|
Post by Michael Coello on Dec 20, 2008 17:57:09 GMT -5
It's nearly Christmas, so ratings may be down because people are busy visiting relatives, office parties, late night shopping etc. Or thinking up excuses for a drop in ratings. Dude, I couldn't watch cause I had to pick up my father from JFK.
|
|
|
Post by toodarkmark on Dec 20, 2008 18:19:29 GMT -5
Funny that last week's episode is generally criticised, yet maintains a quite high rating throughout, yet this week's is well-received and rates relatively poorly. Perhaps what is generally favoured by the IWC is far from what more casual fans want. Or perhaps a large number of people who watched the higher-rated episode just figured, "That kinda sucked. I think I'll watch something that doesn't suck this week." Did you watch any of them, or is this just your general "TNA sucks" opinion?
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 20, 2008 21:29:29 GMT -5
If that were so, then they more than likely would have turned off during the show, yet the ratings actually increased towards the end. Don't really follow your logic. If people liked the show with less wrestling more, they would have tuned in from the start. Unless you read spoilers, you don't know what type of action is going to be on a show, so part of your decision to watch is going to be on how the show was before. TNA always seems to draw more people towards the main event, which makes just as much sense. That's not true. The main event before the last PPV was actually the lowest-rated segment, and the Knockouts have often had the highest-rated segment, which is not the ME. What I was saying is that if people were not enjoying the show as it went along, they would have likely turned off, and thus ratings would have fallen. If ratings did not decrease, then there was obviously enough to keep them watching.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 20, 2008 21:59:53 GMT -5
That's not true. The main event before the last PPV was actually the lowest-rated segment, and the Knockouts have often had the highest-rated segment, which is not the ME. What I was saying is that if people were not enjoying the show as it went along, they would have likely turned off, and thus ratings would have fallen. If ratings did not decrease, then there was obviously enough to keep them watching. But yet they didn't enjoy it last week to tune in this week, did they? What I'm saying is that, if we are going to address it entirely on the content of the show, if people enjoyed the product that much, they would have tuned in to the next episode, but they clearly didn't. In 3 weeks, we saw TNA go from their best reported performance ever, to a show that was uncharacteristically light on in-ring action, but performed pretty well, to a complete drop momentum after. If we're basing it purely on content of the show, that would mean that something about the show drove people away from tuning in that next week. What I'm saying is that if we're to base it entirely on show content, something happened between that show two weeks ago and this show that equated to a .2 drop in the ratings, and the only thing that was there was the show last week, which would theoretically be driven from the audience that enjoyed the show the week before, but would find enough of that audience turned away to cause such a drop. People who liked the week before could remain interested in the action lite episode under the promise of a strong main event, but had that yanked. For the record, I don't think it's all based on content, I think there are many different factors at play. I also don't think there is any significant difference in 1.0 and 1.2, because it's not likely to boost advertiser interest in the show, which is really the only reason ratings have for existing. And yes, you are correct, Knockouts often have the highest ratings.
|
|
|
Post by donners on Dec 20, 2008 22:19:27 GMT -5
I'm assuming it's the same rating system as here, where a relatively small sample of households is used to determine an approximate overall viewership.
As you say, without a great deal of room to move between 1.0 and 1.2, there are countless factors which could come into play outside quality. Two straight 1.2s was significant because it was so rare, but neither that nor this drop is hugely significant.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 20, 2008 23:16:10 GMT -5
I'm assuming it's the same rating system as here, where a relatively small sample of households is used to determine an approximate overall viewership. As you say, without a great deal of room to move between 1.0 and 1.2, there are countless factors which could come into play outside quality. Two straight 1.2s was significant because it was so rare, but neither that nor this drop is hugely significant. Yeah, it's a percentage of the people participating in the ratings system. I don't know the total sample size, but it's insanely small compared to the overall population, and of that only a third or so of those are considered for the affective sample, I believe. (According to one blog post, 37,000 in the total sample by 2011, or something like .00012 % of the population). And of those, 1 percent watched TNA. It's such an imprecise measurement because the sample size is so small. Buyrates/ticket sales are a much better determinant of fanbase, but ad revenue is tied to ratings more than anything.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 21, 2008 1:34:44 GMT -5
Well it's time once again for the weekly ICBM "1. ratings are actually good things" post. As mentioned once a week since Impact was expanded to two hours ICBM likes to remind the good folks who watch TNA because they like it and those who watch it just to critacise alike, that consistantly drawing a million viewers per episode in the 18-35 male demographic is what advertisers want in a platform. Oh my gosh TNA Impact regularly draws over a million viewers in the 18-35 male demo. Wow that is terrible just terrible how can Jeff Jarret and Dixie Carter live with themselves in thier mansions with such horrible ratings every week?
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Dec 21, 2008 1:40:17 GMT -5
Well it's time once again for the weekly ICBM "1. ratings are actually good things" post. As mentioned once a week since Impact was expanded to two hours ICBM likes to remind the good folks who watch TNA because they like it and those who watch it just to critacise alike, that consistantly drawing a million viewers per episode in the 18-35 male demographic is what advertisers want in a platform. Oh my gosh TNA Impact regularly draws over a million viewers in the 18-35 male demo. Wow that is terrible just terrible how can Jeff Jarret and Dixie Carter live with themselves in thier mansions with such horrible ratings every week? maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up?
