Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 26, 2014 21:28:14 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you're getting your info but you're totally wrong. Impact has only dipped below 1 million viewers twice this year. 993,000 on June 5th and 997,000 on March 20th. Before that it was 921,000 on November 28th of last year. Every other broadcast for the past two years has broke 1 million viewers, with the vast majority being 1.1-1.3 (there were even a few 1.6 millions). TNA started off the year where they are now. But the ratings yo-yo around from them pulling in the usual 1.0-1.2 to dropping down to a 0.8. It started to stabilize when they made the title switch from Eric Young to Lashley. That doesn't mean what I said was false. A 1.0 doesn't mean 1 million viewers. You could do a 1.6 rating with 700k viewers or a .8 rating with 2 million viewers... it all depends on how many people are watching tv that night.
|
|
|
Post by ________ has left the building on Jul 26, 2014 21:31:39 GMT -5
TNA started off the year where they are now. But the ratings yo-yo around from them pulling in the usual 1.0-1.2 to dropping down to a 0.8. It started to stabilize when they made the title switch from Eric Young to Lashley. That doesn't mean what I said was false. A 1.0 doesn't mean 1 million viewers. You could do a 1.6 rating with 700k viewers or a .8 rating with 2 million viewers... it all depends on how many people are watching tv that night. Going by the current Nielsen standard. Which they changed a couple of years ago to reflect the changing shift in tv demographics.
|
|
|
Post by Can you afford to pay me, Gah on Jul 26, 2014 21:50:16 GMT -5
The thing is what I said about the online deal is they can do that IF Spike doesn't renew and they don't have a TV deal in place else where. For a temp fix while still airing in the other countries. This is they choice to stay in business.
|
|
|
Post by Pillman's Pencil on Jul 26, 2014 23:53:36 GMT -5
They did that online deal before when they left FSN for a few months, then they got the Spike deal after WWE's deal with them expired.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jul 27, 2014 0:48:41 GMT -5
At this point, TNA's operation costs have probably gotten to the point that going online-only isn't feasible, particularly with the budget cut. I have to imagine if Spike doesn't renew them, they're going to go to Bound For Glory, announce a hiatus afterward, and that'll be the end of that.
|
|
|
Post by Danimal on Jul 27, 2014 0:49:50 GMT -5
If they're getting their ratings up it's good news. Maybe it doesn't save them in terms of Spike but it increases their chances of having a home somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by bluemeii on Jul 27, 2014 12:42:22 GMT -5
Guys and gals just gonna say this.
Your overall ratings and viewership in the grand scheme of things is a nice talking point, but it's a minor number. These ratings aren't here for wrestling fans to determine if things are going well or not.
The biggest number people are looking at is your "desirable" number. The 18-49 segment. Only shows not clamoring for that are the shows that are designed for the over 50 crowd, or kids. There are also shows marketed towards a certain segment of population (women, men, ethnic groups) .Yeah it's nice that Impact got it's viewership numbers back to where they were 6 months ago, but like was said back then, less than 1/2 of your viewers are in that 18-49 group.
Networks don't put out programming just to put it out. They put it out to make money (ad dollars). If the groups being targeted by those ad dollars aren't watching, you don't make the money. All I"m saying is overall numbers are nice, but they really don't mean too much. In today's market, unless you are a cable juggernaut show (walking dead, raw, pawn stars, real housewives) your demo numbers are much more important.
|
|