TAKE PWTORCH
WITH YOU! Get our iPhone App (FREE!): Click Here Or enter "PWTorch.com" on your Blackberry or other Smart Phone browser for mobile-version of PWTorch.
TNA News
Ratings News: TNA Impact numbers for episode before Genesis PPV; alarming trends continue Jan 12, 2009 - 4:24:51 PM
Good news: TNA's Impact TV ratings for the January 8 show rebounded from the New Year's Day "best of" edition to a 1.06 rating and 1.5 million viewers.
Bad News: The first quarter hour had a larger viewing audience than the final two quarter-hours of the show, which were designed to give the final sell for last night's Genesis PPV.
The audience level peaked in the sixth quarter-hour of the show for the TNA tag title switch, with Consequences Creed & Jay Lethal capturing the TNA tag titles. From there, the rating dropped slightly for the B.G. James vs. Kurt Angle match, then dropped even more slightly for the show-closing segment with Jeff Jarrett giving his PPV sales pitch/speech.
Looking at the rating from a long-term perspective, the audience level has recovered to the Christmas Day numbers, but is down compared to the previous five and ten weeks of TV.
Compared to the previous five weeks, the Jan. 8 Impact was down 2.67 percent in total viewership. Compared to the previous ten weeks, it was down 1.33 percent.
Demographic ratings in the key metrics of adults 18-49 and males 18-35 are down from the previous weeks of TV. Most alarming is the males 18-35 demo, which slipped to 0.69 after peaking with a 0.94 rating on December 11.
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!!
Timbo
12 Jan 2009, 13:07
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.
BMS
12 Jan 2009, 13:08
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.
graves9
12 Jan 2009, 13:26
luis you troll get lost would ya go play with your HHH doll or something.
Alex
12 Jan 2009, 13:44
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.
Timbo
12 Jan 2009, 14:47
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?
mr.swagga
12 Jan 2009, 15:19
Duh big deal is bad ratings = no more tna crap.
Alex
12 Jan 2009, 16:10
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.
Richard
12 Jan 2009, 16:32
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?
Just Joe
12 Jan 2009, 16:57
alex give your keyboard a rest for a while. its kind of disturbing how
much you typed.
1-Stu-3 Kidd
12 Jan 2009, 17:11
@ Richard-LMFAO!!!!
Timbo
13 Jan 2009, 06:54
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.
Luis
13 Jan 2009, 13:57
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??
BAN TNA MOVEMENT!!
13 Jan 2009, 14:03
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!!
La Boba
13 Jan 2009, 14:05
TNA does suck dudes!! Graves9 is a loser!!
Jan
13 Jan 2009, 14:12
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.
Alex
13 Jan 2009, 17:39
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.
Timbo
14 Jan 2009, 13:29
Alex, the rating is virtually unchanged from the first episode . . . there
is no "alarming trend"
INCREDIBLE BENEFITS! Over 50 full-length audio updates per month (iPod compatible)... New weekly award-winning Pro Wrestling Torch Newsletter (text and printable pdf versions) with latest exclusive insider news, new Torch Talks, great columns, Keller's cover story, much more... Hundreds of full-length back issues of PWTorch Newsletter from late-'80s to today... Ad-free access to PWTorch.com's Main Listing... VIP Forum with interaction with other subscribers and Torch staff... Torch Talk Library with text and audio of hundreds of interview installments from last 20 years... Great layout... Deepest archives on pro wrestling history anywhere... Keller's PWTorch Today PDF Bulletins with email alerts... VIP Email reports on major PPVs and TV shows... Staff Roundtable Reviews (text and audio) followiing major events... The best staff of writers and world class reporting since 1987... We'd love for you to join us and experience the most entertaining, authoritative, experienced staff of professional reporters and commentators in the business...
Compare the value of four or five months of PWTorch VIP content to the price of just one PPV. Can you cut 25 cents a day from your budget to make room for PWTorch VIP?
AND NEW FOR 2009! Monthly "Vintage Audio Torch Talks." We are releasing for the first time ever audio versions of our text Torch Talk updates, the historical first series of insider interviews ever. Wade Keller's newsmaking in-depth interviews with wrestling's biggest names are now being made available exclusively to VIP members. But you must be a member each month, as these are not archived, so they are replaced with a new one each month! This debuted in January 2009 with a 68 minute interview with the late "British Bulldog" Davey Boy Smith. Who's next? Hulk Hogan? Eric Bischoff? The Rock? Goldberg? Jeff Hardy?