Ratings: Facts & Charts - TNA in 2012

[Shadow of Darkness]

As we just finished kicking off the first Impact Wrestling episode of 2013, it's time to look back at the ratings for 2012 which have been a hot debate here and on many other wrestling websites.

Below are some visual charts comparing 2011 ratings to 2012 ratings.
{thanks to http://www.tnainsider.com}

Below is chart comparing the year to year average rating for Impact Wrestling from 2006 through 2012.

Facts About This Year's TNA Impact Wrestling Ratings:
Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.1 since 2007.

Impact has not had this many episodes that drew less than a 1.0 since 2006.

Impact has not had a year-to-year rating average this low since 2006.

Impact Wrestling lost an average of 13% of it's Nielson ratings number in 2012.

Impact Wrestling lost an average of 19% of it's entire viewer demographic in 2012.

Impact rating dropped on the very first episode that was not written by Vince Russo. The first episode written solely by new creative team of Bruce Prichard, Dave Lagana and crew fell from a 1.19 to a 1.0 rating.

Vince Russo's highest impact rating of the year was a 1.35. The new creative team's highest impact rating in 2012 was a 1.15 rating.

Impact lost almost 17.8% of its viewers in just 7 episodes after Russo left the company.

Impact in 2012 had only 9 episodes out of the year that drew a 1.1 or greater rating. 6 out of the 9 episodes were written by Vince Russo.

April 12 - May 3 episodes of Impact, TNA had their first consecutive episodes of Impact Wrestling that scored less than a 1.0 rating since the Monday Night Wars of 2010.

This string of episodes did not compete against the NFL, No SpikeTV blackout on Time Warner Cable and didn't compete against any new shows.

Debunking the NFL Myth:
Impact scored a higher rating during the first episode against NFL Thursday night football than the previous week without NFL competition. September 6 episode drew a 0.94 rating. September 13 episode against the NFL drew a 0.97 rating. The second week of NFL competition Impact drew a 1.01 rating. Higher than the first week of the two shows competing in the same time slot.

The last few episodes of Impact Wrestling in 2012 did not compete against NFL's Thursday night football and still failed to score anything higher than a 0.99 rating.

The Debate On The 8pm Timeslot Continues:
The debate on how the 8pm timeslot starting in May 31 continues. There is evidence supporting both sides of the debate. Most Impact shows before May 31 scored a 1.0 rating an above which is still below the average rating for Impact Wrestling. On the other hand, 4 out of 22 episodes of Impact Wrestling before the time change scored less than a 1.0 rating.

The Silver Lining Of Impact Moving To 8pm:
While some may say that the nail on the coffin was the move to 8pm starting May 31 2012, SpikeTV did increase on average 20-28% during the timeslot change. During the first few weeks of the year, UFC Unleashed was still being aired sporadically on the 8pm timeslot followed by a steady rotation of re-run Spike branded reality shows. The move to 8pm may not have been a major relief that some Impact fans were hoping for but it clearly has helped SpikeTV's bottom line when it comes to the prime time slot.

So, what do you guys say about this!

 

[Lady Sheamus]

I think analyzing statistics takes a measure of enjoyment out of wrestling. It's kind of funny how we IWC are focused on this like we're getting paid for it, or as though we're invested in the company in a way other than just as a consumer/viewer. Personally, I don't think ratings are always an indicator of quality, otherwise beloved shows that are actually good would never get cancelled (Farscape *sniffle*), but the situation is a bit worrying. In my opinion, in part, it's indicative of wrestling being in decline in general. In my opinion, TNA's been putting on a good program w/regards to the wrestling aspect, and have some very interesting talent, but apparently that's not enough. WWE does set the standard for most casual viewers, and if their quality goes down, for people who strictly think WWE = wrestling, or are led to think that given it is their primary or sole exposure, that can hurt the sport (yes, sport) overall. Of course, there's more to it than that, nor am I saying it's WWE's fault, but I think that does factor in somewhat. I'm a wrestling fan, so if any promotion is good, I can watch it all day, but there are those who act as though watching another promotion is tantamount to a betrayal and enjoy hating other promotions for merely existing. So even though those people complain about their preferred product, they refuse to watch anything else. Those are "fans" who could have an alternative if they wanted, which might increase TNA's rating. Not that that's the only reason why they wouldn't watch, and not to say that my latter theory is more likely. Frankly, I think it's many things at once. I was going to outline other reasons/theories that I've seen here numerous times, and perhaps I have above, so I'll just just say, copy and paste that. You can have the best show in the world, but sometimes it's not even a matter of people not being able to see it, it can be a matter of people simply having no interest in it, or no interest in it any longer.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

