Originally Posted by Kane Knight
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.
|