|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 9, 2010 23:01:10 GMT -5
this is one of the most interesting and hilarious threads ever. so many quotable replies, too many to actually quote, but kudos to all. but in all honesty, regardless of what they say, TNA has to be a little disappointed with this, right? I'm sure they were hoping for their biggest rating ever. But, again, when the move was first announced, everyone involved with it was saying they'd basically be happy with a 1.0 rating, mostly keeping the Thursday audience. It shows TNA can be viable against much larger competition, and if it keeps up it likely opens the door for expanding broadcasts in the future (e.g. adding a second show or what have you). So I bet they're not happy, but I bet they're not hanging their heads in shame, either. I just really, really am not looking forward to any chance of this board turning into a "console wars" board. Fighting over whether WWF or WCW was better, or over N64 vs. PSX on the Internet was a whole lot of fun... when I was 13.
|
|
|
Post by Apricots And A Pear Tree on Mar 9, 2010 23:09:01 GMT -5
or over N64 vs. PSX on the Internet was a whole lot of fun Everyone knows that Dreamcast was better then both of them.
|
|
|
Post by casualobserver on Mar 9, 2010 23:13:38 GMT -5
It just goes to show that the ratings are not indicative of the quality of the show on that day. The shitfest they had on 1/4 drew a higher rating, yet a much improved show drew lower numbers. The damage had been done with poor quality shows leading up to this show, and arguably their best show of the year paid the price.
While it's too early to throw dirt on TNA, it has to be somewhat disheartening to take steps backward from the 1/4 show when it appears they're finally getting things to jell. That has to be a concern in the TNA board room right now, regardless of what they and Spike TV say publicly.
|
|
|
Post by kropotkin on Mar 9, 2010 23:40:46 GMT -5
this is one of the most interesting and hilarious threads ever. so many quotable replies, too many to actually quote, but kudos to all. but in all honesty, regardless of what they say, TNA has to be a little disappointed with this, right? I'm sure they were hoping for their biggest rating ever. But, again, when the move was first announced, everyone involved with it was saying they'd basically be happy with a 1.0 rating, mostly keeping the Thursday audience. It shows TNA can be viable against much larger competition, and if it keeps up it likely opens the door for expanding broadcasts in the future (e.g. adding a second show or what have you). So I bet they're not happy, but I bet they're not hanging their heads in shame, either. I just really, really am not looking forward to any chance of this board turning into a "console wars" board. Fighting over whether WWF or WCW was better, or over N64 vs. PSX on the Internet was a whole lot of fun... when I was 13.Ah, the halcyon days of 1997. When a man in a pair of cut off jean shorts set the world on fire, and everything seemed so much simpler... No, but seriously. This x1000. Yes, I'm sure TNA is disappointed. Anybody who's seriously gloating doesn't actually care for this industry, and more importantly, the people who make a living off of it. In the long run, one show a company does not make. Moving to Mondays permanently was the next big, logical move for TNA. Now, they have the time slot, the roster and the money to do it for real. It's going to take a few weeks, and no one should be expecting a huge bump immediately. But the hope is that in a few months time we've gone from 1.0 to 1.5--not once in a while, but on a regular basis. Spike, by all counts, seems to be very happy with TNA. The ratings breakdown from last night suggests this isn't likely to change. TNA did pull in an audience. The key is to keep it and grow it.
|
|
|
Post by corndog on Mar 9, 2010 23:50:57 GMT -5
So TNA lost a little bit of their average audience, while Raw lost nothing from last week. I think it basically proves that the TNA audience is not the WWE audience and vice versa. But I think the disapointment here is that TNA was a pretty stacked show, while Raw did nothing special at all. Next week however Austin is guest hosting with a very solid card and the return is being advertised, while TNA didn't even advertise anything for next week on Monday's show. Hopefully TNA can just maintain this week's rating and I would consider it a sucess.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 9, 2010 23:52:31 GMT -5
So TNA lost a little bit of their average audience, while Raw lost nothing from last week. I think it basically proves that the TNA audience is not the WWE audience and vice versa. But I think the disapointment here is that TNA was a pretty stacked show, while Raw did nothing special at all. Next week however Austin is guest hosting with a very solid card and the return is being advertised, while TNA didn't even advertise anything for next week on Monday's show. Hopefully TNA can just maintain this week's rating and I would consider it a sucess. Raw dropped from 3.7 to 3.4, I believe.
