|
Post by cabbageboy on Apr 28, 2010 8:25:29 GMT -5
Truth be told, did anyone really watch TNA this week instead of the WWE Draft? TNA has one massive problem on Monday nights regardless of who they have: Raw. WCW went after Raw in 1995, but Raw at that point had been on maybe 2 1/2 years and by 1995 wasn't all that good (mainly squashes and a TV main event or interview).
TNA is going after a show that has now been on over 17 years and is a Monday night institution. If you ask people to choose a wrestling show on Monday, they are going to choose WWE. Rob Van Dam is my favorite wrestler but I am still not going to watch Impact as it airs on Mondays, at least not the 9-10 hour. That is why the RVD/Jeff match dropped 20%...Raw started at 9:00 as that match aired. This is typical Bischoff and Hogan foolishness, airing major matches when people change over to Raw. I'll even freely admit to watching the entire MacGruber Raw over Van Dam's title win, mainly because I didn't think TNA would be idiotic enough to give away RVD/Styles with zero build.
|
|
|
Post by Chip Jordan on Apr 28, 2010 8:35:55 GMT -5
I don't understand something. The only people who knew that Impact was taped are "the geeks on the internet". And Uncle Eric has told me they're worthless and make up less than 0.00001% of TNA's audience. So surely this can't affect the ratings.
|
|
sabu
Don Corleone
Posts: 1,605
|
Post by sabu on Apr 28, 2010 8:36:22 GMT -5
I guess you have to wait and let things play out, but... theuy were doing a better rating when their roster was smaller and paying a lot less money to talent, Hogan, Bischoff, etc. I would keep some of the new guys they have brought in (RVD, Hardy, etc.) but I would cut a lot of the other fat, bring in Jim Ross or Paul E and let them book. Ratings would go up and costs would go down. And... the product would be better.
|
|
|
Post by nerdinitupagain on Apr 28, 2010 8:51:37 GMT -5
Welp. Fail.
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 28, 2010 9:12:21 GMT -5
1.0 rating on a Thursday is less viewers than a 1.0 rating on a Monday. I question that theory. 4/19/10 TNA iMPACT scored a 1.0 cable rating. This is rounded up from an 0.95. iMPACT this week averaged 1,334,000 viewers. So .95 = 1.3 million. TNA Impact on 6/12/2008 did a 0.93 cable rating with 1.3 million viewers overall. .95 on Mondays is 1.3 million viewers .93 on Thursdays is 1.3 millions viewers. So TNA really moved to Monday for a difference of .02 in capturing a bigger audience? Can we please put the "Monday's offer a bigger audience theory" to rest? You just compared a rating in April to a rating from June, and they're not even in the same timeslot, unless I'm forgetting the date that Impact moved to 8pm. That's not something to ignore.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 9:28:07 GMT -5
I question that theory. 4/19/10 TNA iMPACT scored a 1.0 cable rating. This is rounded up from an 0.95. iMPACT this week averaged 1,334,000 viewers. So .95 = 1.3 million. TNA Impact on 6/12/2008 did a 0.93 cable rating with 1.3 million viewers overall. .95 on Mondays is 1.3 million viewers .93 on Thursdays is 1.3 millions viewers. So TNA really moved to Monday for a difference of .02 in capturing a bigger audience? Can we please put the "Monday's offer a bigger audience theory" to rest? You just compared a rating in April to a rating from June, and they're not even in the same timeslot, unless I'm forgetting the date that Impact moved to 8pm. That's not something to ignore. You're right! The unopposed hour on a night that's supposed to be "wrestling night" should have blown the Thursday iMPACT from TWO YEARS AGO rating out of the water. But it didn't. There is NO EVIDENCE to lead anyone to think that a 1.0 on Monday is any better in terms of viewers than a 1.0 on Thursday. The fact that they got the same rating and the same amount of viewers on Thursday that they did on Monday shows that which day the show is on has nothing to do with ratings vs. viewers. Or are you trying to say that June is now "wrestling month" and that there's some fan base that watches wrestling in April, but not in June?
