View Full Version : Impact Rating Drops 36%
From a 1.1 rating last week to a 0.7 this week.
From WrestlingObserver
=============
I didn't see this anywhere else, so I thought to myself "If they like to bash TNA like I do, they will enjoy this." SO, why do you all think the ratings have dropped so?
Impact was in direct competition with the UFC PPV, which featured a big match between Couture and Liddell.
Apparently the UFC PPV got upwards of 350,000 buys so I think it's fair to assume that at least some of the decline in ratings was caused by the UFC PPV.
But last time, the UFC PPV was on it dropped .2. This time, they dropped .4. And this UFC PPV did worse than the one prior, so why the greater drop?
It's not just the UFC PPV and believe it or not, if they had dropped to a .9, I would have made a point about Sting but not really worn it on my sleeve like I am now.
Plus, if they had just dropped to a .9, you could bet your ass it'd be mostly cause of the UFC PPV.
Ultimately, I think Impact is failing horribly because here you have a promotion that has been on a national level at least since 2004 with what they tout to be a big fanbase, they are being heavily promoted by Spike so much that I can't even watch a Bond movie on the channel without seeing 231 million commercials for the show, and the fact that they have (had) Sting, Jeff Jarrett, the Dudleyz, and Christian.
Now, I roll my eyes at that last comment, but TNA's mindset (which you can see carbon copied into all interviews) is that Jarrett is a draw because he was in WWF. If Jarrett's a draw by that logic, I fail to see how the Dudleyz and Christian AREN'T and if they all are, how the fuck is Impact just now getting a 1.1.
I hate to beat a dead horse, but ECW did better when they had NO national exposure before hand, no help from the company (in that they only advertised ECW during ECW TV), and were on at a time when TNN was horribly syndicated compared to now.
The time slots is something very debatable. ECW was on 8 PM in Friday Nights on TNN and TNA is on 11 PM BUT comes on right after UFC. So I would say TNA has the better slot with the UFC lead in.
Any explanation?
Joey Slugs
02-10-2006, 01:07 AM
you touch yourself at night?
you touch yourself at night?
When my wife wont. (Which means constantly)
Blitz
02-10-2006, 01:18 AM
Personally, I think it's partly due to the UFC PPV, and partly due to Sting "retiring" last week.
Stickman
02-10-2006, 01:21 AM
It's probably because it sucks.
Skippord
02-10-2006, 01:21 AM
I'll tell you what would boost ratings <img src="http://i45.photobucket.com/albums/f85/Skippord/06.jpg" border="0" alt="Image hosting by Photobucket"></a>
Am I to uderstand you hail Sabin?
Blitz
02-10-2006, 01:30 AM
I am a Sabinist.
Blitz
02-10-2006, 01:31 AM
*Is proud to say he saw Sabin wrestle his first pro match*
:cool:
Skippord
02-10-2006, 01:44 AM
Am I to uderstand you hail Sabin?
Check the sig
Dave Youell
02-10-2006, 03:43 AM
*ahem*
http://img79.exs.cx/img79/8004/038386ss.jpg
I get it, Sabin is teh kewl...but...uh...that Impact rating went down a bit, how bout it?
Corkscrewed
02-10-2006, 04:28 AM
Thanks for stretching the page, Dave. You ass. NOW UPDATE TIPSTERS!!!!
:shifty:
Dave Youell
02-10-2006, 06:17 AM
Thanks for stretching the page, Dave. You ass. NOW UPDATE TIPSTERS!!!!
:shifty:
I will, once Tornado does the NYR results!
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 09:10 AM
Wow. TNA's ratings went up when Sting showed up and down when he retired. Where's the fucking mystery here, folks?
Dave Youell
02-10-2006, 09:29 AM
Wow. TNA's ratings went up when Sting showed up and down when he retired. Where's the fucking mystery here, folks?
Ummm, we need more Jeff Jarrett?
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 10:13 AM
*ahem*
http://img79.exs.cx/img79/8004/038386ss.jpg
Who the fuck is that nobody?
...Standing next to Dave Youell?
