Raw vs iMPACT! ratings discussion thread

[Ambiguous Turd]

In fact, you're STILL putting a PR spin on it with your final comment. The overall rating is an average of the entire show, it's the meat within the overall that really shows the insight into how well either company did. RAW didn't do the same rating as with Timbaland at all. They did a 3.5 the first hour and a 3.7 the second hour, and they had the highest number of viewers for RAW since sometime last August.

And that is by no means impressive since WWE actually did higher ratings using one of their own when Orton punted McMahon and DDT'ed Stephanie. So you mean to tell me after all these years of Bret Hart being gone from the company, and being involved in the most famous WWE incident in history, they couldn't produce a higher show rating from when Orton punted McMahon?

Um, yeah. Not saying what WWE did was a bad rating, but given the fact that Bret Hart was hyped for weeks on TV and a month on the Internet, yes it was very much a disappointment and Vince has obvious reasons to be upset.

You Fail.

See my above response to Reddannihilation for your answer.

So, as you can see by the numbers, you’re still doing a PR spin. Unopposed to RAW, yes, TNA did great numbers for one night but going head to head with RAW they lost all their audience except for what they’ve been averaging for years now.

Actually, no that isn't the case at all.

Because you are assuming the TNA audience and the WWE audience are completely different. There are a lot of cross-viewers who watch both. We don't just have TNA fans and WWE fans. Much of those ratings for both WWE and TNA come from the "same fans", via cross-viewership.

Impact's average show rating as of the past couple months has been a 1.05, as the rating fluctuates between a 1.0 and a 1.1 on a regular basis.

Let's talk about head to head and look at the numbers again.


iMPACT

Hour 1: 1.69 (higher than average 1.05 rating)
Hour 2: 1.44 (higher than average 1.05 rating)
Hour 3: 1.22 (higher than average 1.05 rating)


So looking at this, this means that despite going head to head with Raw, all 3 hours of Impact still did higher than average ratings for a taped and un-opposed Impact on Thursday nights.

So despite there being massive competition, TNA not only held their ground against Raw, they actually still did better than what they normally draw.

What this means is that WWE is vulnerable because the Impact audience stayed firm and actually did higher than usual. Plus, being that TNA has more new things to offer at this point than WWE does, WWE is especially vulnerable as excitement builds and word of mouth travels.


Here was Raw's ratings:

Hour 1: 3.51
Hour 2: 3.73


Raw did see a very small increase between Hour 1 and Hour 2. And yes, it is safe to assume that those viewers came over from Impact.

But, again if you compare the regular Impact audience on Thursday nights, and the ratings being higher than usual for all 3 of Impact's hours, who really took more viewers from who in the big picture this night?

If Raw ran un-opposed, they would have undoubtedly had almost all of Impact's viewers, and would have very likely scored between a 4.3 and a 4.7. That didn't transpire.

The fact that TNA, a small wrestling company, was able to not only hold its ground going head to head against Raw that night, but also surpassing the ratings the show usually does when running un-opposed shows me that the potential is there for them to further tap into WWE's market of Males 18-34 males, since that is actually TNA's actual specific target market.

So when examining all of these things together, TNA had the more successful night. And that is clearly why TNA and Spike TV is very happy, and Vince McMahon and WWE are disappointed.

Even the heads of the companies see things completely opposite of you, misterrob. So obviously, you just aren't seeing things the way they really are.

 

[NSL]

A 3.6 is pretty unimpressive, considering this was the show that every WWE fan said they had to see. A .1 increase is not a huge success, and for everyone that says so, I demand an apology for all the people saying a 1.1 to 1.2 jump for TNA is shit. I'll wait for it. My PM box is open.

I was fully expecting WWE to pull in a 4+, no matter how good the show was, simply because Bret was there. It didn't work out that way, so hopefully Vince wakes up, and realize he needs to put something better out there every week.

 

[MisterRob]

And that is by no means impressive since WWE actually did higher ratings using one of their own when Orton punted McMahon and DDT'ed Stephanie. So you mean to tell me after all these years of Bret Hart being gone from the company, and being involved in the most famous WWE incident in history, they couldn't produce a higher show rating from when Orton punted McMahon?

Um, yeah. Not saying what WWE did was a bad rating, but given the fact that Bret Hart was hyped for weeks on TV and a month on the Internet, yes it was very much a disappointment and Vince has obvious reasons to be upset.

You Fail.

How do I fail? You totally just proved my point, because you completely missed my point from before or totally ignored it so you could try to downplay RAW's rating. My entire argument was, in fact, that they did NOT do the same numbers as the week before with Timbaland. Nothing more, nothing less. You, in your entire comment, proved that I was exactly right and they didn't do the same rating.

So no, I didn't fail. You failed at catching what the argument even was, and you failed at proving whatever point you were trying to make.

Actually, no that isn't the case at all.

Because you are assuming the TNA audience and the WWE audience are completely different. There are a lot of cross-viewers who watch both. We don't just have TNA fans and WWE fans. Much of those ratings for both WWE and TNA come from the "same fans", via cross-viewership.

Impact's average show rating as of the past couple months has been a 1.05, as the rating fluctuates between a 1.0 and a 1.1 on a regular basis.

Let's talk about head to head and look at the numbers again.


iMPACT

Hour 1: 1.69 (higher than average 1.05 rating)
Hour 2: 1.44 (higher than average 1.05 rating)
Hour 3: 1.22 (higher than average 1.05 rating)


So looking at this, this means that despite going head to head with Raw, all 3 hours of Impact still did higher than average ratings for a taped and un-opposed Impact on Thursday nights.

So despite there being massive competition, TNA not only held their ground against Raw, they actually still did better than what they normally draw.

What this means is that WWE is vulnerable because the Impact audience stayed firm and actually did higher than usual. Plus, being that TNA has more new things to offer at this point than WWE does, WWE is especially vulnerable as excitement builds and word of mouth travels.

