Ratings for the week of 3/21/10

Originally Posted by kareru as far as im concerned the score so far is TNA - 2 WWE - 1

TNA and Spike TV should try to convince advertisers to go by your rating system rather than the much more widely used but apparently irrelevant as far as you're concerned Nielsen ratings.

[kareru]

Originally Posted by SOCCER LEGS TNA and Spike TV should try to convince advertisers to go by your rating system rather than the much more widely used but apparently irrelevant as far as you're concerned Nielsen ratings.

so by your logic higher ratings = a better show ?

Originally Posted by kareru so by your logic higher ratings = a better show ?

there's definitely a correlation, though there are some exceptions.

TNA however is no exception, and does not deserve a better rating than what they are currently getting because it reflects exactly what their show is: crap.

[kareru]

Originally Posted by SOCCER LEGS there's definitely a correlation, though there are some exceptions. TNA however is no exception, and does not deserve a better rating than what they are currently getting because it reflects exactly what their show is: crap.

actually their show has been really good since the move to mondays

Originally Posted by kareru actually their show has been really good since the move to mondays

opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

[kareru]

Originally Posted by SOCCER LEGS opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

actually rating scores are only very rough estimates, but I'm sure you know all about how they work right?

Originally Posted by kareru actually rating scores are only very rough estimates, but I'm sure you know all about how they work right?

the statistical methods they use to calculate Nielsen ratings are far from "rough estimates" and they generally have a standard deviation of less than 1% of the viewing audience at a 95% confidence interval.

[Kane Knight]

Originally Posted by SOCCER LEGS opinions are debatable. rating scores are not.

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.

[KayfabeMan]

Originally Posted by Kane Knight WWE is losing. They're not losing to TNA, and TNA is not winning. Regardless, they are losing.

[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.

[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.