Average Impact Rating For The Year: Highest Ever

[klunderbunker]

PW Torch reports that Impact Wrestling ended the year with a 1.17 rating average. That rating is way up from a 2010 that say Impact shift around the schedule, when it earned a 1.06 overall rating and a 1.11 rating specifically on Thursdays. Compared to 2009's 1.15 rating, the 2011 rating was slightly up. Below are the last five years of yearly averages for the show:

2007 - 1.05 rating (expanded to two hours late 2007)
2008 - 1.06 rating
2009 - 1.15 rating
2010 - 1.06 rating / 1.11 rating Thursdays
2011 - 1.17 rating

It's an improvement.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

More ratings data I read

Some fun facts about 2011 in Ratings and viewership:

-This is the first year that TNA hasn't scored below a 1.0 rating on any episode of IMPACT. Last year they scored below a 1.0 average 18 times (8 times excluding the Monday Night Massacre. In 2009 they scored below a 1.0 rating 7 times. In 2008 it was 12 times. 2007 it was 14 times. In 2006 it was 35 times.

-Those episodes that receive the largest amounts of viewers usually have build behind them. Example: February 3rd, March 3rd, May 12, Post BFG IMPACT. Advertising definitely pays off for TNA.

-The lowest number of viewers seen this year is 1,358,000 on both the September 8th and December 22nd episode.

-The highest number of viewers on one episode was 2,019,000 for the October 20th (Post BFG) episode. This audience is only really rivaled by the February 3rd episode with 1,953,000 viewers, the January 27th episode (pre-February 3rd) with 1,934,000 and the Monday Night Special in 2010 where Hulk Hogan arrived in TNA with over 2 million viewers.

-Of the top four TV audiences in TNA history, three of the four took place this year.

 

[Slyfox696]

TNA sucks and will be dead in two years. They don't know what they're doing, guys like Flair, Bischoff and Hogan obviously haven't paid off, and the entire show writing team is incompetent.

Right?

 

[klunderbunker]

"Advertising definitely pays off for TNA."

GEE, WHO WOULD HAVE EVER THOUGHT OF THAT BRILLIANT CONCLUSION?????

 

[klunderbunker]

TNA sucks and will be dead in two years. They don't know what they're doing, guys like Flair, Bischoff and Hogan obviously haven't paid off, and the entire show writing team is incompetent.

Right?

This comes back to the basic argument we've had a bunch of times. They've certainly improved, but the rating is practically identical to what they had in 2009 without all these guys and their likely high salaries being brought in.

 

[Gelgarin]

So the trend of growth every single relevant year continues.

 

[Remix]

So the trend of growth every single relevant year continues.

Except 2010, but that can be excluded for obvious reasons.

 

[Harthan]

One might argue that TNA would have ascended to even greater heights without Hogan and Friends. Considering the ratings steadily climbed until then, and then tanked, and are now just reaching the same plane they were before all of that nonsense.

Of course, that's dangerous extrapolation, but I like to get a little wild with my statistics.

 

[Gelgarin]

Except 2010, but that can be excluded for obvious reasons.

Hence the word "relevant".

 

[Shocky]

Still shows that Hogan has brought zero to TNA.

 

[Harthan]

Hence the word "relevant".

I'm curious how an entire year of TNA can be described as "irrelevant".

 

[Remix]

The weeks of Monday shows skewed it. It's relevant to TNA because I'll be shocked if it didn't affect their plans, but for the purposes of comparison it should be excluded. So should 2007, because for the most part you're comparing a 2 hour show in every other year to a one hour show in 2007.

 

[Pay Per Ghost]

Building credible home grown stars and letting them go over old big names is always a good thing.

In my head, TNA is going a good phase, then again in my head Pamela's melons are pillows in my Casa De Tities, so ye, fun place my mind.

 

[Fire Marshall Bill]

I'd actually like to see how they do in '12 if Hogan, Bischoff and Flair stay on but in much smaller roles. As much as I liked Hogan in his heyday, it's been kinda nice not seeing him or Bischoff on the screen for awhile. They can still do a lot of good behind the scenes more and helping market TNA.

 

[Gelgarin]

I'm curious how an entire year of TNA can be described as "irrelevant".

As Kotre explained, it's anomalous data. The year's figures are heavily distorted as a result of the Monday night transition which cost TNA a portion of its audience and forced them to spend a year recovering.

Such figures are very useful for discerning whether or not moving to Mondays was a colossal mistake, but utterly useless when trying to analyse TNA's growth.

 

[shattered dreams]

This comes back to the basic argument we've had a bunch of times. They've certainly improved, but the rating is practically identical to what they had in 2009 without all these guys and their likely high salaries being brought in.

Your main error (of many) is assuming that the rating would stay the same it was in 2009 in an industry experiencing decline.

We have been over this a lot but the US rating isn't the only source of money for a prowrestling company. Not by a long shot.

 

[klunderbunker]

What in the world does the rating and money have to do with this? I didn't mention that, yet here it.....oh wait this is from SD. No wonder it doesn't make sense to anyone but him and a few others.