Are you completely inept? Maybe you're just clueless. Yes, TNA did higher numbers then they usually do for a regular TWO hour show on Thursday nights. This wasn't a regular TWO hour show on Thursday night for one, and they had a great deal more people watching, as well as a new direction, a ton of hype, and Hogan. So OF COURSE they should've done better then their usual, otherwise they would've failed miserably. But that's not even the point. The POINT is is that the audience TNA had in the first hour, and then in the second hour, they LOST by the time the show ended. Their product lost viewers, not gained them over the course of the night, while Monday Night RAW gained viewership throughout the night and by the end of the night had more viewers then they did by the end of the night the previous week. This isn't rocket science! It's not that hard a concept to grasp. I don't care if Impact ended up with 1.2 by the end of the night, because it's a number they've done countless times in the past. So they stopped sucking as much as in recent months and regained those who stopped watching, they still lost all of their NEW audience who looked at the product the first hour and the beginning of the second hour. How is that a good sign? How is that something to be happy with? If you want to gamble and make some profit, only to then lose it all by the end of the night, that's fine with me.. but I'd much rather do what RAW did and end the night better then they started off.

You can sugar coat things all you want, TNA certainly didn't have a LOSING night, and they certainly didn't end off WORSE then when they started, but they didn't steal any of the WWE's audience, and they didn't add any new interest that hadn't watched TNA before. And that to me, from a business standpoint, isn't a success. If that's how you do business, and you think that's growth.. or you think ending off with the same rating you did the year before, at this exact time, is GROWTH.. then I'm glad you're not working for me.

The true test of things will be the rating they get this Thursday and the following week, because if it's back to a 1.1 or a 1.2 then this argument is entirely meaningless.

Here was Raw's ratings:

Hour 1: 3.51
Hour 2: 3.73


Raw did see a very small increase between Hour 1 and Hour 2. And yes, it is safe to assume that those viewers came over from Impact.

But, again if you compare the regular Impact audience on Thursday nights, and the ratings being higher than usual for all 3 of Impact's hours, who really took more viewers from who in the big picture this night? If Raw ran un-opposed, they would have undoubtedly had almost all of Impact's viewers, and would have very likely scored between a 4.3 and a 4.7. That didn't transpire.

Oh, I get it.. so when it benefits TNA the audience is the same.. "Much of those ratings for both WWE and TNA come from the "same fans", via cross-viewership." said Sidious. But when it comes to WWE the viewership is separate and they weren't watching BOTH shows. No, not at all.

Since when has WWE ever gotten a 4.3 or a mindboggling 4.7 in the last who the hell knows how long? You're comparing what they got to your imagination. Wrestling doesn't have that kind of fan base anymore, they've moved on to MMA or elsewhere.

The fact that TNA, a small wrestling company, was able to not only hold its ground going head to head against Raw that night, but also surpassing the ratings the show usually does when running un-opposed shows me that the potential is there for them to further tap into WWE's market of Males 18-34 males, since that is actually TNA's actual specific target market.

Since when is TNA a small wrestling company? Is that another way to downplay TNA so this looks more impressive. They aren't an indy company anymore, sorry to tell you. They're on national television. They're backed by a huge company and run by it's little girl, Dixie Carter. They have a huge amount of money they're throwing into their company. They have a roster of some of the biggest names in wrestling's past. There's nothing about TNA that's small anymore, except the place they choose to run their shows out of and the fan base that isn't growing.

So when examining all of these things together, TNA had the more successful night. And that is clearly why TNA and Spike TV is very happy, and Vince McMahon and WWE are disappointed.

Even the heads of the companies see things completely opposite of you, misterrob. So obviously, you just aren't seeing things the way they really are.

Actually, TNA didn't care about the ratings, remember? So them being happy doesn't really matter because they weren't concerned about the ratings to begin with. Hogan certainly can't be happy, since he called for a 3 rating. Spike's only happy because TNA didn't get killed, but that has nothing to do with them actually improving.

And of course the WWE isn't happy, they wanted a higher rating. But I never claimed RAW did a great rating, nor was my argument that RAW wasn't disappointing, my point was that RAW ended up better then they had been previously and so that means they accomplished something. Isn't that the exact argument you're trying to make with TNA? If you're right, I must be right.. I mean, the proportions don't really matter, success is success. Better is better.

You fail.

 

[hitmanhart]

I'll keep this short and sweet. After watching both Impact and RAW this week and then seeing their respective ratings (1.5 and 3.6), it really gives the IWC the impression that TNA CAN actually compete with WWE. State what you think each show's rating will be next week and why you think so.

TNA: 1.8

I think TNA did a great job and IMO, 'won' on Monday night. They elevated their game big time and I'm really excited. I think Hardy was a HUGE acquisition that will bring over some of the younger fans to check out Impact.

WWE: 3.7

I think WWE's rating was rather disappointing. Not only did they have the Hitman back, but they also promoted his return BIG TIME. I thought that the actual 'show' was terrible. Besides the opening and closing segments, RAW was horrendous.. not even mediocre. That being said, I think that the news that Hart actually legitimately returned will garner some newer fans to actually tune in next week, resulting in a slightly larger audience. Tyson can't hurt either.

Your thoughts on what the ratings will be? Let's see who can be closest.

 

[Belladonna29]

Hmmm, I'm not much of a ratings buff ( I usually don't care about them overall), but here's my take on all of this.

While Raw did a high rating than they usually do, and definitively drew in alot of people for the Bret Hart segments, I'm not surprised to hear Vince and Co. unsatisfied with the final rating of 3.6.

Because despite the fact that TNA was going opposite of them w/ Hogan, the whole Montreal Screwjob and it's fallout had some much revolving around it for such so long, especially to longtime fans, bringing back Bret Hart was a a 4.0+ rating to them, GUARANTEED.

It will be interesting to see how Vince and Co, it they do at all.
Will they amp up the McMahon/Hart storyline in and unexpected way?
Will they tone down some of the corny comedy stuff that irritates some of the older fans who might be inclined to change the channel if TNA moves to Mondays?
Both companies will have to keep up some of the 'nostalgia pop' in the ratings somehow with people eventually getting used to seeing Hart and Hogan week after week.

While TNA could have declared a 'moral victory' just by having the guts to go oppose of Raw in the first place, the noticeable ratings rise is such a big deal to them because a.) it demonstrated that they could hold their own audience against Raw and b.) That they could possibly take some casual viewers away. I was expecting them to do a 1.2, so good for them.
They've got a heavy task in from of them to keep their buzz going, but at least it seems like Spike is behind them.

