|
Post by slaughterama on Jan 6, 2010 1:04:04 GMT -5
Permanent move to mondays should happen soon....its nice to have a choice to change to when WWE throws on a stinker segment 1.5 is a great rating for them and hopefully they start to build a bigger audience by putting on a good product of WRESTLING That's a two-way street, though. TNA has no real way of knowing if they can get 1.5 every time rather than a show that had Hardy make an appearance and Hulk debuting. Also, while WWE having a bad segment would be a boon for TNA if people switched over, TNA putting on a flawless show is hilariously unlikely. They could ill afford to lose a chunk of their audience if they don't come back. Spot on. If you can re-debut Hardy, Flair, and Hogan every week then you're on to something. Unfortunately, and while it may not surprise me if some people in TNA think you can actually do that, it's not a possibility. This number could have (should have?) been a lot better when you consider how much they spent in advertising as well as how much they spent to bring in all the new faces. This wasn't just another show, this was a show they invested MILLIONS in. Still, regardless of what they did on Monday (whether it was an 0.5 a 1.5 or a 4.5), if Thursdays are still in the 1.0-1.2 range for the next month, then from a financial standpoint this could almost be considered a disaster. If Thursday ratings show marked improvement, then the investment was worth it.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,228
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 6, 2010 2:28:32 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by shamana on Jan 6, 2010 4:03:51 GMT -5
I think TNA did very well, despite having some issues with the show (then again, some parts were awesome). Still, I'd rather they didn't do a full-blown Monday Night War with WWE. Let them consolidate their audience gains, and if they think they can run a second show, say on Saturday. They already have more people on their roster than they can make good use of.
|
|
Dave at the Movies
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
VINTAGE D-DAY DAVE! Always cranking dat thing.
Posts: 18,228
|
Post by Dave at the Movies on Jan 6, 2010 4:36:40 GMT -5
I think TNA did very well, despite having some issues with the show (then again, some parts were awesome). Still, I'd rather they didn't do a full-blown Monday Night War with WWE. Let them consolidate their audience gains, and if they think they can run a second show, say on Saturday. They already have more people on their roster than they can make good use of. I agree. There is no reason to go up against RAW and get slaughtered every week. i still think they are about two to five years from giving WWE a run for it's money.
|
|
"Magic" Mark Hurr
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Here, have some chili dogs
Now featuring half the brain that you do.
Posts: 16,579
|
Post by "Magic" Mark Hurr on Jan 6, 2010 5:34:18 GMT -5
I'm happy about TNA doing well. Hope it continues. It forces competition and brings a smile to my face.
Nut they may need t add that extra hour for another day to make up for tthe large roster.
|
|
|
Post by jalen on Jan 6, 2010 7:14:46 GMT -5
1997 intrigues more people than 2010. Who'd have thunk it. I knew it would happen. The fact that Impact got its biggest rating ever and Raw still did well when both shows were hyping up Hogan and Bret tells me that there is still an untapped wrestling fanbase out there. The casuals will come when you give them a reason to, and it won't be because AJ Styles and Beer Money are in the ring. It didn't work with the New Generation (WWF mid-90's) and it won't work for TNA. Have the established guys out there and when they notice a new/young talent is exploding on the scene then have them go through the veterans (ala Bill Goldberg). But just having AJ Styles wrestle for 20 minutes every week is not going to bring in the ratings, IMO. There is a reason Hogan's segment nearly drew a 2.0 (up against the beginning of Raw and Bret/Shawn no less) while the show went down afterwards. Hogan, Hardy, Flair, etc, will give TNA credibility, but none of those guys (unless Jeff's case gets resolved soon) are long-term wrestlers. Ultimately the TNA guys will need to take advantage of the added exposure.
|
|
|
Post by hajimenoippo on Jan 6, 2010 8:04:11 GMT -5
Well, good for TNA that they had their best rating ever in a 3 hour slot going head to head with RAW and the Fiesta bowl. Hopefully that helps them on Thursdays when there is no counter programming. Too bad they didn't at all say their regular show is on thursdays 9pm at all.
|
|
|
Post by a1TheEnigma1a on Jan 6, 2010 9:13:10 GMT -5
Without Hogan's moronic claims and predictions being considered, this is a positive outcome for TNA and something to really build on. I just hope they didn't put all their eggs in one basket and have pulled off the best show they could already.
