|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 13, 2007 21:37:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by laotioncommotion on Dec 13, 2007 23:32:49 GMT -5
TNA would kill for a .6 rating when it actually has competition? News to me. Face it, the show is strcityl the C show, and less important than Heat used to be in terms of its impact on WWE overall. You fail to understand that a C show on a science fiction channel is getting higher ratings than the flagship show of TNA. The 0.6 rating is an anomaly which can be explained. For the most part, ECW beats TNA Impact! in ratings. It wouldn't surprise me if ECW beats TNA Impact!...again But what you fail to understand is that a five year old upstart company is getting ratings similar to the billion dollar WWE. People love talking about how TNA deserves the much harder criticism they level at it because "WWE can afford to do stupid shit and it doesn't matter", but this is the opposite end of that spectrum. WWE has a big, firmly entrenched fanbase that they believe will eat up whatever they throw at them, and yet they just can't seem to draw all those people that watch RAW and Smackdown! to ECW, and couldn't even outdraw some little promotion from Florida. And they totally deserve to be mocked for it. I'm sure WWE thought they'd be able to throw their weight around, hell most people on this board, despite what they're saying now, thought ECW would draw higher ratings than Impact. But what happened was people just stuck with Impact and ECW got hit big time. No matter what way WWE fans want to spin this, this is definitely not a positive for WWE. Maybe it's not the coup TNA fans wish it was, but you can't turn it into a win for McMahon, which is what it seems like you're doing.
|
|
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 23:36:04 GMT -5
You fail to understand that a C show on a science fiction channel is getting higher ratings than the flagship show of TNA. The 0.6 rating is an anomaly which can be explained. For the most part, ECW beats TNA Impact! in ratings. It wouldn't surprise me if ECW beats TNA Impact!...again But what you fail to understand is that a five year old upstart company is getting ratings similar to the billion dollar WWE. People love talking about how TNA deserves the much harder criticism they level at it because "WWE can afford to do stupid crap and it doesn't matter", but this is the opposite end of that spectrum. WWE has a big, firmly entrenched fanbase that they believe will eat up whatever they throw at them, and yet they just can't seem to draw all those people that watch RAW and Smackdown! to ECW, and couldn't even outdraw some little promotion from Florida. And they totally deserve to be mocked for it. I'm sure WWE thought they'd be able to throw their weight around, hell most people on this board, despite what they're saying now, thought ECW would draw higher ratings than Impact. But what happened was people just stuck with Impact and ECW got hit big time. No matter what way WWE fans want to spin this, this is definitely not a positive for WWE. Maybe it's not the coup TNA fans wish it was, but you can't turn it into a win for McMahon, which is what it seems like you're doing. Raw: 4.4 SD: anywhere between 2.6 and 3.0 ECW: 1.2-1.4 save for this past week Impact: 1.0-1.1 no matter how much money they spend or what talent they bring in. TNA is not doing as well as the WWE in any sense of anything, do NOT kid yourself.