Impact dropped in 2012. There's no denying it. Thankfully for them it was only a small drop considering that their ratings aren't that high to begin with. I'm just frustrated that a better product doesn't equal better ratings. Maybe I'm wrong here, but I'd say 2012 was easily a much better year for TNA than 2011. Aces & Eights might have turned into garbage for a long time, but they'e still a whole lot less frustrating than Immortal. Bobby Roode's title reign, Austin Aries X-Division run, Jeff Hardy and Austin Aries, a far superior BFG series... It's ridiculous how much better 2012 was.

Here's the thing. TNA ratings dropped in 2012. WWE ratings, on average, dropped in 2012. I have numerous emails from indy promotions across the country talking about how their shows aren't drawing as well, and how their gates aren't drawing nearly as much money as they used to. I'm not one of those "end of the world" wrestling fans that claims to see the proverbial writing on the wall. It's all cyclical. We knew things were going to get worse before they got better. THe industry is continuing to fall, and they're going to have to adapt or die.

WWE adapted by "going PG" and making themselves a global titan in not only pro wrestling, but family entertainment. They've almost made themselves too big to fail. For now. TNA dropped 8 low-drawing PPVs and went to a live format. Those pre-recorded specialty shows are just extra revenue, because they're doing them before the remaining PPV's. No need for extra travel; their only expense is paying the workers. Who knows if it'll work. For all we know, TNA could be really hurting financially, and making emergency moves to try and save the farm. Honestly, either way is completely speculation at this point.

 

[jholcomb22]

One word: Ouch.

Worst ratings since '06. HGR, you claim it's only a small drop, but that small drop is 15%.
Impact is safe on tv because even with that low of ratings, it's still one of the highest rated shows on Spike.

As a company, however, I have to believe Impact wrestling is in trouble. They do very few shows on the road, they don't charge for tickets to any shows except pay per views, and they pay their wrestlers competitive wages.

I think the change to 4 pay per views and a handful of one night only events is a desperate attempt to cut down on costs and a last ditch effort to turn the company around before they go back to being an independent wrestling company airing solely on pay per view and local Comcast channels.

Unfortunately, their contents hit or miss. The Bobby Roode, Austin Aries, Jeff Hardy title scenarios that have played out the last few months has been awesome. Their BFG series is always entertaining as well. However this Aces and 8's angleis played out and they need to make Hogan's appearances more meaningful. Too many of their stories start and stop with no rhyme or reason. Velvet sky came back and then was off tv for a few weeks, no explanation. The entire commercial for Genisis is about Bully Ray, which is great because he has never been better as a singles wrestler, but there is the small problem that he is not scheduled in a match at the event. How does this make sense?

I do like TNA. It is an enjoyable alternative to WWE and fills the void on Thursdays. But I do fear the ice is getting more and more unstable beneath their feet.

 

[Rayne]

Impact is safe on tv because even with that low of ratings, it's still one of the highest rated shows on Spike.

While I don't believe that TNA is in any danger of being pulled from SpikeTV, this is a common misconception that needs clearing up.

Ratings aren't the 'end all, be all' measure of a program's profitability for a network. They're important, because they can be used as a measuring gauge for a show against itself, but when comparing profitability, you want to be looking at ratings vs. cost of production. Professional wrestling shows are typically expensive to produce.

Nitro was one of the most popular shows still on TNT when WCW was closed down, but it had an astronomical cost of production. You can't just be something interesting to watch; you have to keep costs down while you're doing it.

 

[chrisddusombre]

Yup rating are not everything at all just ask WCW ohh wait..... You cant...

Face it people ratings are everything if you don't get a draw on a network then why is the network going to bother giving you TV time? Impact is getting better in many ways hence the heel face turns that happened every week are no longer happening so frequently. The main events are getting better! The only thing is that Hulk and his daughter should not be involved in any storylines whatsoever.. Now before you pick apart what I just said think of this.. Hulk your time has come and gone and it's time to move aside and see the younger talent get pushed for once!!! There is only 2 things I love about Impact.

1. Knockouts (Best Female Wrestling Period!!!!

2. SO MANY FRESH FACES!!!!!

 

[Jack-Hammer]

When it comes to ratings, 2012 was a rough year for TNA and WWE. Both companies suffered from some of the usual problems including lackluster storylines and highly questionable booking at times.

Both companies have also been going through a transitional period that really seemed to begin last summer with Impact Wrestling going live & changing its timeslot and Raw going to 3 hours. The past several months, both TNA and WWE have had a lot of competition to deal with, mostly from football but from other shows as well. So yeah, as far as the tv numbers go, both companies had pretty lousy years in 2012, especially during the last 3 or 4 months of the year.

With the start of a new year though, TNA is still in the midst of a transitional period, but the numbers are better than they've been in a long time. The first IW of the year scored a 1.14 rating and 1.6 million viewers, something TNA hasn't done in a while. Even though last week's show was back in the very low 1s and 1.3 million viewer range, things are being shaken up a bit. TNA is only having four regular ppvs a year now, which has some excited and some worried. TNA will also be filming four episodes, I think, from London soon. For WWE, it's the beginning of WM season and Raw scored its biggest numbers in months this past Monday.

I don't think that TNA has much to worry about as far as being dropped by Spike. Despite Spike consistently touting itself as a network for men, they don't really have very many hit shows. For instance, this past Thurday, Impact Wrestling was the only show on Spike's roster to rank among the top 100 most watches shows on all of cable for the day.

 

[Slyfox696]

Let's see...TNA hired Vince Russo in September of 2006. They parted ways early in 2012. I see an upward trend in rating throughout Russo's time, and once they got rid of him, a downward trend.

Of course, this is nothing new, I've said this all year. So much for the IWC notion Vince Russo doesn't know what he's talking about.

 

[Shadow of Darkness]

Let's see...TNA hired Vince Russo in September of 2006. They parted ways early in 2012. I see an upward trend in rating throughout Russo's time, and once they got rid of him, a downward trend.

Of course, this is nothing new, I've said this all year. So much for the IWC notion Vince Russo doesn't know what he's talking about.

absolutely true brother. The fact that most people here will disagree is that Russo helped in putting TNA on the map. Let me take you back 1 long year in this specific forum, people were bashing TNA for its ratings. Actually they were bashing Russo, because only a percentage of IWC like the Russo style of show. Then the changes came along and people here started chanting the names of Prichard and Lagana as the saviors of TNA.
Prichard and Lagana officialy started writing after LockDown. Amazingly the first episode under this new team scored less than 1.0 ratings. None of the episodes' ratings before Lockdown were down below 1.0. But after that TNA had most awful ratings since MNW 2. LockDown was on April 15 which is 15th week of 2012. See that in the picture above, ratings started dropping after week 15.
But most surprising thing came when TNA's ratings went on going down and down, and quiet surprisingly none of the people here started a thread on that. Amazing! Most important thing to say: TNA under Russo with their taped episodes scored much more ratings than TNA under Prichard with their LIVE episodes. What a Comparison!!!

 

[Weems2k]

The IWC knobs, and Wrestlezone Idiots take the ratings way too seriously, especially for Impact. Really, why is there always a quarter hr breakdown for Impact, yet not for Raw? You want to talk about losing a huge chunk of viewers? Wasn't Raw doing like upper 3's at the start of last year, and now they're getting into the 2's? Impact, while not has high as 2011, has been pretty consistent with their numbers. Also, just because a show doesn't draw high, doesn't make it a bad show. Just look at all the reality TV crap shows out there, yet for some reason seem to draw high numbers.

 

[Danger Burger]

The IWC knobs, and Wrestlezone Idiots take the ratings way too seriously, especially for Impact. Really, why is there always a quarter hr breakdown for Impact, yet not for Raw? You want to talk about losing a huge chunk of viewers? Wasn't Raw doing like upper 3's at the start of last year, and now they're getting into the 2's? Impact, while not has high as 2011, has been pretty consistent with their numbers. Also, just because a show doesn't draw high, doesn't make it a bad show. Just look at all the reality TV crap shows out there, yet for some reason seem to draw high numbers.

