TNA still sucks and the 1.5 million viewers that waste their time watching it also!!

Watch Nancy Grace on Headline News and you'll get more drama!!

And here is the non-FOX News style reality:

That is a good rating up against the NCAA National Championship game . . .

TNA held up well in 3 consecutive weeks of having some huge obstacles.

Good rating vs Xmas, Good rating vs New Years and Good rating vs the NCAA National Championship game.

It really is a much weaker show without Cage, Tomko and Gail Kim around. Plus, writing Samoa Joe (their best or second best asset) off TV for a while doesn't seem all that bright either. But we get Creed as a champ and a BG James match...WOO-HOO (sigh). Dutch and Russo need to be wished the best on future endeavors (Jarrett is dug in there like a tick, so he's unmovable) so the roster can eventually achieve half of its potential.

luis you troll get lost would ya go play with your HHH doll or something.

Timbo unfortunately I think you're (largely) wrong on your assesment of the Impact ratings.

Whilst I won't disagree that both the Christmas and New Years episodes of Impact did post relatively good numbers considering their air date the key to that is relatively good. The problem TNA has is that they've hit a ratings ceiling and despite constantly telling the world they're a growing company have done very little growing in recent years and shown an alarming ability to shed hundreds of thousands of viewers. It wasn't that long ago for example that TNA hit a peak rating of 1.2 and had a quarter segment score a 1.3 but since that point they've never been able to repeat it and have actually seen their audience drop again, you can't look at that tend positively - they got more viewers than they've ever had before but then none of them stuck around.

This show (like the vast majority of recent Impact's) has that basic overall trend isolated over two-hours. To demonstrate this lets attach hypothetical numbers to this edition of Impact

For the sake of argument lets say that show began with 1.5 million viewers and through the course of the first 90 minutes of the show grew to 1.7 million. That is undoubtedly a good thing however when the final thirty minutes of the show then drop down to 1.4 and 1.3 million viewers this is not so good. Suddenly you've lost 200,000 from the start of the show and 400,000 from the most watched peak. The alarming ratings trend TNA has picked up isn't (I repeat ISN'T) that the numbers over the holidays have dropped but that the numbers during each individual Impact drop. When fewer people are watching your show at the end of it than at the start that is bad. No matter how you try and spin it losing viewers over the course of your run time is bad and that's what TNA are doing, their fans are tuning in and then have so little interest in the final segments of the show that they then switch off before they happen and when that occurs week in and week out it is an alarming trend that TNA needs to address.

We'll see what this week and next week's rating is for a true trend . . .

The first quarter hour rating of the show being the highest has been the fact since day one. That's just the way it is and always has been. And seeing as that is the case, that does not qualify as an "alarming trend".

Who is it alarming other than a couple of Torch reporters? Obviously not anyone who matters in TNA or SpikeTV.

I guess if TNA is happy and spike is happy with the ratings, then what's the big deal?

Duh big deal is bad ratings = no more tna crap.

Timbo why would we need to wait for next weeks numbers to identify a trend that you freely admit exists? You agreed that TNA have been losing viewers throughout the Impact runtime since day one, so why do we need to see next weeks number to identify this as something that TNA should be addressing and trying to solve? The fact that its been happening for an extended period of time does not make it any less of a continuing trend or any more acceptable - losing viewers during the course of your show is bad. There is no debating that issue or spinning it when you can't engage your audience to the point where they actually stick with the show from start-to-finish you are doing something wrong and if you don't believe that executives at Spike have noticed this and are raising questions about it then you're living in a dreamworld. However given how ineptly TNA is run I would be willing to accept that people within TNA itself haven't noticed this trend but Spike will have and they will care because it effects advertising rates. When its almost a forgone conclusion that Impact will lose viewers during its runtime it becomes difficult to sell the show to advertisers, which hugely effects how much you can charge them to buy time during the broadcast.

I think its also worth pointing out that it becomes increasingly difficult to believe that Spike is still over the moon about the numbers TNA are doing with every passing week. Remember Spike has reportedly invested a lot of money into getting TNA off the ground and so far that money has produced a giant ratings jump of about 0.15 in the past two-years (Raw has achieved a bigger spike than that in a two-month period recently as has Smackdown for that matter). Spike might not be unhappy with the numbers Impact is doing but that doesn't amount to them being particularly happy with them either.

What will be more worrying for Spike (and should be worrying for TNA) is that there's absolutely no reason why they shouldn't have grown more than that in the past two-years. For example let's use Mick Foley as an example, his arrival in TNA produce much in the way of ratings spike but when TNA teased a big announcement from him at the end of October it did - during the live HD debut Foley's announcement achieved a 1.31 quarter rating, which for TNA is huge.

However here's where the 'TNA magic' kicks in because the following week that spike was down to a 1.21 and the week after that it didn't top 1.16 and by the end of November Foley's segments were down to 1.13. During the course of a month TNA went from a 1.31 segment to a 1.13 - they lost a 0.2 ratings point, which is quite litterally hundreds of thousands of viewers. TNA's isn't that the bigger audience doesn't exist for them its that they can't keep that audience. Ever.

Here's another example taken from December and using the final Impact rating rather individual quarters.

December 4 TNA achieved a 1.2, the following week (December 11) it was down to a 1.16, the week after that (December 18) it was down again this time to a 1.12. In the space of three weeks TNA went from their highest rated show ever right back down to a 1.12, dropping just shy of 0.1 in the ratings. And this isn't the first time they've done this ever from October 30 through to November 13 they went from a 1.16 to a 1.1 and they stayed, which is after they'd clawed their way back up from a 0.95 at the start of October.

Can anyone explain to me how trends like these are good and why anyone should pretend they are? TNA have consistently thrown away a bigger audience again and again and again, why is this good? And why does anyone think TNA should be happy with that? Or that Spike would be happy about it? Or that this isn't a problem that TNA should be addressing. When you're getting your biggest audience ever and you can keep that number for a second week its bad. Just like throwing away viewers during the course of the show is bad. And its somethat that absolutely is an alarming trend for TNA and absolutely should be addressed by them.

Alex (aka Caldwell), get a fricken life dude, it's wrestling! How in the world could ratings possibly effect you enough to type an entire page worth of useless analysis?

alex give your keyboard a rest for a while. its kind of disturbing how much you typed.

@ Richard-LMFAO!!!!

Alex, here is the definition of the word "trend" to help you out . . .

From Merriam-Webster: the general movement over time of a statistically detectable change ; also : a statistical curve reflecting such a change

There has been no change since day one, thus there is no trend towards or from anything. It is what it was, and what it always has been with very few exceptions, over the past few years.

Good day bloggers!!

1)Graves9...hmmm? I might be playing with HHH dolls like you say but it's much better that spending 2 hours watching a gay ass show like TNA!

2)ALex...please get a life dude!! really!! are you applying for a editor position at PW Torch??

you guys waste to much time explaining stuff around here....it's simple..

TNA SUCKS NO MATTER WHAT HAS BEEN WRESTLER YOU CAN PLACE ON THE LAME SHOW>>>PERIOD!!

TNA does suck dudes!! Graves9 is a loser!!

wow you ppl talk way too much. I watch tna, and its fine, it doesnt suck and its not the greatest show either, neither is wwe. stop arguing like fags and get a life.

Timbo by the definition you provided this is a trend.

When the number of viewers goes up and then suddenly drops (not stops growing but drops) that's the change and thus the worrying trend tag.

Alex, the rating is virtually unchanged from the first episode . . . there is no "alarming trend"