>>4800383We are talking past each other - and there's no doubt in my mind that you, at least, are doing it on purpose.
We are arguing about not just total ratings, but a specific demographic. The only point I've tried to make since 10 seething, autistic comments ago, is that growing your total audience is more important than merely "winning" a hand-selected, cherished demographic
Would banks prefer to send out mailers about credit cards or mortgages or personal loans to exclusively 750+ credit score folks? Absolutely. But they'd be stupid not to send them out to 650-749 as well. One group is clearly more lucrative than the other, but the other is still (generally) profitable. Likewise, it's not as if ad companies are exclusively buying ads on whoever THE BIG WINNER is from last week. They're looking at more than just age/sex - they're looking at income, the audience of the program itself, the PG/14/M rating, etc
Calling someone a shithead or an asshole, or a woman blading and leaking all over the mat, or a man powerbombing a woman through a table, has $$$$ consequences. If you're woke McDonalds or Disney, you don't want to advertise on the program that has people calling each other prick and dickhead. If those prestige companies aren't around to increase competition, and thus drive the prices up, then Warner just has to take whatever it can get.
It's clear Warner is in it for the long haul, which is why they're OK with airing, what, 75% Picture-in-Picture ads which generate FAR less revenue. And that's great. I hope AEW becomes profitable, grows, they do more live shows, all of the above. But the fans shouldn't be fucking deluded idiots and think everything is all hunky-dory right now. It's not. Too many Chiefs (OMG Jeff Hardy! OMG Regal!) and not enough Indians (Darby, Sammy, Wardlow, etc).
