Primetime TNA draws -somewhat- low rating. [Archive]

Jaton

11-06-2005, 02:17 PM

For all of you who are into ratings, thursday night Impact drew a disappointing 0.9 rating.

Seeing as how their product is smark oriented, how much do you think Jarrett affected that low rating?

Jaton

11-06-2005, 02:18 PM

source- http://www.pwtorch.com/artman/publish/article_15308.shtml

Destor

11-06-2005, 02:21 PM

They pulled in the same audience they have been drawing, so I am not surprised. I would also say Jarret had little to do with the rating, one way or another.

Jaton

11-06-2005, 02:22 PM

Honestly though, how many people really wanted to see Jarrett win again?

I had my tv on, but I damn sure fell asleep before it happened.

Destor

11-06-2005, 02:24 PM

I didn't care either way. They lost my intrest when they put the title on Rhino to begin with.

Jaton

11-06-2005, 02:30 PM

The fact that Raven still isn't on TV for more than 10 seconds annoys me.

McLegend

11-06-2005, 02:33 PM

I think Jarret right now is doing very well.

His promos and matches have been good. People just can't let go of the past.

TNA or Spike definitely should not be worried with the ratings.

Nervous Ferret

11-06-2005, 02:42 PM

ok GODSON

hb2k

11-06-2005, 02:42 PM

The more important thing here is not that it did a 0.9, but how many viewers there were. Ratings are a percentage, and as the show was prime time and not Saturday at Midnight, chances are the number of people in America watching television was way higher, and as a result that 0.9 percentage indicates a far greater number of people watching. Exposure is the key, and while TNA were hoping for a 1.0, and this, from a ratings standpoint is a small disappointment, if they exposed the product to a significantly higher number of people, the primary objective of the show will have been accomplished, because now they have a greater audience to build from.

McLegend

11-06-2005, 02:43 PM

ok GODSON
:wtf:

The MAC

11-06-2005, 02:58 PM

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 03:03 PM

I think Jarret right now is doing very well.

His promos and matches have been good. People just can't let go of the past.

TNA or Spike definitely should not be worried with the ratings.

Yes. They can't let go of the past. Just like all the retards on this board who don't think JBL's doing a good job because they can't get over his backstage politics.

Oh wait, what do those both have in common? They're fullof shit arguments. :)

PullMyFinger

11-06-2005, 03:16 PM

I'm glad TNA got a .9, now they can realize they put out a shitty product.

Savio

11-06-2005, 03:28 PM

I totally forgot about it and I'm sure most other people did too.

hb2k

11-06-2005, 03:39 PM

Just like all the retards on this board who don't think JBL's doing a good job because they can't get over his backstage politics.

What about the people who didn't think he did a good job because he was a horrible draw as champion? JBL's a great character, but if we're talking success, then let's face it - JBL bombed.

Dorkchop

11-06-2005, 03:48 PM

A lot of the low rating could be that no one knew about it. I had no clue about the primetime special until I came accross it after Smackdown.

I agree with Kane Knight. JBL is doing a good job. I just don't like how he's been saying the exact same stuff for over a year now.

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 03:57 PM

What about the people who didn't think he did a good job because he was a horrible draw as champion? JBL's a great character, but if we're talking success, then let's face it - JBL bombed.

Errr...

The Point: I was attempting to draw a relation between the notion of people holding grudges and the way JBL got over with the people most likely to hold grudges, basically pointing out how shit an argument it was.

This has absolutely nothing to do with how the drawing power of JBL went. It's more that the people here still love Michaels, JBL, and Hell...A lot of us still enjoy Triple H. And yet, people often play the "grudge" or "Smark" or "bitter" card. It's so amusing that Triple H does worse, has a bigger "smark" fanbase, and yet we're just holding a grudge against JJ.

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 04:03 PM

A lot of the low rating could be that no one knew about it. I had no clue about the primetime special until I came accross it after Smackdown.

They had minimal exposure and pretty piss-poor advertisement and they knew it, begging people to tell friends to tune in. Also, like it was said before, a .9 share in Primetime is a lot better than a .9 on a Saturday night, especially at 11 PM.

.9 means that out of the households covered by the Nielson ratings, .9% of the people watching TV were watching TNA. Now, the number of people watching in primetime is higher, so the same rating in prime time means more viewers.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 04:56 PM

TNA looks cheap - looks like the love-child of WWE and UFC. I wish their look and branding was stronger. Get rid of that fucking stupid "FOX" banner.. hire some fucken production designers. Have Jarret Job - hey if HHH jobbed to shelton WHO THE IN THE NAME OF FUCK is Jarret to refuse ?

Well you know shit slides downwards..with Vince Russo on board its sure to be a flood!

What the fuck is wrong with you? Russo isn't involved with TNA anymore. And that 'FOX' banner you're bitching went away wehn they ..y'know..left FOX.

Try to make your idiotic comments a little more well-informed.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 05:08 PM

.9 means that out of the households covered by the Nielson ratings, .9% of the people watching TV were watching TNA. Now, the number of people watching in primetime is higher, so the same rating in prime time means more viewers.

Yeah, what KK said. Although I think the more valid assessment of whether or not it was a 'success' would be to see what SpikeTV normally airs in that time slot and how TNA compared to that.

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 05:13 PM

What the fuck is wrong with you? Russo isn't involved with TNA anymore. And that 'FOX' banner you're bitching went away wehn they ..y'know..left FOX.

Try to make your idiotic comments a little more well-informed.

He's from South Africa. Maybe he's a bit behind. Wasn't Australia like 6 months behind on TNA?