|
|
|
Post by laotioncommotion on Dec 14, 2007 0:02:26 GMT -5
But what you fail to understand is that a five year old upstart company is getting ratings similar to the billion dollar WWE. People love talking about how TNA deserves the much harder criticism they level at it because "WWE can afford to do stupid crap and it doesn't matter", but this is the opposite end of that spectrum. WWE has a big, firmly entrenched fanbase that they believe will eat up whatever they throw at them, and yet they just can't seem to draw all those people that watch RAW and Smackdown! to ECW, and couldn't even outdraw some little promotion from Florida. And they totally deserve to be mocked for it. I'm sure WWE thought they'd be able to throw their weight around, hell most people on this board, despite what they're saying now, thought ECW would draw higher ratings than Impact. But what happened was people just stuck with Impact and ECW got hit big time. No matter what way WWE fans want to spin this, this is definitely not a positive for WWE. Maybe it's not the coup TNA fans wish it was, but you can't turn it into a win for McMahon, which is what it seems like you're doing. Raw: 4.4 SD: anywhere between 2.6 and 3.0 ECW: 1.2-1.4 save for this past week Impact: 1.0-1.1 no matter how much money they spend or what talent they bring in. TNA is not doing as well as the WWE in any sense of anything, do NOT kid yourself. I was speaking of ECW, not RAW and Smackdown. In fact, I mentioned in particular WWE's inability to draw the same fans that watch RAW and Smackdown over to ECW. I argued that ECW draws SIMILAR ratings to Impact. Since you decided to patronize me by showing ratings averages and acting like I'm a moron who doesn't know what they draw, I'll patronize you a little. TNA: 1.1 ECW: 1.2 Not the same, but SIMILAR. See how that works? SIMILAR. I totally think they deserve to be mocked for that. Compare the ratings between the three shows. Why can't they engender even a passing interest in one of their shows from the majority of their fanbase? Why couldn't they get anybody from the supposedly awfully booked TNA to switch channels? None of these are positives, and I doubt McMahon was exactly thrilled to find that out. Again, definitely not the coup TNA would hope it was, as it's way more of a sign of WWE's colossal inability to make ECW even marginally important then it is of TNA's success, but some of you are acting like this is somehow a victory for WWE, which it is most certainly not.
|
|
|
Post by lol on Dec 14, 2007 0:30:13 GMT -5
How are surgery videos related to that promo? Silly Youtube.... But what happened was people just stuck with Impact and ECW got hit big time. No matter what way WWE fans want to spin this, this is definitely not a positive for WWE. Maybe it's not the coup TNA fans wish it was, but you can't turn it into a win for McMahon, which is what it seems like you're doing. How did they get hit big time? ECW fan base didn't watch it last Thursday night because WWE hardly promoted that ECW was going to be on different night. I didn't turn it into win for Vince. It wasn't a massive win for TNA too. TNA learned that it has a loyal fan base and nothing else.
|
|
Ace Diamond
Patti Mayonnaise
Believes in Adrian Veidt, as Should We All.
mmm...flavor text
Posts: 36,043
|
Post by Ace Diamond on Dec 14, 2007 0:36:21 GMT -5
Raw: 4.4 SD: anywhere between 2.6 and 3.0 ECW: 1.2-1.4 save for this past week Impact: 1.0-1.1 no matter how much money they spend or what talent they bring in. TNA is not doing as well as the WWE in any sense of anything, do NOT kid yourself. I was speaking of ECW, not RAW and Smackdown. In fact, I mentioned in particular WWE's inability to draw the same fans that watch RAW and Smackdown over to ECW. I argued that ECW draws SIMILAR ratings to Impact. Since you decided to patronize me by showing ratings averages and acting like I'm a moron who doesn't know what they draw, I'll patronize you a little. TNA: 1.1 ECW: 1.2 Not the same, but SIMILAR. See how that works? SIMILAR. I totally think they deserve to be mocked for that. Compare the ratings between the three shows. Why can't they engender even a passing interest in one of their shows from the majority of their fanbase? Why couldn't they get anybody from the supposedly awfully booked TNA to switch channels? None of these are positives, and I doubt McMahon was exactly thrilled to find that out. Again, definitely not the coup TNA would hope it was, as it's way more of a sign of WWE's colossal inability to make ECW even marginally important then it is of TNA's success, but some of you are acting like this is somehow a victory for WWE, which it is most certainly not. Is ECW the full entirety of the "Billion Dollar WWE"? No? Then why are you kidding yourself?
