Is Roman Reigns' worldwide popularity grossly understated?

[CycLoNe_]

Many a time when the discussion of Roman Reigns' popularity arises, the domain of discussion remains mostly limited to the traditional centres. The argument of Reigns' getting booed ( for whatever reasons) in the more hardcore crowds is put forth many times to push the point that he is " not over" and that his push is an unequivocal failure. But is that the case in reality though? Considering the larger global domain and various global parameters while judging the popularity of the performers throws up some results completely contrary to the said narrative.

Let me present some very significant cases which clear quite a few misconceptions as to why Reigns was pushed in the first place. It's not just "about the look" or "family heritage" or any other arbitrary reason mostly attributed to his push.

Let's consider the period from Nov. 12 - Nov 13 . The reason I choose this period is because it not only covers the first full year of the Shield's run but a period before Reigns' alleged push started at Survivor Series 2013 with his traditional elimination match performance.

Let's note that in this period, it was all about Ambrose who was definitely presented as the first among the equals in the Shield. Ambrose was the only guy of the three in the Shield who:

1) Held a singles title.

2) Wrestled the Undertaker himself.

3) Received regular singles PPV matches.

4) Most mic. time by far.

The other two were involved more as a tag team and were hardly booked as strong as Ambrose; hell they even lost the tag titles in a very convincing manner to a makeshift tag team. BUT, let's have a look at what the WORLDWIDE interest levels were of the Shield performers during that period:

The above figure shows that despite the unequivocal preferential treatment to Ambrose during the said period, Reigns pretty much matches him in popularity despite not getting any significant moments. Rollins understandably, lags behind. But now comes the interesting part, considering the period from Dec. 13- June 14 i.e until the Shield split throws up some very interesting figures. Consider the fact that Reigns even now wasn't being presented as some sort of an undisputed leader. Rollins was building up his "Architect" persona, Ambrose still held the US title, the reign ending at a mammoth 380 days while Reigns raked up his Royal Rumble record. Let's have a look at the corresponding figures:

There's absolutely no comparison at all. Neither of the other Shield members ever overtakes Reigns in popularity other than Rollins for a short time in his heel turn shortly after which Reigns again breezes past him.

Here are the figures from June 14- Jan 15; i.e until the Rumble where his push actually started in real tangible terms.

Another telling figure. Reigns commands superior popularity despite being directionless for months while Ambrose-Rollins engaged in the highly intense grudge feud. His popularity dips a bit during his injury but he again takes pole position once he returns. I added Bryan in the figure as well since he was being vociferously argued to be the more suited performer to win the Rumble rather than Reigns. But the figures clearly show that Reigns was more popular than Bryan worldwide at the time of the Rumble!. It solidifies the fact that the WWE went with the correct option on the basis of methodological worldwide figures.

Another interesting statistic is the comparison between Reigns and Rollins during the period of Rollins' entire reign:

Astonishingly, Reigns, despite being in mid card feuds with Big Show and the Wyatts for all of that period still out-draws Rollins in global interest!

It is undeniable at this point that Reigns is by far the most popular active wrestler in the world and significantly above his peers. His reactions among a few hostile crowds of pseudo smart-fans is hardly indicative of his global reach and marketability on the world wide scale. No wonder they have been pushing him despite all of the hostile reactions because he's drawing in viewers en masse. Some other relevant figures on various global parameters:

Facebook:

Highest by far amongst his contemporaries.



Youtube:

Most 10 Million+ values by far amongst all the contemporary performers.


Seeing these undeniable statistics, is it an unfair argument to an extent to state that Reigns "isn't over" when in fact he has by far been the most popular wrestler of the new generation on most of the global popularity parameters?

 

[Stopspot]

Why doesn't he pop ratings then? Google search results and facebook likes in all honor. But Roman does not move the TV ratings that well.

Hell. Overall the ratings were better when Rollins was champion bar a few spikes.

 

[Stopspot]

Also Reigns is not that good a house show draw as well. Recent example:

 

[CycLoNe_]

Why doesn't he pop ratings then? Google search results and facebook likes in all honor. But Roman does not move the TV ratings. Seth and Dean at least have

There are quite a few other factors to consider here.

