TV Ratings: While They're Important....

[Jack-Hammer]

....I think some of the "industry analysts" we read about on dirtsheets try to make too big of a deal out of them sometimes. It seems that whenever WWE or TNA experience valleys in ratings rather than peaks, there's always at least a couple of writers with some sort of doomsday prophecy regarding either or both of them.

It's true that neither Raw or Impact Wrestling is doing stellar in terms of ratings as of late. Impact has been on a decline steadily for weeks and, the past few weeks, has only managed to draw just above the 1.0 mark. This past Monday on Raw, while the show drew over 4.6 million viewers, the Nielsen Ratings dipped slightly below a 3.0. I've read that several articles over the course of this week that are predicting very troubling times ahead for Raw especially due to Monday Night Football getting ready to start up very soon.

As of right now, I think it's a little too soon for all the doomsday predictons when it comes to either company. Comparatively speaking, TNA has never pulled in huge numbers and they also have a hardcore, devoted following. While they might not be setting the world on fire in terms of sheer numbers, TNA will almost certainly be just fine as long as they continue to keep that 1.3-1.6 million hardcore viewers watching their show every Thursday.

When it comes to Raw, I think it's very much the same. Even on a "bad night", Raw is still drawing 4.6-5.0 million viewers on Mondays over the course of this summer. The hardcore WWE audience seems to be within that range and that's enough to keep Raw a powerhouse on USA and cable tv in general. Now when MNF starts and those numbers start to dip even further, then there might be the time for people start getting nervous.

 

[Mustang Sally]

TNA will almost certainly be just fine as long as they continue to keep that 1.3-1.6 million hardcore viewers watching their show every Thursday.

This post makes logical sense; the only aspect I'm unsure about is the above quoted statement. I think TNA might be okay with that core group as long as they keep control of their bottom line. Their operating expenses, which include payroll and production costs, are things that can be controlled and must be controlled if TNA is to maintain (or achieve) profitability. But when they reach those 1.3-1.6 million people with or without paying Hogan, Bischoff and the host of ex-WWE stars, then what's the sense of continuing to employ people who cost so much without increasing ratings?

But I agree with the essence of this post; fluctuations in ratings aren't as vital as many think. If both companies are able to maintain their base audiences even as seasonal factors affect the ratings, life will go on for the big two. We already know that Monday Night Football is going against the same demographic as pro wrestling. Sure the ratings will go down once football kicks in; we shouldn't be shocked and dismayed by it...... that's Vince McMahon's headache, not ours.

 

[George Steele's Barber]

Jack-Hammer - as always your post is well thought out, reasonable and well written. You could never be a dirt sheet writer because the masses are not going to be interested in what you have to say for your level-headedness and your continuing omission of the word "SUCKS!"

To the topic. Ratings are what they are and fluctuations are unlikely going to have much influence on either program's bottom line. Advertisers sign contracts for commercial time well in advance of knowing who or "WHAT?!" WWE or TNA are going to feature. They are unlikely to change much of anything because WWE had a bad couple of weeks or one huge spike. Beyond ratings advertisers should have the ability to review sales data of products that have been advertised on each program. Ratings may go up and down but in the end the most important thing is whether or not an advertised product sells.

Even if WwE is losing commercial revenue they will probably find another way to make money like in-ring segments of the Miz with Jared from Subway or Keith Stone. Some day the wrestlers trunks may start looking like the UFC guys as walking billboards. The ring will become the BP ring. The TitanTron will be brought to you by Amway.

As far as MNF goes, it is a juggernaut but by no means anything new that the WWE does not see coming or can not handle. It is the other new unknown programming that probably does more damage (i.e. Pawn Stars) to their bottom line. However, those shows are usually very short lived in the height of popularity. As far as other issues I think they need to look out for are the DVR, growing popularity of soccer and the balance between being perceived as edgy or obscene.

 

[Rayne]

I'm a huge ratings guy, mostly because revenue tends to follow ratings. The more people watching your show, the more people that come to live events, the more people that buy your t-shirts, the more people that buy your PPV's. This holds true even with WCW, which was still pulling in good revenue when they folded, but their expenses were completely out of control.

But on a week-to-week basis, ratings are pretty irrelevant. Mostly, they're good for seeing just how much interest TNA/IW can draw with their imported wrestler of the month before they sink back to standards. What's important is the aggregate over time, and the picture isn't too bright in that regard either. TNA/IW has been pumping money into their product (or, more specifically, Panda Energy has been pumping money into TNA/IW.) They have nothing to show for it besides some fans who say they like the product more. When you're talking ratings, you're talking money, not artistic impression. The WWE has been hovering around the low-to-mid 3's with RAW, and low-to-mid 1's with Smackdown. The numbers on SyFy are acceptable; USA very clearly expects more out of RAW. The amount of total viewers is still respectable for any cable television show, but RAW has been in a slow decline since renewing their deal with USA. The next negotiation session is going to be a BITCH unless the WWE can get up to a weekly 4+. Remember when WWE went to Spike? Ratings were down and USA played hardball with them. The WWE's return to USA had less to do with the WWE getting better ratings (which were down even further on SpikeTV), and more with the fact that USA hadn't gotten a decent replacement for RAW. Now, USA has a whole slate of original programming and doesn't need the WWE as much as they have. If the WWE doesn't pull the numbers up, NBC Universal is going to be much harder on them than in the last negotiations.

So I agree with the essence of your post, that the weekly ratings taken individually don't matter too much when gauging the overall health of the company involved. However, when it comes to judging the health of a company, average ratings are everything.

 

[ABMorales787]

When looking at rating and WWE/TNA, I feel it should be measured on a large scale. As in Monthly to yearly. On a weekly basis we see threads and news saying "This week Raw drew a 3.0. It should be noted that something else was on. Probably F Troop". Yeah, that happens. TV Land is quite big. There's always gonna be something else to distract you unless you are watching a download or a commercial-free show via internet.

In wrestling, stories develop in how long? A PPV cycle. Mostly a month. And that's not always how long a story is. Yet people judge based on weeks. That's a fraction of the overall PPV cycle, which is a fraction of a full main event storyline. But when you judge on a larger scale, you can see where they increase of fall. You can see Wrestlemania season always draws and that holiday specials don't and should not be invested on too much. From week to week, you won't notice any of that. The rating s won't bump because of some epic thing that happened a particular week. It's over a consistent development. You'll never see that comparing week by week and that's why most ratings arguments wont matter. They are too small scale to actually tell and there's always gonna be an excuse.

 

[Dagger Dias]

There's only so much that they can do. They do this every year. Football fans are going to pick football over Raw. That's usually how it goes. WWE does well enough that it will still survive and I feel they do make too big a deal about the ratings. They need to focus on giving the fans what they want. If someone is generating positive fan reactions (looking at YOU, Ryder!) then they NEED to be pushed. Conversely, if someone is getting negative reactions (disregarding the Cena haters who only do it to be "cool") then they NEED to be heels. WWE should try to focus less on the ratings and more on what fans want because the fans are their customers and in the business world if you don't give the customer what they want, your company will eventually die. It wouldn't hurt WWE to listen to what the online fans want too. We may be a small fraction of the overall fanbase, but we are still customers for their business and we do have opinions. Opinions that might be more popular than we thought. Look at Punk and Christian's pushes this summer. The online fans have been begging for these pushes. WWE gave it and things are looking up. Perhaps they should listen to their fans more? I mean, could it really be that simple? Forget the ratings, give the fans what they want.