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 05:15 PM

Yeah, what KK said. Although I think the more valid assessment of whether or not it was a 'success' would be to see what SpikeTV normally airs in that time slot and how TNA compared to that.

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Nielsen company publishes such results, except in a pay release. So it's unlikely that we'll see any legit comparison.

The show was worth watching regularly. I think if it were regularly on Thursdays, the ratings would be higher, but when you suddenly shift the timeframe, you fuck up your fanbase.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 05:21 PM

Unfortunately, I don't think that the Nielsen company publishes such results, except in a pay release. So it's unlikely that we'll see any legit comparison.

The show was worth watching regularly. I think if it were regularly on Thursdays, the ratings would be higher, but when you suddenly shift the timeframe, you fuck up your fanbase.

Well, for the remainder of the month, Spike is showing 3 episodes of MXC followed by a video game show in that 9-11 time slot. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they (TNA) probably outdrew that normal fare.

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 05:27 PM

Well, for the remainder of the month, Spike is showing 3 episodes of MXC followed by a video game show in that 9-11 time slot. I'm going to go out on a limb and say they (TNA) probably outdrew that normal fare.

However, they wanted a 1.0 or better.

I'm not sure that means they're used to it, or just expecting more.

Spike really needs to get their shit together anyway.

PullMyFinger

11-06-2005, 06:00 PM

However, they wanted a 1.0 or better.

I'm not sure that means they're used to it, or just expecting more.

Spike really needs to get their shit together anyway.
I think both Spike and TNA need to get their shit together.

Shadow

11-06-2005, 06:14 PM

However, they wanted a 1.0 or better.

I'm not sure that means they're used to it, or just expecting more.

Spike really needs to get their shit together anyway.

A .9 is nothing to sneeze at. It's damn close to a 1.0 as is.

PullMyFinger

11-06-2005, 06:16 PM

Well, I guess maybe this is TNA's plan...

Obviously, .9/.8 that watch TNA every week...are their core fans. They won't leave. TNA is probably now going to give themeselves a few more months/up to one year to grab the core fans that haven't heard of TNA yet...once they reach a 1.3-1.5 plateau...they'll move on to grab the casual fan interest?

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 07:00 PM

A .9 is nothing to sneeze at. It's damn close to a 1.0 as is.

I know, the article says "anything below 1.0 would be considered a failure" tho. and remember, that .1 is still around 102,000 viewers difference.

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 07:01 PM

Not failure, but whatever they said. I spaced.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 07:01 PM

Here's the thing....

A few months back when TNA was negotiating with the WWE, they were publicly saying they wanted to get away from ther 'network for men' stuff and do things like TNT and F/X do: use repeats of established programming (i.e. CSI) to prop up their own programming. The head of the network even badmouthed wrestling in general and called RAW "a sinking franchise."

But this was probably a negotitating ploy as they have done everytihng possible to be even more male oriented since WWE left and have propped up most of their nights with UFC repeats.

So, I guess I'm trying to say Spike REALLY needs to get their shit together. And I honestly think they don't have a plan for what they are going to do with TNA. In their minds it's probably like this : "Hey, lets put them on whenever we feel like it. If its a hit...GREAT! If not, no big loss...we never put any money behind it anyway..."

Kane Knight

11-06-2005, 07:02 PM

I think both Spike and TNA need to get their shit together.

Yeah, I'm just saying. They seemed to have expected a huge audience when this was dropped out of the blue.

If not for being a "smark" reminded by "smarks" that the TNA show this week was on Thursday, I wouldn't have known, remembered, or possibly cared.

mrslackalack

11-06-2005, 09:32 PM

I believe because Thurs is a party night for most college students and that it was taped affected the ratings.

mrslackalack

11-06-2005, 09:38 PM

Spike should give TNA specials on Sunday nights for free. WCW used to do this with COTC in the 80's and viewers opted to watch that for free instead of buying the WWF PPV.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 09:46 PM

I believe because Thurs is a party night for most college students and that it was taped affected the ratings.

Yeah...no. The first part is a lame excuse since Saturday is a bigger party night than Thrusday, and TNA is getting the exact same number for Saturday...and you would actually have to prove that a big portion of TNA viewers are 'hard partyin' college students.

And you second point does fuck-all for TNA because all of their shows are taped.

PureHatred

11-06-2005, 09:59 PM

Spike should give TNA specials on Sunday nights for free. WCW used to do this with COTC in the 80's and viewers opted to watch that for free instead of buying the WWF PPV.

That worked the first few times when the shows featured big money bouts like Sting/Flair, Flair/Steamboat, Flair/Funk and they were airing four times a year. But long term, those 'specials' turned into inflated episodes of Saturday Night.

Corkscrewed

11-07-2005, 04:15 AM

Wait, TNA had a show on cable during a prime time slot? Wow... totally was not aware that happened.

The MAC

11-07-2005, 06:57 AM

with TNA we are behind in south africa - We get most of the wwe shows 3 weeks later.

mrslackalack

11-07-2005, 12:19 PM

Sort of dissapointing. Because I believe the lowest rated Nitro segment EVER was only 0.9.

hb2k

11-07-2005, 12:49 PM

I believe because Thurs is a party night for most college students and that it was taped affected the ratings.

Didn't stop Smackdown from doing well.

That worked the first few times when the shows featured big money bouts like Sting/Flair, Flair/Steamboat

Flair/Steamboat didn't do well in ratings (or live, for that matter) on their COTC, because it wasn't advertised. Wrestling fans are creatures of habit. Every week at....Unless you really go out of your way to push it, it won't do monumentally well. And KK - you can't really say what 0.1 is in terms of viewers because it changes all the time.