WWE News: Monday Night Raw Sees Another Viewership Boost
Last year, WWE Monday Night Raw mightily struggled with its three-hour format, as viewership plummeted throughout the duration of the program. Fortunately for the WWE, the new year has brought a spark of energy for Monday Night Raw.
Celebrating its 20th anniversary, the Monday, January 14 edition of WWE Raw saw another spike in viewership (via TV by the Numbers).
Monday Night Raw began the night with 4.50 million viewers during its first hour. The show's second hour saw an increase to 4.68 million viewers, which was the peak of Raw's viewership. Its third and final hour took a slight dip but finished on a decent note with 4.47 million viewers. In adults 18-49, Raw's second and third hour scored a 1.7 rating share. The show's first hour was slightly lower with a 1.6 rating.
Thanks to Raw's strong viewership, WWE was able to secure the No. 1 spot on cable television Monday night. Catfish: The TV Show was second on Monday with a 1.3 rating share among adults 18-49.
My quick take on WWE Raw's strong viewership on Monday night:
Although the 20th anniversary of Monday Night Raw could have been a stronger show, WWE has done a good job with boosting its viewership numbers after a forgettable second half of 2012. Fortunately, the WWE is finally seeing the benefits of their three-hour program. Also, The Rock's return has helped create a new sense of energy for the WWE.
With one more Monday Night Raw before its Royal Rumble pay-per-view, the WWE must do all it can to heavily promote the event on its flagship show. That also includes the WWE giving The Rock and CM Punk a major push throughout Raw and its other major program, Friday Night Smackdown.
WWE should continue to see solid viewership numbers with its WrestleMania season coming into play after the Royal Rumble pay-per-view. For the first time in quite a while, WWE is finally bringing a new energetic feeling to Monday nights with Raw.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?