|
Post by MGH on Apr 28, 2007 16:12:45 GMT -5
What is everyone's opinion on the Young/Roode/Jarrett segment. People...and by people, I mean smarks... that I've talked to feel that Young/Roode is a mid-card segment and shouldn't have had the amount of time that it did. They feel the only reason it did was because Jarrett was the friend. However...some people are just destined not to like Jarrett. Does anyone else think this could have hurt the ratings or overall value of the show? It was my favorite segment of the show. It was just very well done.
|
|
@TenaciousBe
Hank Scorpio
Guess who's back... back again
Posts: 5,659
|
Post by @TenaciousBe on Apr 28, 2007 16:19:20 GMT -5
Two things.
1 - I thought the Young/Roode segment was amazing. Best thing I've seen on TV in a long time, Eric showed some real emotion and the whole thing felt real, even if the story behind it is ridiculous. And Jarrett showing up as the "friend," literally made me jump up on my knees, cover my mouth, and say "no fudging way!" (Only I didn't say "Fudge." I said THE word, the big one, the queen-mother of dirty words, the "F-dash-dash-dash" word!).
2. How was Sting/Angle supposed to increase viewership when it was only announced a week ahead of time? Think of the normal average person who knows about TNA but doesn't watch, who's not active in the IWC, who doesn't talk wrasslin with his friends, who's just a plain old TV watchin mark. If they didn't watch the week before, they probably didn't even KNOW about Sting/Angle. One big match is not going to spike your viewership, solid booking and big-time moments over a long period of time are. TNA needs advertisement amongst wrestling fans who don't normally watch, and unfortunately, the only real crowd to cater to is WWE fans.
Which also brings me to the question... why does WWE feel so threatened by TNA that they'll remove signs and shirts from fans in the audience who advertise for it? WWE and TNA are not even in competition right now. It'd make WWE look a hell of a lot stronger and "the bigger person" to just passively stand by and let TNA co-exist with them, for the good of the business. The two shows are on different days, it's not like WWE will lose any viewers to TNA. Gah.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Apr 28, 2007 16:33:49 GMT -5
Well, after much discussion, I think that, based on the final ratings numbers, the answer to the original question, did Angle/Sting work...is a bold-faced NO.
|
|
Aya Reiko
Team Rocket
Natsuki x Shizuru
Posts: 827
|
Post by Aya Reiko on Apr 28, 2007 18:51:09 GMT -5
4/16 RAW: 3.7 (No playoffs) Source4/23 RAW: 3.7 (Pistons-Magic, Game 2) SourceConsider your excuse debunked. How is it an "excuse" and how is it "debunked"? Raw isn't Impact. One show can lose viewers to something and others can not lose viewers, it happens. Odds are if TNA lost a decent amount of viewers, some of them probably went to whatever is higher rated that night, basketball, Scrubs, whatever. Or people could have not watched anything, really it doesn't matter. At any rate, I don't care, TNA hasn't had any real growth in the ratings in a while, this is only somewhat lower than their average. Whatever it means really doesn't effect me, until they start either taking off to the point where their show will get more time, or they tank so much that they get in danger of being dropped. It's so simple that only a TNA super-mark would not get it. Last week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was no "competition" from a NBA playoff game. This week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was "competition" from a NBA playoff game. Don't you see it yet? THE NBA PLAYOFFS HAD NO EFFECT ON VIEWERSHIP![/i] The excuse-making saying the playoffs cut into IMPACT!'s ratings is a load of bull.
|
|
EJS
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 18,857
|
Post by EJS on Apr 28, 2007 19:05:55 GMT -5
So because it didn't effect one tv show it doesnt' effect any? It is good to know everyone who watches NBA playoffs don't watch any other shows on tv ever. I guess they buy TVs soley for basketball games...
Though to reiterate, I'm not saying it's an "excuse", most every prime time show has to deal with some sort of competition like this, be it playoff sports, college basketball, monday night football,big rating shows like american idol, whatever. Some manage to be relatively unaffected, some dip way more than 0.1.
And early NBA playoffs aren't that stiff competition, it's big competiton than most anything else on cable at the time, but it's not much compared to stuff that's on network tv each week.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Apr 28, 2007 19:06:26 GMT -5
How is it an "excuse" and how is it "debunked"? Raw isn't Impact. One show can lose viewers to something and others can not lose viewers, it happens. Odds are if TNA lost a decent amount of viewers, some of them probably went to whatever is higher rated that night, basketball, Scrubs, whatever. Or people could have not watched anything, really it doesn't matter. At any rate, I don't care, TNA hasn't had any real growth in the ratings in a while, this is only somewhat lower than their average. Whatever it means really doesn't effect me, until they start either taking off to the point where their show will get more time, or they tank so much that they get in danger of being dropped. It's so simple that only a TNA super-mark would not get it. Last week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was no "competition" from a NBA playoff game. This week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was "competition" from a NBA playoff game. Don't you see it yet? THE NBA PLAYOFFS HAD NO EFFECT ON VIEWERSHIP![/i] The excuse-making saying the playoffs cut into IMPACT!'s ratings is a load of bull.[/quote]So, just cause the game didn't cut the ratings down once, even though it has happened numerous times in the past, it's "debunked"?
