Oh dear...TNA vs ECW Thursday Ratings

[comahan]

cenamark21 said:

comahan said:

Good for TNA for not losing viewers. I don't see how this wasn't expected though. Not because TNA has a better show necessarily, but because of the date change. Last time ECW went to a different night I believe they scored a similar rating. So it seems as though the different programs have totally different audiences.

TNA had the advantage in getting the first hour. Once you've seen the first hour, you're less likely to turn over because you want to see what's going to happen.

Yea, I agree with that. Thats exactly what I did. I recorded ECW and watched it later because I didnt want to stop watching one show in the middle of it.

[Mr. Backlund]

If anything, this is kind of bad for both or, if nothing else, a wash.

It's bad for the WWE because the rating for ECW was pretty bad, but that had to be expected as I hadn't really heard much about it outside of on here. I don't think it was necessarily unexpected, but possibly preventable.

For TNA, sure they "win" and finally get a feather in their cap (depending on how big of a deal you make this), but they've effectively proven they're not growing at all. What we can infer from the ratings of both shows is that there's around a 1.5 to 2.0 viewing audience (in Neislen terms) for wrestling on Thursday nights. TNA has got half of them to tune in consistently, but a move to this new time slot, new big name talent, etc. hasn't done anything to propel it any further. A 1.1 is nice for a wrestling show, sure, but CSI re-runs in the same spot could do and has done the same audience size (just a different demographic). You can spin this as another anti-TNA post, but you have to think they'd expect some growth from all the moves and money they've been throwing around.

It is nice that they didn't lose audience, but I think we can all agree ECW wasn't given much of an opportunity to "shine" this week. Maybe I'm a buzzkill or try to put things in context too much, but this isn't the greatest moment for either company.

[WWE Trademarked My Name]

Youtube is about to be plagued by millions and millions of "shoot" videos on WWE "telling" Vince that his company is on the verge of death because we all know, just like all of us (and I say this with extreme sarcasm) Vince McMahon cares what a bunch of random TNA marks have to say to him.

[mysterydriver]

Well...there is another "confrontation" this month apparently.

Will people still be hyped for that?

[azz0r]

You know what this means?

Vince on ECW...woo

[seano]

This is like the Monday Night Wars but just, uh, with 1/8th of the viewers.

In all seriousness, it's not a bad thing for TNA at all. Their rating didn't even budge, meaning their fans stuck with them. Now they just need *more* fans, apparently.

Then again, WWE barely mentioning ECW's Thursday night airing (it seems) didn't help ECW at all.

[AriadosMan]

TNA had hugely hyped matches in its second half. I doubt ECW had much firepower to compete, since its, well, ECW

[jmac950]

There was also a football game on thursday night, which definately didn't help.

[twiggy101]

seano said:

This is like the Monday Night Wars but just, uh, with 1/8th of the viewers.

In all seriousness, it's not a bad thing for TNA at all. Their rating didn't even budge, meaning their fans stuck with them. Now they just need *more* fans, apparently.

Then again, WWE barely mentioning ECW's Thursday night airing (it seems) didn't help ECW at all.

Kinda makes you think if the ECW and TNA fans are 2 entirely different audiences who are only a fan of one show.

[Kae]

Eh, Impact did its normal 1.0-1.1. ECW did less because it wasn't promoted at all. It isn't the Monday Night Wars all over again.

[twiggy101]

kae said:

Eh, Impact did its normal 1.0-1.1. ECW did less because it wasn't promoted at all. It isn't the Monday Night Wars all over again.

That's true. I didn't know that ECW wasn't going to air yesterday instead of Tuesday because I never heard any word on it on either Smackdown or Raw. I was looking on the internet for results after the show was supposed to end but realized that it airs head to head with TNA. What did ECW get when it aired on a Saturday last year?

[angryfan]

So...TNA scored the same rating they always do, no matter what they try, against a show which featured both Mark Henry AND King Mable? And somehow, a die-hard TNA mark will scream that this is a victory? COngratulations, TNA, you managed to beat in the ratings a show which featured both the worst drawing KOTR winner of all time (and a mountain of suck at that) and the man who, after a decade in the business, was touted by his defenders as "finally getting it".

[NIXON]

My thought is that Vince purposelt did not promote the fact that ECW was going to be on Thursday. I personally think that he was well aware of the head to head with TNA and well aware that his show could potentially lose to TNA, so he chose to not promote the show at all. That way he takes no hit for losing in the ratings. Had he promoted it and still lost, then the net explodes with "TNA IZ TEH WINNARZ DOOOOOODZ!!11!1!"

