WWE News: Monday Night Raw Sees Viewership Up, Lands over 4 Million Viewers
After weeks of consistently struggling with Monday Night Raw in terms of viewership, WWE was finally able to receive some positive news.
The good news: WWE Raw was watched by over four million viewers on Monday night (via TV By the Numbers). Monday night's show broke a recent streak of poor viewership for the WWE.
In a shocking start, the Monday, October 29 edition of WWE Raw notched the show's highest viewership mark with 4.30 million viewers. Its second hour slightly dropped to 4.21 million viewers. Raw's third hour continued to struggle, dropping once again this week to 3.78 million viewers.
In adults 18-49, Raw peaked during its first and second hours, scoring a 1.5 rating share. The show's third hour received a 1.4 rating share.
NFL Monday Night Football earned the No. 1 slot on cable television's Top 50 list with 10.72 million viewers and a 4.3 rating share in adults 18-49.
Meanwhile, in adults 18-49, WWE Raw earned the No. 2 spot on cable television's Top 50 list Monday night.
My Quick Take on WWE Monday Night Raw's Viewership
This week's viewership totals must be somewhat exciting for the WWE.
With the NFL continuing to dominate cable television on Monday nights, WWE was finally able to fight back and move its way higher by scoring over four million viewers.
Was this a short-term turnaround for Monday Night Raw?
Monday Night Raw, coming off its Hell in a Cell pay-per-view on Sunday, benefited from a surprisingly strong start. However, WWE failed to keep people from switching channels or shutting off their televisions, as Raw's viewership dropped throughout the show.
Although this could be seen as a positive in terms of viewership as a whole, WWE managed to lose over 430,000 viewers from the beginning of the program. This is a clear sign that Raw needs to switch its format, as the show is turning away viewers when it really matters.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?