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Jan 6, 2010 9:18:45 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jay Carroll on Jan 6, 2010 11:12:00 GMT -5
Well, good for TNA that they had their best rating ever in a 3 hour slot going head to head with RAW and the Fiesta bowl. Hopefully that helps them on Thursdays when there is no counter programming. Too bad they didn't at all say their regular show is on thursdays 9pm at all. I HATE saying this... But it's true. I saw more adverts during Raw telling people to tune into TNA on Monday night (1) than I saw adverts during TNA's programming telling people to watch them on Thursdays.
|
|
|
Post by nerdinitupagain on Jan 6, 2010 11:48:03 GMT -5
How is it getting slaughtered if they increased their ratings? Nitro's debut on Monday nights on a much larger network in TNT and with a much more established promotion pulled a 2.5..
They knew they weren't going to win. Hogan was just being Hogan running his mouth.. but everyone in Spike must be thrilled because they've probably figured it out by now that Mondays have a built in audience for pro-wrestling. If Raw did a 3.3 and impact did a 1.5.. that gives a 4.8, a near 5% market for pro-wrestling on Monday nights. So.. Impact's normal audience tuned in, plus some others. If Spike can get TNA into the 2's by the end of the year with a very solid Monday night show... they're not losing by any means.
|
|
|
Post by DrizzlinShytes on Jan 6, 2010 12:07:05 GMT -5
I don't wish to be Debbie Downer here, but not so fast my friend! This is likely the peak performance for TNA and a 1.5 is probably not acceptable to anyone in the long run.
They had been hyping this event for a solid month and you can't debut Hogan twice. What happens now? Do you think the same amount of people are going to flock to Thursdays to watch Hogan every week? That very much remains to be seen. Novelty can provide a boost. Controversy can create cash. But sustainability is how the WWE defeated all comers and why most of the minds behind TNA today are there and not in WCW at this very moment.
This one rating means nothing if they don't hold it next week. You can't remove expectations. Moving to Thursday, where the WWE won't take away viewers, means if this Hogan thing is sustainable they surely should do a 1.5 without the WWE to take viewers away. If TNA reverts back to the ratings doldrums next week, then it will be clear the 1.5 was simply hype and fans searching for novelty.
My guess is that next week Impact won't do anything near a 1.5 despite Hogan and despite the lack of any competition. It was Hogan's debut and the novelty of a new Monday Night war that produced the 1.5. Problem for TNA is that you can't debut Hogan twice and the novelty always wears off.
The question is, as always, what else you got? Does TNA have an encore to hold interest?
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 6, 2010 12:25:45 GMT -5
I think this just proves that TNA has a set audience. As hard as they tried, they averaged a 1.33 during the head-to-head with the WWE, which was boosted by the first quarter hour of the h2h being a 1.88. I just see more of the same from TNA.
|
|
|
Post by Tiger Millionaire on Jan 6, 2010 12:37:52 GMT -5
I think this just proves that TNA has a set audience. As hard as they tried, they averaged a 1.33 during the head-to-head with the WWE, which was boosted by the first quarter hour of the h2h being a 1.88. I just see more of the same from TNA. A. Your discounting that an audience both watches TNA on Thursdays and Raw on Monday. B. They were running against the return of Bret Hart and didn't lose most of their audience. C. If you're correct, that means that TNA will be able to move to Monday Nights and maintain their Thursday audience, which is huge for them. It means that the WWE won't be able to kill their ratings. It means that if they decide to compete with the WWE, they know their ratings won't go under 1.0, if we're going by your set audience argument.
|
|
Marty McFry
Don Corleone
"She was mine before she was yours.... Wooooo"
Posts: 1,657
|
Post by Marty McFry on Jan 6, 2010 12:50:34 GMT -5
To be fair to Hogan he retracted that "we'll do a 3.0" comment a couple of days after saying it
|
|
The OP
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
changed his name
Posts: 15,785
|
Post by The OP on Jan 6, 2010 13:00:45 GMT -5
The only bad news coming from this is the drop off. Though, on the bright side, it's showing that TNA has a seperate audience then Raw. They came to check out TNA, then likely switched back to Raw and stayed there. So, the regular TNA audience stayed, but people who were watching WWE checked out. Another problem is, the rating that preceeds the previous segment is sometimes the responsibility of the previous segment. So, if say, Kurt Angle cuts a promo, and then after his promo, people stop watching, even though the Kurt Angle promo drew, it didn't help sustain the audience. Hogan there drew, but it didn't sustain the audience against Raw. While you make a great point about the different audience for RAW and Impact, I think it would be a mistake for either company to take for granted the fact that the audience currently has a preference for one or the other. I did exactly what you described in your analysis, switching over to RAW to see Bret Hart and then staying to watch DX/Jerishow, because I love Jerishow. I'm also a fan of the Pope but I didn't even realize that match was taking place because I was watching RAW. However, if there had been a Batista match or something I would've been watching Impact (no disrespect to Big Dave, just being honest). I did stick with Impact long enough to watch ODB win the Knockouts title. I also switched to Impact during a commercial and stayed to watch Kong and Hamada win the Knockout tag titles before switching back.