Ratings have been unambiguously falling for the last 10 years. T.V as medium is becoming obsolete day by day. The level of viewership is a function of the times we're living in. That's the reason that despite the fact that the ratings are 1/3 rd of what they were in 2000, their TV revenue has only increased all this while.

It has also been comprehensively proven that T.V ratings have hardly been having any adverse affect on the WWEs financials or the implied level of viewership. WWE reported record earnings in the 1st quarter of 2016 and recently filled up nearly 100,000 seats in their flagship event. Saying that the ratings today are a plausible indication of the interest in the product would be an inaccurate assessment.

Also, ratings haven't risen substantially even when Rollins and Ambrose have been in the main event. As a matter of fact, the decline during Rollins' reign was actually the steepest seen in the years. Reigns winning the title on the Dec.14 RAW last year saw a viewership increase of over 800,000 as compared to the previous week, yet, it was hardly above the figure of the corresponding week last year. The fact remains that ratings no longer remain any where near a relevant a criteria for judging the health of the organization as they were let's say 10 years ago as Internet is quickly taking over, a change which is unilateral in nature.

 

[CycLoNe_]

Also Reigns is not that good a house show draw as well. Recent example:

Sorry but the data is hardly indicative of anything as it doesn't take into consideration factors like capacity and pricing. Reigns has headlined tours of over 30,000 people in far and away places with little to no star power accompanying him. Also consider the fact that this when many of the top talents are injured or inactive for various reasons. Here's his reaction on a house show in India this Jan. in front of over 15,000 people:

 

[Stopspot]

Also, ratings haven't risen substantially even when Rollins and Ambrose have been in the main event. As a matter of fact, the decline during Rollins' reign was actually the steepest seen in the years. Reigns winning the title on the Dec.14 RAW last year saw a viewership increase of over 800,000 as compared to the previous week, yet, it was hardly above the figure of the corresponding week last year. The fact remains that ratings no longer remain any where near a relevant a criteria for judging the health of the organization as they were let's say 10 years ago as Internet is quickly taking over, a change which is unilateral in nature.

TV ratings is what matters for WWE tho. Vince doesn't care if you draw youtube clicks. He cares if you move the ratings. Ratings and house shows. And Roman pops neither.
Roman does not have some world wide fame. He's fairly popular in the wrestling bubble. Nothing special.

 

[Stopspot]

Sorry but the data is hardly indicative of anything as it doesn't take into consideration factors like capacity and pricing. Reigns has headlined tours of over 30,000 people in far and away places with little to no star power accompanying him. Also consider the fact that this when many of the top talents are injured or inactive for various reasons. Here's his reaction on a house show in India this Jan. in front of over 15,000 people:

The international tours are not indicative to how popular one star is tho.

The international tours always draw good, because WWE only visits those places once or twice a year. That's the brand drawing, not the talent. That's people going because it is the WWE.

 

[CycLoNe_]

TV ratings is what matters for WWE tho. Vince doesn't care if you draw youtube clicks. He cares if you move the ratings. Ratings and house shows. And Roman pops neither.
Roman does not have some world wide fame. He's fairly popular in the wrestling bubble. Nothing special.

TV ratings matter in the sense that the major chunk of WWE revenue is still coming from the TV network stream but as the fact I alluded to a while back, WWE has been signing record deals every time despite the fact that the ratings have been almost always falling throughout that time.

In today's environment when the WWE network is already a major source of revenue and is expected to only grow in the worldwide domain, it's imperative to know which talents are commanding the most interest/popularity in the wider global circles rather than limiting the domain of discussion to only the traditional centres. WWE already pulls in hundreds of millions of dollars from the worldwide market and is no where near it's global ceiling. In that regard, Reigns' popularity becomes highly significant and worth serious note.

 

[CycLoNe_]

The international tours always draw good, because WWE only visits those places once or twice a year. That's the brand drawing, not the talent. That's people going because it is the WWE.

I partially agree, but it's also an undeniable fact that you also need to put in performers of some repute there. You can't expect a main event of Ryback Vs. Ziggler selling out 15,000 x 2 people on a tour with little to no star power on the show. Reigns has by far been the most significant performer on many such tours which have done mega numbers, and that was when he was hardly entering his nascent phase as the champion. He has been the champion for hardly a cumulative 90 days thus far. I'd more than expect him to tick off many of the other remaining boxes seeing his global presence and outreach amongst the wider domain of WWE audience.