|
|
|
Post by laotioncommotion on Dec 14, 2007 1:13:44 GMT -5
I was speaking of ECW, not RAW and Smackdown. In fact, I mentioned in particular WWE's inability to draw the same fans that watch RAW and Smackdown over to ECW. I argued that ECW draws SIMILAR ratings to Impact. Since you decided to patronize me by showing ratings averages and acting like I'm a moron who doesn't know what they draw, I'll patronize you a little. TNA: 1.1 ECW: 1.2 Not the same, but SIMILAR. See how that works? SIMILAR. I totally think they deserve to be mocked for that. Compare the ratings between the three shows. Why can't they engender even a passing interest in one of their shows from the majority of their fanbase? Why couldn't they get anybody from the supposedly awfully booked TNA to switch channels? None of these are positives, and I doubt McMahon was exactly thrilled to find that out. Again, definitely not the coup TNA would hope it was, as it's way more of a sign of WWE's colossal inability to make ECW even marginally important then it is of TNA's success, but some of you are acting like this is somehow a victory for WWE, which it is most certainly not. Is ECW the full entirety of the "Billion Dollar WWE"? No? Then why are you kidding yourself? I already explained to you that I was talking about ECW. Not Smackdown. Not RAW. ECW is under the banner of WWE. Which means it has all the power, all the prowess, and all the money of the "Billion Dollar WWE". It's not the full extent of the company, but everybody involved, all the higher ups in the company, and all the wrestlers know about it and have an interest in it's success. So the fact that TNA routinely draws about .1 less in the ratings then ECW, and proceeded to dismantle it in the ratings when they went head-to-head is not a good thing. It's a bad thing. Especially considering that ECW at one time drew way bigger ratings then TNA, but but they lost about half of their audience. Nowhere have I argued that TNA is a more healthy, financially successful or bigger company than WWE. WWE is the branded identity of professional wrestling. There's a lot of people out there who believe that there are no other wrestling companies in the world. Anything they do should, by default, be the biggest thing going. They should not be competing with TNA in any way, and they certainly shouldn't be getting creamed by them. If you want to argue any of the points I ACTUALLY made, then do that instead of arguing against an idiotic point that you wish I made.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 14, 2007 1:37:19 GMT -5
I haven't seen anyone trying to turn this into a "win" for WWE in any way, just those trying to make it seem as less of a deal than others. It'd be rather silly to try to make it into a win. I saw it simply as both shows doing what they were supposed to do under those circumstances.
To compare ECW now to what it was when it debuted is a little disingenuous. It was a different show and it had it's own level of hype. It used to hold some of WWE's bigger stars, all of which has changed since the incident. It's pretty much a holding ground/developmental brand now, and they've had to have some performers pull double duty on Smackdown and ECW to try to give it an identity of its own. Of course it started off big, but as soon as the old ECW fans realized that it wasn't the old ECW and everyone else eventually forgot about a wrestling program on the Sci-Fi channel of all networks, it eventually fell to where it was supposed to be, which is in the 1.2-1.5 range, just a little above where TNA is consistently right now.
For the move, there are a lot of things in play that can lead to whether someone will watch or not. TNA is a big one, yes. They have a much higher profile show for their fanbase that's, let's face it, on a better network than ECW does for it's fanbase (which is more or less a fringe WWE fanbase with some overlap). It's not all product, though. Partially it's their airtime. They started an hour before, meaning people who were watching were less likely to change the channel to ECW. They're in their normal slot, so that those with routines that include watching that show will still watch it. As was said before, ECW was rather under advertised. It got a few commercials, sure, but the information about the change wasn't until the very end. They didn't really speak about it on air well, at all. If Raw or Smackdown were pre-empted, it'd be everywhere. Half of ECW would be taken up by it. But it's ECW, so it wasn't given that much attention. Even if it aired on Wednesday, it would have had significantly lower ratings. Shows that are preempted tend to have a significant drop in ratings.
Now, the decision to attempt to go up against TNA did backfire. Really, they didn't have a lot of options going in to it, but they wanted to test their C-show with TNA's only show. It didn't work, ECW experienced the expected drop in ratings plus whatever overlap while TNA plugged along as usual. Does it help that TNA has more hi-profile stars than Viscera and The Miz? Absolutely. Does it help that TNA has been putting on at least pretty good shows while ECW has gone downhill? Yes.