As for the fan reaction to the ratings, everyone is doing their relative 'spins' on things, but observing this as a mark for neither company, it's definitely the WWE Universe ( or whatever their called), doing more of it in this case.

Yeah, Hogan was running his mouth about Impact getting a 3.0 because he'd be there and subsequently backed off from, realizing how delusion he sounded.
While it's debatable whether he was 'joking' or not ( at least that's what TNA fans are insisting ) no one going to act like Hogan doesn't get caught up in his own hype and makes himself look foolish at times.
Impact pulling off a 3 wasn't going to happen because their publicity model, outside of the last month or so, as sucked for years and no amount of star power outside of The Rock and Stone Cold doing a run-in in the first hour was going to triple their ratings average.

The difference in the that WWE expecting a 4.0+ wasn't crazy at all because they are the major, mainstream brand of pro wrestling, and they were bringing in a iconic superstar that's been absent for the beginning of the end of a storyline 12 years in the making.

There were some TNA silly marks claiming that Impact could beat Raw if so and so showed up and blah blah blah, but I saw mostly modest predictions for the Impact ratings beforehand.

On the other hand, I encountered an excess of WWE fans who declared that their was no way TNA would even hold their regular audience against Raw, no matter what they did or who they brought in.
As in, they're not even going to get a 1.0, because who wants to see Hogan, when they can watch Hart?
But TNA proved, that for at least one night, they could hold their own, and that's good for all of us really, because when Vince has someone chasing him, the product usually gets better.

 

[onemandynasty08]

When it comes to the Raw rating, a 3.6 is not really anything to be impressed about. Raw got over a 4.0 when Donald Trump was up there for the commercial free edition of Raw. While commercial free might have had something to do with it, there was no way that Bret Hart returning shouldn't have sparked some sort of interest from old wrestling fans who had tuned out. While WWE did gain fans as the time went by, they set it up to happen that way. WWE has the same format where they promise something at the beginning of the night, and keep you watching to see what's going to happen later that night. The only thing however is that when you wait around for it to happen it's a letdown. Bret Hart was a good addition to Raw, and Raw did have some aspects, but RAW was not a show to put TNA away for good.

Also while this could be a good or bad thing for ratings, there was also a football game in progress during TNA and Raw. I believe that there are a good percentage of people who watch both wrestling and football. It's bad for wrestling, because those fans will just keep the football game on when they see trash, but good, because they will flip between wrestling and football at the same time. They are already in the mindset where they are watching tv, so it wouldn't be unlikely for them to flip the channels during commericial breaks.

While no one expected TNA to pull a 4.0 rating, they actually benefit from going head to head with wrestling. Monday night has generally been the night for wrestling for many years. So by airing on Mondays, they already have fans in the wrestling mindset. So fans who don't like what they see on Raw, can easily flip the channel to see something on another wrestling show that interests them. However, on Thursday Nights with no other wrestling shows been on, people have to remember that TNA is actually on. However on Monday nights, people are already watching wrestling, so TNA benefits from crossover audiences. 3 Million people actually tuned into to TNA at one point at least to see Hulk Hogan, so to say that he didn't do anything for TNA is an understatement. One thing however that I didn't notice TNA do on Thursday was to promote that they could be normally seen on Thursday Nights on Spike TV. They always commented on the special Monday Night 3 hour special, but there was little mention about Thursdays. Maybe I'm wrong.

When you put the ratings side by side, TNA got the better hand from going head to head with Raw, than Raw did from TNA. TNA saw a tremendous increase in their overall rating, however Raw just got an average rating. With Bret Hart being on Raw after 12 years, average is not good.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

How do I fail? You totally just proved my point, because you completely missed my point from before or totally ignored it so you could try to downplay RAW's rating. My entire argument was, in fact, that they did NOT do the same numbers as the week before with Timbaland. Nothing more, nothing less. You, in your entire comment, proved that I was exactly right and they didn't do the same rating.

You really are a head case, aren't you? Either that or arguing just to argue. Maybe both.

So apparently, I have to try a different technique this time. I will phrase it in the form of a question to you.

How high do YOU think Raw's rating would be if TNA was not running against them from 9-11 PM ? Do you think it would have stayed the same regardless?

So no, I didn't fail. You failed at catching what the argument even was, and you failed at proving whatever point you were trying to make.

No, we're going to make this point one way or another. You just don't want to accept the reality of the situation. Like I said, there is a reason why WWE and Vince are unhappy and why TNA and Spike TV are happy. So obviously, everyone else but YOU apparently, are seeing something different from what you are seeing. So have fun imagining things in your own little world.

Are you completely inept? Maybe you're just clueless.

Kind of the impression I have of you since you can't seem to grasp why the actual heads of companies like Vince McMahon is unhappy about the rating, and why Dixie, Bob Carter, Bischoff, Hogan, and Spike TV are all quite happy.

Yes, TNA did higher numbers then they usually do for a regular TWO hour show on Thursday nights. This wasn't a regular TWO hour show on Thursday night for one, and they had a great deal more people watching, as well as a new direction, a ton of hype, and Hogan. So OF COURSE they should've done better then their usual, otherwise they would've failed miserably.

And what about the WWE's hype of Bret Hart. Should they have not also done more impressive numbers as well, or do you think they should have stayed the same, after all the hype they gave on his return?

WWE usually does an average around 3.4 as of late. Therefore, they really only increased by a .2 average. Do you think that is all that impressive given someone like Bret Hart appearing on the show? That was only a .1 increase from when Jesse Ventura hosted the show. So would you consider Bret Hart appearing a success, or did something hinder that rating from getting much, much higher than it should have?

But that's not even the point.

It's exactly the point.

The POINT is is that the audience TNA had in the first hour, and then in the second hour, they LOST by the time the show ended.

They did lose viewers, yes. However your problem is that you are only looking at the numbers you see in front of the face. What I am looking at, as apparently what Vince McMahon, Bob and Dixie Carter, Spike, and everyone else is looking at what should WWE have really done between 9-11 PM if Impact did not go head to head with Raw?