|
|
Joekishi
Fry's dog Seymour
Posts: 20,490
|
Post by Joekishi on Apr 28, 2007 19:07:57 GMT -5
ratings were'nt really that down though this is the median rating for TNA
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Apr 28, 2007 19:22:25 GMT -5
How is it an "excuse" and how is it "debunked"? Raw isn't Impact. One show can lose viewers to something and others can not lose viewers, it happens. Odds are if TNA lost a decent amount of viewers, some of them probably went to whatever is higher rated that night, basketball, Scrubs, whatever. Or people could have not watched anything, really it doesn't matter. At any rate, I don't care, TNA hasn't had any real growth in the ratings in a while, this is only somewhat lower than their average. Whatever it means really doesn't effect me, until they start either taking off to the point where their show will get more time, or they tank so much that they get in danger of being dropped. It's so simple that only a TNA super-mark would not get it. Last week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was no "competition" from a NBA playoff game. This week, RAW got a 3.7 rating and there was "competition" from a NBA playoff game. Don't you see it yet? THE NBA PLAYOFFS HAD NO EFFECT ON VIEWERSHIP![/i] The excuse-making saying the playoffs cut into IMPACT!'s ratings is a load of bull.[/quote] WWE Raw is a different beast. Any TNA fan that tries to convince themselves that Impact is like Raw needs to go back and look at the .6 rating. Now After some research here is TNA's 2006 Ratings during The First Round of NBA 2006 Playoffs: TNA IMPACT Rating: April 13: 1.3 TNA IMPACT Rating: Apr. 20: 0.9Here is from Last Year's NBA Playoffs: Game Three: Thurs, Apr 27 – Chicago Bulls at Miami Heat, 8 p.m. (Bulls Win, Heat leads [2-1]) Game Three: Thurs, Apr 27 – NJ Nets at Ind. Pacers, 7:30 p.m. (Pacers win, Pacers leads [2-1]) Game Three: Thurs, Apr 27 – LAC at Den. Nuggets, 10:30 p.m. (Lakers win, Lakers lead [2-1]) TNA IMPACT Rating: 0.8Next Week: Game Six: Thurs, May 4 – Mia at Chi, 8:00PM (Finished Series with Heat win [4-2]) Game Six: Thurs, May 4 – NJ at Ind, 7:30PM (Finished Series with Nets win [4-2]) Game Six: Thurs, May 4 – Phx at LAL, 10:30PM (Overtime win by Suns to tie series [3-3]) TNA IMPACT Rating: 0.9TNA IMPACT Rating: May 11, 2006: 1.0 So the rating was relatively the same and actually NORMAL during a more "stressful" time for the tournament with teams being knocked out or clinging for survival. However, the ratings actually increased after the first round. But, there were Second Round games occuring. Take it as you will. *Impact ratings found at: www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/nwa/impactrat.htm*NBA Schedule and Results for 2006 Playoffs found at: www.populationstatistic.com/archives/2006/04/23/2006-nba-playoff-schedule/www.channel3000.com/sports/8884504/detail.htmlen.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_NBA_Playoffs (Used for the starting times of all "Game Six"s) (Incase you want to compare the second round...)
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Apr 28, 2007 19:23:45 GMT -5
I think Basketball hurt it, mostly because the ratings drop was very small. TNA usually keeps the same amount of viewers every week, so when something like this comes up, you're obviously going to see some sort of slip. Next week, the ratings will be back to normal.
I kinda can't believe this got to 4 pages. It's really simple. It seems like there is this crazy theory that TNA is always bad and people are trying to look for any excuse for the ratings to fall. Not every TNA fan is one of those crazy youtube people who throw rationality out the window. Basketball obviously hurt it, but not by much. TNA will be back to its regular ratings next week.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Apr 28, 2007 19:27:16 GMT -5
I think Basketball hurt it, mostly because the ratings drop was very small. TNA usually keeps the same amount of viewers every week, so when something like this comes up, you're obviously going to see some sort of slip. Next week, the ratings will be back to normal. I kinda can't believe this got to 4 pages. It's really simple. It seems like there is this crazy theory that TNA is always bad and people are trying to look for any excuse for the ratings to fall. Not every TNA fan is one of those crazy youtube people who throw rationality out the window. Basketball obviously hurt it, but not by much. TNA will be back to its regular ratings next week. I think my side in this debate is: Sting/Angle could have kept people's attention. If they had did things differently, they could have possibly kept regular ratings instead of dropping. Sting is an icon of pro wrestling. Angle was WWE's top guy and very popular around the time he got released. The fact that this got less-than-regular ratings, despite Basketball, when TNA was expecting their highest ratings ever (And leverage for a second hour) shows how they mis-handled that match.
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Apr 28, 2007 19:30:33 GMT -5
I'm not arguing they mishandled it. But then again, I think TNA tends to screw up with their dream matches and ends up making them not being that big. Plus TNA's audience is generally a 1.0-1.3, so you're not gonna get a huge increase anyway, unless they find something else that will bring in new viewers.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Apr 28, 2007 20:48:36 GMT -5
I'm not arguing they mishandled it. But then again, I think TNA tends to screw up with their dream matches and ends up making them not being that big. Plus TNA's audience is generally a 1.0-1.3, so you're not gonna get a huge increase anyway, unless they find something else that will bring in new viewers. True, but I am kind of surprised they didn't even keep the 1.1 from last week. That means that 100,000 knew about it...but still didn't watch. Also, with advertisements on UFC 70, which did good-to-great ratings, I figured they would catch a few of the old casual fans' attentions. I guess "surprise" is just the main word from me on this rating.
|
|