Jarrett on TNA Ratings

[Rome]

http://www.wrestlezone.com/news/article/jarrett-on-vince-for-him-to-call-us-reprehensible-is-laughable-75217

You can look at it from a number of factors. You look at where we’ve come. We’ve gone from a .7, .8 to a 1.3 on Spike network. You can look at ECW. They started in the high 2’s, and now they’re in the 1.2, 1.3 range – a tremendous drop. Smackdown you can’t really count because they’ve changed networks. They’ve had their issues, but as a matter of fact, they’ve done extremely well. You look at Raw. They went, over the last three or four years, they went from the 4’s to the 3’s, and now they’re back up there. So it’s an ebb and flow. And they tout themselves as the longest running series. It’s phenomenon that from 1993 to 2009, they’ve been on 17 years. They’ve got a 14-year, 15-year head start on us.

So am I satisfied? Absolutely, I’m very satisfied. Talk to the network heads at Spike TV and ask them. Am I happy? As a businessman, we’ve got to keep growing. We’ve got to keep growing the product internationally, domestically. We’ve got to keep hitting on all cylinders. So I think that’s maybe a two-sided question. I hope I’m articulating myself right.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm getting really sick and tired of WWE marks running off at the mouth like verbal diarrhea about how "poor" the ratings are for TNA. You compare it to RAW but it's like comparing apples to oranges – anyone can call something with 15 years less exposure a bust. It doesn't make it true, however.

The fact they're outdrawing your worst show isn't a knock on the program TNA puts out. If anything it's a knock on the worst program WWE puts out – ECW. Especially when you consider the fact TNA's nearly doubled it's viewership in less than three years.

TNA's ratings have steadily been on an incline and when they reach a cap to which they can't break out, switching networks by signing a major deal with a nationally broadcast channel may be the best way to push them into a higher realm of competition.

Competition is the only thing that's going to save the wrestling business.

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I'd be more impressed if people didn't say how impressive it was. It's not really. The show should draw more than ECW. It has Sting, Kurt Angle, A.J. Styles, Samoa Joe, Team 3D, Scott Steiner and others. ECW has Paul Burchill, Christian, Finlay & Mark Henry.

The show is also on a Thurday. Who the fuck does anything other than watch TV on a Thursday?

And a quick look at the website tells me that tonight iMPACT is sandwiched between two UFC shows. I'm guessing more people watch them. I'm not intrested in ratings, but I am intrested in how many viewers they lose for those two hours.

I'm also not intrested in TNA ratings in general. They could do exactly what they're doing now with the promotion but be drawing the same as Raw. It wouldn't make the show any good.

 

[Rome]

I don't understand why people like you watch TNA only to say you hate it – it makes absolutely no sense to me. Why willingly put yourself through something you know is only going to aggravate you? Just to complain about it to people who don't care about your negative criticism anyway?

Try this next time – you don't like TNA? Fine... what can TNA do to fix that?

Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bitch about not liking something. People do it every day in this country when they talk about how they hate the politicians in charge. How many of those same useless complainers actually go out and do something about it?

 

[Y 2 Jake]

I don't understand why people like you watch TNA only to say you hate it – it makes absolutely no sense to me.

How do I know if I'll hate it if I don't watch it?

Why willingly put yourself through something you know is only going to aggravate you?

It doesn't aggravate me. I watch it and I think it's shit. I'm not annoyed by it, I just think it's a waste.

Just to complain about it to people who don't care about your negative criticism anyway?

It's a forum. The point of a forum is to give you place where you can discuss your views on certain subjects. I don't think TNAs ratings are impressive at all, you do. It's boring if everybody agrees with each other.

Try this next time – you don't like TNA? Fine... what can TNA do to fix that?

What can I do? I have no idea. I suppose I could move country and get a job with them, I suppose.

Any Tom, Dick, or Harry can bitch about not liking something.

Wait, aren't you bitching about my original post?

People do it every day in this country when they talk about how they hate the politicians in charge.