[lildude8218]

Just to play devil's advocate, has anyone said that an unadvertised WWE show on a different night still was only half a point behind Impact?

[mysterydriver]

angryfan said:

So...TNA scored the same rating they always do, no matter what they try, against a show which featured both Mark Henry AND King Mable? And somehow, a die-hard TNA mark will scream that this is a victory? COngratulations, TNA, you managed to beat in the ratings a show which featured both the worst drawing KOTR winner of all time (and a mountain of suck at that) and the man who, after a decade in the business, was touted by his defenders as "finally getting it".

Hey...not everyone can be a "natural" to pro-wrestling.

It took a lot of time and (sadly) wasted money, but Mark Henry has finally developed into a darn good talker and a sufficient monster who can do what he has to.

Also, daggone it, King Mabel was cool because of Sir Mo! Heck, I think even an 8 year old kid (Hi.) knew that Mabel/Diesel was a recipe for suck...but...meh. I got nothing.

[angryfan]

mysterydriver said:

angryfan said:

So...TNA scored the same rating they always do, no matter what they try, against a show which featured both Mark Henry AND King Mable? And somehow, a die-hard TNA mark will scream that this is a victory? COngratulations, TNA, you managed to beat in the ratings a show which featured both the worst drawing KOTR winner of all time (and a mountain of suck at that) and the man who, after a decade in the business, was touted by his defenders as "finally getting it".

Hey...not everyone can be a "natural" to pro-wrestling.

It took a lot of time and (sadly) wasted money, but Mark Henry has finally developed into a darn good talker and a sufficient monster who can do what he has to.

Also, daggone it, King Mabel was cool because of Sir Mo! Heck, I think even an 8 year old kid (Hi.) knew that Mabel/Diesel was a recipe for suck...but...meh. I got nothing.

DUDE! You just had to bering up up Mabel/Diesel, didn't you? God, all these years and it still makes me cringe.

I'll give Henry that he's developed into a solid mic worker, and having met him, is a stand-up, class human being. After less than a minute, even seven years ago, I instantly pulled for him because of the kind of person he is. However, saying "I am glad a good person has found success" does not make watching him on my TV any easier. I still cringe every single time because, well, just no.

And since you mentioned him, I do think we need Sir Moe (and Oscar, who was so useless, even then, that I can't recall a single memorable thing he ever did) back on the anniversary show.

[Michael Coello]

angryfan said:

So...TNA scored the same rating they always do, no matter what they try, against a show which featured both Mark Henry AND King Mable? And somehow, a die-hard TNA mark will scream that this is a victory? COngratulations, TNA, you managed to beat in the ratings a show which featured both the worst drawing KOTR winner of all time (and a mountain of suck at that) and the man who, after a decade in the business, was touted by his defenders as "finally getting it".

and also the former ROH golden boy and current ECW Champion, CM Punk.

Hey, stop me when I lie...

[angryfan]

sinister1 said:

angryfan said:

So...TNA scored the same rating they always do, no matter what they try, against a show which featured both Mark Henry AND King Mable? And somehow, a die-hard TNA mark will scream that this is a victory? COngratulations, TNA, you managed to beat in the ratings a show which featured both the worst drawing KOTR winner of all time (and a mountain of suck at that) and the man who, after a decade in the business, was touted by his defenders as "finally getting it".

and also the former ROH golden boy and current ECW Champion, CM Punk.

Hey, stop me when I lie...

I'm a fan of Punk's work, have been for a long time now, but, when you've got a "ECW roster" of some 11 people (before they combined with SD) how strong can any one person look?

Trot out Henry, BDV, Kevin "Gimmick, what gimmick?" Thorn, that poor bastard Tommy, the lovesick Satanist Balls, and...hell, bring out Stevie. The entire ECW roster, far as I'm concerned, suffers the same fate much of TNA does right now. They're not shown as important compared to the "big names" so casual fans don't take them seriously.

[Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You]

I know it's not technically an accurate comparison, and it wouldn't really make a scientific journal, but the fact is TNA did better in the ratings. If TNA moved their show without advertising, all we'd hear was how horrible TNA is being run. WWE either screwed up or doesn't care about ECW anymore.

[ChitownKnight]

OMGZ TNA BEAT ECW IN THE RATINGS!!!!!!!!11111 WWE IZ GOING TO DIE11!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11111one1111e

seroulsly thought i didnt watch either, i was watching the bears game, but since TNA is usually better than ECW, this shouldnt surprise me.