How do star ratings and buys correlate?

[FedEx227]

Here's my third-rate attempt to be as cool as mookieghana looking at the correlation between Dave's star ratings and buys.

You can look at this a few different ways:

• Are shows that receive a high number of buys better shows than those that receive a low amount of buys?

• How often do shows do well on PPV and actually turn out really good?

• How often do shows that do poorly on PPV end up being horrible?

Full study: http://www.voicesofwrestling.com/2014/03/11/buys-and-star-ratings-a-love-story/

[goodhelmet]

There is zero correlation but it is neat to look at.

[Zenjo]

You got any more contemporary data?

[FedEx227]

Thanks.

 

I was hoping the conclusion would be a bit better or at least more fun but yeah, no correlation. Result is essentially most WWE PPVs fall into a 2-2.5 range on average regardless of how many buys.

 

There's also a much larger debate about buys dictating when an event looks good on paper and what looks good on paper being completely subjective. It was fun either way, if anything it was great to laugh at Invasion 2001 and In Your House: Great White North.

[goodhelmet]

Maybe you should shift from the overall star rating to the Main Event star rating or the match that sold the show. For example, an undercard Viscera or Al Snow match is going to lower the star rating. However, if you isolate it to the big match, maybe a clearer picture could be formed.

[jdw]

It's probably also worth noting:

 

"Star Ratings" = One man's (Dave's) after-the-fact view on the quality of the match / work

"Buy Rate" = Number of WWF/WWE Fans who decided to pay for the PPV before the matches even took place

 

They're not really the same thing... or even remotely close. I'd love to come up with a snappy wise ass analogy, but the two things are so divergent that I'm drawing a rare blank.

[Superstar Sleeze]

What actually maybe interesting given jdw's point is plotting PPV (N-1) star rating against they buyrate of PPV (N) (This allows the timeframes to line up). Does good work necessitate people to buy the next PPV? Obviously, the big problem is that we just have Meltzer's ratings so it is not a wide data set, but it could be cool.

[Timbo Slice]

It still doesn't matter. You're talking about the opinion of 1 person against the opinions of thousands upon thousands. That's not nearly enough data.

[bradhindsight]

What actually maybe interesting given jdw's point is plotting PPV (N-1) star rating against they buyrate of PPV (N) (This allows the timeframes to line up). Does good work necessitate people to buy the next PPV? Obviously, the big problem is that we just have Meltzer's ratings so it is not a wide data set, but it could be cool.

 

This is exactly the question I was going to come in and pose.

 

The best current example would be SummerSlam 2013. Three good matches - with two of those being MOTYCs. Does the in-ring work quality boost the next buyrate or is it really just the booking.

[mookeighana]

I looked at 248 WWE/WWF PPVs (excluding Wrestlemania) that I had buy estimates/star ratings averages for.

Here I've broken them into 25 nearly equally sized groups:

3.18 to 3.63 star average: 288,009 buys (10 PPVs)

2.95 to 3.09 star average: 331,667 buys (10 PPVs)

2.82 to 2.95 star average: 308,667 buys (10 PPVs)

2.70 to 2.80 star average: 259,407 buys (10 PPVs)

2.63 to 2.70 star average: 276,381 buys (10 PPVs)

2.56 to 2.63 star average: 283,600 buys (10 PPVs)

2.50 to 2.54 star average: 325,637 buys (10 PPVs)

2.46 to 2.50 star average: 323,600 buys (10 PPVs)

2.39 to 2.46 star average: 377,288 buys (10 PPVs)

2.34 to 2.39 star average: 271,862 buys (10 PPVs)

2.31 to 2.34 star average: 305,000 buys (10 PPVs)

2.25 to 2.31 star average: 343,368 buys (10 PPVs)

2.21 to 2.25 star average: 353,252 buys (10 PPVs)

2.15 to 2.21 star average: 278,164 buys (10 PPVs)

2.08 to 2.14 star average: 316,723 buys (10 PPVs)

2.04 to 2.08 star average: 276,675 buys (10 PPVs)

1.94 to 2.03 star average: 226,000 buys (10 PPVs)

1.85 to 1.93 star average: 388,555 buys (10 PPVs)

1.79 to 1.85 star average: 331,743 buys (10 PPVs)

1.72 to 1.78 star average: 277,218 buys (10 PPVs)

1.61 to 1.69 star average: 251,773 buys (10 PPVs)

1.46 to 1.57 star average: 242,917 buys (10 PPVs)

1.21 to 1.43 star average: 283,808 buys (10 PPVs)

1.03 to 1.21 star average: 353,544 buys (9 PPVs)

0.71 to 1.03 star average: 314,951 buys (9 PPVs)

There's really no correlation that I can see. (r-squared on almost any group I did was basically zero.)