There's actually far more to it that this -
Yes Impact went against the UFC show, but get it straight - this was the biggest UFC in history, and will blow away any other PPV it's ever done in terms of PPV buys - it certainly DIDN'T do worse than the last UFC show, it will have done significantly better. Also, it's far too soon to tell exactly what UFC did, so putting any kind of figure on it 1 week after the event is stupid (see the One Night Stand "800,000 buys" scenario). Another factor is that the Monday replay pulled a 0.7 as well, the highest ratings for the replay spot yet, which suggests that the people who skipped it in favour of the UFC show went out of their way to catch it on Monday, so in terms of exposure, the show did do very well, and the Saturday rating will end up being an outlier.
McLegend
02-10-2006, 10:39 AM
yeah wtf. There is no way Liddel and Coture III is going to do worse then the last UFC PPV.
NO WAY
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 12:08 PM
There's actually far more to it that this -
Yes Impact went against the UFC show, but get it straight - this was the biggest UFC in history, and will blow away any other PPV it's ever done in terms of PPV buys - it certainly DIDN'T do worse than the last UFC show, it will have done significantly better. Also, it's far too soon to tell exactly what UFC did, so putting any kind of figure on it 1 week after the event is stupid (see the One Night Stand "800,000 buys" scenario). Another factor is that the Monday replay pulled a 0.7 as well, the highest ratings for the replay spot yet, which suggests that the people who skipped it in favour of the UFC show went out of their way to catch it on Monday, so in terms of exposure, the show did do very well, and the Saturday rating will end up being an outlier.
:nono:
Using logic to counter a piece which was done for no other reason than to attack TNA?
For shame, man. What's next? facts and figures?
Anyway, yes. I didn't know for sure about the UFC PPV for sure, but it seems foolish to make a declaration of how small it was.
Further, we already did expect lower ratings with Sting departing, and an increased replay value might just indicate that the lack of Sting didn't kill their momentum (What's their normal replay rating?). But honestly, this shouldn't be without expectation, and in no way is legit grounds to bash TNA.
Mr. JL
02-10-2006, 02:07 PM
My understanding is that Sting was signed to a one year contract somewhere in December. He appeared twice (once on a TNA PPV, and once on Impact). I have read the 'rumors' that he will not un-retire until the April Lock Down PPV. That is THREE MONTHS AWAY! I just don't undertsnad TNA's logic.
Sting will be virtually inactive for nearly half of his year long contract.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 02:11 PM
It's closer to a third.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 02:12 PM
Plus, we didn't actually expect him to show regularly, didn't we?
Mr. JL
02-10-2006, 02:25 PM
It's closer to a third.
True.
Plus, we didn't actually expect him to show regularly, didn't we?
True again...
I just find it kind of ridiculous.
sting got one hell of a contract no wonder somoa joe is unhappy, i bet goldberg wants the same deal.
Well, Lockdown is April, the same time they go Prime time...
The Heat
02-10-2006, 05:45 PM
I'm sure there were several contributing factors as to why TNA's ratings dropped.
Sting not being there obviously hurt the numbers. I hope Sting doesn't become The Undertaker of TNA. He rarely shows and only shows @ the Impact before PPV and @ PPV. That would suck. Sting needs to frequent Impact to make a noticeable dent in the TNA product.
UFC. I'm sure having another form of wrestling/shoot fighting on in direct competition didn't help.
Then, there are "channel surfers". I'm sure there's the casual wrestling fan that sees TNA, but, doesn't yet consider it "on the level" of WWE. Which is totally wrong in my view, but, some people do feel that way. I, personally, feel TNA is vastly superior wrestling. They just need to adjust the way they do promos, character interaction, basically the whole character setup. Once they do that and get big names, it's only a matter of time before they catch up to WWE in terms of ratings.
*On an interesting side note, the same week Impact got a 1.1, Friday Night SmackDown only drew a 2.9. Not much of a numbers gap. Beware WWE! TNA is close!
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 06:21 PM
Actually, that's a HUGE numbers gap.