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 28, 2010 9:39:28 GMT -5
1.0 rating on a Thursday is less viewers than a 1.0 rating on a Monday. I question that theory. 4/19/10 TNA iMPACT scored a 1.0 cable rating. This is rounded up from an 0.95. iMPACT this week averaged 1,334,000 viewers. So .95 = 1.3 million. TNA Impact on 6/12/2008 did a 0.93 cable rating with 1.3 million viewers overall. .95 on Mondays is 1.3 million viewers .93 on Thursdays is 1.3 millions viewers. So TNA really moved to Monday for a difference of .02 in capturing a bigger audience? Can we please put the "Monday's offer a bigger audience theory" to rest? It's hard to put it to rest from that info, as you give two different timeslots, two different months and the shows are two years apart. What was their viewership this year one of the times they hit 1.3 on Thursday? At 8 p.m. this Monday, that took 2.1 million viewers, so that'd be a better comparison.
|
|
|
Post by angryfan on Apr 28, 2010 9:48:23 GMT -5
I don't understand something. The only people who knew that Impact was taped are "the geeks on the internet". And Uncle Eric has told me they're worthless and make up less than 0.00001% of TNA's audience. So surely this can't affect the ratings. This is something that confuses me too. I'm a smark, I'll "be there anyway" and my opinions are in the minority, which is fine because I'm not the target audience. Were I a casual fan who does not watch regularly, and therefore would not go online and read spoilers or really know hat the show was pre-taped, then I would be the type of viewer they were trying to draw into the fold, so to speak. However, that type of fan, by not reading the spoilers or hitting the 'net, would not be affected by what is said online or anything like that. So, if we assume that Monday IS the wrestling night, that TNA has succeeded in drawing in casual fans who would otherwise have watched a sitcom or something, then how does that explain the either drop in viewership or that it has, at best, stayed the same as it was on Thursdays when the "smarks" made up their audience? Either they've succeeded in chasing away a fair number of the smarks that will "be there anyway" and replaced them with the exact same number of casual viewers, or the casual viewer is still not convinced to watch every week and the smarks are leaving as well.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 10:01:41 GMT -5
I question that theory. 4/19/10 TNA iMPACT scored a 1.0 cable rating. This is rounded up from an 0.95. iMPACT this week averaged 1,334,000 viewers. So .95 = 1.3 million. TNA Impact on 6/12/2008 did a 0.93 cable rating with 1.3 million viewers overall. .95 on Mondays is 1.3 million viewers .93 on Thursdays is 1.3 millions viewers. So TNA really moved to Monday for a difference of .02 in capturing a bigger audience? Can we please put the "Monday's offer a bigger audience theory" to rest? It's hard to put it to rest from that info, as you give two different timeslots, two different months and the shows are two years apart. What was their viewership this year one of the times they hit 1.3 on Thursday? At 8 p.m. this Monday, that took 2.1 million viewers, so that'd be a better comparison. First of all they only took in 1.3 million viewers on 4/19 with a 1.0 rating. I don't understand what the months have to do with anything? And the show I compared it to was 2 years old - so the show should get better ratings now right? But okay, I found these: 3/15/2010: .84 rating: 1.07 million people: 8-10pm timeslot 3/4/10: 1.2 rating: 1.6 million people: 8-10pm timeslot Same year. Same month. Same time slot. Now, math really isn't my strong suit - so don't crucify me if I mess this up.
But if at a .84 rating they get 1.07 million people, to get 1.6 million people that would mean they would get a 1.27 rating.
Basically the same rating for the same number of people + .07, nearly a tenth of a rating point.
It doesn't really seem like a huge difference to me.I messed all that up. I told you math wasn't my strong suit. Let me try again later. After I've had coffee. Okay - I think the answer is x=.81. .81 vs .84 I think it did it right that time... I should have paid more attention in high school.
|
|
|
Post by Brian Suntan on Apr 28, 2010 10:08:20 GMT -5
God, I never get why any kind of reason is just thrown away as an excuse instead of at least considered. It's like no matter what kind of circumstances could have occurred, it doesn't mater, cause they should have planed for it weeks in advance or cause it's all just a sign that Hogan sucks. I swear, if the people who did that were the guys running car insurance, no one would ever get reimbursed for anything. "A car slammed behind you? Well, you should have given it enough space to stop beforehand!" "You had your radio stolen? Why do you gotta show off your expensive stuff, then? you were just asking for it!" "A tree fell on your car? Well, that's God's way of saying stop being a crappy driver!" It is a week to week thing though, most weeks there has been some kind of reason for why TNA is struggling to even get the ratings they were getting. Surely at some point, you just accept that if TNA's ratings are going to plummet everytime Raw goes near them, or another sport puts something on, there's no point them being on Mondays? If the only way for TNA to score the best ratings it can is to be completely unaposed, be completely unaposed. Otherwise it's just going to be 'reasons' all year round. "Oh it's WM build. Oh it's the NBA. Oh it's sunny outside. Oh it's MNF. Oh it's WM build again."
|
|
|
Post by HMARK Center on Apr 28, 2010 10:28:57 GMT -5
The comparisons of recent Impact ratings are much more apt for making any judgment.
