Ratings for the week of 3/21/10

[Xero]

From PWInsider:

As mentioned earlier, The 3/22 edition of Raw did a 3.24 rating, down from last week's 3.7. The show did hours of 3.04 and 3.44. They averaged 4,505,000 viewers.

The 3/22 edition of Impact did a 0.9 (a 0.86), up from last week's 0.84. The show did 1,173,000 viewers.

[Xero]

So where are the "it's taped and against Austin" conspiracy theorists now?

[KayfabeMan]

:y:

[KayfabeMan]

BTW, my :y: was for the rating, not the Austin theory part.

I didn't have any mention of Austin or the taped part.

[screech]

Kinda surprised by the iMPACT! rating. I thought it was a pretty good show.

[screech]

I mean, "It was against the final RAW before Mania! Of course it's going to be low!"



:shifty:

[James Diesel]

Then next week is it's gonna be

"It's the Raw after Mania"

"It's the 2nd Raw after Mania"

"It's the Raw 2 weeks before Backla........."

oh....yea.....


:(

[kareru]

as far as im concerned the score so far is

TNA - 2
WWE - 1

[SOCCER LEGS]

as far as im concerned the score so far is

TNA - 2
WWE - 1

TNA and Spike TV should try to convince advertisers to go by your rating system rather than the much more widely used but apparently irrelevant as far as you're concerned Nielsen ratings.

[kareru]

TNA and Spike TV should try to convince advertisers to go by your rating system rather than the much more widely used but apparently irrelevant as far as you're concerned Nielsen ratings.

so by your logic higher ratings = a better show ?

[SOCCER LEGS]

so by your logic higher ratings = a better show ?

there's definitely a correlation, though there are some exceptions.

TNA however is no exception, and does not deserve a better rating than what they are currently getting because it reflects exactly what their show is: crap.

[kareru]

there's definitely a correlation, though there are some exceptions.

TNA however is no exception, and does not deserve a better rating than what they are currently getting because it reflects exactly what their show is: crap.


actually their show has been really good since the move to mondays

[The Franchise]

This week TNA had the better show but the rest of the weeks RAW has had the edge IMO

[SOCCER LEGS]

actually their show has been really good since the move to mondays

opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

[The Franchise]

My opinions are fact. My facts are opinion.

[kareru]

opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

actually rating scores are only very rough estimates, but I'm sure you know all about how they work right?

[SOCCER LEGS]

actually rating scores are only very rough estimates, but I'm sure you know all about how they work right?

the statistical methods they use to calculate Nielsen ratings are far from "rough estimates" and they generally have a standard deviation of less than 1% of the viewing audience at a 95% confidence interval. :lol:

[kareru]

the statistical methods they use to calculate Nielsen ratings are far from "rough estimates" and they generally have a standard deviation of less than 1% of the viewing audience at a 95% confidence interval. :lol:

that isn't what is asked

[Kane Knight]

opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

Ratings scores measure the opinion of the country. It marks a preference in regards to television, and preferences are as subjective as opinion.

Since ratings measure what America would rather watch, you're effectively arguing majority rule, which is a valid enough idea, I guess. Ratings are worth tracking, but "That's just your opinion" is an utterly inane comment to make when tracking the viewing habits (and thus, opinions) of the American public.

Ratings are biased for all sorts of reasons. They are still useful tracking tools, but all things considered, they will never tell you the better show.

Raw vs Impact isn't really very important. WWE's the franchise. TNA's not established. WWE can do almost anything, and still draw high twos or low threes. TNA could truly pull out all the stops and probably only get another couple tenths of a point at this time.

One thing the Nielsens can tell us, though, is comparable performance.

Usually, WWE experiences a spike in ratings going into Mania. The last few years, that's been a saving grace this time of year. This time, their ratings are flat, hitting that one week peak (Which I bet will turn out to be less than a 3.7, but still).

WWE is losing. They're not losing to TNA, and TNA is not winning. Regardless, they are losing. They are slipping slowly.

So...Ummm...A flailing giant is beating a company that's had a decade to establish itself. Yay?

Anyway, I didn't like either show much. Skipped most of WWE on DVR, read through most of TNA live. I personally thought TNA was better, but it was about which was less boring.

Tangent over. Point, in summary:

Unless your favorite shows are Idol, CSI, and NCIS, you should see why this is being contended.

Now don't make me defend kareru. I feel...Dirty.

[KayfabeMan]

WWE is losing. They're not losing to TNA, and TNA is not winning. Regardless, they are losing.

