Source: www.F4WOnline.com

By Dave Meltzer | @davemeltzerWON | Jun 27, 2017 2:14 pm

Raw fell four percent from last week's 3.10 million viewers to 2.98 million.

There's no real explanation, as Raw's number in theory shouldn't have increased coming off a SmackDown brand show. The number is better than the show has been doing in months, but it should be up with the drop in competition with a lot of network reruns and no major sports.

Raw was second for the night on cable, trailing Hannity on Fox News at 3.01 million viewers.

The third hour, built around a long women's gauntlet match, held up better than usual, with hour three staying even in the 18-34 demo, although it did fall with viewers over the age of 35 and particularly with women.

SmackDown, with a women's Money in the Bank match and a full card advertised, should do a strong number tonight, at least in theory. If it drops from last week, it would be a sign that the Raw rating has a great effect on how SmackDown the next night does.

The three hours were:

8 p.m. 2.89 million viewers
9 p.m. 3.09 million viewers
10 p.m. 2.95 million viewers

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jun 28th, '17, 02:17 Source: www.F4WOnline.com

By Dave Meltzer | @davemeltzerWON | Jun 27, 2017 2:14 pm

The third hour, built around a long women's gauntlet match, held up better than usual, with hour three staying even in the 18-34 demo, although it did fall with viewers over the age of 35 and particularly with women.

So much for the Divas/Women's R/Evolution.

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jun 28th, '17, 02:19
So much for the Divas/Women's R/Evolution.

I don't think the 18-30 female group ever cared about the women's revolution, those are attracted by the Ambroses and the Balors

cero2k wrote: ↑Jun 28th, '17, 08:45

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jun 28th, '17, 02:19
So much for the Divas/Women's R/Evolution.

I don't think the 18-30 female group ever cared about the women's revolution

Which is the problems, because isn't that who it is trying to appeal to (or maybe you could argue women 14-34 or whatever, but 18-30 is still a big chunk of that).

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '17, 13:52

Which is the problems, because isn't that who it is trying to appeal to (or maybe you could argue women 14-34 or whatever, but 18-30 is still a big chunk of that).

i don't know to be honest, i would think that the women' revolution should mostly appeal to the younger female, but at 20+ i would imagine they're old enough to need fake wrestling to be their role models as strong females

cero2k wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '17, 14:09

Big Red Machine wrote: ↑Jun 29th, '17, 13:52

Which is the problems, because isn't that who it is trying to appeal to (or maybe you could argue women 14-34 or whatever, but 18-30 is still a big chunk of that).

i don't know to be honest, i would think that the women' revolution should mostly appeal to the younger female, but at 20+ i would imagine they're old enough to need fake wrestling to be their role models as strong females

Which is why it's so weird that the vocabulary seems designed to appeal to them rather than to children.