 

[Stopspot]

TV ratings matter in the sense that the major chunk of WWE revenue is still coming from the TV network stream but as the fact I alluded to a while back, WWE has been signing record deals every time despite the fact that the ratings have been almost always falling throughout that time.

In today's environment when the WWE network is already a major source of revenue and is expected to only grow in the worldwide domain, it's imperative to know which talents are commanding the most interest/popularity in the wider global circles rather than limiting the domain of discussion to only the traditional centres. WWE already pulls in hundreds of millions of dollars from the worldwide market and is no where near it's global ceiling. In that regard, Reigns' popularity becomes highly significant and worth serious note.

You assume Vince cares that much about internet revenue. Vince will always put TV ratings over internet clicks. WWE RAW is the most watched show on the USA network by a long stretch. As long as that remains fact, Vince McMahon is going to put focus on the TV. Because that's where WWE makes majority of their money. TV rights is 35% of WWE's yearly revenue. And more importantly. It's guaranteed money. The network is right now 21% of WWE's yearly revenue, but it isn't guaranteed money. The network numbers flip flop and subscriptions come and go. The TV money is secure. And thus that and talent that move those in a positive direction are always going to be Vince's most important factors. The network is not even considered a success from a business standpoint yet.

This is not me trying to defend Rollins or Ambrose, but merely pointing out that I think you are overselling Roman's popularity. We shouldn't even take things like superstar likes on facebook and such as indicative since those can be bought, and it would not surprise me if WWE bought likes for all their stars on social media to make them look as big as possible.

 

[CycLoNe_]

You assume Vince cares that much about internet revenue. Vince will always put TV ratings over internet clicks. WWE RAW is the most watched show on the USA network by a long stretch. As long as that remains fact, Vince McMahon is going to put focus on the TV. Because that's where WWE makes majority of their money. TV rights is 35% of WWE's yearly revenue. And more importantly. It's guaranteed money. The network is right now 21% of WWE's yearly revenue, but it isn't guaranteed money. The network numbers flip flop and subscriptions come and go. The TV money is secure. And thus that and talent that move those in a positive direction are always going to be Vince's most important factors. The network is not even considered a success from a business standpoint yet.

I never disputed that. TV still commands the primary position with regards to revenue but you also got to look at the trends for futuristic analysis. TV as medium has been falling for years. There's nothing the TV offers which Internet can't. The change is unilateral. The Internet is to TV what TV was to radio. You'd never see the resurgence of TV like you'll never see the resurgence of Radio.

See the growth of the WWE Youtube channel in the recent years:

I'd also like to point out the fact that the WWE Network is way past the break even point and is moving towards sustainable profits. The Network has also provided WWE the opportunity of minting money in places where they were hardly able to tap into the popularity of the product before. Even in the AE, many countries didn't even get all the programming and many others got it at a significant delay. With the network, it gives the people of these centres to finally come on the same pedestal as the viewers of the traditional centres with regard to accessibility. The Network already has 1.5 million paid subscribers which amount to 179.82 million $/ year and the Network is still in it's nascent phase worldwide! The potential is enormous and in that regard it once again becomes imperative to consider the overall global popularity of the competitors.

This is not me trying to defend Rollins or Ambrose, but merely pointing out that I think you are overselling Roman's popularity. We shouldn't even take things like superstar likes on facebook and such as indicative since those can be bought, and it would not surprise me if WWE bought likes for all their stars on social media to make them look as big as possible.

It's not that just about Facebook. There are many other global parameters that tell the same story. Reigns commands huge global interest in just about each and every parameter as I showed in the Google Trends and Youtube data. Rollins and Ambrose simply don't quite match up.

 

[Stopspot]

It's not that just about Facebook. There are many other global parameters that tell the same story. Reigns commands huge global interest in just about each and every parameter as i showed in the Google Trends and Youtube data. Rollins and Ambrose simply don't quite match up.

Google trends, youtube data or any form of social media statistic is not actually indicative of actual popularity tho. youtube clicks could just as well be for the other guy Roman is working with, google trends doesn't take into consideration how many actually search for Roman because they like him or not (there's a surprisingly large amount of people who look up stuff about people they don't like as well). Social media followers can be directly purchased with money, and is a common practice for companies to boost numbers.