|
|
|
Post by Twincest on Mar 10, 2010 0:09:33 GMT -5
Well, a post earlier said Spike was happy with the ratings, so at least they're optimistic for the future. Furthermore, TNA's real competition is with whatever Spike has been airing 9-11 pm on Mondays. The WWE thing is a work to drum up controversy for now. That's half of the equation. You also have to consider the ratings in Impact's old time slot. A marginal increase 9-11 Monday isn't a net positive for Spike if it's accompanied by a decrease in viewership in the old slot. (Even if the 9-11 Monday rating is an improvement, it needs to higher than the drop in the Thursday time slot ratings, if there is a drop.)
|
|
|
Post by paragon on Mar 10, 2010 0:11:09 GMT -5
It just goes to show that the ratings are not indicative of the quality of the show on that day. The s***fest they had on 1/4 drew a higher rating, yet a much improved show drew lower numbers. Didn't the 1/4 show have a higher rating because of the unopposed first hour? I know that was the highest rated hour of that show.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Mar 10, 2010 0:12:52 GMT -5
It just goes to show that the ratings are not indicative of the quality of the show on that day. The s***fest they had on 1/4 drew a higher rating, yet a much improved show drew lower numbers. Didn't the 1/4 show have a higher rating because of the unopposed first hour? I know that was the highest rated hour of that show. They did something really high in that 1st hour, 1.6 or 1.7 I think.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Mar 10, 2010 1:30:44 GMT -5
Besides no boom period ever started by parading around past thier prime stars. But that's what's happening on both ends right now. The focal points of Impact were the likes Hogan, Flair, Hall, Nash, and Sting (the only one of the bunch who can still work a great match IMO), and Raw is still flooded with the same guys, and as next week shows, the same main events. But I look at WWE at this point and see them making some better progression of new stars in the Miz, Sheamus, Morrison, Truth, and Kofi, while TNA is going for signing ex WWE guys, effectively making it harder and harder for any of the more home grown talent to get a bigger push, or even a shot at the gold. While I was unhappy with his debut, Van Dam is a coup for the company. So is Hardy. But I could live without seeing them in TNA if it meant guys like Kaz, Daniels, or the kidnapped Joe would get more TV time than they've been getting lately. Agreed. I had a post on the WWE board complaining that the Bret stuff was way too close to TNA's current tangent to my liking. HOWEVER, usually its the company that behind in the race that has to create a competitive, innovative product. That happened twice in the Monday Night Wars; ECW's original "extreme" stuff and WCW's NWO plotline. What makes TNA frustrating is that they've never really been an innovative company per se; everything they've done has been blatantly based on another promotion's work, usually from Russo or Bischoff, back to SEX and Jarrett's long title runs. I was hoping they would finally start innovating at the end of MEM and instead we got...this.
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Mar 10, 2010 1:35:59 GMT -5
Actually, getting a 1.0 against the f'n WWE--the biggest wrestling company in the WORLD--is nothing to be ashamed about.
|
|
|
Post by thatguybayne on Mar 10, 2010 1:40:18 GMT -5
I just really, really am not looking forward to any chance of this board turning into a "console wars" board. Fighting over whether WWF or WCW was better, or over N64 vs. PSX on the Internet was a whole lot of fun... when I was 13.Same here hense my little melt down before. Shame Mode. When I was that age I hated on WCW having never watched a single episode of it. When I actually did finally watch an episode I found it was actually not that bad. Since it's closed down I've come to realise how much there needs to be an alternative not only for fans but for the wrestlers also. As much as TNA pisses me off, especially lately, I want very much for them to succeed.
