Not sure if this is the right place to ask this, but after Wrestlemania I was totally confused. Before that Roman was cheered and loved by the crowds it seemed like. Then the very next night he gets booed? I don't get it. And he has been booed ever since. Then Rollins shows up, who was booed constantly before he got injured, and he is cheered when he takes out Roman and grabs the belt? Did I miss something?
I definitely wouldn't say Reigns was cheered and loved by the crowds before Wrestlemania if you're implying he was always cheered and loved by them. Reigns has been the object of both cheering crowds and booing crowds ever since his main event push began. Simply watch the 2016 Royal Rumble and he was booed harshly when he returned to the ring and the crowd cheered like crazy when he was eliminated.
The problem I think with most of this argument is the use of anecdotal evidence as opposed to viewing the entire situation as a whole. I pretty much feel StopSpot has been dead on because he is not looking at anecdotal evidence and extrapolating it to Reigns' entire run. The OP has done this several times. He also tends to discredit evidence that doesn't result in the conclusion that he wants. When presented with the television ratings, he states:
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.
I'd like to see the data from which you drew this conclusion. Not calling the OP a liar, but as a scientist I prefer to see the data than have someone explain it to me.
There are plenty of variables that drive financials and I think it would be naive to claim that TV ratings do not play a part. WWE has consistently reported record revenue in its first quarters but the percentage of that increase is very important. For example, in the year 2000, when the TV ratings were MUCH higher than they are right now, the increase in revenue from first quarter 1999 to first quarter 2000 was 34% (
WWE Entertainment Announces First Quarter Results: Revenues Up 34%, Attributabl ...). But now, with much lower ratings than they had then, the increase is only 13% (
WWE® Reports Strong First-Quarter 2016 Results). This percentage is calculated with Wrestlemania not being included in the total for 2015 and 2016 (
PWTorch.com - WWE Q1 RESULTS: WWE reports First Quarter 2015 earnings - record quarter, effect of WrestleMania business, more). Ratings definitely play a part. In fact if you go back and look at the percentages per year, you would see that there is a similar trend... quarters with high ratings do have a higher percentage of revenue growth and those with low ratings have a lower percentage... at least for the ones I have checked. I've already spent more time than I care writing and editing this post over and over to go and post every quarter and do the math.
My point above is not calling the OP a liar, but just pointing out that he ignores a lot of variables whenhe is making a point.
I would also be hesitant about drawing the conclusion that the searches and YouTube views speak to his popularity, which makes sense because I think they also speak to his notoriety. I think there is a large group that wants to see Reigns as champion but there's an equal group that wants to see him lose. And I think that is what is important to the WWE right now. Not only does Reigns have many fans, but he also has a large contingent of viewers that really just want to see him lose and will likely keep watching in order to see it. But not only that, it's easier to watch parts of a YouTube video than sit through an entire three hours of Raw if the show is boring. Being a YouTube partner myself, I would rather know the retention rate of those videos with Roman Reigns in them than the views. The retention rate will let us know how many people are watching the entire match or just seeing part of it and moving on.
Plus I'd be really interested to see where the data from the graphs is since everything stated is completely unsourced. That's not me calling him a liar either, just remember I am a scientist and in my view data that is not sourced it pretty useless in making an argument.
So is his popularity grossly understated? I'd say no. But it's not just popularity that gets people to watch. Reigns has a combination of popularity and notoriety that together make Reigns definitely an interesting character in WWE.
Again, and this part is very important, I'm not really arguing here. I find the topic really interesting and I think seeing the data would make it more interesting. Given what I have been able to find out, I concede the possibility that the OP might be correct, but I just think the data is too anecdotal to draw that conclusion at this time.
:
