Impact Rating Down

[klunderbunker]

- Last night's episode of Impact Wrestling did a 1.14 rating, down from last week's 1.35 to about average TNA numbers. The show did hourly ratings of 1.21 and 1.07 and was up against the World Series and Beavis & Butthead​'s return to TV.

The show's quarter-hour ratings breakdown was as follows:

Q1: 1.30 - James Storm's opening talking segment with appearances by Fortune, Samoa Joe​, and Sting
Q2: 1.20 - Christopher Daniels vs. Rob Van Dam
Q3: 1.20 - Knockouts talking segment, Gail Kim​ vs. Tara
Q4: 1.14 - Eric Young vs. Robbie E. for the Television Title
Q5: 1.15 - Eric and Garrett Bischoff
Q6: 1.05 - Flair and Bischoff backstage, video packages, the first-half of Jeff Hardy​ vs. Bully Ray​
Q7: 1.01 - Finish of Jeff Hardy vs. Bully Ray, post-match interview
Q8: 1.06 - Robert Roode vs. Samoa Joe, Bischoffs and Flair

Credit: PW Torch

 

[Remy LaCroix]

I stopped watching around Q6 'cause I was sleeeeeepy sleepy sleepy. Jeff Hardy match did not help.

 

[Coco]

Reactionary knee-jerking in 3... 2...

 

[hatehabsforever]

That's actually surprising. I figured that Bischoff, Flair, and Bischoff was going to tear the house down.

 

[Matth3w]

No surprise. I would've tuned in to see Beavis and Butthead return aswell.

 

[bigandpissed]

Considering that it went up against what was a great baseball game and the return of an iconic show (beavis and butthead), that rating really isn't all that disappointing. What i'm curious about is the actual number of viewers because between the world series and B@B there was probably alot more people watching t.v. yesterday, and that can skew the t.v. rating.

 

[hatehabsforever]

So are you suggesting that if the World Series wasn't on last night, and if Beavis and Butthead wasn't on, that iMPACT would have done better than 1.14? Because recent history, with the exception of last week, would seem to suggest otherwise. What will the excuse be next week?

 

[bigandpissed]

So are you suggesting that if the World Series wasn't on last night, and if Beavis and Butthead wasn't on, that iMPACT would have done better than 1.14? Because recent history, with the exception of last week, would seem to suggest otherwise. What will the excuse be next week?

Its not a excuse, I asked a question about the actual number of viewers as opposed to the ratings because if the number of total t.v. viewers is inflated due to something like a big sporting event, it can skew the ratings.

So in theory, yes I am saying the rating would probably have been higher because if the world series wasn't on and Impact had the same amount of viewers, they would have had a higher percentage of the total viewing audience watching television at the time, and thus had a higher rating. You also have to take into account that both the world series and beavis and butthead target the exact same demographic as tna, and probably divided the potential audience.

 

[hatehabsforever]

Its not a excuse, I asked a question about the actual number of viewers as opposed to the ratings because if the number of total t.v. viewers is inflated due to something like a big sporting event, it can skew the ratings.

The "excuse" comment was not directed at you in particular. In fact your comment is pretty valid. I'm just making the point that every time that iMPACT scores in the low 1's, people in general chime in here saying that the rating was only low because "X" was on TV at the same time. The thing is, there's always something else on TV. Every week iMPACT will face competition. I'm just not convinced that low ratings can always be explained away by competing programming. It may be an old comment, but I think it's true.

Smackdown will be competing against Game Seven of the World Series tonight. I wonder if they will score a 1.14 tonight?

 

[Pepe Silvia]

So are you suggesting that if the World Series wasn't on last night, and if Beavis and Butthead wasn't on, that iMPACT would have done better than 1.14? Because recent history, with the exception of last week, would seem to suggest otherwise. What will the excuse be next week?

...Uh, does the first hour indicate much? It tanked in the second hour.

But seriously, B&B was fucking magical. Ask X.

 

[Tiger Chaos Theory]

...Uh, does the first hour indicate much? It tanked in the second hour.

But seriously, B&B was fucking magical. Ask X.

Funny how it tanked right when one of the most popular shows in the demo TNA tries to pull made it's gigantic return to TV.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

Funny how it tanked right when one of the most popular shows in the demo TNA tries to pull made it's gigantic return to TV.

I didn't watch IMPACT this week, so

...What?

Although I'm honestly assuming it might have stayed at the 1.15 it did for Q5 is people fucking cared about Bischoff, Flair & Bischoff Lawl Services

 

[alexikosalov]

Between B&B and It's Always Sunny, I forget TNA is even on Thursdays most weeks. That's why I dvr it.

 

[ABMorales787]

]So are you suggesting that if the World Series wasn't on last night, and if Beavis and Butthead wasn't on, that iMPACT would have done better than 1.14?[/B] Because recent history, with the exception of last week, would seem to suggest otherwise. What will the excuse be next week?

Technically yes. B&B wasn't on last week and the ratings dropped when it came on.

 

[justinsayne]

Please, the rating steadily declined over the two hours, Beavis & Butthead is only 30 mins. long, to suggest that a two hour show steadily dropped from a 1.2 to a 1.06 because of the return of a 30 min. show is a tad ridiculous, especially when Beavis & ButtHead comes on a 10 ET, which is the half way point of IW, if that was the case then why wouldn't they flip back over to Impact for the last half hour?

