>>19425773No we can infer actual facts from the stats. The attitude era was distinct in the sheer velocity of success it caused re ratings ect. It very clearly stems from the unique format introduced by Russo. The stories and characters of the shows at that time where the primary drivers of revenue.
Its not the same with modern WWE, because nobody is watching it (meaning allot of the profits are residual and from other factors).
On your comparison with social media views. First, the viewing stats from that era are allot more reliable for various reasons. I strongly suspect WWE hires bots to inflate views on social media platforms ect. Because the actual viewership is through the floor. Just look at the tiny venues they use now for shows.
And yes AE was massively successful at the time, but people have already seen it. When compared properly tho it does absolutely blow the modern product out of the water. You also need to factor in per head population viewership if your doing serious comparative metrics.
In 1999, the peak viewership represented approximately 2.85% of the total US population. In contrast, recent viewership numbers represent only about 0.4% to 0.67% of the current, larger US population.
>He’s the Stern of wrestling. Very of his time. Did good business for a hot second. Very of its time and place and not really worth going back to or basing the future off of.Typical smark. To reduce Russo to a stern tier shockjock is to overlook the depth and quality of his writing. Aside from the comedy, which was brilliant, the stories had actual depth (the acting and delivery was on par with successful tv dramas or movies).
Likewise, this myth that the appetite for edgy comedy evaporated in the early to mid 90s is demonstratively false. South Park and Family Guy are key examples (there are many others). Very successful, obtained all the high value streaming deals that smark mythology says wrestling wouldnt have been able to obtain ect.
