Kae
Dennis Stamp
Posts: 3,610
|
Post by Kae on Dec 7, 2007 22:39:55 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, TNA did its usual 1.0-1.1. ECW was barely advertised as being on Thursday. It's not the Monday Night Wars at all.
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 7, 2007 22:40:42 GMT -5
As I said in the other thread, TNA did its usual 1.0-1.1. ECW was barely advertised as being on Thursday. It's not the Monday Night Wars at all. Oh course it wasn't! It was on a Thursday! DUH!
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Dec 7, 2007 22:42:20 GMT -5
I said it in WWE Current, I'll say it here. Congrats to TNA. They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Now, the fact that the show they opposed featured both King Mable and Mark Henry, a combined ton of suck, does make me chuckle a bit, though. How serously can we take ECW when poor Joey and Taz are forced to put over a shirtless, suspender-wearing former Fatboy wannabe who also happens to be the single worst KOTR winner in the history of, well, humankind? Then throw in Mark Herny, a guy who's so abysmal that even his staunchest defenders can only say, after over a decade in the business, "well, he's getting better". God help me, I want to like ECW, but when I see those two, all I can do is shudder and hope the pain stops.
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 7, 2007 22:43:56 GMT -5
I feel the same way with "What do you expect, TNA is a young company!" when they keep getting the same ratings. However, the most BS excuse you can give when things are bad? Nielson Ratings "Glitch" ;D ECW is guilty of this as well. Did I miss that week? When did that happen?
|
|
Rube
Hank Scorpio
Sammich Bogart
It's always the same and it's always different.
Posts: 5,619
|
Post by Rube on Dec 7, 2007 22:43:58 GMT -5
They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Heh? What, you think Dixie has the Nielson people in her pocket?
|
|
|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 7, 2007 22:46:21 GMT -5
ECW is guilty of this as well. Did I miss that week? When did that happen? I think he means the early ECW days, when people didn't like it, and the people who did were going "You have to wait a few days/weeks/months/a year(seriously) so ECW can get in a groove before judging it" thing.
|
|
AriadosMan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Your friendly neighborhood superhero
Posts: 15,620
|
Post by AriadosMan on Dec 7, 2007 22:46:33 GMT -5
They maintained their standard rating (that the conspiracy theorist in me says is fixed since it's the exact same week after week) against ECW. Heh? What, you think Dixie has the Nielson people in her pocket? No, Abyss runs the Nielsens. THAT'S his dirty secret ;D
|
|
|
Post by mysterydriver on Dec 7, 2007 22:50:00 GMT -5
Did I miss that week? When did that happen? I think he means the early ECW days, when people didn't like it, and the people who did were going "You have to wait a few days/weeks/months/a year(seriously) so ECW can get in a groove before judging it" thing. Haha. Okay. "Wait a year, then it'll be awesome." sounds like a last ditch effort to try and get NBC to renew "Joey"
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 7, 2007 23:01:11 GMT -5
Good for TNA. I wouldn't call this a "victory," but it's a very significant accomplishment for them that they managed to maintain their audience while another wrestling show was on.
Yes, it was the WWE's lowest brand, and it was airing on an irregular night, but it's still a very good accomplishment for TNA. I'm sure the company will try to hype the holy begeezuss out of it like they demolished the competition, which will be total bulls***, but it's still a very significant accomplishment.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 7, 2007 23:04:38 GMT -5
As I said in the thread in WWE Current. I'm glad, because they put on the better show, however I don't know that it was a resounding victory to beat a subpar offering of a show that didn't even air on its regular night. Still, good for them.
|
|
|
Post by Cry Me a Wiggle on Dec 7, 2007 23:47:34 GMT -5
No matter how you want to trivialize it, it really is a victory for TNA. Why? They didn't lose any of their audience. Whoever the .6 that made up ECW's rating was was probably not the usual TNA fanbase.
And yeah, dismiss it as TNA beating the WWE's third tier show of dubious quality. I'll partially agree with you that it's not surprising. However, had it been the other way around, the TNA defenders around here wouldn't have heard the end of it. Ever.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 8, 2007 0:05:55 GMT -5
And yeah, dismiss it as TNA beating the WWE's third tier show of dubious quality. I'll partially agree with you that it's not surprising. However, had it been the other way around, the TNA defenders around here wouldn't have heard the end of it. Ever. If ECW had been moved without advertising and beaten TNA in the ratings, it would have been much more significant. As it is, both sides did what you would expect them to do, it's neither surprising, significant, nor really that telling of anything.
|
|
|
Post by "Nature Boy" Ric Moranis on Dec 8, 2007 0:06:30 GMT -5
ECW should've made some sort of dent in the TNA ratings. They made none.