|
|
|
Post by championsucka on Mar 10, 2010 8:58:34 GMT -5
Whenever TNA puts on a show I (mostly) enjoy they get a below average rating, whenever they put one on that I have to skip through more they do a better rating. Oh well.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 10, 2010 9:45:32 GMT -5
So TNA lost a little bit of their average audience, while Raw lost nothing from last week. I think it basically proves that the TNA audience is not the WWE audience and vice versa. But I think the disapointment here is that TNA was a pretty stacked show, while Raw did nothing special at all. Next week however Austin is guest hosting with a very solid card and the return is being advertised, while TNA didn't even advertise anything for next week on Monday's show. Hopefully TNA can just maintain this week's rating and I would consider it a sucess. That's going to be the most interesting thing to see: having two companies with very different creative styles airing at the same time, you would think, would at least tease some of the old casual fans back, but it could well be that WWE's audience, which has been halved since the start of the decade, is simply a new set now, made up of the older hardcore fans who don't give it up, and the young kids who are probably watching more now. If that's the case, then TNA's potential for crossover appeal takes a hit, since their target audience is older than WWE's, and they'd want to draw back those old late 90's fans who miss having an alternative. Still, it's a long term experiment; buzz isn't generated in a week, a month, or even a year most of the time. Heck, giving Hulk Hogan the WWF title in 1984 wouldn't have had much of a lasting impact if the WWF didn't immediately move on to the "Rock n' Wrestling" storyline, and Steve Austin was playing the Stone Cold character for quite awhile before he hit it big. Even the nWo, the angle that relaunched wrestling, didn't draw huge ratings until the Sting angle really took off. I'm not saying TNA's ever going to reach that level any time soon, but the point is the field of play this whole situation occurs on will change over time, as will other factors. It's impossible to make early judgments, really, unless the evidence is at one extreme or the other, good or bad.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Mar 10, 2010 10:13:56 GMT -5
I'll say basically the same thing I said in the WWE version of this thread:
TNA has a loyal fanbase that gives them at least a 1.1 rating. After two weeks of crappy shows that featured Hogan and Bischoff, the same audience tuned in to see more of the same, and 10% of that audience changed the channel. Maybe not to Raw. Probably to Pawn Stars. But Raw has been averaging 3.3-3.4 for a while now, so they didn't lose any ground despite having a 3.7 rating last week. TNA did. They're going to have to change the show from Hogan Knows Best 2.0, and actually start featuring the young talent in the locker room that Hogan has been raving about if they want to stay on Monday nights.
|
|
|
Post by Crazy Diamond on Mar 10, 2010 10:36:59 GMT -5
or over N64 vs. PSX on the Internet was a whole lot of fun Everyone knows that Dreamcast was better then both of them. Damn StraightSeriously, I don't know what else TNA could do. They have everything they say they needed. It's a shame too because this show was really good. They need a better way to get the word out about their company.
|
|
|
Post by Trent Valentine on Mar 10, 2010 10:37:04 GMT -5
Doomsday is at hand, someone flick on the bat signal
|
|
|
Post by Trent Valentine on Mar 10, 2010 10:38:12 GMT -5
TNA
=
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Mar 10, 2010 11:50:27 GMT -5
A bit lower than I expected, admittedly. Still, the straight number isn't exactly bad, but disappointing nonetheless. I didn't think the show was overall fantastic, but it was definitely better than a lot of the garbage on the show since Hogan & Friends took over. I also really loved the Sting heel turn, and somehow they're actually making it work. I have to give a ton of credit there. I just hope that heat for Sting lasts in the long term.
I think the thing I'd be worried about if I was TNA would be the steep drop in the second hour. The overrun recovered a bit, but roughly a 25% loss of your audience has gotta smart.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Mar 10, 2010 12:07:09 GMT -5
A bit lower than I expected, admittedly. Still, the straight number isn't exactly bad, but disappointing nonetheless. I didn't think the show was overall fantastic, but it was definitely better than a lot of the garbage on the show since Hogan & Friends took over. I also really loved the Sting heel turn, and somehow they're actually making it work. I have to give a ton of credit there. I just hope that heat for Sting lasts in the long term. I think the thing I'd be worried about if I was TNA would be the steep drop in the second hour. The overrun recovered a bit, but roughly a 25% loss of your audience has gotta smart. Really is odd there, isn't it? The show's ratings were mostly steady almost all the way through the two hours, then BOOM, steep drop, and then almost a complete rebound, which is just as shocking, I think. Don't see a rating line dip and rise that quickly too often.
|
|