|
|
|
Post by Back to being Cenanuff on Jan 6, 2010 13:41:00 GMT -5
I think this just proves that TNA has a set audience. As hard as they tried, they averaged a 1.33 during the head-to-head with the WWE, which was boosted by the first quarter hour of the h2h being a 1.88. I just see more of the same from TNA. A. Your discounting that an audience both watches TNA on Thursdays and Raw on Monday. B. They were running against the return of Bret Hart and didn't lose most of their audience. C. If you're correct, that means that TNA will be able to move to Monday Nights and maintain their Thursday audience, which is huge for them. It means that the WWE won't be able to kill their ratings. It means that if they decide to compete with the WWE, they know their ratings won't go under 1.0, if we're going by your set audience argument. No, what I meant by a set audience is that they have a ceiling. They have a maximum amount that they can draw with what they're doing, and that draw is made up mostly of very loyal fans. Their regular fare would be lucky to get a 1.0 up against the WWE. Which brings up another point. What they did on Monday night shouldn't be looked on as the turning of the tide, unless they can debut a bunch of guys from the 90s every week. The WWE, on the other hand, did their usual stuff on Monday, and got a boost from who the guest host was...and they did it without their biggest merchandise seller.
|
|
comahan
Bill S. Preston, Esq.
Posts: 17,899
|
Post by comahan on Jan 6, 2010 13:43:56 GMT -5
Pwinsider:
All the latest ratings info on last night's Monday Night War...
UPDATE #2: - WWE Monday night Raw scored a 3.6 rating Monday night, the same rating as last week. The show did hours of 3.51 and 3.73, with hour one doing 5,441,000 viewers and hour two ding 5,773,000.
- TNA Impact scored a 1.5 rating, the first hour did a 1.69 and 2,536,000 million viewers. The second and third hour did a 1.33 average and 2,034,00 viewers. The five-minute overrun scored a 1.26 rating, with 2.2 million viewers.
|
|
|
Post by Error on Jan 6, 2010 13:47:51 GMT -5
So both shows held their usual audiences. Interesting.
|
|
|
Post by wrestlecrapcrap on Jan 6, 2010 14:11:27 GMT -5
I don't wish to be Debbie Downer here, but not so fast my friend! This is likely the peak performance for TNA and a 1.5 is probably not acceptable to anyone in the long run. They had been hyping this event for a solid month and you can't debut Hogan twice. What happens now? Do you think the same amount of people are going to flock to Thursdays to watch Hogan every week? That very much remains to be seen. Novelty can provide a boost. Controversy can create cash. But sustainability is how the WWE defeated all comers and why most of the minds behind TNA today are there and not in WCW at this very moment. This one rating means nothing if they don't hold it next week. You can't remove expectations. Moving to Thursday, where the WWE won't take away viewers, means if this Hogan thing is sustainable they surely should do a 1.5 without the WWE to take viewers away. If TNA reverts back to the ratings doldrums next week, then it will be clear the 1.5 was simply hype and fans searching for novelty. My guess is that next week Impact won't do anything near a 1.5 despite Hogan and despite the lack of any competition. It was Hogan's debut and the novelty of a new Monday Night war that produced the 1.5. Problem for TNA is that you can't debut Hogan twice and the novelty always wears off. The question is, as always, what else you got? Does TNA have an encore to hold interest? I think sustainability is bang on. It's what keeps WWE going. It's like, when people say WWE didn't try hard enough, I just look at that like they are holding something back, keeping us waiting for parts of the story, so it means more when it happens. I used an example in another thread about Jeff doing the whisper in the wind off the cage one week, then a swanton off the tron the next, and both times they were huge deals on the way to challenging Orton for the title. TNA would have tried to fit all of that into one episode, meaning that each seperate action he took means not as much, and it simply isn't sustainable. If you keep doing too many things that each thing stops meaning anything, that isn't sustainable. You're keeping nothing back.
|
|