Vince was clearly expecting above a 4.0. He did it with Donald Trump, and he also did it earlier in the year when Orton punted McMahon, AND DDT'ed Stephanie, with their own talent they already had.

So to say that Bret Hart DID NOT bring the number of viewers to WWE they were expecting in that show is a clear understatement.

Their product lost viewers, not gained them over the course of the night, while Monday Night RAW gained viewership throughout the night and by the end of the night had more viewers then they did by the end of the night the previous week.

Irrelevant. Because where as they did gain viewers from TNA, they also at the same time FAILED to take the number of viewers away from TNA that they should have taken away, because of Bret Hart.

That is why Vince is upset, because Bret did not draw enough viewers from TNA and too many wrestling viewers that night opted to stay with TNA from the get-go instead of switching over to Raw.

Like I said, there is a reason Vince is upset, and a reason why Spike, the Carters, and Hogan & Bischoff are happy ... and clearly you just don't get it, or are simply being stubborn. That's fine, too, btw. You can be stubborn. Because it doesn't mean you are right. And clearly people in the business have a better grasp at analyzing ratings numbers and dissecting them better than you do. Which is why all of them have a different opinion on the situation than you do.

This isn't rocket science! It's not that hard a concept to grasp.

I agree. You should have gotten it by now. We'll have to put you in the Below Average class so you can have more time to catch up.

I don't care if Impact ended up with 1.2 by the end of the night, because it's a number they've done countless times in the past.

The difference is that it was on a new night and running head to head against Raw. That makes a world of difference. Especially since everyone acknowledges that WWE and TNA viewers watch both shows.

So we can conclude that there were more viewers watching wrestling on Monday night than in a long time, and Impact gained more viewers compared to their average Thursday rating and benefited more from it while going head to head with MAJOR competition .... then what Raw benefited from having Bret Hart.

TNA benefited more from this Monday than what WWE did. Plain and simple.

You can sugar coat things all you want, TNA certainly didn't have a LOSING night, and they certainly didn't end off WORSE then when they started, but they didn't steal any of the WWE's audience, and they didn't add any new interest that hadn't watched TNA before. And that to me, from a business standpoint, isn't a success. If that's how you do business, and you think that's growth.. or you think ending off with the same rating you did the year before, at this exact time, is GROWTH.. then I'm glad you're not working for me.

Likewise I am glad you aren't working for me. I want someone who can identify strengths and opportunities for business, that has a clear grasp of trend as opposed to someone who is clueless about the big picture of what the data means, to be frank.

The true test of things will be the rating they get this Thursday and the following week, because if it's back to a 1.1 or a 1.2 then this argument is entirely meaningless.

We'll see.

If WWE is back to doing a 3.4 again, even with Bret Hart on board, then I think that would also prove to be a real test, as well.

Since when has WWE ever gotten a 4.3 or a mindboggling 4.7 in the last who the hell knows how long? You're comparing what they got to your imagination. Wrestling doesn't have that kind of fan base anymore, they've moved on to MMA or elsewhere.

Wrestling hit a 4.1 with Donald Trump and also hit a 4.1 on two occasions earlier in 2009 .... both of them involving Orton. So Bret Hart did not outdraw any of those shows.

Since when is TNA a small wrestling company?

LOL. Don't even go there. They can't even draw 1,000 fans to their house shows, and you want to make them like a big time player? Sure they do PPV. So does ROH, though. Now, is ROH a huge company?

And of course the WWE isn't happy, they wanted a higher rating. But I never claimed RAW did a great rating, nor was my argument that RAW wasn't disappointing, my point was that RAW ended up better then they had been previously and so that means they accomplished something. Isn't that the exact argument you're trying to make with TNA? If you're right, I must be right.. I mean, the proportions don't really matter, success is success. Better is better.

Better is better, correct. However TNA gained more than what WWE gained by going on Monday. Look at ratings averages at the end of the day, WWE only gained a ratings average of .2 while TNA gained a ratings average of a .5. Even if they didn't have the first hour, they would have gained a ratings average of .3. So it was still higher than the increase WWE received, and as the smaller company, it proved it could also take viewers away from WWE, as it did before Raw even started.

Again, what do you think Raw should have done if TNA wasn't on the air? Let's hear your logic here.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

Ultimately, both shows wound up taking viewers away from one another I believe. If TNA had aired such a show on Thursday instead of Monday, I think it could have drawn closer to a 2.0 in the Nielsen ratings. Had Raw not had competition, it might have drawn a 4.0 or more.

There are a few questions that still linger and there's still some speculation. A few "what ifs" scattered here and there. Between 8 and 9 pm, TNA drew a 1.7 rating with an audience of around 2.5 million people. That's about a million people more than TNA's average. The second and third hours of the show did see TNA lose viewers. Going from a 1.7 down to a 1.4 and then a 1.2 isn't a great sign. Did these viewers tune into the WWE? Probably not all of them but, then again, I'm only speculating.

In order for us to ultimately see where TNA stands, I think a straight up, two hour show vs. two hour show is going to have to be the final judge. Or, at least a 3 hour vs. 3 hour show. Can TNA generate big numbers overall head to head against Raw? I dunno really. Maybe, but then again maybe not. The second and third hours wound up drawing a 1.3. It's still above average, but it's not the record breaking night that TNA would have hoped for. Ultimately, it was the first hour of the show that gave TNA the ratings boost for the night.

 

[MisterRob]

You really are a head case, aren't you? Either that or arguing just to argue. Maybe both.

So apparently, I have to try a different technique this time. I will phrase it in the form of a question to you.

How high do YOU think Raw's rating would be if TNA was not running against them from 9-11 PM ? Do you think it would have stayed the same regardless?

You are most certainly the head case. What is so hard to grasp about the fact the argument you’re jumping in on with this subject is whether or not this past Monday’s RAW did the same numbers as Timbaland. That's the issue! That was the debate with him, nothing else. It had nothing to even do with the TNA ratings. And the answer is no, Timbaland didn’t draw the same numbers as Bret Hart. Simple as that.


But I will answer YOUR question at the bottom when you repeat it again.

