WWE News: Despite a Slight Viewership Increase, Monday Night Raw Remains Flat
It has become the new norm for the WWE. For weeks, the third hour of Monday Night Raw has plagued the show with a poor finish. This past edition of Raw was no different from the rest, as the third hour once again slowed the show's momentum.
However, despite the third-hour struggles, this past edition of Monday Night Raw saw an increase in viewership (via TV by the Numbers).
Monday Night Raw began with a stronger start, landing 4.15 million viewers in its first hour. The second hour of Raw saw its viewership jump to 4.39 million viewers. The increase would not last long, as Raw's third hour dropped to just 4.02 million viewers.
In adults 18-49, Raw's second and third hour peaked with a 1.4 rating share. Its first hour posted a 1.3 rating share.
NFL's Monday Night Football once again came out at No. 1 on cable television's Top 50 chart, pulling in 12.8 million viewers and scoring a 4.9 rating share in adults 18-49.
The good and bad news for WWE Monday Night Raw:
The good news for the WWE is that Monday Night Raw slightly increased in viewership from last week's edition. With WWE legend Jerry Lawler returning to the announcer's table on Monday night, Raw was able to increase in viewership with his comeback.
However, there really isn't much more good news to share. Essentially, Raw was flat from last week and once again unable to finish off strong. With the NFL season and other tough cable television competition still in play, WWE must continue to fight through its third hour struggles. Once WWE can finally have some room to breathe, its third hour may see a benefit, especially when it heads into its WrestleMania season.
With 2013 quickly approaching, WWE should look for ways to get the new year off on the right foot. Perhaps this is when The Rock comes into play and ignites new excitement in the WWE with a potential title match with CM Punk at the Royal Rumble in January.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?