Ratings Thread

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ I'm not talking about how the ratings industry works, I understand how it works. I'm talking about how the auditing and valuation of IP works when it comes to negotiating rights deals, which you clearly know nothing about. I guarantee you that USA or any other potential network that might want WWE's TV rights, whether it's cable, broadcast, doesn't matter... when determining valuation of WWE's TV rights deal (what they should pay WWE) they will look and compare WWE's ratings with more than just other shows/networks in whichever format (whether they're broadcast, cable, etc.) they compete with. They will absolutely compare WWE's ratings with ALL networks, whether broadcast, cable, whatever. Not only will USA or any other network that offers for WWE's TV rights, require WWE to submit their own audit and expect to see WWE's ratings in comparison with ALL networks in WWE's own audit that they will submit, but they will also require WWE to consent and allow the network to perform their own audit (either internally and/or with an outside independent auditor) that will include a comparison in WWE's ratings with ALL networks. Without those comparisons, you won't get a true and accurate valuation of WWE's television rights. If you knew what you were talking about, you'd know that has been and will continue to be the case in the future, not just for WWE, but for any rights deals for any television shows.

You're making it sound more complicated than it is, and you buried the lead, which is ratings are measured cable vs cable and Network vs Network. You made the comment that WWE was lol because they didn't include Network numbers in their chart. But that's how ratings are compared in the industry. It seems like after reading my post and getting educated, you realized your error and went on a rant about irrelevant information.

I also find it funny that you seem to think WWE owns their TV rating information, when in reality is owned by a third party, and anyone with access to the Internet can find the data you were taking about. Pretty interesting insight from an insider though.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You're making it sound more complicated than it is, and you buried the lead, which is ratings are measured cable vs cable and Network vs Network. You made the comment that WWE was lol because they didn't include Network numbers in their chart. But that's how ratings are compared in the industry. It seems like after reading my post and getting educated, you realized your error and went on a rant about irrelevant information. I also find it funny that you seem to think WWE owns their TV rating information, when in reality is owned by a third party, and anyone with access to the Internet can find the data you were taking about. Pretty interesting insight from an insider though.

Way to miss the point. If you think that negotiating TV rights fees is simple, you're dumber than you seem.

I realize that WWE doesn't own their TV rating info, but anyone who negotiates with WWE for TV rights will expect WWE to present an audit and summary report with info of all of their TV ratings in comparison to all , production costs and more. Then the networks will perform an independent audit as well which WWE will have to consent to.

In performing an audit to determine valuation of WWE's TV rights, USA won't care how ratings are measured and presented to the public. They'll take the ratings data and use their own index and formula for determining valuation of WWE TV rights based on WWE's ratings in comparison to ratings of ALL other shows/networks as well as numerous other factors.

All the ratings data show is how WWE did vs other shows/networks. That's not the same as utilizing the ratings data in conjunction with other data and factors in order to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights. The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

Another pretty solid piece of evidence...

Originally Posted by The CyNick I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

Feel like I need to clarify that this isn't me doing that lame thing where you edit someone's post to show what you think they're REALLY saying. That is an actual quote from another time when he got caught bullshitting. The guy basically summed up his entire gimmick for everyone to see just in case someone still took him seriously. lol

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Another pretty solid piece of evidence... Feel like I need to clarify that this isn't me doing that lame thing where you edit someone's post to show what you think they're REALLY saying. That is an actual quote from another time when he got caught bullshitting. The guy basically summed up his entire gimmick for everyone to see just in case someone still took him seriously. lol

You understand why The Rock was never arrested for threatening to sodomize someone with a shoe, right?

That quote you love to use was a joke, but not shockingly, you failed to grasp that.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You understand why The Rock was never arrested for threatening to sodomize someone with a shoe, right? That quote you love to use was a joke, but not shockingly, you failed to grasp that.

Except it was your response to being called out on blatantly contradicting yourself. It's not like you "made a joke" and then actually explained yourself. That was your only response. And it's an accurate response. Because sometimes you get so deep into spouting retarded bullshit that you can't even bullshit your way out of being called out on it. So when that happens, it's time to just admit...

Originally Posted by The CyNick I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

You were probably better off just not responding when you got called out and just hoping no one noticed. Especially if you're an internet troll, letting that be your response was a huge fucking fail. lol

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by #1-wwf-fan Except it was your response to being called out on blatantly contradicting yourself. It's not like you "made a joke" and then actually explained yourself. That was your only response. And it's an accurate response. Because sometimes you get so deep into spouting retarded bullshit that you can't even bullshit your way out of being called out on it. So when that happens, it's time to just admit... You were probably better off just not responding when you got called out and just hoping no one noticed. Especially if you're an internet troll, letting that be your response was a huge fucking fail. lol

Like I said, I'm not shocked you missed the layer of that post. I get it. You make it crystal clear every time you post that quote.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by DonaldTrump I'm not above lying to make it look like I know what I'm talking about.