No, we're going to make this point one way or another. You just don't want to accept the reality of the situation. Like I said, there is a reason why WWE and Vince are unhappy and why TNA and Spike TV are happy. So obviously, everyone else but YOU apparently, are seeing something different from what you are seeing. So have fun imagining things in your own little world.

Stay on topic, please!

Kind of the impression I have of you since you can't seem to grasp why the actual heads of companies like Vince McMahon is unhappy about the rating, and why Dixie, Bob Carter, Bischoff, Hogan, and Spike TV are all quite happy.

I am fully capable of grasping why Vince McMahon is unhappy with the rating; because he’s an ego maniac who expected to do higher ratings without making a better quality show. I’m also fully aware of why all of those involved in TNA are happy about the rating they received, but that still doesn’t make my point any less wrong.

And what about the WWE's hype of Bret Hart. Should they have not also done more impressive numbers as well, or do you think they should have stayed the same, after all the hype they gave on his return?

WWE usually does an average around 3.4 as of late. Therefore, they really only increased by a .2 average. Do you think that is all that impressive given someone like Bret Hart appearing on the show? That was only a .1 increase from when Jesse Ventura hosted the show. So would you consider Bret Hart appearing a success, or did something hinder that rating from getting much, much higher than it should have?

You’re entirely off topic again. When you try to counter someone’s arguments you should really know what’s being debated about in the first place, don’t you think? I wasn’t arguing that RAW did a good, impressive rating or exceeded expectations at all. I was explaining that TNA did not, in fact, gain NEW viewers by taking them away from RAW. That’s it. That was the point. And I’ll further prove my point below.

They did lose viewers, yes. However your problem is that you are only looking at the numbers you see in front of the face. What I am looking at, as apparently what Vince McMahon, Bob and Dixie Carter, Spike, and everyone else is looking at what should WWE have really done between 9-11 PM if Impact did not go head to head with Raw?

Vince was clearly expecting above a 4.0. He did it with Donald Trump, and he also did it earlier in the year when Orton punted McMahon, AND DDT'ed Stephanie, with their own talent they already had.

So to say that Bret Hart DID NOT bring the number of viewers to WWE they were expecting in that show is a clear understatement.

I’m still confused about how this has anything to do with my initial argument. I don’t really care what people ASSUMED RAW should’ve done, or the ratings Bret Hart shouldn’t drawn. That’s an imaginary number. That’s a fantasy. The facts are what happened and Bret Hart didn’t draw a 4, but the final number RAW did upon ending.. the audience it had at the end of the show that possibly will be hooked enough to tune in next week to see what’s going to happen was a 3.7.

And if they were expecting a 4, well okay, then that’s only .3 difference for what Bret Hart drew (because it was he and McMahon’s segment), isn’t it? By the same token, TNA ended with a 1.3. That was the audience that was still watching by the end of the night and that TNA has to hope was hooked enough to tune in again next week (or tonight, for that matter). That’s only a .3 difference from their average ratings of late. So I suppose if that’s a HUGE increase then yes, by the same logic the number the WWE got at the end of the night compared to what they HOPED they’d get would be a HUGE decrease. What TNA succeeded at would be what WWE failed to do. But that’s still an imaginary number WWE hoped to get.

And it still isn’t my initial point in the first place… which was the debate of whether TNA added a new audience to their program by taking away from RAW’s audience.

The difference is that it was on a new night and running head to head against Raw. That makes a world of difference. Especially since everyone acknowledges that WWE and TNA viewers watch both shows.

So we can conclude that there were more viewers watching wrestling on Monday night than in a long time, and Impact gained more viewers compared to their average Thursday rating and benefited more from it while going head to head with MAJOR competition .... then what Raw benefited from having Bret Hart.

TNA benefited more from this Monday than what WWE did. Plain and simple.

Yes it was on a new night, a night that is the main night for wrestling. And TNA brought all of their fans with them to boot! And yes, Impact gained more viewers then their average Thursday rating, before they lost far more then they had gained, something you don’t seem to be grasping. I don’t see how you can have proof they benefited more from it, either, as only their long term ratings will prove that.

The only proof of who benefited more from this Monday will be the next few weeks. Because if TNA drops back to their usual average ratings then they won’t have benefited at all. If WWE keeps their audience with this Bret Hart storyline and doesn’t drop again in the ratings to lower numbers they’ve gotten in past weeks, then they would’ve benefited just fine from Bret Hart and the Monday show.

Still, none of those things were my initial argument, which once again was: Whether TNA added a new audience to their program by taking away from RAW’s audience.

If WWE is back to doing a 3.4 again, even with Bret Hart on board, then I think that would also prove to be a real test, as well.

Yes it would. Very good!

Wrestling hit a 4.1 with Donald Trump and also hit a 4.1 on two occasions earlier in 2009 .... both of them involving Orton. So Bret Hart did not outdraw any of those shows.

True! Very good, again!

LOL. Don't even go there. They can't even draw 1,000 fans to their house shows, and you want to make them like a big time player? Sure they do PPV. So does ROH, though. Now, is ROH a huge company?

How is it anyone’s fault but their own that they can’t draw more then 1,000 fans to their house shows? Or that they give admission to the Impact Zone for free, for that matter. You comparing TNA to ROH is as laughable an argument as you acting like TNA is still a “small company”. They have a huge financial backing, they have Spike tv behind them, they have a far bigger fan base (by television ratings alone) then ROH, and they certainly have a far bigger roster and high profile roster then ROH. There’s nothing small about those things. No, they’re not a GIANT like WWE, but no one is.

Better is better, correct. However TNA gained more than what WWE gained by going on Monday. Look at ratings averages at the end of the day, WWE only gained a ratings average of .2 while TNA gained a ratings average of a .5. Even if they didn't have the first hour, they would have gained a ratings average of .3. So it was still higher than the increase WWE received, and as the smaller company, it proved it could also take viewers away from WWE, as it did before Raw even started.

Again, what do you think Raw should have done if TNA wasn't on the air? Let's hear your logic here.

