|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 12, 2007 23:02:13 GMT -5
Last night's edition of ECW on Sci Fi did a 1.3 cable rating. This is well up from last week's show which drew a 0.6 airing on Thursday head to head with TNA iMPACT!. Gerweck.net My...aren't they intelligent over at Gerweck, figuring out that 1.3 > 0.6. Anyway, a little lower than the actual average of 1.4. Surprising, but then again, they did just move back into their spot after switching the week before.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 12, 2007 23:04:55 GMT -5
I have a feeling they won't try scheduling ECW against Impact again for a long, long time.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Dec 12, 2007 23:05:04 GMT -5
Hmm...what's the word I use here...
do I use a word?
An emoticon maybe?
;D
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 12, 2007 23:08:50 GMT -5
I was surprised it wasn't lower, since a lot of people were still talking about RAW to bother with ECW.
I guess this forum isn't a good anagram for the ECW viewers as a whole.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 12, 2007 23:10:08 GMT -5
I have a feeling they won't try scheduling ECW against Impact again for a long, long time. ... Isn't there another Thursday show schedule for...this month? I remember reading that they'd be pre-empted twice.
|
|
andrew8798
FANatic
on 24/7 this month
Posts: 106,119
|
Post by andrew8798 on Dec 12, 2007 23:12:50 GMT -5
I have a feeling they won't try scheduling ECW against Impact again for a long, long time. ... Isn't there another Thursday show schedule for...this month? I remember reading that they'd be pre-empted twice. There is I think on the 27 of this month
|
|
|
Post by floundertime on Dec 13, 2007 0:08:00 GMT -5
... Isn't there another Thursday show schedule for...this month? I remember reading that they'd be pre-empted twice. There is I think on the 27 of this month Which is probably a good thing. I think they will get better ratings that night then having it on tuesday night that week, christmas
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Dec 13, 2007 0:09:30 GMT -5
I was surprised it wasn't lower, since a lot of people were still talking about RAW to bother with ECW. I guess this forum isn't a good anagram for the ECW viewers as a whole. Which is exactly what I said last week after the whole TNA > ECW stuff kickstarted. In fact, the IWC itself is not a good analogue (not anagram) for viewers as a whole of any promotion
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Dec 13, 2007 0:18:28 GMT -5
It's not surprising TNA beat them. ECW is basically a sub-brand of SmackDown now, while TNA (even though it features a mediocre product) is a complete promotion. If WWE wants the show to do better ratings then it has to be a complete brand. It can't be a parasite on Raw and SmackDown forever.
If they don't do something soon, it's going to become a glorified Heat or Velocity. It's almost there now.
|
|
BxB
Unicron
Only the shift key stands between him and copyright infringement.
Posts: 2,849
|
Post by BxB on Dec 13, 2007 0:35:13 GMT -5
It's not surprising TNA beat them. ECW is basically a sub-brand of SmackDown now, while TNA (even though it features a mediocre product) is a complete promotion. If WWE wants the show to do better ratings then it has to be a complete brand. It can't be a parasite on Raw and SmackDown forever. If they don't do something soon, it's going to become a glorified Heat or Velocity. It's almost there now. It's not fair to compare ECW with TNA on that 0.6 rating, alone. Most of the fans didn't even know ECW was airing on a Thursday and it wasn't really advertised that well, either. If TNA was airing on a Tuesday, unadvertised, they would've got low numbers, as well. 1.3 looks good, I think ECW was stuck on 1.2 for a while.