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Dec 21, 2008 1:56:05 GMT -5
Or perhaps a large number of people who watched the higher-rated episode just figured, "That kinda sucked. I think I'll watch something that doesn't suck this week." Did you watch any of them, or is this just your general "TNA sucks" opinion? Well, TNA does suck, but that's not my point here. I was pointing out that one episode's ratings are actually more affected by the previous episode's quality rather than its own.
|
|
|
Post by GaTechGrad on Dec 21, 2008 6:17:58 GMT -5
Well, TNA does suck, but that's not my point here. This reminds me of the Todd Grisham video posted on the WWE board.
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 21, 2008 15:28:27 GMT -5
Well it's time once again for the weekly ICBM "1. ratings are actually good things" post. As mentioned once a week since Impact was expanded to two hours ICBM likes to remind the good folks who watch TNA because they like it and those who watch it just to critacise alike, that consistantly drawing a million viewers per episode in the 18-35 male demographic is what advertisers want in a platform. Oh my gosh TNA Impact regularly draws over a million viewers in the 18-35 male demo. Wow that is terrible just terrible how can Jeff Jarret and Dixie Carter live with themselves in thier mansions with such horrible ratings every week? maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up? Actually sir the final on the 12/4 Impact was a 1.8 and that was a company record. So umm...the whole talent pool made that happen not just old WWE guys and if you'd like to go that route than may I say that WWE is what it is today and during 1999 because of WCW guys. (Austin, HHH, Goldust, ect)
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 21, 2008 16:00:00 GMT -5
maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up? Actually sir the final on the 12/4 Impact was a 1.8 and that was a company record. So umm...the whole talent pool made that happen not just old WWE guys and if you'd like to go that route than may I say that WWE is what it is today and during 1999 because of WCW guys. (Austin, HHH, Goldust, ect) You know what man, forget what I just posted. Forget the whole thing. It won't matter anyway. I quit. You guys are either going to enjoy the product or you aren't.
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Dec 21, 2008 16:06:29 GMT -5
maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up? You know, you hear that their ratings aren't higher, you hear that the average rating is. I figured it'd be easy enough to check with Excel. Pre-2008 ratings came from here- www.100megsfree4.com/wiawrestling/pages/tna/impactrat.htmThey're missing a few scattered ratings date, but are there for the most part. Unfortunately, 2007 is only the first part of the year, I couldn't find the rest of the info elsewhere. 2008 ratings came from here- www.wrestlingnewsworld.com/tna-ratings/Since the first site didn't have them. I averaged the totals in Excel. 2005 (From Oct - Dec): 0.8 2006 : 0.8975 2007 : 1.056 2008 (Thus far): 1.05293 So between 2006 and 2008, it's about .15 increase in the ratings or so, assuming it's all right. In short, very stable numbers. For ad revenue sake, advertisers should know that they're going to average about the same. Whether that's bad, I'll leave that up to whomever reads it.
|
|
|
Post by Cap'n Crud on Dec 21, 2008 17:23:35 GMT -5
Indianapolis Colts made a pretty impressive comeback last night, but other than that, maybe they didnt put Christy Hemme on TV soon enough. It's that damn football again! DAT DAMN FOOTBALL!
|
|
|
Post by mcmahonfan85 on Dec 21, 2008 20:41:18 GMT -5
maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up? Actually sir the final on the 12/4 Impact was a 1.8 and that was a company record. So umm...the whole talent pool made that happen not just old WWE guys and if you'd like to go that route than may I say that WWE is what it is today and during 1999 because of WCW guys. (Austin, HHH, Goldust, ect) 1) thats one Impact, so how do you explain the countless others 2) i wasn't aware that Austin, HHH, Goldust, etc were top stars in WCW before voluntarily leaving to go compete for WWE
|
|
|
Post by Cyno on Dec 21, 2008 21:21:53 GMT -5
maybe its because of the fact that the younger talent, such as AJ Styles, are at lower position now than they were three years ago because TNA brought in WWE wrestlers to "boost" the ratings, yet the ratings have not gone up? Actually sir the final on the 12/4 Impact was a 1.8 and that was a company record. So umm...the whole talent pool made that happen not just old WWE guys and if you'd like to go that route than may I say that WWE is what it is today and during 1999 because of WCW guys. (Austin, HHH, Goldust, ect) Uh, no. It got 1.8 million viewers, NOT a 1.8 rating. Unless you meant to say "1.18" and it was a typo.
|
|
|
Post by atlfalconsrule09 on Dec 21, 2008 21:59:28 GMT -5
they could be a good company if they would change the damn booking up and get rid of sum of the shit wrestlers like bg and kip bg james in the main event in a few weeks aint a good look and wwe marks will rip tna a new asshole if they hear or see him
|
|
|
Post by atlfalconsrule09 on Dec 21, 2008 22:04:52 GMT -5
i know ppl think skits like the sara palin ones are reatarded but i find them mildly entertaining and if it leads to tna signing daffney and letting her do the scream gimmick and getting to see her hot ass every week that be str8
|
|
ICBM
King Koopa
Didn't know we did status updates here now
Posts: 12,288
|
Post by ICBM on Dec 21, 2008 22:52:44 GMT -5
"You know what man, forget what I just posted. Forget the whole thing. It won't matter anyway. I quit. You guys are either going to enjoy the product or you aren't."
I typed the above just after I added the previous post about the 1.18 and yes that was a typo whoever said so thank you. Again I quit. You will like it and stop waiting for it to fall apart or you will hate it and post your hatred here. I waste my time in here. I endevor to find an actual TNA fans site and will check in here periodically
|
|
|
Post by justinthedj on Dec 21, 2008 23:17:15 GMT -5
You know, I just remembered what TNA's competition was on Thursday night that drew that .1 % of viewers away. MyNetworkTV was airing the one hour replay of Wrestlemania 24.
|
|