[Wishbone]

TNA definatly had the better show but WWE is a jugernaut they will continue to dominate until they REALLY and I mean REEEEEAAAAALLLLLLYYYYYY screw up

[KayfabeMan]

They're not dominating though.

WWE is operating as a business, and so is TNA.

They're really in no competition with each other - which means WWE can't be dominating them.

[Mr. Nerfect]

TNA's ratings are up from last week?!? They are doomed!!!!!

I have to agree with KK and KayfabeMan when it comes to these sort of ratings discussion. KK knows his shit about that stuff, and Kayfabes has got Conan in his avatar. But no, I have to agree with them.

It's not about TNA all of sudden beating the WWE, and it's not about the WWE's ratings not dropping tremendously overnight. But regardless of the jokes you wish to sling about them, I'd say that the WWE's lack of "WrestleMania killer ratings" could be a good sign for TNA. As I said in the "What does TNA have to do to get the WWE panicking" thread (not exactly what it was called), I believe if TNA's ratings slowly increase over time, while the WWE's decrease, then that alone will be enough to get a more visible reaction out of the WWE -- and that alone is good for wrestling fans.

[6-String King]

I don't get it, I think Monday's Impact was great. Much better then last weeks. I'm not sure what they need to do to grab the attention of the wrestling fans.

[DaVe]

Do it week in, week out, for months on end?

That's how long it took for RAW to overtake WCW in the ratings, and that was even after RAW was a greatly established and well known show, part of the WWE.

[Kane Knight]

Do it week in, week out, for months on end?

That's how long it took for RAW to overtake WCW in the ratings, and that was even after RAW was a greatly established and well known show, part of the WWE.

:y:

Having a couple of good shows won't do it. It won't get people tuning in, it won't get people talking.

When they are consistently strong, they will start to see more people watching. They are not right now.

[KayfabeMan]

I'm not sure what they need to do to grab the attention of the wrestling fans.

There's another thing.

There aren't many WRESTLING fans out there.

There are a great deal of WWE fans, but that is because for going on the past 10 years it has been a 'wrestling world' dominated by just WWE. TNA has been around, like RoH, but not as visible as WWE.

A good deal of WWE fans strictly watch WWE and are in their bubble. They don't know about or care about the indies, RoH, TNA, any of the overseas promotions - etc.

A LOT of people tuned out of wrestling all together after the demises of ECW and WCW. Hopefully, some of those people will catch TNA - and hopefully (as KK said) if they put on consistently strong shows, they will stay watching it again.

[viO]

Like I said the week of Austin's appearance, I'd agree they're having issues if they can't at least match a 1.2 on week where RAW doesn't have a legend like Austin on.

The fact is, there are no simple solutions for TNA to gain more viewers. Some of the people on this forum are good examples, I've asked this already, but what keeps WWE viewers watching WWE? I used to be a huge WWE/F fan in the 90s, but it's become so stale now, I don't understand why people even bother tuning in, it's too predictable now. You can watch one RAW at the beginning of a month and be covered until the next PPV, imo.

I started watching wrestling again after years of not caring once TNA moved to Mondays. I have been watching it because it's different, and even if it was different in a bad way, I'd still check it out over something that was predictable.

How many Hornswoggle appearances can WWE viewers withstand before they just stop watching? How many douche-chills can John Cena give you with his promos before you start to feel like a 10 year old when watching their shows?

Wrestling in general has been pretty bad in recent years, imo. I'm giving TNA the benefit of the doubt, I feel they just need time and they need to be given a chance by loyal WWE fans. Out of the two years that Nitro was dominating RAW, Mick Foley stated that he believed RAW was producing the better show for at least one of those years, and I agree. My point is, it's possible that even though TNA can produce an entertaining show, the ratings won't reflect that until enough time has passed for people to actually check out the show and they begin to gradually build their audience.

[The Franchise]

Monday Night Blitzkrieg

[tjmidnight420]

I tend to agree with most of the posts here... Even though TNA has been up and down every week since Hogan and co. came in some of the shows have been pretty decent. WWE could put out shit like the Kiss My Ass club, and most of their fans would still watch. A lot of the actual wrestling fans that used to watch have been turned off of the product long ago, as proven by the fact that Raw no longer draws ratings in the high 4s like during the Monday Night Wars. It's not so much that either group are competing. WWF won the war, then proceeded to kill American wrestling.