I'm indifferent to British politicians. I don't vote. Why you may ask. Don't I want to make a difference? No I don't. My vote isn't important. My vote doesn't effect anything. I'm allowed to be like that because the majority of people aren't.

How many of those same useless complainers actually go out and do something about it?

Give me a rough guide as to how I'll go to TNA and improve them and I'll do it. You're paying my expenses.

 

[klunderbunker]

I could see this going either way. TNA's ratings being on the same level as ECW isn't much to say. ECW is the minor leagues of WWE and everyone knows it. Now if TNA was competing with Smackdown, this would be a completely different story.

TNA's steady growth is indeed a good sign. However, it doesn't mean anything unless they can continue it for a long time. It amazes me that this company is less than 7 years old. It's more successful than ECW ever was and it'll likely make it to ten years at least. They ahve a decent product that people watch in a good timeslot on a network that supports them.

That being said, they ahven't really proven anything yet. They haven't proven that they can go toe to toe with WWE yet because ECW is a far cry from Raw or Smackdown. If you put the two shows on at the same time, TNA would get massacared. They've done well so far, but that doesn't mean a lot. If they can maintain and grow on this, then it will mean a lot more.

 

[Rome]

I could see this going either way. TNA's ratings being on the same level as ECW isn't much to say. ECW is the minor leagues of WWE and everyone knows it. Now if TNA was competing with Smackdown, this would be a completely different story.

TNA's steady growth is indeed a good sign. However, it doesn't mean anything unless they can continue it for a long time. It amazes me that this company is less than 7 years old. It's more successful than ECW ever was and it'll likely make it to ten years at least. They ahve a decent product that people watch in a good timeslot on a network that supports them.

That being said, they ahven't really proven anything yet. They haven't proven that they can go toe to toe with WWE yet because ECW is a far cry from Raw or Smackdown. If you put the two shows on at the same time, TNA would get massacared. They've done well so far, but that doesn't mean a lot. If they can maintain and grow on this, then it will mean a lot more.

Again – WWE has a 15 year head start. That trickles down even to their lowest rated program. They've got fans who watch WWE simply because it's WWE. Not because it's good. It's a household name. If your a Giants fan and your team sucks this year – do you stop watching because they suck? No – because you're a Giants fan.

Let's come back to this after TNA's had 4 or 5 years of television exposure.

Doubling your ratings in your first three years is an accomplishment.

The only reason WWE marks don't acknowledge it is because it hasn't managed to usurp one of it's flagship programs the way WCW was able to. Problem is – the only reason WCW was able to is because they had a multi-billionare funding them to no end which allowed them to literally steal the competition's talent. Hogan, Hart, Hall, Nash, Savage, Luger, Hennig, Jarrett, Sid Vicious, both Steiner's, and Bigelow (for example) all cut their teeth under Vince before jumping ship.

This is success through long-term progression. Patience is a virtue.

 

[JohnTheRed]

Hi guys, am new to this forum so hopefully wont step on too many toes with my first post.

I think all in all TNA should be proud with the strides they have made in the last 7 years. Granted the product isnt as refined and established as WWE, but that i to be expected given how long the WWf/WWE has been around.

I dont get to see much of TNA, what I have seen has impressed me, I'm a big Kurt Angle fan, Sting has that nostalgic value and I think their X-Division is what the WWE cruiserweights wanted to be. AJ Styles is amazing in the ring.

However even with all those positives TNA does have a major problem, their creative and writing team. At times it comes across sloppy and confused by its own direction or lack there of. (exapmles would be Rhyno's use in the frontline, one week he is a main eventer the next he's back to midcard/tag team action)

Over all the product is moving forward if it can continue to develope and perhaps sharpen its creative process and develope some of its homegrown talent a little more then it could start to draw more and more.

 

[Garrett]

I'd be more impressed if people didn't say how impressive it was. It's not really. The show should draw more than ECW. It has Sting, Kurt Angle, A.J. Styles, Samoa Joe, Team 3D, Scott Steiner and others. ECW has Paul Burchill, Christian, Finlay & Mark Henry.

