Ratings thread 3rd may last of the MNW.2

[kareru]

Last night’s TNA iMPACT! scored a 0.8 cable rating. More details to come.

Last night’s RAW did hours of 2.9 and 3.2 for a 3.05 (3.1) cable rating. More details to come.

TNA iMPACT! RATINGS DETAILS:

TNA iMPACT! on 5/3 did a 0.8 cable – a .7 in M18-49, a .5 in P18-49, a .7 in M18-34, and an average audience of 1.1 million viewers. Qtr hours were .92 – .90 – .93 – .87 – .66 – .56 – .66 – .77

WWE RAW RATINGS DETAILS:

- Hour 1: 2.9 rating and 4.1 million viewers
- Hour 2: 3.2 rating and 4.6 million viewers

- RAW finished in third and fourth place

- Demographics:
* P18-49: 1.91
* M18-49: 2.64
* Vs. the prior week: P18-49: -5%; M18-49: flat

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Man it's a good thing TNA backed out of this war as a favour to Vince, since with their superior product they were really kickin Vince's ass! :lol:

It was really like TNA-8 WWE-0... stupid WWE :roll:

[kareru]

well 3.1 is a terrible result for raw

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

they've been drawing rating like that for years so meh. If TNA had drawn more than a 0.8 they'd have more to worry about. But to do that, they have to not consistantly put out a horseshit product. That doesn't mean having one good show and the 5 bad ones in a row, that means consistently good t.v.

[kareru]

tna drew 1.0 or a 0.9 two weeks ago

didn't they see that the taped shows were getting dismal ratings

[KIRA]

I'm glad this war mongering from TNA is over but since they'll never come out and say "we went to Mondays and got crushed like a paper cup caught in a press" I wonder what they'll say instead.

[Kane Knight]

they've been drawing rating like that for years so meh.

They're drawing 2.Xs. This is unusual for WWE and a year or two ago was enough to draw panic from the company. So no, no they haven't.

[Kane Knight]

4/19 ratings for Raw were 2.7 and too low to hit the top ten, which means 2.6 or lower.

The hour that track drew half a million fans less than normal for a Raw over the last few years.

Raw is hurting. They're just better able to weather this scenario because they've got more fans to lose.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Considering the lack of competition, teh E doesn't have much to worry about.

[Kane Knight]

1. Way to shift the goalposts.

2. I'd say they have a lot to worry about, given a slow but steady decline into irrelevance. The idea that they need only fear loss from competition is ludicrous, since they are still just another TV show and only secure as long as they perform well as one.

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

I dunno they've been pretty stagnantly crappy for the past 8 years or so. There's been upshifts in the product briefly, but they always seem to come out okay. Until they're consistantly drawing in the 2s it really isn't all that big of a deal to them. But ok guy, they are in dire straits.

[Kane Knight]

I dunno they've been pretty stagnantly crappy for the past 8 years or so. There's been upshifts in the product briefly, but they always seem to come out okay. Until they're consistantly drawing in the 2s it really isn't all that big of a deal to them. But ok guy, they are in dire straits.

They have been drawing in the 2s since before Wrestlemania, normally their best time of the year.

But nice goalpost shift again with the dire straits. What you said was wrong. Still is. they may not be in "dire straits" yet, but that doesn't mean they have "mot much to worry about," or the lack of competition is meaningful or that they've been drawing like that for years.

Wrong on all counts, Dale. I can see why you'd want to snark at me instead of just admitting that, though.

[Innovator]

Anyone think about their going PG doesn't really work when their audience's bedtime is around when RAW starts?

[Kane Knight]

Anyone think about their going PG doesn't really work when their audience's bedtime is around when RAW starts?

Yeah, made that crack a few times.

[Kane Knight]

The 4/26 ratings were 2.9 and 2.8, for the record.

[tjmidnight420]

Anyone think about their going PG doesn't really work when their audience's bedtime is around when RAW starts?

Yeah that's funny. Also think about this. When the WCW buyout happened Raw was drawing in the 4s. Now they get this rating? That means in just over 9 years, Vince has lost more fans than TNA has ever had. They aren't going broke anytime soon, but there's no 'big payday' anymore either.

[Kane Knight]

Yeah that's funny. Also think about this. When the WCW buyout happened Raw was drawing in the 4s. Now they get this rating? That means in just over 9 years, Vince has lost more fans than TNA has ever had. They aren't going broke anytime soon, but there's no 'big payday' anymore either.

There's a big payday for WWE. mostly because they whack their remaining fans for the difference. Almost every recent financial report has read to the tune of "ticket sales/buys are down/even, but revenues are up." They're up, of course, due to ticket increases and PPV cost increases.

Of course, this isn't sustainable, and eventually they will price themselves right out of business if they keep it up. But I doubt many people will know the difference or care until that point. Marketing to kids is actually probably a very shrewd business move on the part of WWE, since that's where the spending power is these days. Parents are more likely to buy tickets if their kids want them. And that spinner belt, T-Shirt, and sweat band. It's still not sustainable, but it will increase the length of time it takes for the problem to become apparent.

And really, isn't this just a carnie scam Vince is pulling on his investors?

[VSG]

I really think you should wait for another week to see if Raw gets back to pre Jan-4 ratings before jumping the bucket. Granted that TNA has taken away viewers from Raw, but surely that was to be expected? I concede however that this is not a positive way of thinking for WWE's biggest show and more like a "Oh well, hopefully we will go back to ~3.5 now".

[Kane Knight]

Granted that TNA has taken away viewers from Raw, but surely that was to be expected?

It's still an assumption that they took away any significant margin from WWE. Their only pre-"Monday Night Wars" Monday shows did not have any significant impact on Raw ratings, so it's kind of naive to think this would be different.

Especially since this is more or less consistent with the decline of WWE ratings over the last few years.

[Johnny Vegas]

And RAW was actually pretty good these last couple of weeks. Im thinking that's why they stacked RAW with the draft. Also, having people in their best roles in kayfabe sense because Randy should've been like he is a long time ago, Batista should've been like he is a long time ago, Cena...thats like a double-edged sword. The kids love him but the older pure wrestling fans "dislike" him. He = money, but not ratings. So i guess the WWE has to decide if thats what they want or no.

[Kane Knight]

Batista's the same guy he was as a face. His delivery isn't really different, he's not different. The only thing people are fawning over is him being a heel now, because nothing makes the IWC fap over someone faster than "turn him heel."

[Kane Knight]

Cena's fine where he is, too. I don't like it, but he's not anathema to ratings. In fact, if it was a better show overall, he'd probably look better to the IWC. Cena is the face of WWE, so he gets an unfair amount of crap leveled on him as though simply being their #1 guy makes him responsible for the entire product. Or at least, the entire televised product.

Not that he's perfect, mind.

[DAMN iNATOR]

Batista's the same guy he was as a face. His delivery isn't really different, he's not different. The only thing people are fawning over is him being a heel now, because nothing makes the IWC fap over someone faster than "turn him heel."

He's largely the same, agreed. He just doesn't do the unnecessary dancing and prancing on stage when he shows up, and they've replaced that with the darkened arena with the spotlight over him as he now slowly saunters to the ring. I do like that he's more serious and not a giant goof who comes off as somewhat of a slacker anymore.