|
|
|
Post by CrazySting on Dec 13, 2007 8:33:29 GMT -5
It's not surprising TNA beat them. ECW is basically a sub-brand of SmackDown now, while TNA (even though it features a mediocre product) is a complete promotion. If WWE wants the show to do better ratings then it has to be a complete brand. It can't be a parasite on Raw and SmackDown forever. If they don't do something soon, it's going to become a glorified Heat or Velocity. It's almost there now. It's not fair to compare ECW with TNA on that 0.6 rating, alone. Most of the fans didn't even know ECW was airing on a Thursday and it wasn't really advertised that well, either. If TNA was airing on a Tuesday, unadvertised, they would've got low numbers, as well. 1.3 looks good, I think ECW was stuck on 1.2 for a while. The night change was mentioned on ECW, Smackdown, Raw and wwe.com. I'm not saying the night change didn't play a part in the low rating, but it's wrong to say there was no advertising whatsoever when there was quite a bit actually.
|
|
Dr. T is an alien
Patti Mayonnaise
Knows when to hold them, knows when to fold them
I've been found out!
Posts: 31,498
|
Post by Dr. T is an alien on Dec 13, 2007 8:36:12 GMT -5
I was surprised it wasn't lower, since a lot of people were still talking about RAW to bother with ECW. I guess this forum isn't a good anagram for the ECW viewers as a whole. I know that I only remembered ECW 20 minutes into the show.
|
|
|
Post by The only Buzz Sawyer mark ever on Dec 13, 2007 10:18:03 GMT -5
Methinks ECW would get a better rating if they ever actually had any "E" matches.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 13, 2007 10:53:19 GMT -5
It's not fair to compare ECW with TNA on that 0.6 rating, alone. Most of the fans didn't even know ECW was airing on a Thursday and it wasn't really advertised that well, either. If TNA was airing on a Tuesday, unadvertised, they would've got low numbers, as well. 1.3 looks good, I think ECW was stuck on 1.2 for a while. The night change was mentioned on ECW, Smackdown, Raw and wwe.com. I'm not saying the night change didn't play a part in the low rating, but it's wrong to say there was no advertising whatsoever when there was quite a bit actually. But how often do people, outside of this little "internet community" actually check those websites? There was advertising, just not a sufficient amount. Mentioning it on a website or having two 20 second commercials (mainly hyping matches instead of the date change) is not enough. Having it mentioned on air or even showing a hype video is what is needed. Don't forget when Raw actually hyped ECW's Punk/Morrison title match by showing graphics and showing Punk's vingettes. 1.7 rating. Raw is WWE's first child and it gets all the spoils because of it. Smackdown has to hype Raw. Even, ECW has to hype it. If the company would commit 25% of the hype for Raw to ECW, you'd see the ratings improve. Now, I like TNA...for the most part. They've caused me to roll my eyes and groan occasionally, but I enjoy watching the wrestling. However, I just don't see why people seem to act like them "winning" on Thursday is such a big deal. A lowly hyped displaced show (That people seem to insist on calling the C-Show) got HALF of your regular rating. Now, I know that would be a glass half empty (excuse the pun) look at things, but it is a way to look at them just the same. ECW showed TNA that there is 1.7 possible viewers on Thursday. TNA should have a number to drive for in the next couple of years (Maybe 3-5 years). That's how I look at it.
|
|
Hiroshi Hase
Patti Mayonnaise
The Good Ol' Days
Posts: 30,755
|
Post by Hiroshi Hase on Dec 13, 2007 11:02:08 GMT -5
The night change was mentioned on ECW, Smackdown, Raw and wwe.com. I'm not saying the night change didn't play a part in the low rating, but it's wrong to say there was no advertising whatsoever when there was quite a bit actually. But how often do people, outside of this little "internet community" actually check those websites? There was advertising, just not a sufficient amount. Mentioning it on a website or having two 20 second commercials (mainly hyping matches instead of the date change) is not enough. Having it mentioned on air or even showing a hype video is what is needed. Don't forget when Raw actually hyped ECW's Punk/Morrison title match by showing graphics and showing Punk's vingettes. 1.7 rating. Raw is WWE's first child and it gets all the spoils because of it. Smackdown has to hype Raw. Even, ECW has to hype it. If the company would commit 25% of the hype for Raw to ECW, you'd see the ratings improve. Now, I like TNA...for the most part. They've caused me to roll my eyes and groan occasionally, but I enjoy watching the wrestling. However, I just don't see why people seem to act like them "winning" on Thursday is such a big deal. A lowly hyped displaced show (That people seem to insist on calling the C-Show) got HALF of your regular rating. Now, I know that would be a glass half empty (excuse the pun) look at things, but it is a way to look at them just the same. ECW showed TNA that there is 1.7 possible viewers on Thursday. TNA should have a number to drive for in the next couple of years (Maybe 3-5 years). That's how I look at it. In terms of importance in WWE, it is the C show. You'll never see a WWE title match open up a PPV. To me it is the C show, because it bores me and frankly I couldn't be bothered with most of the guys on the show as opposed to Raw and Smackdown.