Maybe I'm about to make a grand assumption, but I can't think that there are hypothetically 1.4 or 1.5 million wrestling fans every single week that watch Impact yet also...
1. NEVER watch ECW 2. Watch ECW, but completely forgot ECW was pre-empted this Thursday. 3. Remembered that ECW was on, yet stayed 100% with Impact in a head-to-head battle for one hour.
The fact that TNA held serve against any hour of Vince McMahon programming should be considered a victory. I know the running jokes about TNA scoring 1.1 every single night no matter what, and no matter how many things are on a pole, but the fact they scored that last night against a major national wrestling show was fairly impressive...no matter how the TNA haters want to spin it.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 8, 2007 0:16:22 GMT -5
Again, it helps that Impact was the FAR better show last night. I'd like to see what both shows did if they both put on the same quality of program at the same time.
|
|
|
Post by Big DSR Energy on Dec 8, 2007 0:17:02 GMT -5
My cable company doesn't give me the Sci-Fi channel.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 8, 2007 0:18:35 GMT -5
ECW should've made some sort of dent in the TNA ratings. They made none. Maybe I'm about to make a grand assumption, but I can't think that there are hypothetically 1.4 or 1.5 million wrestling fans every single week that watch Impact yet also... 1. NEVER watch ECW 2. Watch ECW, but completely forgot ECW was pre-empted this Thursday. 3. Remembered that ECW was on, yet stayed 100% with Impact in a head-to-head battle for one hour. The fact that TNA held serve against any hour of Vince McMahon programming should be considered a victory. I know the running jokes about TNA scoring 1.1 every single night no matter what, and no matter how many things are on a pole, but the fact they scored that last night against a major national wrestling show was fairly impressive...no matter how the TNA haters want to spin it. I don't think anyone is saying that it wasn't good for TNA that they held their audience, just that it wasn't as huge of a victory that people are making it out to be. 1: TNA had the better show with bigger names 2: ECW was preempted (always important) 3: ECW's preemption was barely advertised 4: TNA began airing first, thus making it less likely that people would switch midway. Unless the preempted show is like, American Idol, it's going to do much worse in the ratings simply by being preempted. The fact that it's the C show on a much worse channel for it's genre being preempted without advertising means it's not surprising that it's ratings fell. It wasn't exactly some "Thursday Night Wars", there's nothing surprising at the fact that TNA held its ratings and ECW fell. People may try to blow it up to be much bigger than it is, but really, it's not that big of a deal. And I haven't watched either show in quite a while, since I usually am busy both nights.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Dec 8, 2007 0:20:16 GMT -5
I flipped channels, ECW's show had little to nothing to keep me from coming back to impact.
|
|
|
Post by boxieness on Dec 8, 2007 1:34:50 GMT -5
well you would hoep that booker t, kurt angle, sting, jeff jarett, and kevin nash could bring in a better audience then cm punk, and a bunch of jobbers!
|
|
|
Post by Just "Dan" is Fine, Thank You on Dec 8, 2007 2:54:34 GMT -5
I can't believe the way people are making excuses for ECW. If TNA had a poor show which was pre-empted and not advertised, and lost by 0.5 ratings points, no one would be so forgiving. It would be another thread where everyone hates TNA first and asks questions later. Either WWE doesn't care about ECW, doesn't care about TNA, or just plain screwed up.
|
|
|
Post by Timmy8271 on Dec 8, 2007 3:53:37 GMT -5
I can't believe the way people are making excuses for ECW. If TNA had a poor show which was pre-empted and not advertised, and lost by 0.5 ratings points, no one would be so forgiving. It would be another thread where everyone hates TNA first and asks questions later. Either WWE doesn't care about ECW, doesn't care about TNA, or just plain screwed up. Can I say all of the above? WWE doesn't care about ECW or TNA. Like I said earlier, this is good for TNA but lets see them beat Smackdown or better yet, Lets see them beat Raw.
|
|