Impact Rating - Lowest in a long time

[klunderbunker]

- Last night's episode of Impact Wrestling did a 1.01 rating with 1,483,000 viewers.

I'd bet heavily that this is on the NBA Finals, but they need to bounce back next week. The viewers aren't bad though.

 

[X]

Viewership looks to be about the same though, so it's kind of a misleading rating KB. They look to be maintaining the same 1.4 million or so audience they always do.

Total viewer numbers > Nielsen ratings in the grand scheme of things.

Show is still terribad though.

 

[r.prince18]

That why they need to consider my idea which is fire all the men and have the knocks outs wrestle naked for the whole show.

 

[The Dragon Saga]

That why they need to consider my idea which is fire all the men and have the knocks outs wrestle naked for the whole show.

Hey look, it is Vince Russo.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

I support r.prince18 and his idiotic idea.

 

[ZeroVX]

I support r.prince18 and his idiotic idea.

Well, it wouldn't be worse than what's going on now.

 

[Slyfox696]

I'd bet heavily that this is on the NBA Finals

The NBA Finals scored a 12.6 network television rating. They crushed everything on television that night. As in, the NBA Finals drew better than CBS, NBC, Fox and CW in adults aged 18-49 COMBINED.

Also:

Based on 5-game averages, the 2011 NBA Finals continues to outperform last year’s huge Lakers-Celtics match-up among in Adults 18-49 (6.6/19 vs. 6.5/19) and Adults 18-34 (6.8/22 vs. 6.6/21), posting 7-year highs for The Finals – since 2004.

http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/20...rated-game-5-since-‘04-in-young-adults/95320/


Yeah, I'd say the NBA Finals had something to do with it.

 

[klunderbunker]

LeBron draws.

 

[Big Nick Dudley]

How many total viewers did TNA lose?

Oh, and it's definitely the NBA.

 

[Joe's Gonna Kill You]

How many total viewers did TNA lose

They gained 30,000 from last week

 

[ABMorales787]

How many total viewers did TNA lose?

They gained 30,000 from last week

That... Doesn't make sense!

 

[JGlass]

That... Doesn't make sense!

Not sure if serious. But if serious, the Nielsen Ratings work sort of like a percentage thing, where they measure what portion of all television audiences at any given time watched the show in question. Even though they gained viewers, TNA's ratings went down because more people were watching television on Thursday than usual thanks to the NBA Finals.

 

[Coco]

I haven't watched in two weeks. I'm taking credit for whatever skullduggery's going on here. No, I won't be readintg the thread.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

The Ratings system is truly weird. Why they can't simply measure it as 1.0=1 million, 2.0=2 million, etc... I'm not sure.

 

[Pepe Silvia]

points are like total viewers/shares or something

 

[Slyfox696]

The Ratings system is truly weird. Why they can't simply measure it as 1.0=1 million, 2.0=2 million, etc... I'm not sure.

Because if 120 million people are watching TV, then you have 120% of the country watching TV. And that REALLY doesn't make sense.

 

[a0161613]

That wasn't his point Sly. I think he means that 120 million people watching the same thing would equal 120.0. Obviously the Nielsens work on percentages etc, but I understand his question.

There would be no point translating 1 million people to a 1.0 rating.

 

[Slyfox696]

That wasn't his point Sly. I think he means that 120 million people watching the same thing would equal 120.0. Obviously the Nielsens work on percentages etc, but I understand his question.

There would be no point translating 1 million people to a 1.0 rating.

If that was his question, then he's being completely stupid. Why would he need a 120.0, when the Nielsen ratings also release how many people watch the program, as evidenced by the first post in the thread?

Either he was being really stupid, or you misunderstood what he was asking and my first post on the subject was correct.

 

[a0161613]

But you mentioned percentages. Now my interpretation is that a 1.0 rating is 1% of the nation that is monitored by the Nielsen system?

To us Brits, the American ratings system is just baffling.

 

[Slyfox696]

But you mentioned percentages. Now my interpretation is that a 1.0 rating is 1% of the nation that is monitored by the Nielsen system?

To us Brits, the American ratings system is just baffling.

The most commonly cited Nielsen results are reported in two measurements: ratings points and share, usually reported as: "ratings points/share". As of September 1, 2010, there are an estimated 115.9 million television households in the United States. A single national ratings point represents one percent of the total number, or 1,159,000 households for the 2010–11 season.[2] Nielsen re-estimates the number of TV-equipped households each August for the upcoming television season.

Share is the percentage of television sets in use tuned to the program. For example, Nielsen may report a show as receiving a 9.2/15 during its broadcast, meaning that on average 9.2 percent of all television-equipped households were tuned in to that program at any given moment, while 15 percent of households watching TV were tuned into that program during this time slot. The difference between rating and share is that a rating reflects the percentage of the total population of televisions tuned to a particular program while share reflects the percentage of televisions actually in use.[3]

Wikipedia is quite easy to use.

 

[FunKay the Inevitable]

My point was this: If 1 Million people watch a television programme then why isn't the rating 1.0. As Sly correctly said I was stupid, in this case I didn't fully pay attention to the OP and wasn't aware that they released the numbers of people too. Both of you were correct.

 

[Shocky]

It still is a silly system. When you have to redo a formula every year, it seems more like a pain then anything.