How in the world do you take viewers away from something that isn’t even on the AIR yet? That doesn’t even make any sense. Think about that, please! What TNA did was draw in WWE viewers who were waiting to watch RAW and decided to watch TNA until the show started. Which is great! That is an unbelievable opportunity and something TNA had the chance to take full benefit of. They had a whole hour unopposed where either casual viewers or WWE fans were tuning in to see what they had to offer. Unfortunately, those viewers LEFT. Those viewers weren’t impressed and they stopped watching once RAW started. And the proof in them leaving and not having interest in going back to the product or giving TNA another chance after that initial hour is clear there in the ratings for Impact. Plain and simple. And no, the first hour doesn’t even count when you’re talking about them competing with the WWE and what they gained from it.


Impact ended with a 1.3 while RAW ended with a 3.7. Neither of those are numbers either company HASN’T done before.

But once again, I was arguing whether or not TNA added a NEW audience to their program by taking away from RAW’s audience. The simple truth is there to see. Yes, RAW could’ve done a 4 rating, and maybe they SHOULD’VE. Let’s say yes, they should’ve done at least a 4 rating. That audience clearly was TNA fans who usually tune into RAW because TNA isn’t on Monday nights (and it’s been made clear there’s fans who do, indeed, watch both shows but had to choose this week), and so those fans chose to watch TNA and not RAW. So yes, RAW may have indeed lost an audience that ‘could’ve been but wasn’t’. But the important thing isn’t whether RAW didn’t get the audience they wanted, because they clearly got fine numbers and are on top of the mountain and don’t need to worry about getting ratings as drastic as TNA needed to worry about it this Monday in their quest to compete. RAW’s ratings are always in the 3’s, they always have three times the audience TNA has (and did this week, too). The point is whether TNA took viewers from RAW and gained a NEW audience, because that’s what the whole point of Monday was.

The answer is very insightful and troubling, I find, because it's the simple fact that at the end of the night TNA LOST more then they GAINED while in direct competition with RAW! They went from a 1.9 to a 1.3 over the course of those two hours. That’s a loss of .6. So yes, they may have gained .3 from their usual, average rating as of late… but they lost .6 of an audience they had. Where do you think that audience went? Who stole viewers away from TNA? I don't know. So when you look at what TNA didn’t do, I think that’s far more of a loss then the .3 RAW could’ve lost if you want to toss out an imaginary number that wasn’t actually there, because the truth is RAW didn't lose an audience they never had on Monday night. And that’s why I don’t think TNA has the momentum at all, or they benefited more then RAW. Because TNA's loss shows the problems with their product and how people stopped watching because of it.

But that’s just my opinion!

 

[JJYanks121]

I'm not going to do the quote thing because honestly, I haven't yet put it the time to learn how to multi quote. However, I do posess an excellent memory and I'm going to try and attack this thing head on. What I am going to try to focus on are things that haven't been discussed yet but are essential.

1) Ratings are a nice comparison, but they don't make you any money. TNA especially should understand this since they don't sell tickets to TV tapings and thereby do not make a ton of money from it (I say a ton because I'm sure they make a percentage off food sales and they certainly sell merchandise which makes a few bucks). Money is made by a wrestling company from live shows and Pay Per View sales. As of now, TNA sells very few tickets to house shows (I live in NY and their sales for small venues of a couple of thousand people are scarce) and their PPV buys are still quite low. What I am interested to see is not how TNA did in their biggest show to date, but how that show will effect PPV buys. The idea of TV is to entice the viewer to buy the PPV to see the best matches and see stories settled. Let's see if they can do it.

2) Next Thursday will be an interesting day. That will be the first show TNA will air after their big blowout. This week's show was a repeat so I'm not going to care about those ratings, but next week will be important to see. There is no direct competition, no football games, nothing competing with it. However, it was taped Tuesday so some of us have already read the results. Outside of that factor, there is nothing stopping the casual viewer from tuning in to Spike to see the fallout from this past Monday. That episode will say a lot because it will let us know whether that episode enticed people to start watching TNA more often. I know that TNA lost viewers as the show went on, either to Raw or the Fiesta Bowl or somewhere else. But let's take the highest amount of viewers, the 1.7 or the 2 and a half million people who watched the show at its peak number. How many of those loyal fans and "samplers" will be tuning in to stick with the show? If their next 2 hour broadcast gets a 1.5, I might be impressed, but I'll go on record and say that I doubt it and I wouldn't be surprised if the maximum rating it gets is the 1.22 it got in the 3rd hour of the live Impact.

3) TNA put A LOT of money into marketing their live show. I saw more commercials for Impact than for any wrestling show I could ever remember (not including PPVs). Advertising can bring in business, but it costs money in that attempt to make money. For that one show, a lot of advertising was done starting a month in advance. Most wrestling programming is essentially advertised on the internet and word of mouth. What I mean is, it's not often the wrestling community truly reaches out for viewership. Raw's celebrity guest host concept might garner its own publicity as the hosts promote themselves and their appearance, but that's about the extent of it.

Keep in mind that non wrestling hosts can potentially draw higher ratings than former wrestlers or wrestling personalities because they have the ability to draw in mainstream viewers who are only tuning in to see a favorite actor, athlete, etc. It is a longshot, but WWE hopes that kind of viewer actually gets into the product and stay week to week to watch as a result of being pulled in by an outside source.

As evidenced by consistent ratings, that's probably not the case, but the point I'm getting to is the advertising of Hogan vs. the advertising of Bret Hart. Hogan was all over the place. They had a big press conference, made billboards (yes I saw one in NYC), had commercials, etc. Bret Hart was officially announced a week before the show albeit being teased for a few weeks, and outside of the typical Raw commercials on USA, really wasn't advertised much. I promise you there was no Bret Hart billboard in the city.

You also have to factor in Hogan as a celebrity. This is a man who had a reality show, who's family has been all over the gossip pages, whose daughter has her own show, who makes appearances on Howard Stern, and whose name is known by pretty much anyone with a pulse. Bret Hart is big in the wrestling community, but outside of it, not so much. Maybe 10 years ago, but now, his name is no bigger than John Cena. Therefore, to expect such a drastic ratings increase with a man no more popular in today's culture than your current stars is ludicrous. That can only fall on WWE for having too high of expectations and to merely expect it without working for it. Perhaps if a greater marketing effort was put forth, that 4.0 could have been achieved, but it was not. Essentially Bret replaced Cena and WWE's rating was just about where it's been. TNA on the other hand marketed the shit out of Hogan as stated before. They did everything in their power to beg for viewers.

