TNA's Downward Championship Trend?

[It's Damn Real!]

TNA Impact drew a combined audience of 338,000 viewers Tuesday night on Pop TV, down 13 percent from last week’s total of 388,000 viewers.

Impact’s first-run airing drew 272,000 viewers, down 12 percent from 312,000 viewers last week.

The replay then drew 66,000 viewers, down from 76,000 last week.

Overall, Drew Galloway’s title run is resembling Matt Hardy’s…

Hardy Title Run

• Jan. 19: 443,000 combined viewers
• Jan. 26: 442,000 combined viewers
• Feb. 2: 407,000 combined viewers
• Feb. 9: 388,000 combined viewers
• Feb. 16: 360,000 combined viewers​

Galloway Title Run

• Mar. 15: 430,000 combined viewers
• Mar. 19: 390,000 combined viewers
• Mar. 26: 388,000 combined viewers
• Apr. 5: 338,000 combined viewers
• Apr. 12: ???​

http://www.pwtorch.com/site/2016/04/06/45-tna-impact-viewership-falls-pattern-kicking/

--

The article goes on to mention "Wrestlemania fatigue" as a possible factor for this week, but this wouldn't explain the pretty scary trend (as if their incredibly low numbers alone aren't scary enough) showing significant disintegration of viewers week-by-week following the title changes.

What that tells me is that people are tuning in to see the changes, or immediately upon hearing about a title change, only to quit on the product in the following weeks.

It's a small sample size, I suppose, but it's an ugly trend regardless.

If you really want to fix the negative impression TNA has, Drew, you've sure got your work cut out for you...

 

[rbv13]

While just reading the article portion of the post my first thought concerning this weeks drop was WrestleMania fatigue. From Friday to Monday WWE gave the majority of wrestling fsns a lot to digest. Upon further reading the report I can understand the need for concern on TNA's part. However, before panicking I would like to see a larger sample of figures. Fist of all where are the viewership number for the three missing episodes between 2/16 and 3/15. I'm also curious about quarterly breakdowns and what was advertised for each show.

Side question for anyone to answer. What portion of the TNA audience do you think read spoilers?

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Most, but that's something that I refuse to accept actually impacts ratings. At least not to the extent it's said to. I think it's something people like to say drastically impacts ratings, by parroting often spoken tropes like "if we know what happens then why should I watch?", yet pre-taped shows like Lucha Underground (who tape their ENTIRE SEASON at a time, not just a month or so's worth of episodes) don't seem to suffer the same fate TNA does. Why? Clearly there is far more fan support behind their product to not allow the non-live format to affect their reaction each week.

The issue is with the product itself and/or the reputation it's earned (rightfully or wrongfully) over years, and one or both of these are being compounded immeasurably by two network shifts in two years, the first of which failed to land TNA on a basic cable network most homes in the U.S. carry. In other words, flat product + damaged brand + shifting network homes = loss of fan interest.

If these trends hold, while they're still likely to stabilize and not drop to zero, then the answer is clearly that a lot of work needs to be done (if it can be done at all) to improve any number of these factors to change fan perception. Assuming, of course, that the biggest hurdle isn't the network itself, which I don't believe to be the case seeing as POP is available to approximately 75.2 million households in the US, which is roughly 65% of the market.

 

[klunderbunker]

Let's take a look back at Impact on March 29. Here are some of the featured names.

Matt Hardy
Jeff Hardy
Al Snow
Gregory Helms

Is it 2006 WWE and I missed it? Yes it's an old argument about TNA but they keep doing it. These guys are all seen as old and past their primes but they're getting major storylines in TNA (ok so Snow isn't exactly major) in 2016. My wife, a former TNA fan, saw this and actually said she couldn't believe it was happening because she thought all the lines about TNA were overblown. Oh and the former Brodus Clay is supposed to be a main event player.

I get that TNA is strapped for wrestlers right now but Matt Hardy was in the first fourth of a show before coming out at the end. Whether or not they're good at their jobs, people seem to be sick of the Hardy Boys. They've been around for the better part of twenty years and there's little left to be seen from them. However they're the focal point of TNA, far moreso than the World Champion. If you're not interested in the Hardy Boys, you're in the wrong promotion.