Mr. JL
02-10-2006, 06:25 PM
LOL... the WWE SD! show got nearly two times more viewers than TNA Impact.
Giving Impact it's due, getting that kind of number going up against big shows like SNL, with a very bad timeslot on top of that, is great.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 07:03 PM
Giving Impact it's due, getting that kind of number going up against big shows like SNL, with a very bad timeslot on top of that, is great.
Oh yeah, the timeslot makes it a miracle tthat they're drawing ratings as good as they are. I can't wait to see how they do once they've been in prime time for a couple months.
The Heat
02-10-2006, 10:56 PM
Actually, that's a HUGE numbers gap.
Actually, it's not all that huge. For several reasons;
1}WWE[aka WWWF, WWF] has been around since the 70's. The McMahons are not entirely new to the wrestling biz. So, obviously the numbers difference isn't that big when you consider: fact #2
2}TNA is an entirely new wrestling organazation. The mere fact that it got a 1.1 in a 11PM/10PM Central timeslot makes it huge. There's basically nothing on and it shows people ARE interested. SmackDown has been on network TV since 99. So, I'd say Impact garnering a 1.1 while SmackDown gets a 2.9 isn't that big a difference being that TNA is relatively new.
However, I understand most are WWE marks. I can see how some people would consider that a big difference.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:00 PM
No, that is a big numbers gap, and the fact that you need to pull the "WWE mark" card pretty much proves how little footing you have.
MacGyver reruns pull about the same as TNA.
Daytime TV shows do.
RANDOM CRAP pulls the same numbers as TNA did at its peak, and it's much harder to break higher than those ratings. This isn't about favoring the WWE (Which I don't, retard), this is about how fucking huge almost 2 million is.
Well, if it makes everyone feel better, Spongebob was dominating RAW for a while there... :shifty:
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:07 PM
Well, if it makes everyone feel better, Spongebob was dominating RAW for a while there... :shifty:
It's still right on Raw's ass...:D
The Heat
02-10-2006, 11:17 PM
No, that is a big numbers gap, and the fact that you need to pull the "WWE mark" card pretty much proves how little footing you have.
MacGyver reruns pull about the same as TNA.
Daytime TV shows do.
RANDOM CRAP pulls the same numbers as TNA did at its peak, and it's much harder to break higher than those ratings. This isn't about favoring the WWE (Which I don't, retard), this is about how fucking huge almost 2 million is.
How little footing? :lol: Facts are facts. WWF[e]=Been around forever. TNA=New. I bet WWF[E] Monday Night RAW didn't garner ratings like that when they debuted. Point # 2. Timeslot. You can say MacGuyver gets better ratings or RANDOM CRAP gets better ratings, but, neither MacGuyver or "RANDOM CRAP" are on a 11:00 PM AT FUCKING NIGHT, as that's the issue retard.
2 million is a difference. I never said it wasn't. I simply said it is quite revealing about TNA's status in pro wrestling, which you obviously missed the meaning of anyway......
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:21 PM
Facts are facts. You are bringing them to meaningless conclusions.
2 million is a HUGE difference, you've downplayed this, hiding behind facts with no bearing on your conclusion. You're being a fanboy, pure and simple.
The Heat
02-10-2006, 11:28 PM
Facts are facts. You are bringing them to meaningless conclusions.
2 million is a HUGE difference, you've downplayed this, hiding behind facts with no bearing on your conclusion. You're being a fanboy, pure and simple.
One could argue that your making a big deal out of the HUGE difference, despite the time differential between the time WWF[E] has been around VS. TNA could be attributed to you being a fanboy. Watch who you call what.
That's what I LOVE about fellow "net" wrestling fans. They like to label people under categories without labeling themselves. Hypocrocy at its greatest :nono:
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:33 PM
One could argue that your making a big deal out of the HUGE difference, despite the time differential between the time WWF[E] has been around VS. TNA could be attributed to you being a fanboy. Watch who you call what.