[#1-norm-fan]

Originally Posted by The CyNick Like I said, I'm not shocked you missed the layer of that post. I get it. You make it crystal clear every time you post that quote.

Keep replying without actually acknowledging that the quote was your way of avoiding having to come up with an excuse after getting called out on contradicting yourself AGAIN. Maybe it will eventually go away and you can look smarter. Wait, no it won't. Because I'm gonna keep quoting it and reminding you of it. Consider yourself DUMMIED!

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ Way to miss the point. If you think that negotiating TV rights fees is simple, you're dumber than you seem. I realize that WWE doesn't own their TV rating info, but anyone who negotiates with WWE for TV rights will expect WWE to present an audit and summary report with info of all of their TV ratings in comparison to all , production costs and more. Then the networks will perform an independent audit as well which WWE will have to consent to. In performing an audit to determine valuation of WWE's TV rights, USA won't care how ratings are measured and presented to the public. They'll take the ratings data and use their own index and formula for determining valuation of WWE TV rights based on WWE's ratings in comparison to ratings of ALL other shows/networks as well as numerous other factors. All the ratings data show is how WWE did vs other shows/networks. That's not the same as utilizing the ratings data in conjunction with other data and factors in order to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights. The fact that you don't understand this concept is proof you don't know what you're talking about.

You must be a lawyer, because you're making something simple very complicated. USA doesn't care what production costs WWE has unless WWE is trying to negotiate that USA pay for part or all of production. Then sure, you need to do a deep dive into costs. But you keep moving the goal posts. First it was lol at WWE for showing cable ratings, then it was they need to submit their "ratings audit", which isn't a real thing, now you're clutching on to production costs.

Put everything else aside, just explain why it's lol for WWE to show a slide comparing their cable properties to other cable properties. That's all I need to hear about.

[BigCrippyZ]

Originally Posted by The CyNick You must be a lawyer, because you're making something simple very complicated. USA doesn't care what production costs WWE has unless WWE is trying to negotiate that USA pay for part or all of production. Then sure, you need to do a deep dive into costs. But you keep moving the goal posts. First it was lol at WWE for showing cable ratings, then it was they need to submit their "ratings audit", which isn't a real thing, now you're clutching on to production costs. Put everything else aside, just explain why it's lol for WWE to show a slide comparing their cable properties to other cable properties. That's all I need to hear about.

I already have. The same reason why it's "lol at WWE for showing cable ratings". It's not an accurate reflection on the valuation of their TV rights nor overall financial health.

Plus a ratings audit is very much a real thing. Just not in the way you're thinking or misrepresenting it.

Any negotiations dealing with WWE's TV rights will require performance and presentation of at least 2 audits, (one provided by WWE and one by the negotiating network or an independent auditor) of which the audits will include among many other things, WWE's TV ratings data compared to ALL other networks/shows. The Nielsen ratings data provided by WWE in their audit will be compared to the Nielsen ratings data gathered by the network or independent auditor to see if there's any falsifications or mistakes in WWE's presentation of the Nielsen data. This ratings data will then be reconciled or accepted and used to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights.

[The CyNick]

Originally Posted by BigCrippyZ I already have. The same reason why it's "lol at WWE for showing cable ratings". It's not an accurate reflection on the valuation of their TV rights nor overall financial health. Plus a ratings audit is very much a real thing. Just not in the way you're thinking or misrepresenting it. Any negotiations dealing with WWE's TV rights will require performance and presentation of at least 2 audits, (one provided by WWE and one by the negotiating network or an independent auditor) of which the audits will include among many other things, WWE's TV ratings data compared to ALL other networks/shows. The Nielsen ratings data provided by WWE in their audit will be compared to the Nielsen ratings data gathered by the network or independent auditor to see if there's any falsifications or mistakes in WWE's presentation of the Nielsen data. This ratings data will then be reconciled or accepted and used to determine a valuation of WWE's TV rights.

I didn't bring it up, you did. Its coming from a third party, they can just go to the third party to get the data, and the data is available to the public on tons of websites. All I'm saying is the numbers WWE posted are perfectly legitimate. There's no dispute that WWE used accurate numbers in the presentation. You seemed lost in your first post claiming they were using over a year old data, but it's a year over year chart, including Q4 2016 data.

The only way the WWE having ratings that are nearly double the network's average wouldn't be a positive to their ability to get a good rights deal would be if the network couldn't sell and space during the show. As I mentioned, this is why WWE was far worse off in the Attitude Era, even though the ratings were double or more what they are today. As has been documented from recent up fronts, WWE programming has generated a long list of new A list sponsors, which makes them even more valuable.

If you want to dispute that, you've got an uphill battle. But I appreciate your gumption.