Even with that effort, at the start of the show with no competition from sports (bowl started at 8:30) or other wrestling programs, the maximum rating we are talking about is a 1.7 or 2.5 million viewers. All that marketing and one of the biggest celebrities in the world and you get 2.5 million viewers which is less than pretty much every sitcom on TV. For those 2.5 million, viewers were treated to the TNA return of Jeff Hardy (a main event wrestling talent), Ric Flair, Sean Waltman, and Scott Hall before Hogan even made an appearance.

However, in that hour of no wrestling competition viewership began to drop and by the end when there was competition, they were back to about normal levels. I know it's easy to make an argument that given the competition, it is fantastic to maintain ratings. However, given that I had to listen to crap that went as far as saying TNA could maybe even beat WWE ratings, to me it comes off as concedist and "little guy syndrome".

I am from NY so I get what LGS is. Many people hate the Yankees because of their size and magnitude in the sports world. However, if the Orioles played the Yankees and lost 9-3, is that a moral victory because the last time they played it was 9-2? That is essentially what happened here. I know the companies haven't gone head to head before, but you would think TNA would be able to do better in ratings without competition because people like me are more willing to watch the product when there's no other alternative.

Now I am going to answer Misterrob's question directly. He asked whether TNA took any of WWE's viewers. The obvious answer is: maybe a couple hundred but nothing major. WWE's audience and rating was about at the level of an above average host for this week. Say what you want about Bret Hart IN WRESTLING but outside he's not a draw. Remember Shaq did about a 4 or just short because Shaq is a household name and people want to see him. Bret Hart simply isn't that so to make it seem like Bret should draw outrageous ratings is crazy. TNA brought their audience from Thursdays. I would care to speculate that much of that audience is anti-WWE and wouldn't want WWE anyway. I could be wrong, but if nothign else, if given a choice, they'll stick with what they know. I'm sure a few people who watch both products in a typical week chose TNA, but not enough to drop Raw's rating. The initial reaction by Vince McMahon and WWE was disappointment in their rating because they set their goal too high by simply hoping Bret Hart = ratings. This has nothing to do with how it "stacked up" against TNA. Think about it, TNA just put on their biggest show ever. They will never put that much effort into another show and it did a 1.3 (average of 1.4 and 1.2 in the 9-11 slot). If you want to count the 1.5 fine, but I don't, because when push came to shove, it seemed new viewers were not prone to stick with the product.

Again, the questions will be whether TNA's PPV sales go up and whether "new viewers" were impressed by the product enough to continue to watch. My prediction would be no and it is for that reason that I declare TNA's Monday Night War 2 effort a fail at this point. You can't just get a few new people to watch and go back to selling no seats at shows and selling no PPVs. The goal of going live and spending crazy money on advertising had to be to MAKE THE COMPANY MONEY. If you dont' see more people spending their time and money on TNA, they can't consider it a win, it's as simple as that.

 

[Y-2-Jay]

TNA: 1.2

The buzz will die down for TNA but they will still have their news fans to push their rating up from the 1.0-1.1 they have been getting for the past few weeks

WWE: 3.6

They have been getting this number alot latley so it could happen again people will know the tyson name which will draw in the fans other than that not much intrest so it wont increase.

 

[deforty]

I think it will be higher than 1.2 somewhere around 1.3. People will want to see how everything will be played out eventhough we have the spoilers i think people will want to see how the new OLD guys will wrestle and what impact they will have on the product.


I think wwe will have a 3.5 -3.7 as Tyson will draw others to see what he is up too now that his daughter has died. Hopefully it will not be as boring during the matches as last weeks were.


I am looking for changes in TNA to come quickly with much better storylines and a build up for matches rather than a match with no meaning to it just to have them wrestle.

 

[Kenny Powers]

I'm not sure about this because TNA had a good night last Monday, but next Thursday will probably be around 1.0-1.2 range. WWE have Tyson but UFC is going head to head against them. I would guess that WWE may draw the same or maybe 3.4.

 

[D-Man]

TNA: 1.1

WWE: 3.6

The reasons why are simple: There is no "one show" that could pull a 180 in ratings for the weeks to come. Everyone tunes in for the hype of the popular show and then the next week the program is forgotten.

If the product is proven to improve over an extended period of time, the rating creeps back up, gradually.

Don't expect too much out of TNA and the WWE for the next few weeks in terms of ratings increases.

 

[maar130]

TNA: 1.2-1.4


Raw: 3.4-3.6

The reason for this is pretty much simple,Raw may have become average but is a live show, so I thing is more than likely that they will get a number around that since I really don't thing UFC is going to take a lot of viewers away.

The number for TNA is because it has been taped already, I won't put any spoilers or nothing like that but most people somehow get the spoilers and then decide if watch or not, with Smackdown is pretty much the same thing, only that Smackdown is always tapped the Tuesday of the same week. Now TNA tapes two sets of tapes, for the same week and one the next.

With Raw, eventhough it is predictable if you will, unless you watch you can't really asume the matches at all unless they have being anounced, with TNA you have the matches and results in advance and alot of people takes that on account. Not me since I will watch all shows anyway.

 

[psykohurricane]

Let's face it, while last week ratings for TNA were impressive, i don'T see them getting higher rating this week, they will probably return to what they were before last monday around the 1.0 mark. The fact is will at first it was a fun show to watch, most viewers had more then a week to realise how bad the show was. The new direction that TNA was supposed to show us last week is the same direction they took last year but with bigger and older name. So with a un-impressive show like the one they put on last monday i doubt that all the new fans they were able to get last monday will return next thursday.

Has for Raw, with Mike Tyson as the guest host, i'm would tend to say that they might be a little bit lower, maybe a 3.4 or 3.2. Don'T forget this is wrestlemania season in the WWE and they are starting the build-up for the second most popular ppv of the year, The Royal Rumble, so a lot of people might be interested in watching Raw next week to see were how the ppv is shaping up.