Really though, I don't see it as a surprise that ECW's rating for that week suffered. I'd be shocked if anyone truly believed ECW would win. I don't think it's a big coup-d'etat for TNA, sure, it's good that they remained steady, but it's not even like they gained anything. It seemed fairly clear to me that the cards were stacked all in TNA's favor to begin with, so it's not at all surprising that they rated higher to me.
In general, I think a lot of people on all sides try to pull victories out of these ratings instead of realistically looking at what they mean.
|
|
|
Post by laotioncommotion on Dec 14, 2007 1:56:32 GMT -5
Yeah, I think you're pretty much right about everything, hawk405359. The under-advertising and cruddy main event was a lot of what I was thinking about when I was talking about WWE screwing up. I just get the feeling they thought they were going to walk onto Thursday night and maul TNA, which if it had been RAW or Smackdown probably would've happened. I just think they've done almost everything in their power to make ECW suck, and now they got beat by TNA and they totally deserved it. And I interpreted stuff like "well, if anything WWE proved that there's .6 of people on Thursday who don't watch TNA" as attempting to spin it into a win for WWE.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 14, 2007 10:49:48 GMT -5
Okay...I brought up the "there's .6 of people on Thursday who don't watch TNA" thing and I was not trying to turn it into a ECW/WWE win.
Goodness knows, TNA has had the 1.0-1.2 average for about year or so now. I have thought that they had just cornered the wrestling market on Thursday (outside of the 3.5 or so Raw on Thursday that was highly, highly hyped with a major main event), but last Thursday showed that TNA does have something to aim for. If they can continue to turn things around (although sometimes I think they're turning too much and heading towards a 360 instead of sticking with the 180), they could actually break the 1.2 barrier and get themselves a 1.3 or 1.4.
Look, it's obvious that I prefered ECW's show over TNA's. However, I do like and watch TNA, mainly for its roster and would like to see it succeed. If anything, just so they could get another show and I, as a wrestling fan, would have more to watch.
|
|
|
Post by Cypress on Dec 14, 2007 13:27:13 GMT -5
WWE decided to forgo caring about ECWs ratings when they decided to make it a developmental show, basically a triple AAA to their RAW/SD big leagues.If they really cared about beating TNA they wouldve done a lot more advertising and stocked the show with Mysterio,Batista and Edge.I never understand why TNA fans have such an iferiority complex about how WWE fans perceive their product.Who cares as long as you enjoy it.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 14, 2007 13:29:15 GMT -5
WWE decided to forgo caring about ECWs ratings when they decided to make it a developmental show, basically a triple AAA to their RAW/SD big leagues.If they really cared about beating TNA they wouldve done a lot more advertising and stocked the show with Mysterio,Batista and Edge.I never understand why TNA fans have such an iferiority complex about how WWE fans perceive their product.Who cares as long as you enjoy it. QFT about ECW, although the fact that TNA has alot more invested in Impact than WWE does in ECW makes me tend to prefer it.
|
|
JMA
Hank Scorpio
Down With Capitalism!
Posts: 6,880
|
Post by JMA on Dec 14, 2007 16:36:29 GMT -5
At this point I think Vince is content to let ECW die a slow death. It gives him time to prepare for it. Right now ECW is slowly being absorbed into SmackDown, and eventually (probably when the new contract runs out) it'll be completely gone.
Unless, of course, things drastically change. But for that to happen, ECW would have to get big time stars, their own identity, and their own tapings.
|
|
Mozenrath
FANatic
Foppery and Whim
Speedy Speed Boy
Posts: 121,930
|
Post by Mozenrath on Dec 14, 2007 16:38:03 GMT -5
I have a feeling they won't try scheduling ECW against Impact again for a long, long time. It was likely less about it being against Impact, and more about it being moved.
|
|