|
|
Dolph Zalgo
Don Corleone
He who waits behind the walls
҉҉ ̵̡̢̢̛̛̛̖̗̘̙̜̝̞&
Posts: 1,939
|
Post by Dolph Zalgo on Dec 13, 2007 11:06:22 GMT -5
It's not surprising TNA beat them. ECW is basically a sub-brand of SmackDown now, while TNA (even though it features a mediocre product) is a complete promotion. If WWE wants the show to do better ratings then it has to be a complete brand. It can't be a parasite on Raw and SmackDown forever. If they don't do something soon, it's going to become a glorified Heat or Velocity. It's almost there now. I think WWE is keeping ECW as a division to put some people aside. The ECW championship has about the same value as the Interncontinental or US Title AT BEST. When WWECW started watched it, but came time and watering it down to an excuse for velocity I totally lost interest. I hardly even read the match reports. But that's typically Vince: they COULD have made ECW something big, a WWE branch that would have its own fanbase, something to REALLY cater the number of fans that long for something else than WWE-style wrestling. The thing is: I think Vince was scared that the WWE-branch could end up more sucessful than WWE's own programming and he does not want to cater the fans that hate poop-joke Cena and Mr. Unlimited Titleshots. Vince does not want someone else's brainchild to dwarf his own. To add something: ECW would probably never have beaten WWE's own programming, but Vince wants to play safe and make sure it will always be regarded as inferior...
|
|
|
Post by Andrew is Good on Dec 13, 2007 12:48:55 GMT -5
Well, after the humbling ECW received by TNA (no matter what excuse people use, it was still a pretty good humbling), it looks like the brand is back to its regular bad numbers.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 13, 2007 12:56:11 GMT -5
Well, after the humbling ECW received by TNA (no matter what excuse people use, it was still a pretty good humbling), it looks like the brand is back to its regular bad numbers. ... Humbling? ... You know what. Nevermind. I respect your opinion...No point in typing out the same things over and over just for people to disregard them.
|
|
|
Post by britishbulldog on Dec 13, 2007 12:59:24 GMT -5
Well, after the humbling ECW received by TNA (no matter what excuse people use, it was still a pretty good humbling), it looks like the brand is back to its regular bad numbers. I find it funny you think this is a bad number. For most cable shows this would be considered a decent rating. But because it is wrestling and not doing what Raw and Smackdown do(more established shows). It is bad. Funny thing is is what is TNA's avg rating. 1.0 to 1.1?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 13, 2007 13:11:29 GMT -5
I find it funny you think this is a bad number. For most cable shows this would be considered a decent rating. But because it is wrestling and not doing what Raw and Smackdown do(more established shows). It is bad. Funny thing is is what is TNA's avg rating. 1.0 to 1.1? TNA is perpetually on 1.1 right now, so ECW moving didn't change it at all, which makes me think it's less to do with TNA on that night (as their fanbase has remained consistent) and more to do with the general preemption and relatively little advertising they did to try to inform people of the changed airdate (certainly less than they'd do for any other show). There's likely some overlap, but I think it wouldnt have been much better if they moved it to Wednesday either. Secondly, it's not like they had a huge choice of where to go. I'm fairly sure they were pretty limited by Sci-Fi that week thanks to the miniseries.
|
|