You can't compare shows that are on different nights, let alone different months.
Monday wasn't a terrible risk, since it has the largest available audience to try to pick from. It's not really working for TNA, at least in these early stages, but they're not exactly losing tons of their audience outside of a week here and there where they get drained.
If it turns into a consistent thing, they'll go back to Thursdays, or try a new strategy altogether.
At the end of the day, as long as the company isn't due to fold in the next couple of months...who really cares?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 10:33:45 GMT -5
The comparisons of recent Impact ratings are much more apt for making any judgment. You can't compare shows that are on different nights, let alone different months. Why can't we compare shows that are on different nights? I think doing that is a smart move in terms of researching because it shows there is no difference between ratings vs viewers when it comes to the day of the week. A 1.0 is still pretty much the same # of viewers on any day. There were a lot of costs to moving to Mondays and going live. New talent, new contracts, new deals etc etc, all to capture less # of viewers than they were on Thursdays for cheaper. As far as who cares - I just think its fun to talk about.
|
|
BlackoutCreature
Grimlock
The Ultimate Popcorntunist!
Posts: 14,799
Member is Online
|
Post by BlackoutCreature on Apr 28, 2010 11:06:06 GMT -5
I'm sorry. I don't care what excuse you want to give, it all rings hollow. On Thursday, TNA consistantly had there ratings between a .9 to a 1.1. It didn't matter if the show was live or taped, if the show was amazing or average, what competition it had, even holidays didn't effect it much. None of that matter. TNA built up a core audience on Thursday and kept them watching. Now, on Mondays, on a good day they're lucky to get the low-end of there Thursday average. On bad days, there now getting half of that. There is just no excuse for that. I've said it before, I'll say it again, it astonishes me that anybody can look at TNA being on Mondays as any kind of accomplishment. The only things saying Impact being on Monday is a good thing are old men with decades old grudges and 90's pop culture. The smart thing for TNA to do would've been to stay on Thursday and continue to grow you're audience from there. You want to truly be competition to the WWE? Then move heaven and Earth to make the average fan see Thursday as "wrestling night" instead of Monday. 1.0 rating on a Thursday is less viewers than a 1.0 rating on a Monday. By and large, TNA has kept the actual number of viewers they had on Thursday nights, though being on Mondays has exposed them to nights like this, when their ratings can get hit hard. It's by no means a big time success, but it really hasn't hurt them, either. Even if your theory is right and the averages are more or less the same, I still have to question whether this can be considered any kind of improvement, success, or even status quo when it comes to there numbers. If you were a network executive or an advertiser, would you want to put money into a show that can consistantly draw a million viewers (don't know the exact numbers, just throwing it out there as an example) no matter what? Or would you rather put money into a show that MIGHT pull a million viewers one week, but easily halves that number on an off-week whenever the winds change? The fact that there numbers were so consistant on Thursday tells me there audience, if nothing else, was stable, if not growing little by little. Thats the exact opposite of whats happening to there Monday audience. Like I said before, the only people who see being on Monday as an accomplishment are Hogan, Bischoff and Russo, and there basing that belief on 90's pop culture and nothing else. It's time for them to move into 2010. If they want to be legitimate competition they need to do it on there own terms, not the WWE's, and certainly not WCW's. Move Impact back to Thursday and focus your resources on getting people to see Thursday as wrestling night, that should be there ultimate goal.
