Ratings for the week of 3/21/10

[Ol Dirty Dastard]

Originally Posted by Noid 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]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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]

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.

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]

Originally Posted by erickman 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.