[FedEx227]

What actually maybe interesting given jdw's point is plotting PPV (N-1) star rating against they buyrate of PPV (N) (This allows the timeframes to line up). Does good work necessitate people to buy the next PPV? Obviously, the big problem is that we just have Meltzer's ratings so it is not a wide data set, but it could be cool.

 

Very interesting. I may have to mess around with that and see if we get anything interesting in those results.

[FedEx227]

Maybe you should shift from the overall star rating to the Main Event star rating or the match that sold the show. For example, an undercard Viscera or Al Snow match is going to lower the star rating. However, if you isolate it to the big match, maybe a clearer picture could be formed.

 

Right and about half way through this study I realized I should just do the main event of every PPV because that does a better job of 1. drawing the buy and 2. has a far better chance of fluctuating.

 

I dont think it would be too subjective if I just took the final match on the card and considered that our "main event" but then you have issues like No Way Out 2001. Is HHH/Austin Three Stages of Hell the "main event" or is Angle/Rock (which went on last) ?

[goodhelmet]

I have no idea. I leave that stuff for guys like you and Mookie.

[mookeighana]

I have no idea. I leave that stuff for guys like you and Mookie.

 

I've taken to just using the main event listed by the ProWrestlingHistory spreadsheet: http://prowrestlinghistory.com/supercards/eventinfo.xls

[goc]

I just don't think star ratings and buys have a whole lot to do with each other. Night of Champions 2013 could have been the best PPV ever from a match quality standpoint, but if they have the same finish in the main event, the buy rate for next month's Battleground would still be down due to the shitty booking. I just don't think there are that many people looking at a card before ordering trying to decide whether there will be enough snowflakes to merit a purchase.

[Coffey]

I've gotten myself into trouble with a subject similar to this before. To be blunt, I don't think most fans give a shit about the wrestling (as it pertains to WWE in the United States that is). They care about the stories, the characters & who wins. Everything other than the finish in-between the bells I don't think most fans here (North America) care too much about. By most fans I obviously mean those not reading about wrestling on the internet daily, or re-watching old matches & stuff. They'll pop for big spots, like The People's Elbow or the Worm. They'll get into comebacks & cheer for near-falls. How many current fans even know the moves anymore though? The commentators certainly don't call them. You think a kid in a John Cena shirt or his mom knows what a Belly-to-Belly Suplex or Gorilla Press Slam is? They just wanna see the good guy win.

 

Which sort of ties-in with the other thread that Goodhelmet made about what type of fans there are & how they have changed over the years. Obviously nowadays more people have internet access (and broadband) than those during 1997 did. Plus with the pushing of social media & the WWE Network, times they are a changing, Bob Dylan style. Plus, although the term makes me cringe, I think the definition of a "smark" has also changed. Like was talked about in that thread, anyone that watches RAW might check out WWE.com or read some article that pops up on Google search. That doesn't mean they're buying All Japan comp. tapes & studying catch wrestling though. Hell, I think even the phrase "most fans" is changing.

 

It's just a theory. It's sort of taboo to talk about it on said internet wrestling forums. The average fan is never going to care about a guy like say, William Regal.

 

It's hard to get some fans to watch matches in a vacuum. You ever try to just put on a match for a non-fan & have it draw them in? It is pretty tricky. Especially if they have negative preconceived notions about professional wrestling going into it. If you explain the characters & the story before showing the match, explaining why the wrestlers have a beef with one another, it makes a lot more sense & they're more willing to give it a shot. At least based on my experience.

 

It's the same with other forms of entertainment or sports as well. An NFL game means more if there's something on the line & you care more if a team you favor is directly involved. A boxing match is more entertaining if you're familiar with the boxers & some of their character or history. I know in the late 80's, even when he was in there with a tomato can, I still didn't miss a Tyson fight. Even if he knocked the jabroni out in 30 seconds in the first round when the fight was $50. In that regard, Goldberg in WCW was sort of the pro-wrestling equivalent to Mike Tyson. People just wanted to see him kill dudes quick, fast & in a hurry. UFC kind of blew up in part because of The Ultimate Fighter so fans were more familiar with the new blood that was coming in & some of what they had went through. Not to mention the coaches.