I stopped believing in TNA a long time ago because they've done the same thing over and over again: give someone a push towards the top but then pull the plug on them a few months in for the sake of going back to one of their established names, usually involving a heel turn. Yeah it's often well done but it boils down to "we've been here". How long do you think it's going to be before Drew loses the title to a Hardy and it's right back to where we started with the focus on the older people and Drew just being another guy who used to be champion? This has been getting a bit better in recent months but TNA has brought so many of these problems on themselves over the years.

I've bought into TNA's hype way too many times before getting burned over and over. I'll be watching but I have zero reason to believe they aren't going to fall right back down into the same pattern they've been in for years. These numbers suggest that I'm not the only one who things that way and it's really not surprising. TNA can have a good show here or there but for me, everything is week to week and nothing more.

 

[oneguy]

Lucha Underground does suffer the same fate as TNA in terms of viewership.

 

[Prince Vee]

TNA lack top names other than the Hardy Boys to draw the crowd. They had the American Wolves, but you see people got tired of seeing them winning the championship for inumerous number of occasions. This makes the product boring and more importantly so much repetitive to watch. It was better when EC3 holding the title and solidifying his position as the face of TNA. At present, they're trying to create more main event players in Mike Bennett and Drew Galloway which let a huge hole in the midcard and undercard division. It's not just in the hands of Drew Galloway but in the hands of X-Division stars as well.

 

[TDFG]

The shows that are live - a couple of weeks later seem to be doing ok for TNA in the ratings but the further into the tapings the less interest.

After a couple of weeks of watching maybe some fans don't bother because they can easily just access the results online rather than watch something that was taped 6 weeks ago.

Taping 5-6 weeks of content isn't going to push ratings.

 

[Harthan]

There's two major problems that stick out to me in TNA right now, based on what I've been able to catch.

One is that the lack of real PPV events, meaning in the traditional sense of using TV to build to major events and not the One Night Only series, makes it difficult to define milestone moments in the company. Even with episodes of TV getting themed around an old PPV (Lockdown, etc.) it doesn't have quite the same effect. The issue with this, to me, is that ratings are going to be driven by something that is "must see", so to speak. One way of doing that is to change the world title, hence the ratings spike associated with that. Another way of doing it is to have a great PPV, and then follow up with the fallout on TV, as often happens for the WWE (remember the huge ratings jump last year after an excellent WrestleMania for Raw, for example). TNA is pretty much dead in the water on that front without real, live PPV.

Second, the other thing TNA could really do is spike interest with "must-see" matches. For example, earlier this year there was an RPW show that featured a MOTY level classic in Marty Scurll versus Will Ospreay. That match got to Dave Meltzer, who called it one of the best he'd ever seen, and loads of people found the DVD or some way to watch it, and tons of new eyes got onto RPW as a result. TNA hasn't done that at all this year - the best I've seen mentioned is there was a "good" match (Hardy's win over EC3, the three way tag title match from the One Night Only show at the start of the year, etc) but nothing truly must see. TNA has a pretty good roster right now and the right build and the right guys let at each other for enough time could produce MOTY contenders, but so far they haven't done that. Trying to really focus on producing not just good, but amazing wrestling has to be a priority, and I think they have guys capable of it, as well as the resources to add indy guys who can contribute to more such matches.

As it is, TNA is a very good wrestling show - I enjoy it every time I see it. But I find myself remembering people talking, not wrestling, and talk is never going to be the major draw for a wrestling show. Who knows if there will be live PPV in 2016 - I hope so, but they've been losing more and more every year. But great wrestling can happen today - indeed, that's really why Lucha Underground succeeds as much as it does, given a similar business model to TNA, since they've cultivated a reputation for being a show that weekly features really great wrestling. That would be my focus for spiking ratings in TNA (and it kind of goes to KB's point too - I just don't know whether Matt Hardy is capable of a must-see match in 2016, or Jeff either).

 

[dsotm5150]

I don't think its so much the champion dragging down the ratings so much as it is the fact I can easily find out whats on Impact before it airs.if you can screen the product before it airs and see nothing of interest why would you tune in? I can understand TNA isn't in a position financially to air live every week, but even going every other week like RAW did would probably help steady the ratings. Sticking it out long-term with a champion instead of playing hot potato might help too.

 

[It's Damn Real!]

Lucha Underground does suffer the same fate as TNA in terms of viewership.

In terms of week-to-week viewership drop? I was unaware. Last I read they had lower-end, but steady numbers but things are still bright with the Hulu deal.