 

[CycLoNe_]

Google trends, youtube data or any form of social media statistic is not actually indicative of actual popularity tho. youtube clicks could just as well be for the other guy Roman is working with, google trends doesn't take into consideration how many actually search for Roman because they like him or not (there's a surprisingly large amount of people who look up stuff about people they don't like as well). Social media followers can be directly purchased with money, and is a common practice for companies to boost numbers.

Reigns has by far been the most searched performer on Youtube and has been for more than a year now. Even his recent matches against Del Rio have clocked views as high as 4 million! Hell his match against D-Von Dudley on the B Show Smackdown a while back has a million+ views. The gap between him and other competitors is significant. Not to mention he commands the most 10 million+ viewed videos by far amongst all the active competitors as I showed in the OP.

As for Google Trends, the data from Nov. 12-Jan 15 is very very indicative as there was hardly any trace of hostility for him as a performer in that period. His popularity figures in that period speak for themselves, especially in the first year of the Shield when he hardly had any significant singles accolades.

As for Facebook, your apprehension of the issue is strictly speculative tbh. Nobody knows with any concrete facts about which accounts are being tampered with or not, but seeing the other global parameter and the vast number of easily identifiable unique posts on his account; there is high chance that the figure is more or less genuine.

 

[Roadster]

The other two were involved more as a tag team and were hardly booked as strong as Ambrose

You do you remember Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins defeating every face team, almost every month. Reigns eliminated almost the entirety of the opposite team at Survivor Series 2013. He broke a record at the following Royal Rumble, and was featured at Elimination Chamber against the Wyatt Family. Seth Rollins was recognized as the better wrestler of the 3, and was counted on to carry the group. Dean Ambrose was given more time because he was all round better showman than Rollins and Reigns.

Also, the YouTube views and other trends don't exactly correlate to popularity. As Stopspot said, it can be for the other guy, but also it can just be out of pure interest in the angle. They don't necessarily have to enjoy or like Reigns to watch the video. If we use that logic, look at videos with Dean Ambrose, they are virtually the same. Reigns has some big spikes on certain videos, probably because they contain Vince or Triple H. Other than that, fans generally don't want to see him. He is being booed (whether that be a trend or a genuine reaction is up for debate) and his performances aren't well received by fans and critics.

 

[CycLoNe_]

You do you remember Roman Reigns and Seth Rollins defeating every face team, almost every month. Reigns eliminated almost the entirety of the opposite team at Survivor Series 2013. He broke a record at the following Royal Rumble, and was featured at Elimination Chamber against the Wyatt Family. Seth Rollins was recognized as the better wrestler of the 3, and was counted on to carry the group. Dean Ambrose was given more time because he was all round better showman than Rollins and Reigns.

Reigns and Rollins were no where near portrayed as significant as Ambrose was during the 1st year of the Shield tbh. While Ambrose was wrestling the Undertaker, winning singles titles and taking up most of the screen/mic time positioning himself as a proper leader arguing with the Authority figures and all, Rollins-Reigns were playing the second fiddle as the tag champs and getting defeated comprehensively for a nostalgia moment to the Rhodes brothers. Still, Reigns rakes up numbers just as good as Ambrose during the period which certainly counts for a lot.

Also, the YouTube views and other trends don't exactly correlate to popularity. As Stopspot said, it can be for the other guy, but also it can just be out of pure interest in the angle. They don't necessarily have to enjoy or like Reigns to watch the video. If we use that logic, look at videos with Dean Ambrose, they are virtually the same. Reigns has some big spikes on certain videos, probably because they contain Vince or Triple H. Other than that, fans generally don't want to see him. He is being booed (whether that be a trend or a genuine reaction is up for debate) and his performances aren't well received by fans and critics.

As I said in my previous post; even absolute random matches like Reigns-Del Rio an Reigns-D Von have done incredible numbers to the tune of millions. The trend is well established and documented tbh. It's extremely rare that Reigns' segment hasn't been the most viewed and this is from the time Rollins was champions and Reigns was in the mid card fighting Show and Wyatts.

His performances is another debate altogether and I'd rate him highly in that regard too, but let's leave that for another thread.