 

There's exceptions to every rule. Angle Vs. Benoit at the Royal Rumble got a standing ovation for a reason. And a crowd will certainly turn on a match pretty harshly if it's visually bad to a painfully obvious degree.

 

I liken us as fans to those in a book club. Some people will read a book & say "yeah, it was pretty good." Others will read that book, think it was pretty good, then want to discuss why they thought it was good & what specifically made it good with other people. Not everyone that reads that book will give it much thought after they finish the book but some will.

 

Once a match is out of sight, it's out of mind for a lot of people. They just go about their day, or get ready for the next match or whatever. Others want to keep talking about that match & break it down. Like we do. But how many people re-watch a regular season Sunday NFL game later on in the week? Or revisit it years later & break it down. There are some but not many. That's how I look at us as fans. Most people aren't going to re-watch old NFL games & I don't think a lot of wrestling fans re-watch stuff they've already seen. It's part of the reason why I was initially skeptical about the WWE Network. Trying to get a current fan of WWE to watch 70's wrestling where they're trading headlocks is like trying to get a kid from the X-Box 360 era to play Atari. I'm sure we've all heard friends say "this sucks" or "this is boring" about one of our favorite matches.

 

The draw of pro-wrestling, I feel, is the raw emotion. You gotta get people to care so that they'll express emotion to the entertainment being portrayed. To do that, you have to draw them in & make them care about the exchanges that are taking place or will take place. That's why wrestling has always been good guy against bad guy. The bad guy has to do stuff that makes the fans hate him & that puts sympathy on the good guy. Then the good guy has to topple the bad guy not just for himself but for the fans. It doesn't really matter how he does it. He just had to do it. It's basic storytelling.

 

The matches themselves even follow the same principle as the stories. There's a beginning, a middle and an end. Each is supposed to elicit a response. The context of each section isn't as important as them just existing. Not everything will resonate the same with everyone, obviously. It's usually the good guy starts out hot & the crowd is into it. Then the bad guy cheats to get the upper hand. So the fans are mad at him & wondering if the good guy can come back from that. Then you have the finish, which continues the story. It doesn't really matter how the good guy starts out hot or how the heel cheats. It matters that the fans start off excited then get upset.

 

That's my thoughts.

[Loss]

Yeah, pay-per-views aren't sold on match quality. They are sold on the hype for the match. The most effective angle of 2013 in terms of compelling people to buy a show was Mark Henry's fake retirement. From my understanding, that match delivered in the ring too.

 

That said, I think fans care in the sense that most good matches in WWE get a good reaction from the crowd. And it's not like there are a ton of bad matches in WWE right now. If there are, they usually get shit on.

[anarchistxx]

This is fairly moot, since I'm not sure casual fans attach much importance to match quality, or even view it in the same terms that we and Meltzer do. I remember watching Backlash 2000 and spinning on the Benoit/Jericho and Guerrero/Rios matches I felt were deathly boring to get to the title match where we really wanted to know the outcome and the build up had really excited us all with the DX Express explosion, the 'will Austin show up' angle etc.

[Matt D]

 

I dont think it would be too subjective if I just took the final match on the card and considered that our "main event" but then you have issues like No Way Out 2001. Is HHH/Austin Three Stages of Hell the "main event" or is Angle/Rock (which went on last) ?

 

 

We, collectively, can't even figure out what the main event of Beach Blast 92 was.

[Johnny Sorrow]

It'd be more relevant , I guess, to see if the PPV's with matches Dave or whoever praised had bigger buy rates for the encore showings. It'd still be totally flawed, but it's a little closer to the original thread question and intent.

[rovert]

So the lesson is stop watching ROH tapes. Get on the gas and work on your tan?

[goc]

So the lesson is stop watching ROH tapes. Get on the gas and work on your tan?

If you want to work in WWE, yes. That's not new.

[FedEx227]

But make sure it's an even tan lest you want to be berated on national TV constantly.

[Guest The Jiz]

Don't overcomplicate the thing. Just pick matches that are upper midcard with a main event guy, or a main event v. main event, tossing out outliers (e.g. a Money in the Bank result that ends in 90 seconds). Sure, it's a bit arbitrary but stats usually is. The end game is to know whether there's a correlation between buyrates and match quality, so you pick the matches that will be given the chance to have quality and a match the fans will reasonably care about. IIRC, I made a decent list in that buyrates thread.

[Moonsault Marvin]

I wonder if star ratings and dvd sales would show any correlation? People might be more willing to buy a dvd or blu-ray if the matches were well liked. Meltzer's tastes not necessarily reflecting the general audience's tastes still might cause it not to show any correlation.