That's what I LOVE about fellow "net" wrestling fans. They like to label people under categories without labeling themselves. Hypocrocy at its greatest :nono:
I love how you were the one who started in on the "WWE mark" card, and then call ME a hypocrite for calling you a fanboy.
You really have no argument, do you? 2 million viewers is a huge gap in the television business period, and I am not playing it up. You, however, are playing it down and trying to act as though it's not that big a difference and that this is a big thing for them. You then argue facts which don't conclude anything. You're trying to back up fanboyism while hiding behind "facts."
In other words, take a look in the mirror before you cry "hypocrite." You've been chomping at fans all over the place if they don't agree with you on TNA, poking at them as WWE marks, etc., which reeks of rabid fanboyism.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:34 PM
In other words, yes, one could argue it, but there's no foundation, you worthless little hypocrite.
Wow. TNA's ratings went up when Sting showed up and down when he retired. Where's the fucking mystery here, folks?
The issue is they dropped to a lower rating then before he showed up. Yes it is a factor, thats clear. but it isn't solely responsible. Some of their orrigional 'die-hard' core audience was not there. Thats more of what I am interested in, where did they go?
One could argue that your making a big deal out of the HUGE difference, despite the time differential between the time WWF[E] has been around VS. TNA could be attributed to you being a fanboy. Watch who you call what.
That's what I LOVE about fellow "net" wrestling fans. They like to label people under categories without labeling themselves. Hypocrocy at its greatest :nono:
You: Everything but certian things in WWE (which all 'smarks' love) suck. Likes TNA a lot. Overall Con-WWE and rarely supports them.
Me: WWE fanboy for the pure fact that I can't be assed to stay up until 11 and pay attention to the TV, and the fact that I've watched it solidly for over 8 years. Overall Pro-WWE but will praise other promotions.
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:45 PM
The issue is they dropped to a lower rating then before he showed up. Yes it is a factor, thats clear. but it isn't solely responsible. Some of their orrigional 'die-hard' core audience was not there. Thats more of what I am interested in, where did they go?
Except when you brought up the answer for the core base yourself.
PPV. Hmmm...
I guess you've got a point. The two factors together would make sense. Poor booking and violence attacking you from both sides would cause a drop. (Did I mention poor booking, man it's awful.)
Kane Knight
02-10-2006, 11:55 PM
You: Everything but certian things in WWE (which all 'smarks' love) suck. Likes TNA a lot. Overall Con-WWE and rarely supports them.
Me: WWE fanboy for the pure fact that I can't be assed to stay up until 11 and pay attention to the TV, and the fact that I've watched it solidly for over 8 years. Overall Pro-WWE but will praise other promotions.
KK: Likes TNA, and has hoped for a primetime slot ever since they got on TV. Willingness to accept that TNA isn't ready to go head to head with WWE is often mistaken for favoring the WWE, when it's simply a matter of common sense.
Likes some elements of WWE, but mostly is indifferernt, watching out of habit. Hasn't paid attention to a full Raw or Smackdown in years, and would like to see competition. Hopes TNA develops into it, but thinks it's smart to avoid direct compeition for the time being.
Thinks TNA makes mistakes, and can afford to do so less than WWE, because WWE is a dominant show due to its monopoly on the programming. Is harder on TNA for bullshit booking and big mistakes because it hurts them more.
Like was said before - the UFC PPV, heavily promoted by Spike and considered to be far and away the biggest UFC PPV of all time, is likely more responsible for the Saturday dip, and the boost in the Monday replay ratings likely means that the people who didn't see it Saturday caught up with it on Monday.
TNA doing a 60 minute show is very tough. So much gets crammed in that none of the angles have any impact, very few of the wrestlers have a chance of standing out...I understand they are trying to get more people on, but I'm not sure that that approach is going to work. 90 minutes would be far better than 60.
Kane Knight
02-11-2006, 09:32 AM
TNA's actually been very efficient with their time, IMO.
there is varry little i disslike about tna, as for jeff hogging the belt every wrestling company i have ever seen had that hogan did that to both wcw and wwe taker does that trips does that. i just ignore that belt and think the x belt is there top belt.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.