|
Post by Mr. Backlund on Mar 9, 2010 18:38:45 GMT -5
I still don't understand why you take a very finite audience and force them to choose between the established show that people have been watching for years and your show. Monday night may be the night people associate with prime time wrestling, but logic would dictate you would try and improve in the same time slot on a different night (when the established show wasn't running) before refueling a relic from the 1990s (the Monday Night Wars, not much of TNA's new talent).
We basically know there's about a 5.0 market share that watches wrestling (just to make it easier to dissect and discuss). About 4/5ths of it seem to be loyal to Raw and 1/5th of it is loyal to TNA, whatever night its on. Instead of hot shotting and cheap marketing ploys, why doesn't TNA improve itself in areas to appeal to at least a subsection of that "WWE 4/5ths" and attempt to move to 2/5ths before deciding taking them on head-to-head is a good idea?
TNA's schizophrenic approach to everything and inability to grow organically is maddening to watch for those of us who want an alternative, but won't accept anything just because its not WWE.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2010 18:42:30 GMT -5
So that "built in" wrestling audience Easy E was talking about? Where were they tonight?
So they go from what? A steady 1.0 to 1.3/1.4 in 2009 on Thursdays to a 1.5 peak in early 2010 to 1.0 on Mondays. Nice little bell curve.
It seems like to me the built in Impact audience was already on Thursdays.
Its funny to me how much TNA wants to move to Mondays, but moving a program to a different day was always the death rattle for non-wrestling shows. When they start playing three card monte with a show - it doesn't last very long (most of the time, not always).
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 9, 2010 18:43:45 GMT -5
The stories going into this move were all about how Spike would be happy if TNA could retain it's usual ratings from Thursdays, and stay around a 1.0.
So, um...I don't see the big deal.
I don't think any of us can answer that for sure, but, yes, ratings reflect what share of the viewing audience you had. If the viewing audience for all of cable is bigger that night, and you draw the same amount of viewers, then, in theory, your rating will be lower, but you'll have the same number of viewers.
Those are the more important breakdowns, probably; how many people were watching compared to a Thursday Impact.
|
|
|
Post by "Playboy" Don Douglas on Mar 9, 2010 18:46:10 GMT -5
Dave Meltzer says Impact did a 0.98, so it was rounded UP to 1.0 - failure. Doomsday is at hand, someone flick on the bat signal This made me smile. Well played, sir.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Mar 9, 2010 18:46:24 GMT -5
So that "built in" wrestling audience Easy E was talking about? Where were they tonight? So they go from what? A steady 1.0 to 1.3/1.4 in 2009 on Thursdays to a 1.5 peak in early 2010 to 1.0 on Mondays. Nice little bell curve. It seems like to me the built in Impact audience was already on Thursdays. Its funny to me how much TNA wants to move to Mondays, but moving a program to a different day was always the death rattle for non-wrestling shows. When they start playing three card monte with a show - it doesn't last very long (most of the time, not always). Except this isn't TNA's first time changing days. There was the FSN era on Friday or some other day, then the online show, then being on Saturday on Spike at 11, then going to prime time, then going to Thursday, and now Monday. Through all that, they've grown and adapted.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Mar 9, 2010 18:49:52 GMT -5
Even if its sliced in squares? Because I dont like it when things are sliced in squares. What about Pizza?Square Pizza is really good. And I would like the quarterly breakdowns.
|
|
|
Post by Mr. Backlund on Mar 9, 2010 18:52:56 GMT -5
Its fine and dandy the ratings only fell slightly from where they normally are, but how does this project as growth? Obviously I nor anyone else can tell if there were new eyes on the show or not, but the ratings seem to indicate there wasn't an increase in eyes (pending on when the figures are released). From blowing their load on the January show to this big move, we only saw an initial spike in interest that has fallen dramatically back to where it had been consistently leading up to the New Era of TNA. Nothing is going to happen over night and you'd be dumb to think the world would change in one day, but where does it really go from here? If they stay at 1.0 against Raw, what does that change from drawing a 1.1 on Thursday night? They get to brag not everyone ditched them to watch WWE? Its like that episode of South Park with the Underwear Gnomes..... 1) Monday Night 2) ?? 3) Beat WWE The whole move to Monday night has not made sense to me and continues to not make sense. Smackdown did quite well for itself Thursday nights, so its not like that time slot was damaging Impact's ability to grow.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 9, 2010 18:53:16 GMT -5
Even if its sliced in squares? Because I dont like it when things are sliced in squares. What about Pizza?Square Pizza is really good. And I would like the quarterly breakdowns. Never been a fan of square pizza, much prefer the normal cut.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Mar 9, 2010 18:55:40 GMT -5
This rating is nothing more than an ink blot. You see in it what you want to see.