 

[Alastor]

Ratings mean nothing except if there is a trend of declining ratings over the course of the show every week hinting of viewers tuning out. Not saying viewers tune out as it could possibly be more viewers watching tv at a later time but it is an indication.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

The ratings will soar when they land a major (current) star. I'm not sure they will be able to create one.

Just wanted to throw that out there, along with the fact that I no longer care about TNA's ratings. Unless they drop, substantially, or make a huge jump, I'm not all that interested.

 

[Poop Master Flex]

While I can understand why people could actually blame Beavis and Butt Head I would like to point out their lowest Quarter was AFTER Beavis and Butt Head ended and the audience steadily dropped throughout the night so its pretty stupid to blame the ratings of a 2 hour show on a half hour program.

I can understand Game 6 as that was a fucking amazing baseball game (and I don't even watch baseball that much) but I've been hearing excuses like this for years.


The truth is the shows audience is pretty much the same as it has always been and it will take something drastic for the ratings to go up, its that simple.


I say don't even worry about the ratings anymore, as long as they don't drop below a 1.0 consistently TNA is sitting pretty and isn't gonna go anywhere.

P.S. Hey everyone, Beavis was crying.

 

[xoxo French Kiss xoxo]

Vampire Diaries is on Thursday Nights, and well its leaps and bounds better than TNA

 

[hatehabsforever]

The ratings will soar when they land a major (current) star. I'm not sure they will be able to create one.

Just wanted to throw that out there, along with the fact that I no longer care about TNA's ratings. Unless they drop, substantially, or make a huge jump, I'm not all that interested.

You mean someone like Jeff Hardy? Or Kurt Angle? Or RVD? Or Ken Anderson? Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, Mickie James, etc., etc.,?

Simply put, it will take a lot more than landing a big name before TNA starts putting out consistent ratings which they can sustain. Yes, it will take a big name, but it will take a shit load of money, leaving the impact zone, going live, as well as some direction to their story lines before they can even begin to turn the corner on a consistent basis. And while I would love to see it happen, I just don't see it transpiring any time soon. Where's the money supposed to suddenly come from? Not to mention the fact that Hogan, Flair, Sting, and several other guys don't have much time left. By the time TNA starts addressing their numerous concerns, these guys will be gone.

As much as the TNA apologists like to suggest otherwise, I think they are destined to remain in the 1.0-1.3 range for the forseeable future.

 

[Gelgarin]

TNA is already putting out consistent ratings which they can sustain.

 

[Coco]

Lol.

 

[Stormtrooper]

You mean someone like Jeff Hardy? Or Kurt Angle? Or RVD? Or Ken Anderson? Hogan, Bischoff, Flair, Mickie James, etc., etc.,?

Hardy? No. Big-time star, but not a brand name that's gonna draw in the mainstream.
Angle? No. AWESOME wrestler, but he was old, damaged goods, and wasn't known to the mainstream
RVD? No. Never a top draw.
Kenderson? Hell fucking no. He was a midcarder. Nothing more, nothing less
Hogan? Could have. The moving to Mondays right away was a bad move.
Bischoff? No. Not a wrestler. People don't watch wrestling because of non-wrestlers.
Flair? No. Old damaged goods, not a full-time wrestler.
Mickie? Why the hell would you even think that? She's a broad, they don't draw.

A big name would help. There are only 4 of those, and they're all contractually tied to WWE. Cena, HHH, Austin, Rock. Most everyone TNA brought in were not in WWE for a reason, either they weren't good enough or they were damaged goods.

Yes, it will take a big name, but it will take a shit load of money, leaving the impact zone, going live, as well as some direction to their story lines before they can even begin to turn the corner on a consistent basis. And while I would love to see it happen, I just don't see it transpiring any time soon. Where's the money supposed to suddenly come from? Not to mention the fact that Hogan, Flair, Sting, and several other guys don't have much time left. By the time TNA starts addressing their numerous concerns, these guys will be gone.

This I agree with, but the mainstream stars don't need to be brought in. They have the one guy that could be a megastar there, and they kept pushing him aside, that's AJ Styles.

And getting out of the Sting, Flair, and Hogan contracts would probably HELP TNA, not hurt them.

As much as the TNA apologists like to suggest otherwise, I think they are destined to remain in the 1.0-1.3 range for the forseeable future.

Definitely. Not until they get on a better network, which won't happen until the product shows consistent, sustained improvement. If Spike cuts them, I doubt the bigger networks are gonna come calling to them. Maybe

TNA is already putting out consistent ratings which they can sustain.

Yes, but the ratings are not GOOD ratings. They might be good for the network they are on, but it's still pretty low, and there's still plenty of problems with their product.

 

[Alastor]

^^

Basically the only chance for TNA to succeed they need WWE to produce a mainstream star and hope to persuade said star to join? Even TNA failure to be mainstream can be blamed on WWE. Just wow.

 

[Gelgarin]

Yes, but the ratings are not GOOD ratings. They might be good for the network they are on, but it's still pretty low, and there's still plenty of problems with their product.

That makes no sense. TV ratings are entirely dependent on the network on which a show airs. It's be like me looking at the RAW rating and comparing it to whatever airs prime time on FOX and concluding that the WWE's ratings are all shit as well.

TNA is the highest drawing show, most consistent show on SPIKE, as such its ratings as good. Quod erat demonstrandum.