|
|
|
Post by perucho1990 on Apr 28, 2010 11:29:26 GMT -5
TNA's Monday show, as reported, scored a 0.5 cable rating, with 739,000 viewers. That is the lowest rating for a first run edition of TNA Impact on Spike TV. The show saw a drop of 47.2% from the previous week. - It should be noted that TNA did not have the unopposed hour this week, since raw was three hours. - When taping episodes, the show is seeing a decline in ratings each time… * March 15th taped show - 14.9 percent ratings decline * March 29th taped show - 34.5 percent ratings decline * April 12th taped show - 10.1 percent ratings decline * April 26th taped show - 47.2 percent ratings decline www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/137373/Notes-On-TNAs-Rating-From-Monday.htmDamn the taped shows.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 11:37:16 GMT -5
TNA's Monday show, as reported, scored a 0.5 cable rating, with 739,000 viewers. That is the lowest rating for a first run edition of TNA Impact on Spike TV. The show saw a drop of 47.2% from the previous week. - It should be noted that TNA did not have the unopposed hour this week, since raw was three hours. - When taping episodes, the show is seeing a decline in ratings each time… * March 15th taped show - 14.9 percent ratings decline * March 29th taped show - 34.5 percent ratings decline * April 12th taped show - 10.1 percent ratings decline * April 26th taped show - 47.2 percent ratings decline www.411mania.com/wrestling/news/137373/Notes-On-TNAs-Rating-From-Monday.htmDamn the taped shows. That's really interesting. If only there was another day to show a taped wrestling program!?!?
|
|
hollywood
King Koopa
the bullet dodger
The Green Arrow has approved this post.
Posts: 11,122
|
Post by hollywood on Apr 28, 2010 13:26:55 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Red Impact on Apr 28, 2010 15:01:33 GMT -5
It's hard to put it to rest from that info, as you give two different timeslots, two different months and the shows are two years apart. What was their viewership this year one of the times they hit 1.3 on Thursday? At 8 p.m. this Monday, that took 2.1 million viewers, so that'd be a better comparison. First of all they only took in 1.3 million viewers on 4/19 with a 1.0 rating. I don't understand what the months have to do with anything? And the show I compared it to was 2 years old - so the show should get better ratings now right? But okay, I found these: 3/15/2010: .84 rating: 1.07 million people: 8-10pm timeslot 3/4/10: 1.2 rating: 1.6 million people: 8-10pm timeslot Same year. Same month. Same time slot. Now, math really isn't my strong suit - so don't crucify me if I mess this up.
But if at a .84 rating they get 1.07 million people, to get 1.6 million people that would mean they would get a 1.27 rating.
Basically the same rating for the same number of people + .07, nearly a tenth of a rating point.
It doesn't really seem like a huge difference to me.I messed all that up. I told you math wasn't my strong suit. Let me try again later. After I've had coffee. Okay - I think the answer is x=.81. .81 vs .84 I think it did it right that time... I should have paid more attention in high school. That's a lot more apt and makes a more interesting comparison. And the reason timing matters is solely because certain times of the year and certain times of the day tend to draw more viewers. A rating = percentage of audience with Nielsen boxes watching a show that are watching television. So if a season has more or less viewers watching, it's going to matter to the ratings. Now, it's not like summer coming is going to make the ratings swing a full point, but it's still a bit of context to take into account. Unless we know how many people total are watching, it's hard to compare ratings. But I think you did a fine job of comparing them there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 28, 2010 17:29:16 GMT -5
Regarding the .5 rating itself: Wrestling fans have elected actor Christian Bale to tell TNA what people think of their "wrestling show." Mr. Bale?
|
|
metylerca
King Koopa
Loves Him Some Backstreet Boys.
Don't be alarmed.
Posts: 12,479
|
Post by metylerca on Apr 28, 2010 17:45:33 GMT -5
I don't know... maybe they got the math wrong. Maybe someone put the decimal in the wrong place.
Being honest though, as shocking as the .6 rating they got before was, this trumps it in each and every way. I figured .6 was just a real off week to never happen again. And then this happens, and just wow. . .
If I was working for TNA, I'd be feeling a little antsy right about now.
|
|
josh
Bubba Ho-Tep
Posts: 604
|
Post by josh on Apr 28, 2010 17:47:15 GMT -5
Idk... maybe they got the math wrong. Maybe someone put the decimal in the wrong place. Being honest though, as shocking as the .6 rating they got before was, this trumps it in each and every way. I figured .6 was just a real off week to never happen again. And then this happens, and just wow. . . If I was working for TNA, I'd be feeling a little antsy right about now. Why? If the move to Mondays really starts hurting them they'll just move back to Thursdays.
|
|