WWE News: Monday Night Raw Rebounds with over Four Million Viewers
After weeks of viewership slipping under four million for Monday Night Raw, WWE finally has something to finally celebrate about.
Despite the rebound in viewership, the numbers for Monday Night Raw's third hour were alarming.
The Monday, December 17 edition of WWE Monday Night Raw saw its viewership jump past four million viewers (via TV By the Numbers). For the WWE, this breaks a slide it was experiencing in recent weeks after viewership tanked below the four-million mark.
On Monday night, Raw began on a strong note with 4.29 million viewers.
The show's second hour saw that number jump to 4.41 million viewers. However, Raw saw a sudden drop in viewership during its third hour, as the show slipped to 3.99 million viewers.
In adults 18-49, Raw's second hour earned a 1.5 rating share, helping the show earn the No. 3 spot on cable television's top 50 list on Monday night. Its first and third hour scored a 1.4 rating share.
Monday Night Football took the top spot on cable television's top 50 list with 10.15 million viewers and a 3.6 rating share in adults 18-49.
Despite a Stronger Monday Night, Raw's Third Hour Continues to Slip:
Once again, WWE Monday Night Raw struggled mightily in its third hour. Despite a spike in viewership during its second hour, Raw's final hour finished on a weak note.
Although Raw lost steam in its final hour, the show nevertheless rebounded after weeks of struggling numbers. Most impressively, Monday Night Raw's second hour earned WWE the No. 3 spot on cable television's top 50 list, right behind ESPN's SportsCenter.
Monday Night Raw's owes its spike in viewership to the Slammy Awards, fallout from its Tables, Ladders and Chairs pay-per-view and the surprising returns of WWE legend Ric Flair and Tommy Dreamer.
With the NFL season coming to a close, WWE has positive momentum to build on with Monday Night Raw heading into 2013.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?