You have to imagine theres a corelaion between quality and the ratings.

If the show is good- people will enjoy it, if they enjoy it- they will watch it, if they watch it- the rating goes up... no?

IWwhat? I cant hear you over that very tall horse. You can get quarter hour breakdown for Raw just as easily as for TNA. You sound like the people here are attacking TNA by providing statistical information. Not the case.

I think you're mixing up ideas of quality with ideas of artistry. Good drivel is still good.

Anyways, tough year for TNA but I did my best to tune in each week. Enjoyed it for the most part too. Its strange ten years in, but the show seems alot like its still trying to find its place.

Positives on the horizon however, live shows and longer builds and the fact that old people die has me expecting an insignificant rise in the numbers for this time next year. Cheers for the info buddy!

 

[Papa Pillman]

Both companies have also been going through a transitional period that really seemed to begin last summer with Impact Wrestling going live & changing its timeslot and Raw going to 3 hours.

Those are the key words... Transitional Period.

Both the WWE and TNA have been in a transitional period in 2012. Both changed their timeslots to begin a 8pm instead of nine. And more importantly both had a major change in their behind the scenes structure, with TNA shifting to the leadership of Bruce Pritchard and WWE removing John Laurinaitis as well as handing increasingly more responsibility to Hunter. With the these changes there has also been a shift in the story structure and the talent that is being pushed.

It will take the audience a little time to adjust, and it will take time to create new viewers as well, but surely both companies recognized that and were willing to make the sacrifice for now in hopes that it would pay off for the future.

If anything the transition has gone smoother for TNA than WWE. While they have dropped, Impact's ratings have still stayed within a much closer striking distance of their last couple year's averages than the WWE's ratings have.

Both are in a good position right now as well. Impact has come out of the gate for the new year looking strong, both with product quality and with the viewership number. WWE is also in good shape right now, as the Wrestlemania hype season automatically pulls the casual fan back into the mix and they just need to deliver a solid product and build on that momentum to keep those fans around post-mania.

I think despite the recent downward trend in Nielsen ratings(which are an outdated way of classifying a product's popularity to begin with) both companies are much better positioned for the future than they were 2-3 years ago.

 

[Lady Sheamus]

The IWC knobs, and Wrestlezone Idiots take the ratings way too seriously, especially for Impact. Really, why is there always a quarter hr breakdown for Impact, yet not for Raw? You want to talk about losing a huge chunk of viewers? Wasn't Raw doing like upper 3's at the start of last year, and now they're getting into the 2's? Impact, while not has high as 2011, has been pretty consistent with their numbers. Also, just because a show doesn't draw high, doesn't make it a bad show. Just look at all the reality TV crap shows out there, yet for some reason seem to draw high numbers.

I can identify with the above, because I very much think that quality does not always = ratings. There is no one who can tell me that Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of [Wherever], Basketball Wives, etc. is "good" tv, except from an voyeuristic standpoint. Frankly, most reality shows are crap, showing us the bottom barrel of humanity so that the viewer can gratify themselves by feeling they're above all that. In that way I guess those kinds of shows do serve a purpose (the aforementioned), and some people are just entertained by such a trainwreck of "entertainment", I still don't consider it quality television. It appeals to the lowest common denominator; ironically, that's how some people look down their nose at wrestling.

There is a popular phrase in the African-American vernacular: it's called "throwing shade". Not at all implying the OP's intent, but for some, bringing up these ratings can be a way to cast aspersions on TNA as a promotion, because, given my earlier example about people's hypocrisy when it comes to the way they view the two, some people are all too quick to jump on any negative thing and use it stroke their superiority complexes. Which I find weird considering that they're feeling superior about being a fan of one thing as opposed to something else.

General decline in interest in pro-wrestling and the changes that are taking place, are some of the main factors, I think. TNA's trying to be smart by trying new things, and by having the reality television aspect to their show.