[Kane Knight]

From PWInsider:

As mentioned earlier, The 3/22 edition of Raw did a 3.24 rating, down from last week's 3.7. The show did hours of 3.04 and 3.44. They averaged 4,505,000 viewers.

The 3/22 edition of Impact did a 0.9 (a 0.86), up from last week's 0.84. The show did 1,173,000 viewers.

The March 15 ratings on Nielsen's site were significantly late this week, but according to them, the 3/15 ratings were 3.2 and 3.2 with viewers at 5.6 and 5.5 million. Wow.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

as far as im concerned the score so far is

TNA - 2
WWE - 1

omg shut the fuck up.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Until TNA stops delivering the most awful bush league bullshit to ever disgrace my television, they will not be a threat. WWE isn't very good, but I'd rather watch the product go through the motions rather than horse shit being force fed to me as "revolutionary television". Once TNA puts together a product that doesn't make me want to immediately change the channel, they will have my support... until then, I'll stick to watch 20 minutes of RAW.

[kareru]

Until TNA stops delivering the most awful bush league bullshit to ever disgrace my television, they will not be a threat. WWE isn't very good, but I'd rather watch the product go through the motions rather than horse shit being force fed to me as "revolutionary television". Once TNA puts together a product that doesn't make me want to immediately change the channel, they will have my support... until then, I'll stick to watch 20 minutes of RAW.

your shoddy opinion makes me want to immediately change threads

[Aguakate]

There is a big difference between a company being COMPETITION, and it being a THREAT.

Yes, TNA is COMPETITION to WWE, because theyre both wrestling companies, and they are COMPETING against each other, each trying to garner the fans' support and be #1...

...but TNA is no THREAT to WWE...nor will it ever be.

[kareru]

There is a big difference between a company being COMPETITION, and it being a THREAT.

Yes, TNA is COMPETITION to WWE, because theyre both wrestling companies, and they are COMPETING against each other, each trying to garner the fans' support and be #1...

...but TNA is no THREAT to WWE...nor will it ever be.

and bret hart will never come back to the wwe, anything can happen in this wonderful sport

[KayfabeMan]

That, and the fact that most of WWE's writers are a threat to WWE :shifty:

[Kane Knight]

and bret hart will never come back to the wwe, anything can happen in this wonderful sport

It's a shame that "Anything can happen" is more the model for the entertainment end, not the ratings and competition end.

I mean, if you want to wax incredibly abstract, anything can happen. A freak accident could take out WWE's production gear. Jesus could appear live on TNA. Hell, that Large Hadron Collider could create a black hole that spontaneously consumes Connecticut, effectively crippling WWE's business end.

Realistically, practically, you can hold on to that hope, but it doesn't make it even remotely meaningful.

Unless you plan on strapping a bomb to your chest and running into the WWE production truck...and while the thought of you blowing up is enticing, I wouldn't recommend trying.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

your shoddy opinion makes me want to immediately change threads

Eplain to me what is good about TNA aside from a few well worked matches amidst the wave of feces that is the product. How is it not bush league?

[Mr. Nerfect]

I dunno, Dale, I normally agree with you, but I think TNA is pretty alright. I like the way their characters are real people. For example -- even though Kevin Nash is a heel and Kurt Angle is a face; they acknowledged each other by bumping fists on iMPACT! this week because they share a past in the Main Event Mafia. It's not like they suddenly hate each other because one is a "good guy" and one is a "bad guy."

Sometimes that gets confusing for people, granted, but TNA have been sorting that out quite well. The line between face and heel is a lot more defined than it used to be in TNA, but that individuality of character is still there. I love that about TNA. If they real it in a bit, it could become quite the mature product.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I dunno, Dale, I normally agree with you, but I think TNA is pretty alright. I like the way their characters are real people. For example -- even though Kevin Nash is a heel and Kurt Angle is a face; they acknowledged each other by bumping fists on iMPACT! this week because they share a past in the Main Event Mafia. It's not like they suddenly hate each other because one is a "good guy" and one is a "bad guy."

Sometimes that gets confusing for people, granted, but TNA have been sorting that out quite well. The line between face and heel is a lot more defined than it used to be in TNA, but that individuality of character is still there. I love that about TNA. If they real it in a bit, it could become quite the mature product.

I'm sorry but a face and a heel fist bumping doesn't make a good company.

[Kane Knight]

Usually, WWE experiences a spike in ratings going into Mania. The last few years, that's been a saving grace this time of year. This time, their ratings are flat, hitting that one week peak (Which I bet will turn out to be less than a 3.7, but still).