In all, i say that TNA had one good week and the higher rating was pretty much due to the fact they had a extra hour but the real test for them will be next thursday when they get back to their regular timeslot and i don'T think they are going to past the test. Raw on the other hand will look more of the same and will probably either get a little less people or a little bit more people watching, i'm guessing less but not by that much

 

[Spaceman Spif]

While a 1.5 was impressive for TNA, it's nothing if they want to compete with the WWE, they'll have to double that rating, double it to even start competing ratings wise with the WWE. and being as how this Impact was so 'hyped' and supposed to be the biggest show to date and they only did a 1.5, will that tells me no matter what else they do, I don't think we will even see them break a 2.0. So yeah nice try TNA, but no dice.

Now the WWE's 3.something was decent, but I thought it would have been higher, however give them time as it has been said, they are building towards WM already and that usually garners them higher ratings, toss Bret Hart into the mix still and I think we will see the WWE average around 3.5-3.6, which is a lot better than a 1.5. There will be no ratings war and no war in general, TNA no matter who they pack onto their show, does not have the viewership to compete with the WWE.

 

[a0161613]

NO doubt WWE would have wanted a significantly higher rating. Hart should have been a proven draw and only partly succeeded. Tyson should have a decent effect and they will regain the TNA viewership. Beyond that, Shatner and some comedy actors prob wont help at all. They need to ditch the guest host concept as a failure on the road to WM.

TNA will be quite happy with 1.5. There certainly is room for improvement. If they can maintain and then improve to just above 2.0 as WWE moves toward 'Mania, then they have to be happy with that. There is less pressure on them for sure.

 

[Ambiguous Turd]

I was pretty close this week so let's see how we do next week. I predict next week's Raw and iMPACT! ratings to do the following:

Raw: 3.4
iMPACT!: 1.3


Therefore, I am predicting each of them to go down by .2. The big hooplah over the Monday Night battle is over, however now what we have left is whatever long term interest may have been built as a result of who was exposed to each of the shows, respectively.

So the interest won't be as high next week for either show since everyone pretty much knows what they are getting. But it isn't going to be a drastic reduction for either show at this point.

 

[MisterRob]

TNA - I think they failed to gain any new audience and next week the proof will show itself in a rating of 1.2 at best, although I'm more inclined to predict a 1.1 and see TNA drop right back to the levels it's always been.

RAW - I don't think their audience is going to be growing next week, but I do think they'll maintain the audience they had last week and will get another 3.6 with Tyson on RAW and the Bret Hart aftermath playing out still.

 

[Jack-Hammer]

I don't think that anything was settled to any solid degree Monday night. Both TNA and the WWE had good nights, but there were a few flaws in the slaw for both of them as well.

TNA: TNA iMPACT drew the overall biggest audience in the history of their company with a 1.5 Nielsen Rating with an overall audience of 2.2 million. That's encouraging and a positive sign regardless and it's got Spike considering moving iMPACT to Monday nights permanently, which is where Hulk Hogan ultimately wants to see it. The negative aspect that affected TNA involved the second and third hours of the show. While the first hour drew a 1.7, the second and third drew a 1.4 and 1.2 respectively. From 9-11 pm head to head against Raw, iMPACT lost viewers. Even if all of them didn't head over to watch Raw, a lot of people still switch the channel to something else. Even though this was TNA's first time against the WWE live on Monday nights, losing several hundred thousand viewers in the hours that the show was head to head against Raw can't be a comforting thought. It has also raised doubts among some as to whether TNA would have had their record breaking night if they hadn't had been on at 8 pm unopposed by the WWE and gotten that extra boost.

WWE: The WWE drew a 3.6 Nielsen Rating Monday night, which is a good draw for the show and is roughly the average number Raw pulled for 2009. Now, the WWE isn't happy with that as they were hoping for at least a 4.0 with Bret Hart as the host. It's possible that TNA could have cut into Raw's numbers to some degree and vice versa over the course of the night. The first hour drew a 3.5 and the second hour drew a 3.7, which is an encouraging sign as the show gained viewers overall rather than losing them. The show also had an audience of 5.6 million, the biggest number of viewers since the Raw following SummerSlam.

I think before TNA winds up moving to Mondays permanently, Spike will probably want to see them go up against Raw once more in another live show. Spike is said to be happy with the 1.5 rating iMPACT drew and one of the most obvious questions the top excecutives at Spike have is whether or not TNA can consistently pull in those kinds of numbers against the WWE. I think that the only way to settle some of the issues as to where TNA ultimately stands, if it's really competition, if it's ready to go to war with the WWE, etc. is to have both companies go head to head from start to finish. If iMPACT decides to put on a 3 hour show next time around, Raw should as well or a two hour show or whatever. A straight forward, head to head show will ultimately show how well TNA can hold its own.

As for how both shows'll do next week. Mike Tyson isn't really the legendary figure now that he was when he was associated with the WWE back in the late 90s but he's still very well known, controversial and people do wanna see him. I expect Raw to pull a 3.6, maybe a 3.7 this Monday.

When it comes to iMPACT, it's a bit of a wild card. All the hype surrounding going head to head against Raw isn't there, the show won't be live, Hulk Hogan has made his big grand entrance and all that. One of TNA's biggest problems has been maintaining momentum and consistency. iMPACT, I don't believe, will do a 1.5 next Thursday. I do think there'll be some renewed interest, at least for a little while, so I'm going to say it'll draw a 1.2 for next week.

 

[The_Game_316]

After watching both shows I'm content with the ratings. TNA had a great show Monday and I'd like to see them knocking at Vince's door like that for the weeks to come. Apparently Vince isn't happy with his ratings, and may be a little motivated after seeing iMPACT's... sooo, hopefully we see some of the talent that's there come out on RAW...

 

[Hulkamaniac]

TNA pulled a 1.3 rating on THursday, keeping a lot of their momentum. So, with Hogan in charge (along with Bischoff, obviously), TNA has set a record, and then tied their previous record, in consecutive shows. That's a really good thing. It shows they held a lot of their viewers, and fortunately, the show that most people saw on this past THursday was a pretty entertaining show that wasn't nearly as disjointed as the first one. It seems to me that bringing in Hogan and Bischoff has pretty much paid off instant dividends. Lets hope TNA can keep it up!