 

[Slyfox696]

I can identify with the above, because I very much think that quality does not always = ratings. There is no one who can tell me that Jersey Shore, Real Housewives of [Wherever], Basketball Wives, etc. is "good" tv, except from an voyeuristic standpoint. Frankly, most reality shows are crap, showing us the bottom barrel of humanity so that the viewer can gratify themselves by feeling they're above all that.

Yes, but the entire point of pro wrestling is to garner ratings. The higher ratings you have, the more fans you have. The more fans you have, the more likely they'll buy your PPV and the more you can charge for advertising.

You're right, as a blanket rule ratings are not always indicative of quality. But in pro wrestling they are. Over time, if your product is entertaining people will watch. If it's not entertaining, people will quit watching. And the only way to tell if a pro wrestling show is good is if it is entertaining.

So, at the end of the day, quality = ratings.

 

[Weems2k]

Too bad most of the wrestling fans today have moved onto UFC/MMA. The only thing keeping Raw's rating up is name recognition basically. WWE brand has been around for over 30 years. Wrestlemania, and The Super Bowl are becoming more, and more similar each year. It's the hype, and spectacle that draws ppl there. I can guarantee you that 80% of the ppl at Mania have no clue about wrestling, just like the Super Bowl.

 

[dukes07]

Ratings are a good indicator of overall health of a program, but it is not overly indicative of its economic health. TNA does well overseas and there is merchandise and house shows to take into account (not sure if they declined) and they must be making some money on PPV's otherwise why would they produce them? Also, they get money from Dixie's parent company as well as Spike.

This does not mean they don't have issues. I thought the product got a lot better at times this year. But I still question Hardy as champion. Hopefully he is moving a lot of merchandise because I am sure he is not cheap and so I understand putting the belt on him to get more bang for the buck. But it does not even move the ratings meter and has even lowered it. Not saying it is Jeff's fault but it seems silly to keep all these expensive guys and the return seems questionable.

I plan on watching Impact this week but every time they take a positive step forward we get some shit like Brooke Hogan clogging up the TV screen with a love triangle between Bully and her dad. It is not only creepy but stupid. Just wrestle dammit! On that note I will say that TNA has a shitload of great talent and they can put on some solid PPV's.

 

[braveh]

With Impact I don't know that it's relevant to discuss the overall rating. There is roughly a million viewers that tune every week and that has been the case since 2007. They need to grow that number.

The overall rating is more about how long the viewers stay on while the number of viewers show you whether they're doing a good job promoting the show.

In early 2011 Impact actually had episodes that did 1.8 million viewers. They had more viewers than Ultimate figher on spike! Let's not forget that controversy is good in some ways and they had Hardy's meltdown back then.

Last night they had 1.30 million viewers. For comparison the the NBA game on TNT did 1.45 million

@Shadow of Darkness Vince Russo has not been the head writer or in charge of "creative" (what? 2 or 3 writers?) at all for all these years. The only exceptions are the months leading into BFG 2009 and when he helped Jeff Jarrett to establish the company in 02-04. You can tell that he was writing a lot of the stuff but he wasn't calling the shots.

 

[Lady Sheamus]

Too bad most of the wrestling fans today have moved onto UFC/MMA.

This was something I was thinking to mention as well but didn't. I think there is something to the rising/current popularity of MMA. And some people don't care to watch both. As bad as things are between different promotions in the same sport, I know there are some MMA fans who look down on wrestling as fake. I enjoy them both.

Also, I think about the other countries that watch Impact/other TNA programming and how those numbers factor in. In any case, I think it's a matter of perspective, for if I were Spike I would be focused on the ratings, but if I worked for TNA (though it would be impossible to ignore the ratings), I would moreso be looking at how we are performing collectively worldwide. Then again, if I worked for Spike and Impact was the highest performing show with only a million and a handful I'd be worried about the channel overall.

 

[dukes07]

Spike is a mess. Their programming is not that good. They don't do a good job promoting TNA nor have they adapted to the times by having original comedies or dramas, and then you could do some cross promoting. They have effed up advertising time changes. They randomly nix TNA shows before they get off the ground. In fact I could see Impact being 3 hours....But anyway, they change the time for some reason and when the replay of Impact garnered high ratings, they nixed that too as they thought it took away Thursday ratings (then Monday) and didn't seem too. Basically I could run their ship a lot better.