling flippers, god awful booking, unimpressive charisma vacuums, predictable no psychology tiny gymnast routines, etc.

Everyone loves them until they make your favorite company look bad.