This week's ratings... - Page 3

**DaVe** · 03-18-2010, 03:38 AM

Rating = percentage of total households tuned in to show. There is no rule as to how many people have to watch per household. Share = like rating, but percentage of total tvs turned on, tuned in to show.

(IIRC)

**The Mackem** · 03-18-2010, 03:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FearedSanctity

wtf is this? Why in the hell does it vary?

I'm not from America but from what I've learned from reading Kane Knight's posts is that the rating is a share of the viewing total, so if you have differing total amounts of overal viewiers each week the same 'rating' can equate to different viewers in seperate weeks.

**FearedSanctity** · 03-18-2010, 03:54 AM

I see, makes sense that way then. So basically people have been investing way too much into the rating itself, when what matters is the total viewers, since that's constant regardless

**DaVe** · 03-18-2010, 05:05 AM

Mackem is getting two things mixed up... the rating and share are completely different. But obviously closely related.

An increase in ratings means you're getting more households to tune in. An increase in viewership does not mean that necessary.

**The Mackem** · 03-18-2010, 05:30 AM

I try my best but in the UK we don't get as complicated with TV ratings, tends to be just viewing figures. So the viewers and ratings are being reported but not the share, I wonder why that is? Guess it's not really as important?

**FearedSanctity** · 03-18-2010, 05:31 AM

Viewership totals should be the number more watched though, IMO, as it's constant. 1mil viewers stays 1mil viewers. But with the rating a 1.0 could theoretically be 1.1mil one week and 800,000 the next. Makes no sense to put so much stock in a number that can fluctuate like that.

I understand it's meaning because of it being a percentage that tuned in, but when your total viewers stays the same or even goes up slightly, who gives a fuck if the rating number is lower?

**Kane Knight** · 03-18-2010, 12:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FearedSanctity

wtf is this? Why in the hell does it vary?

Because the ratings are a percentage of viewers. different total populations watch from week to week, and even from day to day. There's no direct correlation between the rating and the number of viewers, though you can generally ballpark it based on day, time of day, and so on.

So one number says "out of the number of people watching, X% was watching this show." Number says how many millions that was.

Both are useful tools for businesses involved, so they're usually both represented.

**Xero** · 03-18-2010, 11:07 PM

From PWInsider:

Thanks to Marty Hotts for the following. ... Bischoff was asked this question on his Facebook page: Why aren't you commenting on your thoughts on this week's ratings. They weren't better but I think everyone would like to hear what you think.

Bischoff replied with: Markus...you need to get a life.

lol

**DaVe** · 03-19-2010, 12:50 AM

haha pretty weak response by bish

**thecc** · 03-19-2010, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xero

From PWInsider:

Thanks to Marty Hotts for the following. ... Bischoff was asked this question on his Facebook page: Why aren't you commenting on your thoughts on this week's ratings. They weren't better but I think everyone would like to hear what you think.

Bischoff replied with: Markus...you need to get a life.

lol

**Xero** · 03-19-2010, 07:01 PM

From PWInsider:

Originally, TNA was not going to air a replay last night. Much like last week, it's a good thing that they did. After coming within .01 of a point last week, the 3/18 replay did a 0.84 rating, exactly what it did on Monday night. The show did 1,162,000 viewers. It seems pretty obvious that keeping the replay around is a good idea.

The 3/18 edition of Superstars did a 0.89 rating, with 974,000 viewers.

The replay did a 0.16 rating, with 143,000 viewers.

**6-String King** · 03-21-2010, 04:49 AM

This past Impact was fucking boring. I don't know what happened but they need to go back to the original formula. Maybe they need to go live every week.

03-18-2010, 03:38 AM	#81
DaVe yeah nah good mate Posts: 1,499	Rating = percentage of total households tuned in to show. There is no rule as to how many people have to watch per household. Share = like rating, but percentage of total tvs turned on, tuned in to show. (IIRC)

03-18-2010, 03:54 AM	#83
FearedSanctity Von Killer Posts: 4,471	I see, makes sense that way then. So basically people have been investing way too much into the rating itself, when what matters is the total viewers, since that's constant regardless

03-18-2010, 05:05 AM	#84
DaVe yeah nah good mate Posts: 1,499	Mackem is getting two things mixed up... the rating and share are completely different. But obviously closely related. An increase in ratings means you're getting more households to tune in. An increase in viewership does not mean that necessary.

03-18-2010, 05:30 AM	#85
The Mackem VG + Q&A FORUM REPRESENT Posts: 38,940	I try my best but in the UK we don't get as complicated with TV ratings, tends to be just viewing figures. So the viewers and ratings are being reported but not the share, I wonder why that is? Guess it's not really as important?

03-18-2010, 05:31 AM	#86
FearedSanctity Von Killer Posts: 4,471	Viewership totals should be the number more watched though, IMO, as it's constant. 1mil viewers stays 1mil viewers. But with the rating a 1.0 could theoretically be 1.1mil one week and 800,000 the next. Makes no sense to put so much stock in a number that can fluctuate like that. I understand it's meaning because of it being a percentage that tuned in, but when your total viewers stays the same or even goes up slightly, who gives a fuck if the rating number is lower?

03-18-2010, 11:07 PM	#88
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	From PWInsider: Thanks to Marty Hotts for the following. ... Bischoff was asked this question on his Facebook page: Why aren't you commenting on your thoughts on this week's ratings. They weren't better but I think everyone would like to hear what you think. Bischoff replied with: Markus...you need to get a life. lol

03-19-2010, 12:50 AM	#89
DaVe yeah nah good mate Posts: 1,499	haha pretty weak response by bish

03-19-2010, 07:01 PM	#91
Xero He's Here Posts: 60,735	From PWInsider: Originally, TNA was not going to air a replay last night. Much like last week, it's a good thing that they did. After coming within .01 of a point last week, the 3/18 replay did a 0.84 rating, exactly what it did on Monday night. The show did 1,162,000 viewers. It seems pretty obvious that keeping the replay around is a good idea. The 3/18 edition of Superstars did a 0.89 rating, with 974,000 viewers. The replay did a 0.16 rating, with 143,000 viewers.

03-21-2010, 04:49 AM	#92
6-String King Gary Busey Raped My Mom Posts: 459	This past Impact was fucking boring. I don't know what happened but they need to go back to the original formula. Maybe they need to go live every week.