We all know that if ECW didn't have the WWE brand attached it wouldn't draw any more than .7 (and that's being generous) and I consider ECW WWE's best TV show by the way. The growth in TNA's ratings in a relatively short time is really impressive and by the looks of it they are going to continue to grow and that is only good for the wrestling business.

 

[butsecks]

jarrett is right. ECW started at 2's and now are down to 1.3's...yea tna has 1.3's, but their climbing up...nothing is more embarrassing than your ratings going down rather than up.

And the TNA show isn't a bad one. i'd rather watch TNA than WWE, which is what ive been doing as of late. WWE is trash, just like their final main event match at 'mania.

 

[Jordan adams]

Tna is doing okay for them selfs when comes to ratings but what is going to happen Steiner, booker t, kevin nash, sting, and Mick foley retire. The need to really to start pushing Samoa Joe , AJ Styles, chris sabin, alex shelly, and jay lethal and others.

 

[Rome]

They are. Shelley, Sabin, Styles, and Joe have been being put over for weeks. Joe just squashed Angle two weeks ago. The torch is being passed.

Daniels will be returning on top of it all. They're in good shape.

 

[Sivsyboi]

I know this is kind of unrelated but this seemed the best place to put it (Cause ppl were talking about ratings, UK and TNA)

I looked around and found that TNA's ratings in England (On Bravo) have suddenly swung their way. I mean back in March, Smackdown lost around 12,000 viewers on a replay but TNA gained about 12,000. I'm wondering, is TNA increasing viewers faster in USA or England?

Oh, and TNA's ratings are increasing really well for a self-sustained, national company. Give these guys a break. They're a national company who, since breaking away from NWA, have been thriving off their fans. If WWE go through a serious dry patch, they can make it. They have an incredible amount of money already built up. But in TNA goes through a dry patch then they're gonners.

By dry patch I mean stuff like: Creative really sucking, A sudden loss of cash flow, fans ditching them for the other company (Basically WWE right now are in a heavy dry patch).

And Finally. What Jarrett said about Smackdown's ratings not counting. Smackdown, at first, was pulling in 7's (5 years ago). And have gone down to High 3's downwards. If TNA increase at the rate they are now, then in 5 years they'll be a modern WCW

 

[Tenta]

I couldn't agree more.

Oh, here we go...

I'm getting really sick and tired of WWE marks running off at the mouth like verbal diarrhea about how "poor" the ratings are for TNA.

Those aren't marks... those are realists.

You compare it to RAW but it's like comparing apples to oranges – anyone can call something with 15 years less exposure a bust. It doesn't make it true, however.

It's actually not that different as you perceive. Raw is the WWE's mainstay. Impact is TNA's mainstay. The majority of creative and star power goes to both shows. Impact puts of all of its creative juices into Impact.

The fact they're outdrawing your worst show isn't a knock on the program TNA puts out. If anything it's a knock on the worst program WWE puts out – ECW. Especially when you consider the fact TNA's nearly doubled it's viewership in less than three years.

Of course they have... People aren't stupid. TNA has added Kurt Angle, Sting, Booker T, Team 3D and many others. That's not most of people's problem with TNA. The problem lies in how these stars are due to either retire or move back to the WWE after their contracts are up. Thatd be like a combination of the Undertaker, John Cena, Trips, and Chris Jericho all retiring next year. Wouldn't you then say the WWE is in deep shit?

TNA's ratings have steadily been on an incline and when they reach a cap to which they can't break out, switching networks by signing a major deal with a nationally broadcast channel may be the best way to push them into a higher realm of competition..

That's never going to happen. You will NEVER find pro wrestling on network broadcasting, at least on the weekly basis you're asking for, and Spike is already a national broadcasted channel for cable. Simply put, TNA is best staying put on Spike.

Competition is the only thing that's going to save the wrestling business.

No..... good competition is going to help save the wrestling business. A battle of mediocrity is only going to keepus on the downward spiral we're already in.