|
|
|
Post by jobsquad on Mar 9, 2010 18:55:43 GMT -5
Its fine and dandy the ratings only fell slightly from where they normally are, but how does this project as growth? Obviously I nor anyone else can tell if there were new eyes on the show or not, but the ratings seem to indicate there wasn't an increase in eyes (pending on when the figures are released). From blowing their load on the January show to this big move, we only saw an initial spike in interest that has fallen dramatically back to where it had been consistently leading up to the New Era of TNA. Nothing is going to happen over night and you'd be dumb to think the world would change in one day, but where does it really go from here? If they stay at 1.0 against Raw, what does that change from drawing a 1.1 on Thursday night? They get to brag not everyone ditched them to watch WWE? Its like that episode of South Park with the Underwear Gnomes..... 1) Monday Night 2) ?? 3) Beat WWE The whole move to Monday night has not made sense to me and continues to not make sense. Smackdown did quite well for itself Thursday nights, so its not like that time slot was damaging Impact's ability to grow. They are going to give away stuff and hotshot until things get better, or until they kill themselves, one or the other.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2010 18:59:33 GMT -5
Im just laughing at people trying to find EXCUSES for anything that doesnt say TNA is going to as Tazz said, "dominate Monday Nights" I think the ones not freaking out about the ratings are far more rationale and realistic than the ones proclaiming TNA's death, or emphasizing the HUGE difference between 0.98 and 1.0. Settle down, enjoy the show, and wait for either the steady progress or slow decline. Either way, unless Spike is unhappy, TNA is not going anywhere, and I see no reason for Spike to be unhappy for maintaining their normal audience on a different night.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Mar 9, 2010 19:00:04 GMT -5
Too bad they didn't decide to go 8pm to 10pm. Having the unopposed first hour on the Jan 4 show really helped.
I guess I've got to break down and say it: Nasty Boys = Ratings
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 9, 2010 19:01:36 GMT -5
This rating is nothing more than an ink blot. You see in it what you want to see. I like this post. Well done, author of this post.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2010 19:02:32 GMT -5
So that "built in" wrestling audience Easy E was talking about? Where were they tonight? So they go from what? A steady 1.0 to 1.3/1.4 in 2009 on Thursdays to a 1.5 peak in early 2010 to 1.0 on Mondays. Nice little bell curve. It seems like to me the built in Impact audience was already on Thursdays. Its funny to me how much TNA wants to move to Mondays, but moving a program to a different day was always the death rattle for non-wrestling shows. When they start playing three card monte with a show - it doesn't last very long (most of the time, not always). Except this isn't TNA's first time changing days. There was the FSN era on Friday or some other day, then the online show, then being on Saturday on Spike at 11, then going to prime time, then going to Thursday, and now Monday. Through all that, they've grown and adapted. They have adapted, but they started out with a .9 in 2005 and have grown since then. A lot of people doubted that TNA would ever break 1.0 or the dreaded and often mocked 1.1, but they did - on Thursdays no less. I think the untapped potential of Thursday nights will forever be lost.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2010 19:05:41 GMT -5
Spike TV's not going to drop Impact - its one of their highest rated shows isn't it?
I mean a 1.1 is a respectable number for a show these days, especially with the sheer number of cable channels out there. If you're grabbing 1.1 - you're making some bunsen burner for your sponsors.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Mar 9, 2010 19:06:25 GMT -5
Impact had a .98 with 1,361,000 viewers according to PWInsider. How many did it have Thursday?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2010 19:06:30 GMT -5
This rating is nothing more than an ink blot. You see in it what you want to see. Nicely said. Ratings are fun to look at, but ultimately, the only ones who really care should be the networks. Eric Bischoff created a monster in the 90's (ratings wars). No turning back.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 9, 2010 19:10:45 GMT -5
Spike TV's not going to drop Impact - its one of their highest rated shows isn't it? I mean a 1.1 is a respectable number for a show these days, especially with the sheer number of cable channels out there. If you're grabbing 1.1 - you're making some bunsen burner for your sponsors. Yea, people dont realize that WWE is an exception, not a rule. Doing mid 3's every week, even though its almost halved from what they use to do, STILL makes them one of the highest rated shows on cable every week. When compared to WWEs ratings, yes, TNAs is far inferior. But a lot of cable channels would kill to have a show that airs original content every week and pulls in a 1.0 doing it. Especially a network who doesnt do much beyond UFC except show CSI reruns.
|
|
|
Post by heyguesswhatidid on Mar 9, 2010 19:12:01 GMT -5
Next week is a taped Impact against Stone Cold hosting RAW, i'm more concerned with that rating, that'll show how many loyal TNA fans there are.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Mar 9, 2010 19:13:36 GMT -5
Hey uh just thinking about it and I could be wrong here but. Dosn't the 3-whatever for Raw and 1.1 mean more people watched wrestling monday than last week? And if memory serves that skews the way the ratings "share" IE 1.2=1.5 million viewers because the audience is larger overall on cable that night? So wouldn't 1.1 be more like 1.3 on Thursday? It's hard to say. That 3.4 vs. 1.0 could have been influenced by the fact that more people watch TV on Mondays, by DVR's and people flipping channels, or any number of things. For some reason, ratings aren't as simple as X number of people = X rating, it's all about how many people were watching your show vs. another show. If it turns out the same or even a greater number of people were watching Impact than normal, that gives advertisers something to think about. They can reach the same audience or even a greater one, which is a definite plus, but it's also a smaller percentage of the audience, which is a minus. Then again, this is all over hundredths of a percentage point, so it's not like the ramifications are that huge. It's probably more of an ego issue than an actual advertising one.
|
|