WWE is losing. They're not losing to TNA, and TNA is not winning. Regardless, they are losing. They are slipping slowly.

And to follow up: Not only did the ratings end up at a 3.2 with Steve Austin, but the final Raw before Mania drew...

A 3.0 With 4.87 million, and an hour that drew less than 2.7, as it's not listed on the top ten. Note, the top ten this week was sixteen listings long, with several (seven) tied for ten at 2.7.

Going into Mania, they not only didn't increase their ratings, they failed to maintain them.

I doubt this impacts Mania. I thought the Raw before Mania was kinda meh, but I was determined to watch Wrestlemania regardless. It's Wrestlemania.

However, it does demosntrate the above statement, the above point. Even during the slump where the ratings were 2.7-3.0, the month or two before wrestlemania saw a decided increase (peaking at 3.6, IIRC).

Now, I know people are all "lol TNA." But while TNA has been steady (barring this week, because I don't know the viewership numbers), WWE is losing fans in their biggest period of the year.

On the other hand, they lost more fans than TNA has las week, and are still alive. That's just funny. :D

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

The only way TNA catches up to WWE is if they implode on themselves. TNA is way too shit to do it by themselves.

[erickman]

Ratings scores measure the opinion of the country. It marks a preference in regards to television, and preferences are as subjective as opinion.

Since ratings measure what America would rather watch, you're effectively arguing majority rule, which is a valid enough idea, I guess. Ratings are worth tracking, but "That's just your opinion" is an utterly inane comment to make when tracking the viewing habits (and thus, opinions) of the American public.

Ratings are biased for all sorts of reasons. They are still useful tracking tools, but all things considered, they will never tell you the better show.

Raw vs Impact isn't really very important. WWE's the franchise. TNA's not established. WWE can do almost anything, and still draw high twos or low threes. TNA could truly pull out all the stops and probably only get another couple tenths of a point at this time.

One thing the Nielsens can tell us, though, is comparable performance.

Usually, WWE experiences a spike in ratings going into Mania. The last few years, that's been a saving grace this time of year. This time, their ratings are flat, hitting that one week peak (Which I bet will turn out to be less than a 3.7, but still).

WWE is losing. They're not losing to TNA, and TNA is not winning. Regardless, they are losing. They are slipping slowly.

So...Ummm...A flailing giant is beating a company that's had a decade to establish itself. Yay?

Anyway, I didn't like either show much. Skipped most of WWE on DVR, read through most of TNA live. I personally thought TNA was better, but it was about which was less boring.

Tangent over. Point, in summary:

Unless your favorite shows are Idol, CSI, and NCIS, you should see why this is being contended.

Now don't make me defend kareru. I feel...Dirty.

i am with you on this a 3.7 on hbk fairwell night sucks so they got half the tna fans, driving them to a .6 but untill wwe brakes 4.0 they are lossing.

[Kane Knight]

i am with you on this a 3.7 on hbk fairwell night sucks so they got half the tna fans, driving them to a .6 but untill wwe brakes 4.0 they are lossing.

Think before you post.

I can guarantee you that WWE did not get a 3.7. The last 3.7 turned out to be a 3.2.

I similarly doubt TNA lost half their fans to anyone, let alone WWE. That would assume a linearity to the ratings system that simply doesn't exist.

And WWE doesn't need to "brake" 4.0 to stop losing. They just need to stop hitting lower numbers. One can break even and still not lose. If, for example, they had stayed steady at 3.6 over the last couple of years, it would be hard to argue they were losing.

They're losing because their numbers are relatively declining. A 3.2 with Austin and 'Mania hype? a 2.7 going into Mania? A shift of almost 900,000 fans on the good hour without any corresponding product? Those are losses. No longer being on top of the weekly ratings consistently is a loss.

Simply not being at a 4.0 is not a loss.

It's hard to accurately predict the future, so I'm no going to try. I'm going to speculate that numbers like that will spur on WWE in a way TNA can't, though. They probably won't break 4.0, but I'm guessing we'll see a different approach over the next couple of months.

I can't imagine them waiting until both hours are beat by iCarly before they act.

And on a related note, this is why I say TNA isn't competition in any real sense. If TNA had a 2.0 rating opposite Michaels' farewell, they still wouldn't sweat them as much as they would sweat losing their own status. and the last few wees should demonstrate pretty readily that the two shows do not have any sort of direct correlation between one show's ratings and the other.